View Full Version : sporting life team checklist question

03-20-2008, 11:27 PM
Posted By: <b>tom mcoonell</b><p>anyone know where i can find a team checklist for M-116 SPORTING LIFE ?

03-21-2008, 08:19 AM
Posted By: <b>Mark T</b><p><img src="http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x198/SquareframeRamly/a22m116vcbc.jpg">?t=1206101983

03-21-2008, 07:16 PM
Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>Lew's VCBC article and checklist has been the standard reference on the set. It does have several errors in the series ascriptions, however, so they have to be used with caution. It was also done before the discovery of the Bates Cincinnati variation, of which I believe only one is known. So if you're doing team checklists, add that one in!<br /><br />Tim

03-23-2008, 08:33 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Is there a listing available of which cards were in which series? What was posted above only lists one series per player, but many of the players were distributed in multiple series.

03-23-2008, 09:01 PM
Posted By: <b>scott brockelman</b><p>I do not believe the Seymour team variation was known at the time either Lew did the report as well. <br /><br />Scott

03-23-2008, 11:14 PM
Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>For the main issue of 24 series of 12, the cards were not distributed in more than one series. <br /><br />But at some point Sporting Life began to repackage some cards again in team sets. This is why you find some cards with the 300 Series backs which were originally issued in low series with one of the other backs. Oddly, the envelopes for these series have numbers above 50, which means some kind of numbering code was in effect, since there were apparently no Series 25-50. Unlike the envelopes for 1-24, the envelopes for the team sets don't contain a list of the players included, only the team name, so it's basically impossible to assign these Team set cards to a series. And I'm not sure there's a lot of point to doing so anyway. <br /><br />But as far as Series 1-24 go, each card appears in one and only one series. <br /><br />Sounds complicated but that is the best I can do to clarify. The parenthetical numbers from Lew's article (seen in the image above) are accurate with about 5 exceptions. <br /><br />Scott is right-- the Seymour variation is also missing from Lew's list.<br /><br />Tim