I'm sure most have
noticed the first
six, I mean they're
obvious because
they're on the
front;
#3 Todd Burns - Red
Team Color Stripe
instead of Green
#11 Rick Honeycutt
- Red Team Color
Stripe instead of
Green
#14 Doug Jennings -
Red Team Color
Stripe instead of
Green
#15 Felix Jose -
Red Team Color
Stripe instead of
Green
#18 - Gene Nelson -
Red Team Color
Stripe instead of
Green
#26 - Curt Young -
Red Team Color
Stripe instead of
Green
Like I said, they
are obvious and the
only way someone
could miss them is
if they were
colorblind.
#325 Will Clark -
Says he both lead
the league AND
ranked third in
walks for 1988 on
the back.
Will was "The
Thrill", but I
don't believe he
could do that.
That said, I am now
on the hunt for all
errors and
corrected cards.
-------------------------------
Oh, there's a clock
in my head and
despite what it
said, another one
on the wall. They
don't agree at
all...
Forgot about these
UERs. Remember
talking aboth them
back in the day.
Angeld logo with
white halo when it
should have been
yellow;
#468 Dante Bichette
#470 Terry Clark
#471 Stew Cliburn
#472 Mike Cook
#473 Sherman Corbett
#477 Chuck Finley
#478 Willie Fraser
#482 Jack Lazorko
#484 Mark McLemore
#485 Greg Minton
#486 Dan Petry
If there's a reason
these UERs aren't
listed, please let
me know.
-------------------------------
Oh, there's a clock
in my head and
despite what it
said, another one
on the wall. They
don't agree at
all...
Just my $.02, but I really only care about UER's if there is something really uique about the Error.
For Example, the card below...That is an Arthur Brown card. Arthur did wear #4 while @ K-State...so did QB Daniel Sams...the problem is, that is Daniel Sams pictured, not Arthur Brown...so Daniel Sams collectors (he was an cult hero of sorts while @ KSU, so yes, there ARE Daniel Sams collectors :) )will be interested in the card as well, making that UER noteworthy.
Having the wrong color band printed, or a stat line error doesn't add anything unique (again, in my opinion), unless the stat line error is truly egregious or funny, or belongs to a completely different player
-------------------------------
Tempt me with Tatis Jr or Bob Gibson...or REALLY rare Kansas State stuff.
I agree, but my
point was many
other UERs are
listed, so why not
those? I see no
difference in
crediting someone
with a wrong
hometown and saying
they could lead a
league and come in
3rd in the same
category in the
same season. Both
wrong, both
uncorrected.
Concerning the
mistakes that went
uncorrected in '89
Fleer Baseball, it
makes perfect sense
to just have the
mistakes noted. It
makes the set a
little more
interesting to me.
RobDerhak wrote:
Just my $.02, but I really only care about UER's if there is something really uique about the Error.
For Example, the card below...That is an Arthur Brown card. Arthur did wear #4 while @ K-State...so did QB Daniel Sams...the problem is, that is Daniel Sams pictured, not Arthur Brown...so Daniel Sams collectors (he was an cult hero of sorts while @ KSU, so yes, there ARE Daniel Sams collectors :) )will be interested in the card as well, making that UER noteworthy.
Having the wrong color band printed, or a stat line error doesn't add anything unique (again, in my opinion), unless the stat line error is truly egregious or funny, or belongs to a completely different player
-------------------------------
Oh, there's a clock
in my head and
despite what it
said, another one
on the wall. They
don't agree at
all...
As a collector I don't care about variations or uncorrected errors. I don't care if the period is missing from an abbreviation at the bottom of the card. But for the data base, all discrepancies should be noted. I also dont care for Topps intentional short prints. Just a gimmick to sell more cards. In the 50s and 60s, there were shortprints simply because Topps knew they couldnt sell as many cards near the end of the season, especially for the 7th series. Just random thoughts.
Fleer was always
accused of
purposeful errors
in the past. I know
you weren't doing
that, but you get
what I was saying.
Even though they
weren't corrected,
the all mistakes
should be noted for
the simple sake of
what would be the
purpose of the data
base. I believe
your avatar would
agree. I find it
interesting to know
the ins and outs of
the cards.
