Posted By | Message |
ranfordfan
Posts: 4,975
Joined: Jun 2014
|
Monday, April 25, 2016 7:02 AM | |
Not sure how much of this came up last time but I need some opinions on this set (and many others like it) WE have discussed the fact that if the card numbering matches, the card has the same core image and follows the checklist (even if only partially) it should be considered a parallel and not an insert correct? If this is true is that not the same for cards with autos, mem or both, as well how about the "horizontal" variation versions?!?! This set has many of these listed as insert sets not parallels and would like a few more voices before I change them all (including Admin if at all posible =D) Thanks and its time to face the week!! Have a good day peeps.
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
avsbruins65
Posts: 2,135
Joined: Sep 2008
|
Monday, April 25, 2016 7:49 AM | |
Another set, good job on correcting them.
I would say if it follows the same numbering then it should be a parallel. Even if it is only partially.
I see the set is missing some checklists also.
Mark
-------------------------------
Trying to acquire one card for every for every set, insert, parralle, minor, euro, team issue, oddball etc sets produced for Hockey. Been an interesting project.
|
|
|
|
Lea DeFoote
Posts: 1,527
Joined: Jul 2012
|
Monday, April 25, 2016 11:33 AM | |
Good discussion topic. In general, I think the concepts of 'parallel' and 'insert' are fairly distinct, but there is a certain amount of grey area that deserves attention.
In the case of a partial parallel, I think card design is the biggest factor. I'm not sure that the numbering is even critical. For example, I have always thought of this card:
http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/5817/cid/4852736/1994-Action-Packed---24K-Gold-43G-Ted-Musgrave?PageIndex=1
as a parallel of this card:
http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/5816/cid/1815929/1994-Action-Packed-89-Ted-Musgrave?PageIndex=1
The 24kt gold set only contained a certain subset of the base set that were given the gold leaf foil treatment, but they were reordered and renumbered contiguously. I still think that, card for card, they are parallels of the base versions.
You bring up a good point on the Autographs. I have always thought that the autograph sets are inserts, even when the design is similar to the base set. For example, this base card:
http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/5911/cid/1822290/1996-Ultra-25-Ted-Musgrave?PageIndex=1
and this auto:
http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/54775/cid/4863113/1996-Ultra---Autographs-25-Ted-Musgrave?PageIndex=1
are almost identical, but I have still always considered the auto to be in insert.
I'll be interested to hear other opinions on the subject. Is a certified autograph enough of a difference to consider a card an insert, or is it a parallel if the rest of the design is substantially similar to the base card? Does it matter if the similar design is on both the front and back, or is your opinion the same if the front is similar but the back bears a 'congratulations' or COA type statement?
-Tom
-------------------------------
Ted Musgrave card collection 98.9% Complete: Cards Known: 1013, Cards Owned: 1002 I prefer the company of people who disagree with me for the right reasons over the company of those who agree with me for the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
|
jmiller4
Posts: 409
Joined: Apr 2015
|
Monday, April 25, 2016 4:14 PM | |
I agree that a partial parallel is still just that, a partial parallel. I think it was 2014 Topps that has a yellow or blue or purple or one of the other seems like 10 different colored parallels from one of the retail stores and it was only for series 1. It was listed as a parallel. Brought this up a few weeks ago with the desert storm cards. All 3 series come with yellow writing, but series one had another print with brown writing. I thought it should have been listed as a partial parallel but most thought that they should be listed as 180 exact card variations, just with different colored lettering. Just my opinion, but I think any color variation, especially for a large number of cards should be a partial parallel and not a variation or insert.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
Billy Kingsley
Posts: 7,510
Joined: Aug 2011
|
|
|
|
ranfordfan
Posts: 4,975
Joined: Jun 2014
|
Tuesday, April 26, 2016 6:47 AM | |
So a quick scan over the Upper Deck Artifacts from 2010-11 to 2013-14 this morning shows me that none of the mem/auto parallels are listed as such, they are all in the insert section. I do not recall contacting Admin about this yet so should I? Also is Artifacts a common card issued in any other sport or is it just a hockey brand (sorry thought it was quicker to ask than look - my bad). Will be back this evening for sure. Thanks as always.
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
avsbruins65
Posts: 2,135
Joined: Sep 2008
|
Tuesday, April 26, 2016 9:03 AM | |
As far as I can tell Artifacts is also in Baseball, 2005, 2006, 2007. Not the same kinds of inserts/parralles but they are all listed under Insert.
I would contact Admin with your question.
Mark
-------------------------------
Trying to acquire one card for every for every set, insert, parralle, minor, euro, team issue, oddball etc sets produced for Hockey. Been an interesting project.
|
|
|
|
Lea DeFoote
Posts: 1,527
Joined: Jul 2012
|
Tuesday, April 26, 2016 2:54 PM | |
I seem to remember a ruling that parallel versions of inserts are also inserts. Parallels are strictly paralells of base cards.
There was some resistance to the idea of having a 'parallel insert' or 'insert parallel' category.
-Tom
-------------------------------
Ted Musgrave card collection 98.9% Complete: Cards Known: 1013, Cards Owned: 1002 I prefer the company of people who disagree with me for the right reasons over the company of those who agree with me for the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
|
Billy Kingsley
Posts: 7,510
Joined: Aug 2011
|
|
|
|
Lea DeFoote
Posts: 1,527
Joined: Jul 2012
|
Tuesday, April 26, 2016 4:59 PM | |
But that is a different situation Billy. If I'm not mistaken, insert was a category option for quite a while, but parallel was not added until more recently. Any set that was added before parallel was an option needs to be manually changed. There are still a lot of residual parallel sets that were entered as insert because that was the only option at the time they were entered.
-Tom
-------------------------------
Ted Musgrave card collection 98.9% Complete: Cards Known: 1013, Cards Owned: 1002 I prefer the company of people who disagree with me for the right reasons over the company of those who agree with me for the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
|