1985 Topps Baseball Forum

Black - as in where the purple got darker than other cards?

I have the same issue with a few sets being color blind. 75 and 76 Topps Football stand out to me as two I have problems with.

The 1985 DP issue should be considered an error.  It isn't as widely known or collected as some of the other printing errors that the site catalogs (eg. 1982 Topps Blackless, 1990 Frank Thomas NNOF), but it is an error.  It was found in some of the very early runs of 1985 Topps and was quickly corrected.

As a side note, the same issue that caused the 1990 Topps Frank Thomas NNOF error impacted 12 other cards, but none of those are catalogued on the site.  I've tried a handful of times to get them listed, but there just doesn't seem to be an appetite for this sort of listing.

Bob...sent you a PM.  Would love to trade for some of the 1985 cards if you have duplicates.

.......and don't forget 1 of the granddaddies of "inking errors" [also listed in TCDB]

The 1962 "Green Tint Series"

There has to be some kind of accomodation for these cards to be listed. I remember having an exchange of emails with ADMIN regarding "errors and variations", I wish I can find it, but in essence...as long as a card is not a "one of a kind" random variation, there are a % in circulation, there are corrected or other variations of the same card, they should be included and listed in TCDB. If ADMIN reads this, maybe he/she/they will back this up. In my opinion, this is a database for ALL cards signicantly interesting to other collectors, why should we rule out , pick and choose certain cards? Especially if they are recognized by others, SCD, Becketts etc.

Here's my concern with adding any missing ink, missing foil, mis-printed, etc. cards on here as variations. Actually, I have a couple. And some additional thoughts for fun.

1) Literally every card from 1987-1992 could probably have an ink variation. Whether it's a random dot, faded ink, whatever, there would be many, many cards (in some cases, I would imagine entire sets) with this issue. Not to mention, as time goes on, and these cards get older, they can start to fade. So something that wasn't a variation in 1989 now is in 2018 because the ink has faded away? That wouldn't make sense to me.

2) Re: adding to the database if enough in existance can be confirmed. How do we determine how many or a certain percentage of cards have the missing ink/foil, whatever variation? We are a small sample size of the hobby as a whole. Do we take site membership percentage? If 51% say that hey, my 1991 Topps Benito Santiago has a random pink dot on the lower right corner, is that enough to consider it a variation? Do we go to COMC, eBay, other sites and factor those numbers in as well? That doesn't seem practical or necessary to me.

3) If I'm a collector and I see that there's 37 ink variations of a 1988 Ozzie Smith Donruss card, I'm going to take two courses of action: either say "forget that" and never bother looking for them (possible) or I'm going to spend years searching for common cards that might have missing ink or an extra dab of it here or there (including some possible ghost cards because only x amount of our members had it but we added it as a variation because there it was)

4) Just because other sites catalog something, doesn't mean we have to or even should. Just because Panini lists their checklists with made up numbers instead of the letters used doesn't mean we should or have to use that system. Just because Beckett chooses to list a minute variation does not mean TCDB should or has to. We all do things differently; heck, I catalog my collection differently than here (Fleer Ultra goes after Fleer Tradition, not before Upper Deck). My point here is that using what other sites do is not necessarily the way we have to go about it.

5) I understand that we all have different collecting interests, and that's great. That's part of the hobby. But this database will not make everyone happy in that sense. We all have things we don't like, whether it's the documentation (or lack thereof), the forums, the way things are listed, the card numbering rules, whatever. It just won't be perfect. However, I do believe Admin has entered a way for us around this problem. By setting up a collection for errors/variation, or even using your main collection, you can do a detailed add and in the "Comments" box, say whatever you want to, including "Missing ink on back", "Foil missing on front", whatever you want! At this point, I'd say this is Admin's work-around for the situation.

