Site Forum

I've found a number of 70's team cards that are 'linked' to players that are in a team photo, but usually just a HOF or two and many times not all of the stars or HOF that would be in the picture on the card.  For example, 1972 Topps, Card #1 is 'linked' to Roberto Clemente, but no one else. Fellow HOFer Willie Stargell is on that team and presumably in that team photo, but he is not linked nor anyone else on that team. My preference would be to remove any links to individual players for a team photo card like this unless the team card is just a couple of players and those few players are mentioned on the card like modern team cards.

Would it be OK if I removed links like this if/when I find them?

Similarly, I have tried to collect Detroit Lions base cards from flagship Topps (and now Donruss) sets. I've found several base card checklists that are 'linked' to all the team cards listed on that particular checklist. I'm guessing someone wants to be super complete with their team collections. I can understand earlier team checklist cards, but these are set checklist cards that simply list the team card on that particular checklist card. Example: 1986 Topps Card #395 is 'linked' to numerous teams because their team card is listed on the checklist. It would be like linking Eric Hipple to a checklist card because his name is on the checklist card.

Would it be OK if I removed these links as well?

Admin's stance: "Links to individual players may be added if those players can be positively identified in the photo." (not a direct quote, but probably very close.)

Various Members' interpretations:

1 - Link my player I collect.
2 - Link no one if everyone on the card cannot be identified.

Neither interpretation actually matches Admin's stance. We have seen cases where players were linked to cards and were actually NOT pictured on the card. (When this happens, members who interpret the statement as #2 get very frustrated with those in the the #1 mindset, and "linking wars" break out.)

Again, if the player can be positively identified on the card, player can be linked. But please understand that uniform number alone does not positively identify a player. It is a well-established fact that card companies do not always use current photos for team cards, and an older photo may have different players than expected, so if the player's face cannot be distinguished, linking should not be utilized.

Forgot to mention the checklist and team linking that you asked about.

In the cases where the cards on the checklist are grouped by team (whether the team set is scattered throughout - as in the 1990 Topps baseball checklists - or if they are grouped together - like the Fleer baseball sets and the 1986 Topps football set), the teams can be linked (even if it's a partial listing - like how the Cowboys cards are the first 4 cards on the example you cited, the Cowboys should be linked).

For checklists that have random players/teams (such as the 1979 Topps baseball checklists), they should not get any links (players or teams).

Thanks for the quick reply.  I'll leave them all alone (as I have so far). It makes sense about the clustering of team cards like you mentioned. The Fleer checklists are easier because the checklist card includes the entire team instead of the Topps checklists that are just a grouping of cards like #133-264 in the 86 Topps FB example I reference.

I choose not to collect these types of general set checklist cards, but I understand some team collectors might.

-Dan

The FAQ rule: "Team cards can link every player pictured as long as each player can be differentiated."

Most team photo cards have unidentifible faces and at least a few jersey numbers covered or indiscernable. Thus, not EVERY player can be identified.

Please see this forum thread: 
https://www.tcdb.com/Forum.cfm/Page/I/ID/0/?MODE=VIEW&ThreadID=31796&C=4

Dan, actually if you look at that 86 Topps FB checklist, it lists the team card followed by the players on that team. For instance 155 is "49ers team".  156-169 are all 49ers players. Then 170 is "Redskins team" and 171-184 are all Redskins players. Since the team players are all grouped together that is why the checklist is linked. 

Not exactly.  It identifies a specific card number as being a team card.  It does not specify or indicate that the subsequent cards are of that team.

Whereas this card is similiar but the teams are NOT cards but are list headers identifying the team's cards.

C2C, go look at those cards in 86 Topps FB. The cards are all grouped by team. 

I'm not talking about the cards in the set. We're discussing the checklist cards themselves. The set may be grouped by teams but the checklist card does not specifically identify them as such. It just states that card number 9 is the Bears Team card, card number 29 is the Patriots Team card, etc. It does not give specific indications the card numbers that follow belong to that team.  

I would argue that the fact Topps indented and italicized the team names and did not have them aligned on the left like all the other card names was their attempt to show that all the cards under them fell under that team. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree on this, which is ok.