I used to feel the
same about sps
intentionally
produced and part
of a base set, but
my opinions have
changed since since
2005. The problem
arises when there
are multiple levels
of the same darn
card.
Truth be told,
they've always had
some gimmick and
the gimmicks do
make them more
interesting to most.
Cards used to be
the gimmick to sell
tobacco and gum
etc... but now the
premiums are just
more cards. How
could we not like
that?
As far as the
topic, 1989 Fleer
was always my
favorite design/set
for the year, but I
never card about
the errors
corrected or not,
but now that I dug
my sets out to
binder one, my
interest has been
peaked because I
found that I had
both the corrected
and uncorrected
Kevin Romine cards.
Now I need all the
others. I just have
the black box Billy
and the rounded
sides version that
isn't listed
separate here.
I've also decided
to go through and
make the entire set
perfect. Perfect
color and
centering. Let me
tell you, this set
is tough for that.
Wish me luck. Now
it's time for
college
football!.... my
random thought. :)
NJDevils wrote:
As a collector I don't care about variations or uncorrected errors. I don't care if the period is missing from an abbreviation at the bottom of the card. But for the data base, all discrepancies should be noted. I also dont care for Topps intentional short prints. Just a gimmick to sell more cards. In the 50s and 60s, there were shortprints simply because Topps knew they couldnt sell as many cards near the end of the season, especially for the 7th series. Just random thoughts.
-------------------------------
Oh, there's a clock
in my head and
despite what it
said, another one
on the wall. They
don't agree at
all...
Fleer was always
accused of
purposeful errors
in the past. I know
you weren't doing
that, but you get
what I was saying.
Even though they
weren't corrected,
the all mistakes
should be noted for
the simple sake of
what would be the
purpose of the data
base. I believe
your avatar would
agree. I find it
interesting to know
the ins and outs of
the cards.
I used to feel the
same about sps
intentionally
produced and part
of a base set, but
my opinions have
changed since since
2005. The problem
arises when there
are multiple levels
of the same darn
card.
Truth be told,
they've always had
some gimmick and
the gimmicks do
make them more
interesting to most.
Cards used to be
the gimmick to sell
tobacco and gum
etc... but now the
premiums are just
more cards. How
could we not like
that?
As far as the
topic, 1989 Fleer
was always my
favorite design/set
for the year, but I
never card about
the errors
corrected or not,
but now that I dug
my sets out to
binder one, my
interest has been
peaked because I
found that I had
both the corrected
and uncorrected
Kevin Romine cards.
Now I need all the
others. I just have
the black box Billy
and the rounded
sides version that
isn't listed
separate here.
I've also decided
to go through and
make the entire set
perfect. Perfect
color and
centering. Let me
tell you, this set
is tough for that.
Wish me luck. Now
it's time for
college
football!.... my
random thought. :)
NJDevils wrote:
As a collector I don't care about variations or uncorrected errors. I don't care if the period is missing from an abbreviation at the bottom of the card. But for the data base, all discrepancies should be noted. I also dont care for Topps intentional short prints. Just a gimmick to sell more cards. In the 50s and 60s, there were shortprints simply because Topps knew they couldnt sell as many cards near the end of the season, especially for the 7th series. Just random thoughts.
-------------------------------
Oh, there's a clock
in my head and
despite what it
said, another one
on the wall. They
don't agree at
all...
I'd forgotten I had some 89 Fleer baseball errors/miscuts. I got out of collecting long ago, and have started selling off my collection from my childhood years.
I have a Gladden miscut (112) with the follow up Viola misprint (127). If you know a way I could post pics or PM them to you, let me know.
The Gladden error isnt uncommon, but I have the Viola card that was next. Shoot me an offer. These are also listed on the Sports Card Trading group on FB.
That user hasn't logged into this site in over 4 years.
Dasboof wrote:
Howling-
I'd forgotten I had some 89 Fleer baseball errors/miscuts. I got out of collecting long ago, and have started selling off my collection from my childhood years.
I have a Gladden miscut (112) with the follow up Viola misprint (127). If you know a way I could post pics or PM them to you, let me know.
The Gladden error isnt uncommon, but I have the Viola card that was next. Shoot me an offer. These are also listed on the Sports Card Trading group on FB.
