Discrete or Statistical Errors on Cards

[G1911]

There are a ton of errors like this in the vintage Topps sets. Which makes sense, they weren’t a secret or anything but before the baseball encyclopedias came out historical records were more difficult to access, and also manually input (I assume that Topps today is just drawing from a database and using automation to fill out card back statistics) which is always prone to error.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by G1911

There are a ton of errors like this in the vintage Topps sets. Which makes sense, they weren’t a secret or anything but before the baseball encyclopedias came out historical records were more difficult to access, and also manually input (I assume that Topps today is just drawing from a database and using automation to fill out card back statistics) which is always prone to error.

I have a list of more than 80 statistical errors, and I find new ones whenever I go through a number of cards.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by John1941

I have a list of more than 80 statistical errors, and I find new ones whenever I go through a number of cards.

I used to note them on my master set spreadsheets, but then gave up and removed that column. Whenever I see one now, I just go check other copies and see if it was ever corrected. The answer is always "no, there's not a new variation!"

[JollyElm]

s-l1600.jpg

[Exhibitman]

Greatest. Error. Ever.

[Tyruscobb]

Nice catch, and interesting thoughts. I’ll never own the 1969 Mantle. First, it is not a playing days Mantle. He retired after 1968 season. I don’t see how it is any different than a modern Mantle insert. Secondly, the Mick looks old and worn out.

[Bill77]

I caught the error on the 2002 Marty Cordova card and got my name in the August 2002 Beckett for it.

[brunswickreeves]

The great thing about his 1969 Topps is it captures stats from his final 1968 season (unlike 1968 Topps which is only up to 1967 season stats) and thus culminates his career grand totals and averages.