Site Forum

Cases in point:

EXAMPLE 1 (93 Fleer Incaviglia)

EXAMPLE 2 (89 OPC Clark)

EXAMPLE 3 (89 OPC McCullers)

So, which is it? And can we please decide and stop changing them back and forth.

I'd say the Jack Clark card is wrong but the other two are correct.  What do I win?

Some members only see the "big picture" and either don't see or ignore the "small print" Traded to, Now with, etc lines.

You win the opportunity to go through the 1989 OPC set and fix all of the wrong ones, go through the change log and send nastygrams to those who changed them incorrectly, and send thank you notes to those who changed them to the correct teams.

Just curious, you think the Inky card is correctly identified, even though it has the team name on the front as Astros and the team logo for the Astros on the back. That little triangle on the front is what does it for you?

How about these examples of further inconsistency:

EX 1

EX 2

EX 3

Which is/are correct? 

The 1966 traded lines are hidden in the text.  But, that's no excuse since it says right in Note2 "COR: with traded statement".  The set needs to be unlocked to make corrections.

I agree with OCH and the Uecker card (EX 2) is correct. A thread like this is a great way to advertise / discuss the "right way" to input data.

And the change log tells us exactly who it was.  I will add that all the "traded to" cards in 89 OPC listed BOTH teams on the original checklist, and the fixer just picked wrong when he removed one.

There was at least one I saw where it was reduced to one team (the correct one) and someone changed that single team to the wrong team (according to our guidelines). 

This also adds some cards to my wantlist. Shoot.

Whew. I agree that there should be consistency, but I'm not as positive as you guys about the result. The company chose to display the Uecker card, for exeample, as a Cardinal. He's in a Cardinals uniform. He played the prior year for the Cardinals and those are the stats that are on the card. Then the company threw in the "traded to Phillies" bit at the end. They could have opted for the 1974 Jerry Morales approach. http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/74/cid/31169/1974-Topps-258-Jerry-Morales

But they didn't. They chose to list the team as Cardinals. People are fond of saying that we always go by what the card itself says. Although it mentions that Uecker was traded, the card itself says everywhere else that he was on the Cardinals. I don't feel strongly, but I certainly see both sides.  

Just causing trouble, I guess. And I'd never think my approach was so correct that I'd go around changing things in the database....

v3