Card Identification Forum

So your sayig its not a VAR and should just be listed as a regular card in the set? That makes sense too but what if that card number is used again by another card? I can see why as players can have multiple cards in a set / subset.

ranfordfan (and others who may be wondering) -

Take a look at how we list the 2017 Topps Rediscover buybacks for baseball. I think this makes sense for listing purposes. Yes, some numbers are repeated, but utilizing the Note2 feature to describe the different sets makes things more clear when browsing through the set. Baseball handles the Topps Archives Signature Series in a similar fashion. 

I would say that this situation is no different and should be handled the same. Just my opinion, of course, but ultimately I would think that Buyback sets (especially with how popular they seem to be becoming) should all be formatted the same on this site - and don't quote me on this, but I think the baseball listing was based on an Admin directive.

You can quote Jason - it was Admin's directive. And yes, this should be formatted the same way. And currently, all numbers of unpictured cards in this checklist are wrong.

Okay Jason and Dan. i Think I got it. Thanks. Can someone make anoter Doug Wilson card numbered 168 for this set and I'll add the photo. I'm not sure how to do that or if I'm at that level yet. Joe 

It's obvious that whoever uploaded this checklist just copied and pasted the Beckett checklist. And gave no thought to correct the card numbers.  And if card numbers were unknown, then the checklist should never have been uploaded.  It should have been handled like all other Buybacks...one card at a time. 

This checklist is going to be a nightmare. The cards with numbers are out of numerical order.  And all the rest have incorrect, non-existent card numbers listed.  Do we resort the checklist every time a card number is corrected or a new card is added?  Maybe all cards with the BB- prefix should be removed.

What would be ideal is for people who have cards in this set to do some more research on what other cards were used here and get as many as possible listed NOW, while we have people working on the set.

I believe the scanned images for this card https://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/7215/cid/1156051/2007-08-O-Pee-Chee---Autographed-Buybacks-41-Dino-Ciccarelli?PageIndex=1 should actually go to this location: https://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/51999/cid/4576543/2008-09-O-Pee-Chee---Autographed-Buybacks-BB-CI-Dino-Ciccarelli-

So, another checklist of incorrect, made-up card numbers!!

Without the COA, does the signing ink color distinguish which year they were inserted in?

SunDevilCollection wrote:

I believe the scanned images for this card https://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/7215/cid/1156051/2007-08-O-Pee-Chee---Autographed-Buybacks-41-Dino-Ciccarelli?PageIndex=1 should actually go to this location: https://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/51999/cid/4576543/2008-09-O-Pee-Chee---Autographed-Buybacks-BB-CI-Dino-Ciccarelli-

I would be happy to try and research but I don't know where to look.  If you're lucky someone on e-bay scans the coa or else you really can't tell if they're 2007-08 or 08-09.  COMC is no help.  I see listings on e-bay for one of one but no where in the card scan does it say that.  It's pretty rotten of these card companies to just let us hang with hese sets. Card collecting in the 70's was way easier and more enjoyable. LOL

I like how they used a card with a facsimile autograph on the back, and his current autograph looks nothing like it.  As far as the rest, my opinion would be so completely unpopular, nobody on the site would agree, so I won't even bother.