1969 A&BC Star Trek Non-Sport Forum

Patch always means part of the lettering or numbers. People calling regular jersey pieces patches are either clueless or trying to sell you a basic jersey as a patch. A patch can be one color, which can be hard to tell in a scan. The texture of patch material is different than standard jersey cloth. 

I prefer the term relic myself. It's a misnomer to call a card with a piece of basketball or tire a jersey card. 

I 100% agree with Billy here.

I also agree on the use of relic (or memorabilia card). But I think Kirk was just noting that the first relic cards were jersey cards.

Billy Kingsley wrote:

One other thought...when you can build a complete set of each version, I believe they should be listed as separate versions for ease of use in tracking collections and for scan galleries.

With all due respect, that is rediculous when analyzed.  Take this set for example:  1995 Stadium Club

There are more than a dozen documented foil patterns on those cards.  So while techinically it would be possible to assemble a set with exclusive matching foil patterns, it is pretty impracticle.

I respect your opinions....your past comments here have influenced my view of the hobby. But the idea that just because you can build a set with a variations does not make it a parallel set. That is way too simplistic of a definition for a parallel set. Especially when dealing with vintage cards. The collection management implications are way too big.

By defining variations vs parallels this way we are applying modern card terminology/practices onto vintage cards.

The A&BC Star Trek is one set with card variations. A parallel set does not exist. 

It doesn't matter if card #1 has the Desilou back or Paramount Back. Having either card satisfies position #1 on the checklist. That makes the card a variation (irregardless if that variation is common across the enter set).

If we list them as parallels then we are saying you must have the appropriate back to complete the checklist. I don't think we can completely ignore how the rest of the hobby approaches set management. If you don't like PSA then look at the major auction houses; REA, SCP, Heritage, or any of the others. Look how they classify complete vintage sets....not much discussion of parallels only variations.

Sorry, I was 100% agreeing with his second paragraph that states the Desilu version should be listed under 1968 (and from what I read in the PSA article, as a test release). I don't agree with the T206 being 4 or 6 different sets (or even worrying about the different backs.

This is going down the same path (that Admin has blocked) for the stickers that have different backs (player cards). We're documenting the stickers as one set and the backs as a separate set now (trying to get them all in line with that). But, I guess since you can't find all 300 stickers with card #1 on the back, it doesn't fit Billy's definition, but that Airplane set from the 1930s does because it was on different colored card stock.

I realize we've documented some items as parallels even though it doesn't fit this definition, but I do believe that for a parallel to truly nbe a parallel, the manufacturer has to plan the release that way (like added gold foil to set). The 1990 Topps Traded counts as a parallel because it was planned that the gray backs were going to pack out with the other base set gray backs and the boxed set (as usual) would be on the white, slightly thinner stock.

A little more thought (disclaimer backs, worng holograms) has led me to thinking that maybe we need another category in the related sets area - variant set. Reserved only for full sets with a single unintentional variant (add the "missing period" Donruss/Leaf sets to this). Any thoughts?

Your final paragraph would solve every problem, I think. When I suggested an option of partial parallel it was basically attacked from all sides, so I am not going to hold out much hope, but that would be a solution that gets the sets done right.

And as I've said many times, just because a card is hard to find is no reason for us to ignore that it exists. I'm lucky in that the Stadium Club set for the NBA in 1995-96 comes with base cards in one version and subsets in two, I suppose.

Let's imagine we have a 3 card set. It was planned by the manufacturer to be a 3 card set and they published a checklist with 3 cards on it.....#1, #2, and #3. During production some minor change happened (different paper, slight change to TM line, etc). 

After all was said and done let's further imagine that each card ended up with 3 variations. Throughout the entire production run there was the same plan for a 3 card set, the same checklist, same packaging, same distribution etc. except that there was some minor change to the card during one or two of the print runs.

Now we have cards  "#1 version A", "#1 version B", "#1 version C". Anyone of those cards would fill the slot for "Card #1" on the checklist.

So I could have cards "#1 version A", "#2 version C", and "#3 version B" and my set would be complete. If I suffered from OCD and I NEEDED my cards to be the same I could build a set with all "A" versions of the card; but it wouldn't be "more complete" than a set with mixed variations and it would not be a parallel set.

So how should that set be listed in the database in such a way that I can see all the variations but still have the database record my set as complete if I have all cards but each is a different version?

If we listed them as 3 parallel sets, then I wouldn't have a complete set unless I incorrectly listed them in the database. If we list them as variations we can still see all the cards, identify and select the one we have, and have the set listed as complete in the database.

I believe TCDB will recognize Card #1 as being in your collection if you add "1a", "1b", or "1c". Either one of those would satisfy the slot for "1" on the cheklist.

Something that might be useful is to be able to select the type of set you want to build or view. "Base Set" - without variation/errors or (I hate to use PSA terminology) "Master Set" with variations/errors.

I know we have something close to that now, but it doesn't work perfectly. Or more likely, I haven't figured out how to use it perfectly.

cnangle has hit on something - in these cases of these older cards (especially), the "parallel" is more of a variation than a parallel. I doubt anyone today would have their 700-card Topps set considered "complete" with 30 Golds, a Pink, a Snow Camo or 2, , 4 Blacks, 50 Target Reds and 75 Wal-Mart Blues. However, speckle pattern A, speckle B, and speckle C would be considered a set no matter how mixed they are.

Now, we know there are some collectors who would be like "I need Speckle A set and Speckle B set and Speckle C set", but those are just truly variations. I think we (as a membership) have taken the easy way out on some of these sets. It's by far easier to list a variation of an entire set as a parallel set than as variations of each card. Maybe we have to stop taking the easy way out in this case.

WOW .......... my head is spinning. As far as I can tell this reply by vrooomed made the most sense to me. I would say that Admin will keep things as they are as change it to a card by card system, but that is my gut, and it makes more gas than good judgements. LOL I will keep adding teams and Notes and not worry about this too much as the big wigs seem to have it covered. =)