Site Forum

Hi all,

One of the first sets I collected was the 1977 Topps Football set.  This set is unique, as far as I can tell, for having a little marker on the cards of RBs that surpassed 1000 yards for the season.  Here's an example:

http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/3228/cid/813205/1977-Topps-425-Delvin-Williams

Would it be appropriate to distinguish these cards with a note?  I would probably use 'TY' for '1000 Yarder'.

Relatedly, the card that year for Mark van Eeghen did not have the 1000 Yarder marker, though he earned it with his 1012 yards on the year. (I felt sorry for him and he became my favorite football player as a result.) Should this be considered an UER because his was the only card that didn't have the marker when it should have? If not an UER, would it be appropriate to leave a comment on the card?
 

http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/3228/cid/813134/1977-Topps-354-Mark-Van-Eeghen

I'd say yes. I think "TYD" would be better. I always think "Thank You" when I see TY.

The van Eeghen card? Tough call. Seems like an UER, but did they intentionally leave it off? Was it an error?  I would say since all the other 1,000 Yarders have the logo then an UER in the Note would be appropriate.

Van Eeghen is indeed the only one with the missing marker.  When I got back into collecting, completing this subset of cards was one of the first things I did and it still made me sad that it was missing on his card. Given that the conditions for having the marker seem very well defined and he is the only missing one, I would tend to think this was an UER.

Topps was actually pretty sloppy with a lot of their sets in the 70s. For example, their 1975, 1978, 1979, and 1981 AL All Star teams are all incomplete. Reggie Jackson, Richie Zisk, Freddie Patek, and Ben Ogilvie all should probably have been designated as All Stars in those years since they started the All Star game the previous year, but none of them were.  Topps is also missing 2 all pros from the 1976 set, an AFC T (Art Shell?) and an NFC RB (Terry Metcalf?), one from the 1980 set (Roger Staubach, but there was no card of him so this is excusable) and 3 from the 1981 set (Louis Kelcher, Donnie Shell, and Eddie Murray, possibly). They are also missing 3 all stars from their 1975-76 basketball set.

I'm curious whether these "missing" cards should be denoted in any way. UER seems like too much, especially when the conditions for being a Topps all star were not really well defined. I was thinking of leaving a comment on the well known "missing" cards, the Jackson, Zisk, and Patek indicating their history. What does the group think?

C2Cigars wrote: I'd say yes. I think "TYD" would be better. I always think "Thank You" when I see TY. The van Eeghen card? Tough call. Seems like an UER, but did they intentionally leave it off? Was it an error?  I would say since all the other 1,000 Yarders have the logo then an UER in the Note would be appropriate.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the UER designation, unless it's a big mistake. There are literally hundreds of mistakes made in just about any set you pick up if you look close enough. Typos, missing punctuation, etc. Maybe Topps had a reason to not denote certain players as All-stars = maybe they weren't the vote getters to be a starter but started in place of an injured player. Too many of them, and they lose their effectiveness.

I'm a bit lost on this one. Normally, I'd say that if it isn't noted on the card, it shouldn't be noted here. However, you guys are stepping back before my knowledge.

My understanding was always that the Topps All-Stars had nothing to do with the All-Star Game, which was played at mid-season, but were chosen by Topps to honor the guys at each position who had the best full season.  The Glossy All-Stars inserts in rack packs were the All-Star Game starters.  The two checklists don't match up in the years that both existed.  I realize that the recent All-Star Game cards in the Update sets are about the game, but I don't think that is what either of us are talking about.   Just choosing a random year (1989), for the AL team, only 4 players were Topps All-Stars and All-Star Game starters the previous year, and just 5 from the NL.  Of course, Kirk Gibson is also a Topps All-Star as a Pinch Hitter, which he did exactly once during the 1998 regular season, and once more in the 1988 World Series, which resulted in one of the most famous home runs ever hit.  And he never played in an All-Star Game, so it had nothing to do with that.  So my answer would be no, don't designate anything as a "missing" all-star card.

A few notes...

• It appears that adding a note ('TYD' or 'TY') to those cards in the 1977 Topps FB set with the '1000 Yarder' marker is appropriate. They are marked on the card and that's what the note field is for.
• I personally think that the Mark van Eeghen oversight is an error because he met the objective requirements for the marker and was excluded. However, I won't mark it with a UER because the nature of the error is quite a bit different than the nature of most errors.
• I think that the missing all star cards are interesting and deserving of mention in some way. A note is too much, but maybe a comment on the cards themselves? (What is the comment field for, BTW?)

Historically, the early Topps All Stars in baseball did track the All Star starters with very few exceptions. From 1975-1978 the all stars were preceisely the all star starters (except for the missing Jackson and Zisk) and in 1979 the only exception was Johnny Bench in place of Bob Boone. The Topps All Stars were certainly not awarded based on the entire previous season, as multiple MVPs and CYAs were omitted. I tend to believe the missing all stars were due to sloppiness on the part of Topps, but we'll never know...

Here's a fun little read on the topic.  This blogger is not me, but he and I seem to have a lot in common. ;-)

http://whentoppshadballs.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-missing-all-star-card-mystery.html

Cheers,

Dave

I'm all for putting in the Note field what is actually on the card.

I am not for putting in the Note field what one or more people feel should be on the card.

I think if we pull Admin into this thread, they will express the same sentiment.

Here's what I think I'll do.

• Add a TY (Thousand Yarder) note to those cards in the 1977 Topps FB set with the 'Thousand Yarder' marker. This does not include the van Eeghen.
• For the van Eeghen and the "missing" all stars, I will add a comment on the card's page indicating that the card may have been mistakenly not accorded All Star (or TY) status. I do think these cards are interesting from a card history perspective, and it'd be nice if those quirks were in the DB somewhere.
• I may create a tag, 'Topps Omissions' to aggregate these cards. Tags seem to be an underused feature here. The only problem is that tags cannot (as far as I can tell) be described, and therefore all of the current tags are purely visual. 
• For the Topps sets with incomplete All Star / All Pro teams, I may add a line or two indicating that to the 'Trivia' section of the set overview. This also appears to be underused, and this seems like a decent way to use it.

So no additional UERs, and notes only describing what's on the card. Dan said it much better than I in that an error is something that is on the card and shouldn't be, rather than something that should be on the card but isn't.

I'm not wedded to any of these actions other than the first, but are there any objections?

@hyperdex: Sounds like you're on target now. It's nice that you're doing some of the work that either no one else wants to do or knows to do (I'm pretty much clueless on fb and basketball). Just please remember to add the description(s) to the glossary after you've added the acronym(s) to the Note field. (That's my pet project!)