Discounterparts...who has the most??

[JollyElm]

144. Discounterpart (also Willie McCoverage or Ubiquitous Erving)
A player who is featured on one or more other cards (of far lesser value) in the same set containing his rookie card.


There have been a bunch of players featured on multiple cards in their cardboard rookie years (most notably, Willie McCovey on two in 1960 and 'Dr. J' in all of his ABA glory on three in 1972), but a new contestant suddenly emerged and pushed himself into the lead(?)...Roger frickin' Staubach (shout out to anyone whose girlfriend/wife forces you to watch the 'Making The Team' Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders show...even though they're not doing it naked)!!!

He is featured prominently on FOUR separate cards in the 1972 Topps set:

1. Regular card
2. In Action card
3. Passing Leaders card*
4. Super Bowl card

(Here's a screen grab of the quartet from eBay.)

1972staubachcards2.jpg

Does anyone know of a player (from any sport) who has appeared on more rookie year cards in a regular, major set (Bond Bread, etc., does not apply) than that??


*That card made me check out other leaders cards, and holy heck!! The 1971 NFC receptions leader (Tucker on the Giants) had a scant 59, and the AFC leader (Biletnikoff) had only 61. Even with less games back then, those are crazy low numbers. Then again, it was the 'pound the ball into the mud' run-game era.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Asterisk, but Rick Barry 1971 Topps has a base card, is on two of the leaders cards, and is on a Topps Trios sticker.

[JollyElm]

Judge's ruling (5/4 split): disqualification.

Must be a part of the same, specific set.

[Peter_Spaeth]

By the way can get to 3 on 71 Dan issel as well, or 4 with a disqualified sticker.

[BobC]

Look at the '80-'81 Topps basketball set. Though the cards normally come as three separate mini panels/cards, with perforations, I believe the unseparated three panels are considered as complete, actual cards. Assuming so, in Bird's case alone, he's on one three panel card with Dr. J and Magic (the big rookie card), but also appears on other three panel cards with Marques Johnson and Jack Sikma, another with Bill Cartwright and John Drew, then again with Fred Brown and John Brewer, and then at least one more with Scott May and Jack Sikma. Oh, and he also appears on a Celtics team Topps Pin-Up card from '80-'81 as well, if you count that. So that's at least 5 (maybe 6) different Bird rookie cards from that one set/year. And there could be even more different combo cards I didn't quickly come across. Also, I didn't check to see how many there may be for Magic, he could even have more than Bird for all I know.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think there are four Magics, the Bird Erving Magic, the "rookie" pose with Van Breda Kolff instead of Bird, and then the two All Star poses one with Cheeks and Boone and one with Long and Boone.

[Exhibitman]

Earl Campbell has four 1979 Topps cards: his 1979 RC #390; 1979 Topps NFL Leaders Walter Payton-Earl Campbell #3; Team Leaders w/ Willie Anderson, Ken Burrough, Elvin Bethea #301; and Record Breaker #331. It was the only year he signed with Topps so those are his only career-issued Topps cards.

[ALBB]

How about a 1970 Boog Powell

reg card, AS card, playoff card, LL card

[Exhibitman]

I know it isn't rookie but the 1983 OPC set has 8 different Wayne Gretzky cards: regular, AS, Oilers TL, LL cards (scoring, assists, goals, shorthanded goals, game wining goals)

[JollyElm]

Rookie card year, people, rookie card year.

[ALBB]

Oh

[BobC]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Rookie card year, people, rookie card year.

So do you think the '80-'81 Topps basketball rookies of Larry Bird are at the top of list, for now at least?

[JollyElm]

For me, going all the way into the 80's didn't even enter my mind (I was thinking 1973 as the traditional cut-off point), but since that wasn't set out in my original post, Bird is indeed the word.

[Harliduck]

This one immediately came to mind! The McCovey is the coolest though...

[bobc88]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Bird is indeed the word.

I'll nominate '78/'79 Topps (or OPC) Mike Bossy for the tie. A couple years closer to '73...

115 Regular card
1 Highlight
63 Goal Leaders
67 PPG Leaders
201 Islanders Team

[frankhardy]

2001 Topps Traded #T247 Albert Pujols

2001 Topps Traded #T99 Albert Pujols & Ichiro ROY

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by BobC

Look at the '80-'81 Topps basketball set. Though the cards normally come as three separate mini panels/cards, with perforations, I believe the unseparated three panels are considered as complete, actual cards.

Maybe they are now, but if Topps' original intention was for the kids to separate them into individual cards, would they still qualify for purposes of this discussion? To the best of my knowledge, the Bird and Magic rookies are the same card no matter who they're paired with, and if you were to separate them into single cards - I know, , right? - but anyway, if you were to separate them, there'd be no way to tell which players that specific card was originally teamed with (unless they appeared in different positions - left, center, right - on different cards).

