1993-94 Score Hockey Forum

Should these sets 1993-94 Score-Pinnacle All-Stars U.S. and 1993-94 Score-Pinnacle All-Stars Canadian both have the mail-ins removed and created as their own extension of these individual "base" sets?

It seems like mail-ins are usually set up as individual sets, but I get that these are a sequential continuation that one could add to the inserts #1-45, but believe how they were originally meant to be acquired should override the numeric tie to the "base" set.

Any thoughts?

If they were meant to be a continuation of the set I'd leave as is. There are several other examples of this in here to include some of the early (92-94) Ultra (or is it Fleer Ultra?????) sets that focused on the players. While I understand the reasoning presented, to my thinking it is easier to leave as is.  

I learned something! And it seems like a phenomena that started in 1991 (assuming the EXCH notation was used appropriately) with a small percentage of the redemptions being to complete sets.

This now makes me wonder if MAYBE these type cards should be calculated into the Master Set equation rather than the Basic Set.

There are plenty of examples of base sets and insert sets having some cards that were distributed via redemption card or mail-in offer (rookies, USA Basketball, Fleer 1992-94, Ultra 1992-94, etc.), and they’re included with the rest of that set and noted with “EXCH”. The Mail-In section is for sets where the entire thing was only available through mail-in offer or redemption card, like the 80’s Topps All-Star Collection/Glossy offers, or an Upper Deck Predictor prize set.

Yes, thanks, but I progressed beyond my initial question after Jim's guidance and searching the glossary entries to find the number of affected sets.

Now I'm seeking thoughts on adjusting the set's completion calculation to exclude the EXCH from the Basic Set and including it as the Master Set.

The only way that can happen is if the Total Cards is set to an amount that doesn't include exchange cards, which we usually don't do.

The math is obvious; I'm asking conceptually if that could be the way to handle it given the spirit of collecting basic sets to master sets.

If a set is produced with "X" cards determined to make up a complete set, that's the number we use, even if some of those cards are serial numbered and/or only available via redemption exchange. The total count isn't set as "How many can Joe Q. Collector realistically get?". If a set is released with 500 1-of-1s, we still have to put the total count at 500.