1992-93 Seasons Patches Hockey Forum

CAn somebody please look at these and help me decide which way to display. Pierre Turgeon is done with the packaging as the "back" where as I have scanned the actual back of the patch. Which should be used? I was going to send the entire image of the packaging with Bill inside it to Admin as packaging. If you would like to see the images just let me know. Thanks.

The back of the patch should be the back. Not the packaging. That's like scanning a cello pack and saying this the back when it's not the back of the item.

Perfect thanks Dan.

Next question, the checklist on the packaging shows no player for 22 but the DB does. If you look closely at the checklist is says "22 will always denote a prototype patch." So how should this be shown on the DB checklist??

I for one do not like cards being scanned/uploaded still in their package. And think Admin should add it to their list of NO-NOs, along with photographed images.

I don't know about that... some cards will depreciate when taken out of their original packaging, especially if it's singular wrapped.  I have some in my collection that that's how they are so that's how they stay.  Some cards have the "peel off" protective strip on the chrome as well, should we remove that too before scanning? Too many restrictions means not many scans means less references for newer members...  I get the photo's restriction.  Camera's reflect.  The other is just restriction via opinion in my own view.

I have some single-card wrapped Twizzler cards from who-knows-when. Can barely make out who the card is through the almost opaque wrapper, shall I upload my images for that?

Of course not. And, yes, I was being facetious on that. But, maybe there is more "value" to them by still being sealed, but that doesn't show the card well here. The recently-created tag of "Scan Needs Replacement" is the cure all for this. Upload the scan of it still in the packaging if we don't have it at all, but tag it so that when someone has theirs open, they can add the scan the way the site prefers.

I guess the ones I'm thinking of are not almost opaque, and after I said such, I searched the sets I had added scans for.  1999-2000 post the great one and Kellogg Donruss... turns out I didn't even scan the cards I have in package or someone edited the scans already.  The plastic wrapping these cards though is clear.  Only part of the card that would be obscured would be some of the text on the back by the seam... still, I see your point.  Also, i didn't even know about the new tag.  That does help!  A lot!  I have some cards that I've been leery of scanning into the database due to condition.  Now with that tag I can actually scan them with clear conscience!

There are two scansd total for this set, you look at them and tell me the Ranford is somehow below par?? No disrespect here but the Turgeon yes I can see the reason but I'd have to say mine is better than some cards. Just sayin.

Looks like they are both still wrapped.