2018 Topps Baseball Forum

There is an issue with the Salute set. It is numbered up to 100 but the checklist shows only 99 cards. S-97 may or may not be part of the set. Still researching that.

If you go off of this checklist there are only 99 cards in the Salute set with no S-97 produced.

https://www.cardboardconnection.com/2018-topps-series-2-baseball-mlb-cards

One of our newer members is putting prices on some of the base cards and most of them are $3 and $4 each and noting that these prices are from an auction.  I usually do not pay attention to the prices but I hate seeing this on our site.  And to the member putting these prices, I will galdly sell you every one of those cards at half the price you have entered right now with free shipping.

then would those cards be listed as 698c and 699c ? i'm trying to finish up the lettering for the variants and wanted to make sure.

You've been doing the lettering? Thank you so much!

As for these, it looks like "c" would be appropriate for these since we put them in the regular set area.

Yea that would be me...my OCD kicked in when I noticed some cards had the lettering and some didn’t... took me a little bit to figure out exactly how to do it correctly.... first time I did it I added the lettering directly to the card number, then I realized that was wrong so I had to go back and correct all the ones I thought I had done right... thinking gonna try and get more of the base checklist validated if I can, since there’s a ton of them waiting to be done

This topic has been a bit of an obsession of mine as well.  I've asked this before but didn't get much of a response, maybe here will get more eyes...

What is the proper way for handling the base cards?

I notice the 2018 set checklist page shows like so.

			1		Aaron Judge ASR, FS		New York Yankees
			1b		Aaron Judge SP, VAR		New York Yankees
			1c		Aaron Judge SSP, VAR		New York Yankees

The base card is listed simply as "1" (no NOTE2 that exposes the sub-number like in "1 [b]" and "1 [c]".

The 2014 Topps set page displays like this:

			1a		Mike Trout		Los Angeles Angels
			1b		Mike Trout VAR, SP		Los Angeles Angels
			1c		Mike Trout VAR, SP		Los Angeles Angels
			1d		Mike Trout VAR, SP		Los Angeles Angels
			1e		Mike Trout VAR, SP		Los Angeles Angels

The base card has a NOTE2 of "BASE: Sliding at home plate" which makes it possible to make the card number "1 [a]".  

That is more appealing to my OCD senses when looking at a checklist, but it does mean going through and adding a "BASE: xxx" NOTE2 to a lot of cards.  I've tracked a number of sets that I have applied this method to in a list (the list of sets still needing touching is longer and ever growing).

Is there an official Admin position or other general consensus on this?

Isn't the 2014 method shown a problem because it then makes the base version a variation, which then invalidates some of the functions like "move all missing cards in set to want list(no variations)".  This was a problem for me because although I do collect the variations, I do not pursue them in my quest to complete the set, but it would not show up in my want list that I was missing a card because it was listed as a variation.

OCHawkeye wrote:

This topic has been a bit of an obsession of mine as well.  I've asked this before but didn't get much of a response, maybe here will get more eyes...

What is the proper way for handling the base cards?

I notice the 2018 set checklist page shows like so.

			1		Aaron Judge ASR, FS		New York Yankees
			1b		Aaron Judge SP, VAR		New York Yankees
			1c		Aaron Judge SSP, VAR		New York Yankees

The base card is listed simply as "1" (no NOTE2 that exposes the sub-number like in "1 [b]" and "1 [c]".

The 2014 Topps set page displays like this:

			1a		Mike Trout		Los Angeles Angels
			1b		Mike Trout VAR, SP		Los Angeles Angels
			1c		Mike Trout VAR, SP		Los Angeles Angels
			1d		Mike Trout VAR, SP		Los Angeles Angels
			1e		Mike Trout VAR, SP		Los Angeles Angels

The base card has a NOTE2 of "BASE: Sliding at home plate" which makes it possible to make the card number "1 [a]".  

That is more appealing to my OCD senses when looking at a checklist, but it does mean going through and adding a "BASE: xxx" NOTE2 to a lot of cards.  I've tracked a number of sets that I have applied this method to in a list (the list of sets still needing touching is longer and ever growing).

Is there an official Admin position or other general consensus on this?

Good question.

Just tested this.  I had 0 2014 Topps cards in my collection and 0 in my want list.  I selected "Add all missing cards in this set to wantlist (without ERR/VAR)".  The base cards still moved to my wantlist.  (Good job by Admin for having the foresight to include that logic!)

jmiller4 wrote:

Isn't the 2014 method shown a problem because it then makes the base version a variation, which then invalidates some of the functions like "move all missing cards in set to want list(no variations)".  This was a problem for me because although I do collect the variations, I do not pursue them in my quest to complete the set, but it would not show up in my want list that I was missing a card because it was listed as a variation.

OCHawkeye wrote:

This topic has been a bit of an obsession of mine as well.  I've asked this before but didn't get much of a response, maybe here will get more eyes...

What is the proper way for handling the base cards?

I notice the 2018 set checklist page shows like so.

			1		Aaron Judge ASR, FS		New York Yankees
			1b		Aaron Judge SP, VAR		New York Yankees
			1c		Aaron Judge SSP, VAR		New York Yankees

The base card is listed simply as "1" (no NOTE2 that exposes the sub-number like in "1 [b]" and "1 [c]".

The 2014 Topps set page displays like this:

			1a		Mike Trout		Los Angeles Angels
			1b		Mike Trout VAR, SP		Los Angeles Angels
			1c		Mike Trout VAR, SP		Los Angeles Angels
			1d		Mike Trout VAR, SP		Los Angeles Angels
			1e		Mike Trout VAR, SP		Los Angeles Angels

The base card has a NOTE2 of "BASE: Sliding at home plate" which makes it possible to make the card number "1 [a]".  

That is more appealing to my OCD senses when looking at a checklist, but it does mean going through and adding a "BASE: xxx" NOTE2 to a lot of cards.  I've tracked a number of sets that I have applied this method to in a list (the list of sets still needing touching is longer and ever growing).

Is there an official Admin position or other general consensus on this?

If that's the case (base cards moving en masse when choosing w/o ERR/VAR), then using the "a" on base cards should be fine.

HOWEVER (and you all knew there was going to be a however, right?), if there are parallel sets, and you're trying to copy in teams, I think if the card has the a, it doesn't copy in. (This may be incorrect, now that I think about it, this may have been pre-extra number field days.) This is something we should as k Admin about, to see how that works and if Admin feels the base cards should have "a".