1999-00 Pacific Paramount Hockey Forum

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?

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. 

I agree with Billy.

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

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?

We've been removing instances where members did this.