1991 Bowman Baseball Forum

Discussion topic...

In a case like https://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/151/cid/70255?PageIndex=1 where the card number is "supposed" to be 255 but the number actually on the card is 246, shouldn't we be listing it as card number 246 with a "UER: Should be #255"?

Yes, you are correct. It should be listed as the actual card number printed on the card.

How would that affect the order of the checklist?  There were a couple in 1986 Topps also.

I'm not sure I agree with C2C this time.  I mean, i think his comment matches the site rules.  But the card was intended to be #255, and if we were employees of the card company we'd have been treating it as card 255.  It's on the checklist cards of this set as #255.  I think it's #255.

On the other hand, how do you determine "intent"?  How do we know that in 1976 Hostess (of Twinkie fame) didn't INTEND to publish the cards with #151-300 as a continuation of their 1975 set, but then forgot to reset the printer plates or whatever?  There was no checklist for that set.

Or more to the point, perhaps the card you point out (Griffey Sr.) is actually correct.  Perhaps the Griffey Jr. card was intended to be 255 and both it and the checklist are the UER cards?  And there have been plenty of checklist error cards over the years, so that's plausible.

I think this is #255, but it's a grey area.

Sure makes finding this card using the filters difficult if it is in the database under a different card number than what is printed on the card...

I agree with your point about the checklist card #701.  It should probably have a UER since no card was ever printed with #255 and Ken Griffey's card number is actually #246.  

kents_stuff wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with C2C this time.  I mean, i think his comment matches the site rules.  But the card was intended to be #255, and if we were employees of the card company we'd have been treating it as card 255.  It's on the checklist cards of this set as #255.  I think it's #255.

On the other hand, how do you determine "intent"?  How do we know that in 1976 Hostess (of Twinkie fame) didn't INTEND to publish the cards with #151-300 as a continuation of their 1975 set, but then forgot to reset the printer plates or whatever?  There was no checklist for that set.

Or more to the point, perhaps the card you point out (Griffey Sr.) is actually correct.  Perhaps the Griffey Jr. card was intended to be 255 and both it and the checklist are the UER cards?  And there have been plenty of checklist error cards over the years, so that's plausible.

I think this is #255, but it's a grey area.

I see the merit of both.  Using the actual card number makes sense for identifying the card, if you don't know what it is, and don't have the whole set.  Using the intended card number makes sense from a cataloging standpoint.  There should be a 246, and there shouldn't be two 255s.  The fact that both players have the same name only adds to the confusion.  If we each put this set in a binder, probably half of us would put Sr. before or after Jr., and put 247 directly after 245, and the other half would put Sr between 245 and 247.