Card Identification Forum

They numbered them by division. In the 2008 set, It went AL East, AL Central, AL West, NL West, NL Central, NL East. It's possible they did the same thing for the 2006 set.

SunDevil, I think you are correct that these are organized by division.  But I can't figure out the pattern within the divisions (if there is one).  Alphabetical by player name or team name would make sense, but doesn't seem to apply here, nor does final standings within the year.  Do we have a checklist for the 2008 set as a reference?  That might help figure out what they were doing.

C2Cigars, I can see your point for some situations.  For example, I have a single oddball card from a minor league team set that I think was issued at a minor league game.  No idea how many cards are in the set, nor do I know the other players in the set.  In this case, I would argue it would be a "useless" checklist since too much info would be unknown. 

In this 2006 Upper Deck DC case, we are reasonably confident that we know many cards are in the set and which cards they are.  We ever know a few numbers.  As a user, is it way more useful to have a "work-in-progress" checklist than to have nothing at all.  I'm new here, but isn't this the same logic that allows image scans to be added for some cards in a set.  Do we need to wait until every card in a set has an image before any card can be added with an image?  Are these images useless because they are not available for the entire set?  No, because some information >> no information.

Finally, here is the running list of this of what we know:

DC-20    Albert Pujols    St Louis Cardinals    NL Central
DC-21    Derrek Lee    Chicago Cubs    NL Central
DC-25    Ken Griffey, Jr.    Cincinnati Reds    NL Central
DC-28    Chase Utley    Philadelphia Philies    NL East
 

Other NL Central Players from the year would fit the pattern noted by SunDevil, as would the DC-28 Utley.
DC-? (22,23,24)    Jason Bay    Pittsburgh Pirates    
DC-? (22,23,24)    Ben Sheets    Milwaukee Brewers    
DC-? (22,23,24)    Craig Biggio    Houston Astros    

I posted the 2008 checklist in a forum post about the 2008 Baltimore Orioles card (DC3).  http://sports.upperdeck.com/collectorszone/collectionprint.aspx?q=6&sid=48894 They did not make one for the A's and Marlins that year.

I agree with Dan here.  It won't be too difficult to come up with all of the names/subjects for the checklist, but it could take many years to find enough information about the backs to actually complete the checklist with card numbers.  This is one of those cases where (I believe) it is acceptable to use TBD in the card number field and we can update them as they are found, and resort the checklist once it is sufficiently complete.

-Tom

I disagree Chuck.  Most checklists aren't this easy to come up with a complete list of subjects while also being this hard to match them up with the card numbers.  Admin recenty agreed that, for sets that are unusually hard to build the complete checklist but a significant portion of the information is known, we can use TBD in place of the unknown pieces of information.  An entire list poulated by TBD clearly does not meet this criteria.  There's nothing 'logical' about an insinuation of equality between the two situations.

-Tom 

Please refer to the time the comment was made. It was made in response to Dan's comment and at the time we had 4 out of 30 cards.  4 out of 30, 13%, is not a significant portion. 

Thanks all, I have submitted a request to add the 2006 set.  Should the 2008 edition be added as well?

Chuck, I said a significant portion of the information, and I was speaking in the general sense.  On these die-cast insert type sets, it is easy to come up with 100% of the name/subject information, but hard to come up with the card numbers.  I feel that knowing the complete subject listing is a significant portion of the information for the checklist.  The cards numbers can come later as they are discovered - especially now that we can do automated re-sorts with the tools in the IR system.

I didn't think that anyone had proposed posting the checklist for this specific set with only the information that had been discussed to that point.  Sorry if I misunderstood the angle of your dispute. You are usually the one pointing out the fallacy of false equivalencies, so it didn't make any sense to me that you would be making one.

-Tom