Posted By | Message |
vrooomed
Posts: 14,938
Joined: Dec 2012
|
Tuesday, November 13, 2018 11:00 PM | |
We received an IR for this set simply stating:
Total cards is 269
However, when I went investigating this, I found Beckett to state that the set has 267 cards (with no #262 or #265 listed). However, we do have #265 listed, so we have 268 total cards on our checklist.
But wait, there's more!
Cards #251 - #269 were ONLY available as SGAs and were not included in packs.
My proposal:
I'm thinking we make the base set 250 total cards. Move #251 - #269 (minus #262) to a Arena Giveaway (promo) set.
Anyone else?
-------------------------------
-- Dan -- Note: Please see my profile for more info regarding trading (section updated 3/4/2024). I have added a large portion of my inventory to the site, and currently have trading turned on (details are in my profile).
|
|
|
|
Billy Kingsley
Posts: 7,512
Joined: Aug 2011
|
Tuesday, November 13, 2018 11:52 PM | |
I think if it's numbered as part of the base set, it should be listed with the base set. I also feel that the O-Pee-Chee updates in UD that continue the numbering, and the Upper Deck updates in SP Authentic, should also be listed with the sets they are continuing the number of, and not an insert in another set. but that's not how Admin wants it. What the card is matters to me, not how it was packed.
-------------------------------
VERY slow trading due to health problems. Not transferrable so safe to trade with, just moving is painful and can't always access the cards. Cardboard History My COMC New Collection Website: Cardboard History Gallery (Still under construction) Tips on how to make your scans look like the card does in hand (No more washed out, fuzzy scans!):
|
|
|
|
trauty
Posts: 228
Joined: Nov 2016
|
Wednesday, November 14, 2018 2:20 AM | |
|
|
|
|
sandyrusty
Posts: 4,646
Joined: Dec 2014
|
Wednesday, November 14, 2018 4:30 AM | |
Ditto for the reason that, when I have just the card in my hand, I have no idea how it was packed and issued. If I have #265 of set XXX, then I will go to set XXX, and end up frustrated because the set only lists 250 cards. Some card references did this in the late 90s-early 00s and it frustrates me to no end as the card itself has no indication that it was issued with another set.
-------------------------------
Bruno -------- Check my Profile page to see my 2023 Goals and my Lists of sets near completion (5 cards or less) or sets getting close (less than 100 cards missing and 75% complete). https://www.tcdb.com/Forum.cfm/Page/B/ID/0/?MODE=VIEW&ThreadID=25745&C=0
|
|
|
|
jasongerman9
Posts: 1,902
Joined: Jan 2015
|
Wednesday, November 14, 2018 5:31 AM | |
For accurate listing, it should be listed under how it was packaged, if that’s the direction the site leans. For benefit of users, as others have mentioned, it should be listed as a continuation. I also agree with Billy and others but would like to see consistency across the site.
In addition, if they are numbered as a base set continuation and are not to be listed there, a note of that on the front page of the set would be helpful. I think that goes for many sets on this Database. We could probably solve a lot of confusion utilizing Release Notes more. Just my two cents, and I hope it’s understandable because I’ve not yet had my coffee.
-------------------------------
I'll never quit collecting entirely, but I am downsizing. Check out my COMC store and help me thin out what I don't want so I can buy cards that I do want. See something you like? Send me a message on here, and we can knock the price down quite a bit. I'll even take a bit of a loss if it means getting you a card you really want.
|
|
|
|
Lugnut80
Posts: 731
Joined: Oct 2017
|
Wednesday, November 14, 2018 6:04 AM | |
There’s precedent on the baseball side for listing sets with number continuation seperately. I can think of the Conlon Collection and 81 Topps traded off the top of my head. So I would say keep them separate.
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Billy Kingsley
Posts: 7,512
Joined: Aug 2011
|
Wednesday, November 14, 2018 6:54 AM | |
Conlon Collection is a bit different. That was a series that ran multiple years but continued the same numbering system. The OPC cards in Upper Deck are usually just small update of the OPC set of the same year. The designs change every year.
What UD is doing is basically issuing series 2 as an insert in a different set's packaging, something Panini also did with hockey but does not do for any other topic. The designs and numbering starts anew each year.
The year from a few years ago- 2015-16 I think- the OPC update started with a new numbering system, so it was not truly part of the original set. It was an insert that used the same design and parallels.
-------------------------------
VERY slow trading due to health problems. Not transferrable so safe to trade with, just moving is painful and can't always access the cards. Cardboard History My COMC New Collection Website: Cardboard History Gallery (Still under construction) Tips on how to make your scans look like the card does in hand (No more washed out, fuzzy scans!):
|
|
|
|
vrooomed
Posts: 14,938
Joined: Dec 2012
|
Wednesday, November 14, 2018 11:09 AM | |
Some of you are then suggesting that even if Topps comes out with a card 662 for the 2012 set tomorrow, and it's only available online, we should include it in the 2012 set?
Well that just goes against everything Admin has been instructing us to do all along.
I see that there are way too many dissenting opinions on this site, that don't follow the direction given by Admin. From now on, I will only contact Admin for issues like this. Thanks for opening my eyes to this dissension.
-------------------------------
-- Dan -- Note: Please see my profile for more info regarding trading (section updated 3/4/2024). I have added a large portion of my inventory to the site, and currently have trading turned on (details are in my profile).
|
|
|
|
captkirk42
Posts: 2,268
Joined: May 2011
|
Wednesday, November 14, 2018 1:02 PM | |
I just had a thought. In siturations were like this set (and the UD Masterpieces Football set) where some card numbers were not published could the checklist reflect that by having that number in the list but have a red "Card never produced"? Or would that increase the card "count" and make a set of 300 cards that only had 298 cards produced show a full 300 card count?
-------------------------------
I collect: Baseball, Football, Hockey, Mostly Vintage pre1980, My Homie teams - Washington/Baltimore Teams Senators (Twins, Rangers), Expos/Nationals, Redskins, Capitals, Bullets/Wizards - HOFers - Non-sport (mostly TV shows and movies). My Trade List is very much a work in progress CaptKirk42s Trading Card Blog Curly W Cards Strive For '65 YouTube klandersen42
|
|
|
|
vrooomed
Posts: 14,938
Joined: Dec 2012
|
Wednesday, November 14, 2018 1:08 PM | |
We've been removing instances where members did this.
-------------------------------
-- Dan -- Note: Please see my profile for more info regarding trading (section updated 3/4/2024). I have added a large portion of my inventory to the site, and currently have trading turned on (details are in my profile).
|
|
|
|