| frankbmd |
05-11-2018 05:30 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianp-beme
(Post 1775823)
Short answer is the creator of the Monster, Mr. Frank, decided upon as easy a system as possible so there was no confusion and anxiety among the folks participating, and perhaps for Frank himself...it is a massive set of over 500 cards. Thus no extra points for the type of back, HOF status, big name players etc. except for the well known noted scarcities such as Wagner and Plank.
I created the E90-1 E-Monster (aka The Kraken) thread. Since it is a smaller set with less complexity (but plenty of levels of scarcity) I gave, with the help of fellow collectors, a good chunk of the tougher cards various weights based upon both scarcity and demand. It was a somewhat painful process but now things are settled in and I think people can easily compute their Kraken number.
Make sure you post your Monster number on the official thread...otherwise Frank might just overlook your post, and your Monster number will be lost for eternity.
Brian
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmount76
(Post 1775826)
...Or perhaps Frank will give you the most simplistic, yet extraordinarily convoluted answer that will make you simply wish you never asked. ;)
|
Simplistic, yes, but nevertheless thought provoking. Soon after its inception, the issue of a null Monster Number was rightfully raised. If everyone had a Monster Number, it could never be lost, even if one didn’t know what it was or that they even had one, and more importantly even if they never found it. Philosophically the null Monster Number didn’t pass muster though and roughly 7 billion people were denied the privilege of politically incorrect inclusion in this increasingly holy fraternity. (Please note both political and religious references in the same sentence.:D)
Like the Monster Number, a census basically counts heads. Granted, with additional input a census might be embellished to count heads with acne, or even create ranges to delineate the population of folks with between 11 and 20 zits. And with additional infinite input, a census could eventually prove that we are all different, unique creatures. I could be creature number 2,517,490 and you could be creature number 4,613,877. But such a differentiation was never the intent of the Monster Number thread. The genetic code of your T206 cards is irrelevant to your simplistic Monster Number.
Counting from 1 to 520 is a relatively straight forward process that is within the capabilities of the vast majority of board members (There have been a few exceptions). With each additional rule or caveat, the complexity of the system increases. Additional credit for the big “four” seemed justified. It was also done in a manner to create the perfect Monster Number of 1000, a pleasing round number indeed. Other proposals to add rules and therefore complexity to the Monster Number have fallen on deaf ears, and I’m deafer now than I was then.
Thanks for your question.:eek: |
