1993 Stadium Club Football Forum

Foil loss over the years is damage, not documented here. Missing foil on a random example is a production error, not documented here. Missing foil, or missing word, or something that was a mistake that the card company noticed and corrected, DEFINITELY listed here.

Admin has made it abundantly clear over the years what kind of variations are guaranteed spots in the checklists and what isn't.

Again, If it's the same foil, it was obviously an omission during a print run in the setup. If it's a ddifferent color, (which would mean the sheets had to be foil stamped twice, there could have been small (or mass) quantities that missed out on the second foil stamp. According to Admin's rules, it's a printing glitch, no matter HOW MANY were made. However, Admin allows some of these to find a home here, depending on various criteria. But Admin must approve these exceptions.

(And to be honest, I'm getting tired of having to reiterate this every 2 months or so.)

2 months? Seems more like every 2 days.

You guys are funny. I had a response from ADMIN, a while back, if a card had been recognized in number and verified by publications, reports, members etc. that it should included. That's all. As far as rehashing this topic over and over, it's not me, look at the better than 50% forum posts that need clear answers on variations and errors. So don't just point a finger at me!

All I'm trying to do is get ALL my cards accounted for in this fine database. So if you don't want to hear my opinions, What can I do?

1. Request that my card[s] be included using IR?

2. Can I add them to Inserts, although they are not?

3. Add a comment? Video? Trivia? regarding the cards.

4. A Collection? Could I make a separate collection of these, complete with scans and a brief comment?

5. Or how about a  "not recognized by TCDB" area? Ha that's a good one!

Meanwhile, how do I inform the rest of the members that these cards exist, even if the powers to be don't acknowledge them? I know many members are interested. I'm sure some members have experienced this, any suggestions. Please LMK, so I can get off the hotseat. lol.

~BOB~

Bob, here goes....

We have heard your opinions. We get to hear them every time someone asks about "Should this card be listed here?" We get it. You want every blip, dot, color variance, etc. listed. And that's your opinion, and that's great.

Unfortunately for you (and those who also feel this way), that's not how Admin wishes this database to operate.

So, to answer your questions:

1 - Best path. If it's deemed to meet the site's rules and guidelines, it will be added, if not, you'll get an explanation. If a Level 8 member's explanation is not sufficient for you, I will request Admin to send you a personal note to explain the reasons It cannot and will not be added.

2 - No, this would cause us to have to remove the card.

3 - Yes / Yes / Yes - all good additions

4 - Sure - This would also work

5 - That would have to be done on another site, not here, for obvious reasons

Start a Blog, make your own web site, request e-mail addresses from those that are interested and create an e-mail notification system when an ink spot is discovered or another blank back has shown up (sorry, I'm not selling my 1985 Topps Rod Carew blank back!), whatever you want to do.

And as far as rehashing, yes, it is you. You continue to voice opinions. Please, if you want to help, voice site policies. That would be a help to these threads asking about err/vars.

All good suggestions, I might consider all or some.

I have to find ADMIN's response and forward it to you, just for edification.

And I'm not referring to blank backs, wrong front and backs, miscuts etc.

Rehashing, that's a joke! I've have cited policies, if you can find them, Where on the database can we find ALL site policies on ERR/VAR/COR cards.  AND NO IT's NOT me, doesn't my opinion fall under freedom of speech, and why should I be pointed when there are many other members that want clear answers to ERR/VAR/COR cards. Once again, "deaf ears", I'm not campaigning for a recently discovered ink spots, blob etc. [one of a kind], not verified anywhere or by anybody, but I am campaigning for cards that we all have in our collections [many of them] that have not yet been recognized by TCDB. Or where 1 ERR/VAR/COR  card  in a set is recognized but other similar cards in the same set are not.

I'm done for now, but I'm still not giving up on some sort of reform. I don't want to argue the point anymore on this post, it's pretty clear what I believe in. Sorry to all, but I had to respond.

My apologies to Dan, ADMIN and TCDB members if I "rattled" the system.

~BOB~

Bob and Dan, in somewhat different ways, both make the point that the current system of informing the site's users of various rules and policies has some shortcomings. For example, the site posted all of the current the rules for Note entries over a year ago, but many members still do not seem to be aware of that, possibly because they are under the FAQ tab or possibly because some people just don't care to look for guidance. Speaking just for myself, I think it would be helpful to have a "TCDB Rules" page under the General Info tab to put this information in an easily located place. It won't help the people who aren't interested in doing things the right way, but it should reduce the frequency of forum threads rehashing the same issues multiple times.

Even if it's a different colored foil, I can't wrap my head around nearly half the print run missing it being a simple "print glitch".  But without records from those on the production line at the time, I don't know how it could be confirmed either way in the absolute.

Even limited quantities of some that are clearly print glitches (i.e. https://www.tradingcarddb.com/Checklist.cfm/sid/104873/1982-Topps---Blackless) are fine and generally get recognized by the hobby (I'm kind of surprised the Blueless aren't listed here too).  The 90T Frank Thomas is recognized universally, others on the same sheet affected by the same issue only by some; the same cause impacting Clemens and Seaver in 86T at similar scarcity probably only known by player collectors of those two and some EV collectors, the Curt Wilkerson in that set known by almost no one.  Other clear design differences are ignored (border patterns/text justification/INC vs INC. on several early Donruss sets, cropping differences in quite a few of 92 Bowman gold foils, E sheet star code differences in 91 & 92 Bowman, etc.) or relegated to Release Notes (87 Donruss back rotation).

I've honestly given up trying to understand why different sites and grading companies recognize certain variations and not others as none follow their own stated rules 100% of the time.  Significant hobby interest or price differences override the "rules" as exceptions for all of them.  I just wish there was one that followed a "whatever a master set or player supercollector would be interested in".  Then we'd get a clearer picture on whether there's significant hobby interest or pricing differences on others since many are only known to those that explore niche websites catering to EV.

YES!, finally some positive responses. Very constructive ideas. Nice guys. Listen to your members.

I have at least 200 1988 Donruss baseball cards in my collection that I can't list here because I don't know if I have the pack issued or factory set version. The borders on at least one of them is a mirror image, meaning the opposite, of the one scanned here. 

I've tried to get it identified but was met with not even total indifference but outright hostility, being told it didn't matter because it didn't affect what it sells for.. That's wrong. The exact opposite of true collecting! But  I don't have enough knowledge to determine it on my own, and I don't have the inclination to buy a sealed factory set to find out for myself.