1997 Upper Deck Baseball Forum

http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/1100/cid/166044/1997-Upper-Deck-414-Kirby-Puckett

This card is #'ed in error; it shouldhave been #414. This is the way it is listed inthe checklist with Note 2 UER: Numbered 415 on back . I am not sure if this shouldn't be reversed where it is in the checklist as #415a and the note saying that it should have been 414.  The reason I say this is because anyone not knowing about the error (there is nothing on the card to showit is an error), if searchingby filters: Card #, will never find it.

I know there are a few other examples with the same issue. Not sure if they are all listed the same way.  Just putting it out there for consideration.

You are correct, it should be reversed.  It should be listed by the number on the back of the card (415).  http://www.tradingcarddb.com/FAQ.cfm?ITEM=CardNumbers  I corrected it.

Thanks Chuck.

Another one is the 1992 Stadium Club #370. There are two Canseco cards #370. The MC one is supposed to be #597 but is UER.  In the database it is in the checklist as #597.  I think it should be 370a again so that it can be found easily by members not familiar with the error. At #597 it should be "Not issued".

Yes, at one point, the database was following the majority of the hobby, but we collectively "saw the light" and realized the database is much more useful if we show what is actually on the card in the set listings. Now that we can link cards to the proper PIDs and don't have to worry about the spelling, we can put the name as it is misspelled into the sets and still link them to the right person, making it easiier to find. The same holds for the numbers. I think in the very early days of TCDB, card numbers still had to be unique within a set, or the DB blew up. (Hence the legacy NNO1, NNO2, etc. sets.) As we find these like the examples you give, they should be adjusted to show the actual content of the card.

Excellent!!