1994-95 Fleer Basketball Forum

Look at card 93 P. Richardson and 101 M. Jackson.  These two were players were traded for each other.  Trade between Pacers and Clippers.  Both show old uniforms.  Both list old team under name.  Both have old logo on back.  Both have very small "Traded to..." with new team on the front.  In the database here, both are listed as Clippers cards.  I think the "Traded to" is the final authority on these cases where two teams are named on the front.  Either way, one of these cards are wrong.  Which one ought to be changed to Pacers?

You are correct "Traded to" is the team to be listed.  I corrected #101 while I was there.

Some cards are well hidden and camoflagued. The 2009 Donruss Classics is one of the worst for a "Trade to" line. It's that very small white print on the right side of the card.

I would agree in terms of listings on this site, but for my personal collection, I tend to take a different approach.  Since my sets are organized by team, I tend to place the card where it looks like it should go.  This is especially apparent in 1949 and 1950 Bowman baseball sets.

Same question but different sport. How would the 1964 Philadelphia Jim Ringo card #78 get listed? Database has Eagles. There is no mention of the trade on front of card, but is mentioned on reverse. According to site guidelines, the trade has to be listed on the front of the card to be listed with the new team. Can this card be changed to Packers instead of Eagles? Or at least be linked to both teams. I have found other cards here with the same condition. 

Yeah, I understand the rule, but as a team collector, it annoys me a bit.  To me, if the player is pictured in a Browns uniform, I want the card. I'm sure I've missed some on my want list because they're (correctly) listed with their new team.  Just a conflict between my personal quirks and the site rules.  I almost wish both teams could be linked, but that's just a way of feeding my own preference.

I wish they could be linked to both teams as well for the benefit of player/ team collectors like we are. In this case by rules of this site tho, Packers should be primary team in this case. Thanks for your thoughts and for anyone else's thoughts on this. 

The guidelines DO NOT state the "trade statement" has to be on the front of the card.  From the FAQ:

• Use team in any "Traded to, Signed with, Now with, etc." statement printed on the card

In the case of the 1964 Jim Ringo card, the trade statement and the team PHIL. EAGLES is on the back of the card.

GrandpaS wrote:

Same question but different sport. How would the 1964 Philadelphia Jim Ringo card #78 get listed? Database has Eagles. There is no mention of the trade on front of card, but is mentioned on reverse. According to site guidelines, the trade has to be listed on the front of the card to be listed with the new team. Can this card be changed to Packers instead of Eagles? Or at least be linked to both teams. I have found other cards here with the same condition. 

The guidelines under the level 2 permissions state this word for word: "If the front of the card indicates that the player has been traded to a new team, the team associated with the card should be the new team". Front of the card, not the reverse, if I'm understanding this correctly. 

The card you mentioned was an uncorrected error and should've had the Eagles on the front. The Permissions page/quiz mentions the front of the card because that's where most of the "traded to" or "signed with" printing was done.

Even though it was an UER, shouldn't the guidelines / pemissions still apply so that new people like myself won't go making those kinds of changes. Based on how that is stated, I could've changed it myself but I won't do that. I'm too new here and want to glean all I can from things like this. I don't want to make any enemies over something like this. I want to gain members trust if I would ever make any changes that I've done it with as much info available to me.