6) Finally, vrooomed mentioned this on another forum post on this topic. We have had this discussion multiple times on printing errors and what should and shouldn't be catalogued here. At this point, I think the community as a whole is stuck at what exactly constitutes a printing error vs. a regular error. And I understand that confusion. I think that as long as there is a gray area on what ink/foil/printing/picture/name/number/everything else variations are allowed to be documented here, there will continue to be discussions like this. Not that they're bad discussions, but it's becoming clear that there is just something missing in a lot of people's understanding (including mine; I wasn't aware that the Frank Thomas No-Name card was documented here - it would seem to me that that's a very famous example of a mis-printed card that shouldn't be documented on here [although if the reason behind that documentation is that it is a very famous example, fair enough - after all, Admin's world, we're just living in it]).

Hopefully that makes sense and I didn't come across as rude or mean. Those are just some of my honest thoughts on this topic. Thanks for reading my rambling, if you've made it this far.

*Steps off of soapbox, hoping to never return*

Edit for grammar/spelling

Thanks, Jason. You hit on several of the same points I would've made here. Just a couple additions:

The Frank Thomas - Admin has allowed a couple exceptions to the rule. Frank is one of them - but it is an exception, and Admin has stated that. Any other exceptions need to be cleared by Admin. Not by popular vote on the forums, not by one person campaigning tirelesly to get them added, or by dragging up every exception that has ever been allowed. It's by Admin's exception only.

Admin's workaround is mentioned in the FAQs (I linked them in the other thread you mentioned). I think that even the "old-timers" of the site would be served well by reviewing them once in a while. If for no other reason that it can help you help a new member.

I'm going to let everyone in on a little secret. I don't like how a few sets here were formatted - and I still don't. But, my discussions with Admin were private, I made my case, and Admin instructed in the method they chose. It wasn't my method. Guess which method I helped maintain? If you guessed mine, you'd be wrong.

I stated this in the other thread, but it's so very important, I think it totally bears repeating:

These are the rules of the website. Plain and simple. I have decided that by being here, I will abide by those rules, and while accepting higher levels of responsibility here, I have essentially committed to helping enforce those rules.

And I will add here that I will abide and enforce all of them, even the ones I don't fully agree with. I urge everyone to do the same.

Not going to beat a dead horse, I'll try but it's just not worth it. It's unfair but life's unfair. I joined TCDB because of it's reputation, I thought I would be able to log every card in my collection into the website not realizing I would be denied by dictatorial rules. So that I can let this subject RIP, Could somebody please explain how I can enter my collection of errors and variations into this database officially? I'm guessing that nobody else can view these cards, quite a shame, but we must follow rules? Exactlly what can I say about my cards? Is there a way of scanning/showing the card in my own collection?

When you go to add your card to your collection, instead of just checking the little box next to it, click the down arrow. That will bring up a few options. The fourth option down, "Detailed Add" is the one you want. By clicking that, you get a screen that allows you to enter price, SN, condition, whether or not the card is graded and if so, by who and what grade, whether or not it is autographed, and finally, there is a comment box. I do not know the character or detail limit on that comment box, but that is where I suggest you add your details: "missing ink on back" etc.

Once you have finished this information and click "Add", the card will be added to your collection. I just tried this with the Horner card and said "Ink missing on back". When you scroll down and the card is highlighted blue (or whatever color that is) to show it is in your collection, the comment you added is also visible.

At this time, you can go back to that drop down arrow and there are many more options available, including editing the details. And the bottom of the list now is the selection to "View/Add Image". This is where you can upload your own scan of the card in your collection. It's how I get my TTM autographs on the site as well.

You must do the detailed add to get the option to view or add your own image, unless there is a detail I'm missing.

I hope this helps and makes sense. Perhaps someone else can give a more detailed example; I don't know how to screen-grab and insert here.

The 1962 Green Tint wasn't a simple inking error nor a printing glitch.  To meet demand for the cards, Topps sent some plates to a non-Topps printing plant.  Along the way the truck was involved in an accident.  Some plates were damaged and new ones had to be made (thus some have different photos). Also, some of the photos were cropped differently. The printing plant didn't use the proper coloring/inking specs, thus the "green tint". 

Chuck, very interesting....You always have a story. ~Bob~

Jason, Thanks,  I was doing a little experimenting, I think I can do it by circumventing the system. Certainly alot more work however. I believe, I will be able to locate and identify the errors, and list them in my collection. Unfortunately, fellow members won't be able to. Still hope though. ~Bob~