Site Forum

It's funny to me that this topic and the 2018 Contenders football topic both came up in the forums today.  In one case, a checklist from 100+ years ago is being added with painstaking detail.  In the other, a set that came out about a month ago was added as such a rush job, the member only added the card he had, and left the other names blank.  Something doesnt seem right here.

Very true David!! It seems to me to be a case of a true passionate collector vs a _____________!!  Wanna play fill in the blank? =)

That's the main problem with the T206 not every player was featured with every back.  But that being said the checklist does not include any notes on what backs were produced with the set.  So I guess my thinking if the database is going to be used a reference it would be worth having the set be broken down to document the backs.  And there are websites and collector's groups that keep track of these things. http://www.t206.org  as an example But it would be a big undertaking trying to compile all the different parallal backs and variations of those ad backs as well.  Of course there is also the logic that each back is it's own set since only sweet caporal were available in sweet caporal cig packs, Piedmont only available in Piedmont packs, etc.  I'm not a 206 collector and honestly I'm pretty laissez faire with the whole set, but it is a set that has intrigued me since I started collecting cards.  As a lover of this site I want it to be as complete and accurate as possible and a place someone could go if they had questions on a set like this.  

What if the T206 Wagner has Alfred E. Neuman's face on it?  Sorry, that is somebody's current profile pic and I laugh whenever I see it.

Thanks to everyone for the responses. Many excellent points have been made. I've gone to Admin for guidance and provided a link to this thread so he can review everyone's opinion/ideas.

They should NOT be listed as variations. That implies that they came from the same source. No. They were separate issues only available from a specific cigarette brand and would not ever have come out of the same pack.  Parallel is not 100% accurate but based on how our website is set up it is the only way to accurately document the different backs. Also, by listing them together it allows copy of the original checklist to be copied to the new additions of the back checklists. 

It is possible to build a set with one back version. It's expensive and difficult but it is possible. Actually, if you had enough money to spend, you could collect all the back versions, as complete sets, if they survived. Throwing any back on there is just the same as putting a Refractor or Gold Medallion in the base set of a modern issue. That is inarguably wrong. So why do we do it for old cards, just because they are not as easily found? Because Beckett or the ACC can't be bothered to do it right, we shouldn't either? I don't think so. 

Our member IndyBean17 is working on collecting all four different back versions of the 1911 racing set. He couldn't document his collection properly on here because only one version was listed, until he gave me the missing info and I fixed it. Hopefully he has posted some scans to the set but I have not looked.

I recently pulled up the checklist for the Heroes of History set to reference the checklist for my countdown of top 30 favorite all-time non-sports sets. I saw there were now four variations incorrectly listed as part of the base set and made a mental note to send an inaccuracy report to Admin, which I hadn't gotten to yet. I posted the original checklist, but at the time I didn't know that you could get the cards with different backs. If I had, they would have been listed as the main set and three parallels, with the scan of Julius Caesar posted to the proper place...it was the first tobacco card I ever got. I am actually happy to learn that there are other back versions extant. Ancient Rome is not well documented on cards and that gives me the opportunity to add three more to my collection, eventually.  But they aren't the same set. They are different sets that share artwork. 

Another point: say I win the lottery tomorrow. I then go out and buy an entire set of cards with the same back. We'll say Heroes of history with same back as my Caesar card. I then post all the scans here. Great, the gallery is complete with the matching backs! Except, since all the different sets are mushed together, you can't see the gallery because of it. There is then no way to know that one version is complete. In fact, it says only 25% complete because the other three sets that share artwork are all mushed in with it! If they were properly listed as standalone sets, there is no issue. 

There is a part of me that agrees with you or at the very least understands your logic. I do disagree on a couple points though. I don't feel that you can make the comparison between tobacco issues and a modern set. They are two differnet products....just my opinion. Second, you could argue that the Heroes/Men of History set did come from the same source; the American Tobacco Company. 

That is crux of my question. Do we want to draw the line at the company producing the series or the brand advertised on the card? And for sets produced by multiple companies do we draw the line at the series title? 

I am finding that most of the hobby uses the series title. I'm not saying we should follow most of the hobby, but I dont think we can ignore it either.

As far as the Heroes/Men of history checklist on TCDB.....my fault. I made those changes. It really bothers me that I did so without consulting Admin first....my apologies. I don't think I'm completly wrong in my logic, but the fact that many smart collectors have differing opinions on how sets like this should be listed, I think Admin should make the decision not a site member.

Sounds to me that, for the T206, there is no "base" set, but there are 4 distinct sets - put out by one manufacturer. Therefore, we should handle it like these sets that have no base set, only "inserts". How do you like that idea? Same for these other sets, no base set.

Do we combine Topps, Stadium Club, Finest, etc. Into one listing? They are all made by Topps, show (most of) the same people and are issued in one year. They have even been known to use the same photos, although rare.