2023-24 Upper Deck Hockey Forum

Hello Community,

I have been asked by admin to open a thread to discuss and provide evidence as to whether 2023-24 Swagnificent should be listed as a variation of the base set or as a separate insert set (as it currently is on TCDb). As I was building my argument, I have come to suspect that the inclusion of Swagnificent as a variation in the 2022-23 set is wrong.  So, the question is - is Swagnificent a variation or insert? Consider the following: 

1. Swag has been listed as a variation in last years set (2022-23).  This despite having the word mark "Swagnificent" on the face of the card and on the back of the card which arguably makes it an insert;

2. The Suit variation card (see for example 2022-23 #16 Pastrnak) which arguably looks no different and are of the same general swaggy nature have no word mark Swagnificent. The only difference between a suit variation and a base card is photo front and back making it a true variation.  The word mark Swagnificent was introduced on cards that were issued starting in Series 2 of the 2022-23 set;

3. Base set cards in the 2023-24 set have foil stamped logos while the Swagnificent cards do not - they have team colour logos. 

All of this leads me to believe that 2023-24 Swagnificent has been corrected categorized as in insert but that 2022-23 Swagnificent has been incorrectly categorized as a variation.

I will post this thread on the 2022-23 forum as well. 

So is it a different version of a card with the same numbering in the regular set?  That would imply parallel to me.

I would think too, but take for instance 2022 and 2023 Topps Baseball.  They had photo variations for years and then in 2023 and 2024 decided to make photo variations for every single card in the base set rather than a select few, thus creating a sub-set of cards that are no longer considered variations of the base set but parallel. Different version of the base card with the same numbering, but not a variation.  Same as High Gloss etc  in this Upper Deck Set.

For me, I think the defining characteristic is the adding the word mark "Swagnificent" which makes the card different from the base card and hence an insert set.  They are not parallels as that would require a Swagnificent card for every base card issued. 

I don't think a parallel requires a parallel of the entire checklist.  BBM and Epoch in Japan do loads of color and foil signature parallels, but usually only for about 20% of the total checklist.  Still a parallel set and not a variation.  At least I am not adding sets with 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f because there are foil versions in silver, gold, red, pink, sky blue and hologram.  I add those as parallel sets.

I would call it a parallel

Here is the link https://www.tcdb.com/Checklist.cfm/sid/392443/2023-24-Upper-Deck---Swagnificent

How it is a parallel when the images are different?

With that said, I think the difference between the two years with Swagnificent actually being marked on the card is why it got placed into the Inserts section. If that marking wasn't there it probably would have been inputted as a VAR.

Mentions of Swagnificent I found of them are as them being a photo variation. So that's probably how they should be listed. Wouldn't be the first set to have VARs listed separately and then moved into the base checklist. 

I agree Jimetal if not a parallel a variation would also be a great idea

Couple of clarification points:

• Partial parallels are still parallels, and are listed as such on TCDB. Doesn't matter how many cards it is.
• Many hockey checklists are uploaded by individuals who simply mass upload data from Upper Deck checklists with no regard to the TCDB conventions. I speak from experience, as I have submitted probably over 1000 IRs in the last six months to work on straightening out various update sets from just one product. Admittedly, this could have been an honest mistake, but I digress.

Cards that have a different image but share card numbers with the base set are typically listed as variations. My initial thought is that this would be no different. These are certainly not an insert - they are either variations or a parallel. 

I don't know enough about the product to say one way or another. I know that my inclination would be to list them as variations within the base set, but I could see it as a partial parallel as well. At this point, I don't think we have a clear cut definition to draw the line between the two.

Sounds like a VAR to me.  There was a Big League set I think where there were VARs that looked completely different and had their nickname on the card if I remember correctly.  And this also shared the card number of the base card.