1990 Donruss Baseball Forum

This is what it shows as my having for the set yet I have all of the cards.  I believe the one that is causing the issue is because I have the 10b card and not the 10a card. If this is the case, we have not resolved all of the issues.  Can anyone confirm that I have properly identified the issue?

https://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/138/cid/60103?PageIndex=1

https://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/138/cid/60104?PageIndex=1

Ok, another question on this set. Card #3 has a ERR and a COR version, links above.  Yet the ERR on the first version is not COR on the second version.  There is a VAR identified but the error of the batting average still exists.  So why is it marked as COR?  Should they both not be VAR, UER?

Hard for me to say Bruno. I currently have both versions in my collection, and I tried taking each one out and it didn't get me to 715/716. However, it does say I have 717/716 for the basic set, which also would seem incorrect under the new set breakdown.

BTW I was referencing your first question, #10. Regarding #3, I would think either ERR/UER and COR/UER or VAR/ERR depending on whether not having the black strip is considered an error or a variation.

The presence of the black "notch" (their terminology, not mine, that to me is an underlying black line) is the correction of the lack of one.

There probably should also be an UER note as well on these for the BA error (although "DK, ERR, UER" and "DK, COR, UER" might look odd).

A dilemna at best.  I am not sure I agree with the lack of a black notch an ERR but will not argue.  But COR, UER will really raise questions.

Seeing asa a black notch or lack of is an ERR, is the black line extending over a letter in the name also an ERR? #405 is marked that way https://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/138/cid/60515?PageIndex=1 but the Dale Murphy is marked as a VAR https://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/138/cid/60273/1990-Donruss-168-Dale-Murphy In my mind, they are VAR.

Pro Set had a lot of these multiple errors on a card and subsequent versions only corrected some of the errors. If there is still an error on a card it can't be COR.   COR should mean everything is correct on the card.

First issue is solved.

Second issue remains for discussion.

Third issue - ERR or VAR???

I updated the Notes on those two Sierra cards. See if that makes sense.

Chuck, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. Making a single correction does make for a corrected version, no matter how many other errors are missed.

Well, #'s 659, 660 and 665 all have multiple ERR before they have a COR. Would the logic flow that they made an ERR, tried to correct the ERR, but still resulted in an ERR (not correcting the issue properly or creating a new issue). The chain keeps going until the proper COR is produced?