Site Forum

Please, NOTE2.

Note is for abbreviations ONLY.

This message has been sponsored by the Glossary Guru. 

I don't understand why there is an issue here at all.  Is there been a checklist actually released for the Buyback cards or are they being added in piecemeal as they are found?  If there isn't an official checklist, then the numbering isn't hurting anything by using the year-number format.  On the occasion where an official checklist has been issued, then certainly they should follow that number format. As for NNO, should there be multiple cards in one set without a number, you would list it NNO1, NNO2, NNO3, etc. which would make each card stand out individually.  However, if there are multiple numbers for the Buyback set, you would have no way to distinguish the cards from each other.  For example 2015 Topps Allen & Ginter - 10th Anniversary Buybacks has a Serena Williams card at number 249 from 2008 if they also included the 2009 Allen & Ginter card for John Higby in the same set, you now have two #249s listed.  Unless we put one as 249a and one as 249b it would look like someone made an error when entering the checklist.  Since the a/b designation is for distinguishing variant cards (usually of the same player, but I have seen exceptions), it would be confusing since the aren't TRUE variants of each other.  I know what the rules say about following the number on the card, but sometimes an exception should me made.  I really think these Buyback sets might be that exception unless a checklist has been released for that set.

Two cards same number, different name. Easily can tell the difference. I don't see how adding a year to the number would make them seem more different.

Because some sets have done the same number different name thing.  The difference is one is a variant of the primary card and thus the use of the a/b designation to show that.  If one was to look at the Buyback checklist and see two #249s with different names, it is possible they might assume it to be an error on the checklist and either request a fix or attempt to fix it themselves however, since no actual checklist exists has of yet, there would be no way to verify it wasn't an error when the checklist was uploaded.  Using the year-number format at least offers clarification on this potential issue and potentially saves some headaches for Admin.

Well, if I were looking at my card and trying to figure out if  that was the card that I, indeed, had, and the number was different, I'd probably assume it wasn't. 

I guess I vote for using the checklist that Topps publishes.

Yes, if there is an offical checklist published by Topps, then that would be uploaded onto the database and that number system would be used.  However, in the case of the 2015 Topps Allen & Ginter 10th Anniversary Buyback cards, no checklist has been published yet.  These cards are being added into the database one at a time as people find them.  I was confused as to the card I had initially when I got the Serena Williams Buyback, but only because it didn't have the SN that others had said these cards were supposed to have.  In my case, I would see a checklist with the same number, but different names and assume it to be an error on the checklist or that one is a variant and they weren't designated properly when uploaded.  Heck, someone might even edit the checklist to add the a/b designation thinking that one is a variant and thus making a huge inaccuracy for that set.  Again, I know that the cards aren't numbered that way on the set, but that is only because of the nature of the card.  Had this been a reprinted version of those cards instead of Buybacks, Topps could have renumbered them to avoid this kind of potential confusion.

Ok wow, when I started this thread, and in retrospect adding in Buyback Checklists to recent Topps products, I didn't intend for this to blow up into a huge debate. My intention was to somehow get cards that are inserts into the database that have absolutely no way of ever knowing what a full checklist could be, however stupidly released by Topps, so members could track the cards in their collections. I started with the Ginter 10th buybacks, added it, sent a message to Admin if they didn't like it to remove it, and they haven't. Check out 2014 75th Buybacks and the number of cards entered. Click on contriubuters and you will see me adding one card to the already established, small, checklist. Since I am the only contributer of one card to the list, and they all exist entered, Admin was the one to enter the other cards, using the Year-card# system. 

I wish dearly there was a checklist to know how many there are out there so that others can add to a wantlist or a for-sale/trade list. I have several buybacks and I don't mind scanning and uploading them, but the checklist would have to grow ever so incrementally as each individual (if they had permission) added one.  It seems so difficult, but it would be nice to see how many there are or how many we can get up loaded here to get an idea of what is available, even though I know it will be a tiny fraction of the overall number.  Just seems like such a moving target.

Yes - Moving target. There's no way to know what was issued or how much of each card was issued. For all we know, each one could be "1 of 1".

As for cards without numbers, they are NNO. Not NNO1, NNO2, etc. Admin has explicitly said "No" to NNO1.

My opinion on how to list these tricky buybacks using the 1987 Topps Darren Daulton as an example:

Number - Name - Note - Note2

636 - Darren Daulton - - 1987 Topps [color] stamp

Remember, Note is for abbreviations only. Thank you.

Nice and simple vrooomed to which I agree, however I did ntoice paq5 state it was Admin who did alot of this so maybe a message about this thread should be sent to them so they can respond directly. Not sure as I will never be collecting this stuff, but am sure the same issue will appear at some point in hockey, if it already hasnt.