1992 Leaf Baseball Forum

After having looked at about 12,000 card backs from this set (average of 20 per card - the fewest I had was 4 and for that one, I have 2 of each VAR), all under a light / magnifier, this is what I have discovered.

There are 8 cards that probably do not exist in the "INC" var.  These are:  #40 Tony Phillips, #46 Tom Browning; #52 Cal Ripken Jr.; #58 Roger McDowell; #265 Omar Vizquel; 313 John Kruk (already argued in another thread by another member that it probably does not exist after having looked at a multitude of cards); #396 Eddie Murray; and # 445 Jeff Kent (this one is odd as the dot is faint on all of the backs of those I have but is visible especially under any magnifying glass). I was not long into Series 2 cards that I had already guessed that I would find 4 more in that series, just like I had in Series 1 cards. This proved to be true. In both series, there are 3 checklists and I assume (I did not open any boxes or packs of these cards) that the Leaf Intro card was produced and inserted in both series. I will let all of you decide what this may signify.

Yes, every one of these cards has some members having them listed in their collections and a couple for sale or trade. But if you take the time to look at who has them listed, you will find that there are 12 members who are repeated on every list (mass add - after all, if I have thousands of these, I must have all the VAR thought process). The only one card that has more than 20 members with it in their collection is the Jeff Kent card where the dot is fainter than the rest. Most cards have fewer than 15 members with it in their collection. Seeing as one of the cards was of a popular player / HOF, I took the time to message all of the members who had it in their collection and who had logged on in the last week.  Two answered, one saying they had mistakenly listed it and now had removed it; the other said he would check but has not gotten back to me and it is still listed.  Another member I messaged obviously saw the message as he removed his listing as having it but felt there was no need to respond to my message (thanks for that). I have not heard back from any of the others nor have they corrected their collection.  I also messaged one of the members who has them all listed for sale or trade but again, no response. I will message the other member linking this thread as he is a regular in the Forums so I imagine he will respond either in the thread or to me or both.

Four of the cards had a back image uploaded.  I put in IR for each one of them; 3 have been removed and the fourth (Jeff Kent) has gone through the process and is awaiting Admin's action to remove it.  Two of these still have the front image, #265 & 445. I think they should be removed no matter what other decision is made here as it is misleading to members to have a front image of a card that may not exist.  But I will let others decide that as I do not wish to have to explain any more clearly my position on this.

I turn this over to the membership for discussion and possibly a recommendation to Admin. I know that once a card is listed as existing, there is a hesitancy to having it removed.  But in this case, unless someone can come forth with a clear image of any of these cards with the "INC" variation, I think we should acknowledge that they do not exist. By the way, these 8 cards are the only ones missing images in this set. I wonder why.

Bruno, thanks for your research into this subject.  I hate these variations, but as an Orioles collector who happened to have almost all of these, I did decide to try and complete both variations of this set for my team.  Like you mention, Cal Ripken was one variation that I have not been able to find despite all my efforts (including looking at over 100 different cards on comc.com).  While not evidence this card does not exist, I think it is very likely it does not exist.

The member who had said he would check his Cal Ripken card got back to me this morning and confirmed his does have the dot and was listed in error as the no dot VAR. One less in that list.

sandyrusty, your analysis of the set looks spot on and I hope we can get the checklist fixed. Thanks for your work. Mark

i checked what i had #40,#46 and #52 and all mine were listed incorrectly. i will make the change on my ft/fs list. thank you bruno for bringing this to my attention

Bruno,

Your time, effort, and expertise is GREATLY appreciated in this effort. This is a huge reason why we're now doing crowd-sourced google sheets for any of these other sets where the members scream "ALl of them!" at us ad nauseum, when in reality, that very well may not be the case.

As for this particular set, let's get these "phantom" listings removed ASAP.

Thanks again!

thank you Bruno!

mark

Bruno... I checked mine as well as I have it listed in error. I will correct. Turns out my Leaf set is a mixture and I was likely too lazy to check each card and just entered into the system "without dot".

Bruno,

Would you mind posting the Winfield with the "LEAF, INC." notation.   Thanks in advance. 

I guess since this thread has been at the top of the forums recently, it has people looking at the Black Gold set. The set is in the process of being fixed. I contacted Admin a few weeks ago regarding what could be done to preserve the best images we had for the Series 1 cards while maintaining the proper credit (& points) for those who uploaded images back in the earlier days and those who added new, clearer images. A couple of us worked on the stuff L8s could do, and now the rest is in Admin's hands. Given the fact that it's something that only Admin can do, that means it's probably a very time-consuming and/or complicated thing to do.

Please don't add any further IRs regarding the "duplicate" cards in the set. We know about them, and they are being worked on by Admin. There is nothing more anyone but Admin can do at this point about them. Thank you.