1989 Topps Cap'n Crunch Baseball Forum

http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewAllSet.cfm/sid/9087/1989-K-Mart-Dream-Team?PageIndex=1#217389

http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewSet.cfm/sid/33486/1989-Topps-Cap'n-Crunch

Here are two sets printed by Topps but used for advertising a cereal and a retail chain. Both have the Topps logo clearly printed on front and back.  Yet in the name of the sets, one uses "Topps" and the other doesn't.  There are many other examples such as these, some even more vague with the company that printed them and listed in the set name are difficult to find other than in the copyright.  Collectors who wish to have their collection in the same order refleccted by this site will be confused, not knowing what order the cards will fall in because some are by the printing company and others by the company being advertised.

I think it is time a rule is set (it may already be but just not observed when members upload sets) that standardizes how these sets are named.  My opinion, these would be "Cap'n Crunch Baseball" and K-Mart Dream Team".  Forget the manufaturer as they were issued by the company being advertised.

I understand where you are coming from on this, Sandy.  When I started entering my collection into the database several years ago, the sets were already listed in the database.  I would have looked originally for "Cap'n Crunch Baseball" and "K-Mart Dream Team" as you suggested, but sometimes they were listed otherwise.  On the other hand, I totally get that Topps made them, is printed on them, and that some folks would go that route instead.  

When we added the sub-category for food issue sets, I think that helped a lot.  But where do you draw the line on that, really?  K-mart clearly doesn't go in there.  Do we need one for store issues?  What about insurance company issues?  Newspapers and Journals?  

I think this is tricky. If it were "Capn' Crunch Baseball (by Topps)" or something like that, I'm not sure that would help people much.  It's that first word in the set name that is defining the order in which they are listed.  

I'm interested in what some of the more long-term users of the site have to say about this.  I guess ultimately the search tool, which is pretty darn good on this site, is the saving grace for people who don't think of looking under "Topps Cap'n Crunch" or whatever.  So maybe it's a convenience thing rather than a necessity.

--Kent

I'd have to agree. The companies just contracted with Topps, Upper Deck, etc. to produce cards for them. But it was the retail company, NOT Topps, UD, etc; that issued the cards. If I got my cards from a cereal box I consider them a Kellogg's, Post, Quaker Oats, Ralston Purnia, etc.  Not a Topps, Upper Deck, etc.  If I got my cards from McDonald's then to me they're a McDonald's card.

We have the same problem/mess with police and team issues. It was the team or police/fire departments that issued the cards. So many of the sets have sponsors in the set name. They were just sponsors, NOT producers or issuers of the cards.

It comes down to the confusion of having the printer, producer, sponsors, and issuer all being named on the cards.

If we are to include the card producer/printer then we'd have to change some of these: Xographs Kellogg's, 1975 Marden-Kane and Rosenfeld, Sirowitz, & Lawson McDonald's Quaterbacks, MSA Post Cereal, Topps Post Cereal, Upper Deck Post Cereal. And all those MSA discs.

Then again, some may say, "the more information and detail, the better."

I think it all comes down to what Admin wants as set titles. Do they want the printer, the producer, the sponsors, or the issuer in the set titles?

Kent, obviously you are thinking the same as I am.  My issue with this is that it is not standard for all issues, food or otherwise.  Both these are clearly made by Topps yet one uses Topps in the name and the other not. Look at these listings:

1985 Woolworth Topps Collectors' Series

1986 Woolworth Topps Collectors' Series

1987 Topps Woolworth Baseball Highlights

1988 Woolworth Baseball Highlights

1989 Topps Woolworth Baseball Highlights

1990 Woolworth Baseball Highlights

1991 Woolworth Baseball Highlights

What's worse in these, if a collector has a 1985 card, there is nothing on the card that identifies it as a Woolworth's issue.  I found myself frequently in that situation.

If we are trying to make this site as useful as possible for all collectors including newbies, the I think we owe it to them to make sure there is the correct information for their searches to come up with the correct listings.  A member, once he sees the standard nomenclature of sets will know where to look.

Just ranting about a frustration I have had since I became a member (under a second ID).

I've noticed this also. The proper order for set titles. I believe it should be Year/Producer/Issuer (as long as they are prominent), e.g., 1985 Topps Woolworth not 1985 Woolworth Topps.

sandy's singles wrote:

Kent, obviously you are thinking the same as I am.  My issue with this is that it is not standard for all issues, food or otherwise.  Both these are clearly made by Topps yet one uses Topps in the name and the other not. Look at these listings:

1985 Woolworth Topps Collectors' Series

1986 Woolworth Topps Collectors' Series

1987 Topps Woolworth Baseball Highlights

1988 Woolworth Baseball Highlights

1989 Topps Woolworth Baseball Highlights

1990 Woolworth Baseball Highlights

1991 Woolworth Baseball Highlights

What's worse in these, if a collector has a 1985 card, there is nothing on the card that identifies it as a Woolworth's issue.  I found myself frequently in that situation.

If we are trying to make this site as useful as possible for all collectors including newbies, the I think we owe it to them to make sure there is the correct information for their searches to come up with the correct listings.  A member, once he sees the standard nomenclature of sets will know where to look.

Just ranting about a frustration I have had since I became a member (under a second ID).

Oh boy, it's Ultra vs. Fleer Ultra all over again.

Form ranks people, let the battle of December 2016 begin!

-Tom

Not quite Tom.  I think this is two different issues (battles).  Just look at the Woolworth's sets as an example.

I'm cool with 1975 Marden-Kane and Rosenfeld, Sirowitz, & Lawson McDonald's Quarterbacks.

As a long-time collector, I mostly know where my sets came from. However, looking back 30 years ago, there are some things I forget. I found a 33-card boxed set a whiole back in my collection that my next door neighbor had given to me back in the mid-1980s. I think it was one of these Woolworth sets. Not sure. It doesn't SAY Woolworth on it ANYWHERE. Same as the ones I got at Eckerd Drugs or Rite-Aid. So, I personally think we should have the cards listed in the database as "198x Topps <league leading limited edition set name whatever>" as the set name. IFF (that's a mathematics term, look it up) we know definitively where/who issued it, then we should add "(issued by/from XXX Store)" to the name. Again, this is for when the cards bear NO markings of the store on them whatsoever. (I have seen plenty of these - I think most of them were issued by Fleer.)

A couple years ago, I bought a couple lots of cards (Gwynn, Frank Thomas, & Pedro). Trying to figure out what I had was painful. Copyright dates (if visible with the naked eye) were sometimes the previous year and figuring out which UD product the insert came from was tedious. When it came to these type cards, if the card just said "League Leaders" on it, but we had it listed as "CVS", I never would have found them. I would have either gone away from here disappointed I couldn't find stuff, or raised major heck. (Probably the heck part, but I digress.)

We need to do whatever we can to provide as much info as possible, but still make it easy to find a single card or the complete set. There are too many cards out there for us to know them all by sight (as I'm sure most of us on here can do with the main flagship sets of our favorite sport).

And, I'm not opposed to us putting "1991 Ultra (Fleer)" as the name of that set. :) (Since someone mentioned Ultra.) More info, better.

It is amazing how we almost have a hive mind LOL ......... I have been discussing this / these types of problems as well adding new minor league sets for hockey. How many "descriptives" as I have been calling them are needed, I have been doing as what is on here but yes there is no set guidelines as to whhat is CORRECT. Thats why I keep asking for people to add this league or that league to my sets. I keep forgeting to do it, plus the sponsor thing as well, just how many sponsors is expected in the title, and ultimately how were the sets gotten. From the team, etc. Just like Cigars puts it. I have lots of questions and hate overwhelming Admin so sadly I just keep follwoing the "herd" and doing as what I see already on here.