[Gr8Beldini]

1972 FB set also shows Steve Owens (regular, action, & leader) and John Brockington (regular, leader, & all-pro) on 3 cards each.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by frankhardy

2001 Topps Traded #T247 Albert Pujols



2001 Topps Traded #T99 Albert Pujols & Ichiro ROY

Also Topps Traded Relics and Topps Traded Gold parallels.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

Maybe they are now, but if Topps' original intention was for the kids to separate them into individual cards, would they still qualify for purposes of this discussion? To the best of my knowledge, the Bird and Magic rookies are the same card no matter who they're paired with, and if you were to separate them into single cards - I know, , right? - but anyway, if you were to separate them, there'd be no way to tell which players that specific card was originally teamed with (unless they appeared in different positions - left, center, right - on different cards).

Then why are cards that are separated, considered as damaged and no better than poor maybe????? I'll follow the money in this argument. I see your point, but will defer to the hobby overall as seeing these as complete cards ONLY with all three panels intact.

For the record, there are effectively three different images of Bird that appear in the set. First, his regular rookie image that appears as only the far left panel, the same one on the main Bird/Erving/Johnson rookie card. That same image, and position, appears on another card with Bill Cartwright and John Drew.

Secondly, there is a different image of Bird that includes a caption of his being a Rebounding Leader, that appears only as a center panel. Bird shows up on two different cards like this, one with Fred Brown and Ron Brewer, and the other wither Brewer again, but Junior Bridgeman replacing Brown on this second card. And I missed mentioning this Bird/Brewer/Bridgeman card in my initial post, so Bird really is on 6 different unique cards in this set.

And lastly, Bird's third image has him captioned as a Scoring Leader that also only appears as a center panel on two different cards. One has him shown with Scott May and Jack Sikma, and the other still includes Sikma, but swaps out May for Marques Johnson.

But it does appear he is on 6 different and unique three-panel cards, not 5, after all. Had he ended up being selected as an All-Star starter, like Magic was, and not just a reserve, he likely would have ended up on a couple more unique cards as well.

[JollyElm]

I decided to do some research regarding the 1980 Topps Hoops conundrum...I mean, if you think a simple image search is research. My goal was to see what Topps considered these guys at the time - single cards containing three images, or three separate cards.

• First, each panel has it's own number, so three different numbers per card. That's a start. If it was supposed to be a single card, then the entire thing should have a single identifying number.

• Secondly, the packaging (wax pack wrapper, wax pack box) indicates the cards were meant to be separated. Look at the graphics of separation...

1980toppsbasetballboxwrapper.jpg

• Now for the monkey wrench ('spanner' for you Brits). It indicates "24 PICTURE CARDS" in every pack. I don't have an unopened pack handy. Hell, if I did I wouldn't be here, I'd be celebrating my newfound wealth maskless (FREEDOM!!!!!!!!) in a Wing Stop somewhere. So the crux of the issue is this, were there 24 individual 'attached' cards or were there simply 8 (24÷3) total 'attached' cards within the waxy confines of a pack??

- Twenty four would end the debate. Each three panel (triptych?) piece of cardboard would be considered a card that kids could separate into individual elements, if they so desired.

- And if the pieces numbered eight, that would solve it in the other direction. Each separated piece would be a card in and of itself.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I decided to do some research regarding the 1980 Topps Hoops conundrum...I mean, if you think a simple image search is research. My goal was to see what Topps considered these guys at the time - single cards containing three images, or three separate cards.

• First, each panel has it's own number, so three different numbers per card. That's a start. If it was supposed to be a single card, then the entire thing should have a single identifying number.

• Secondly, the packaging (wax pack wrapper, wax pack box) indicates the cards were meant to be separated. Look at the graphics of separation...

Attachment 498346

• Now for the monkey wrench ('spanner' for you Brits). It indicates "24 PICTURE CARDS" in every pack. I don't have an unopened pack handy. Hell, if I did I wouldn't be here, I'd be celebrating my newfound wealth maskless (FREEDOM!!!!!!!!) in a Wing Stop somewhere. So the crux of the issue is this, were there 24 individual 'attached' cards or were there simply 8 (24÷3) total 'attached' cards within the waxy confines of a pack??

- Twenty four would end the debate. Each three panel (triptych?) piece of cardboard would be considered a card that kids could separate into individual elements, if they so desired.

- And if the pieces numbered eight, that would solve it in the other direction. Each separated piece would be a card in and of itself.

Why does it make any difference what Topps says or thinks if the entire hobby considers the cards complete as unseparated, three-panel cards? I dare you to name me even one (sane) dealer/seller that would ever think or pause to even consider for an instant separating a Bird rookie card panel from the other two perforated card panels it originally came attached with, before selling it. They might have acquired it already separated, but they sure as hell aren't going to be stupid enough to separate a complete three-panel card to sell the Bird rookie panel all by itself. Unless the other two panels are written on or damaged in some way as to make the overall three panel card virtually worthless otherwise.

Regardless of what Topps may have originally said when first issued, the hobby has pretty much dictated that a complete card from this set is only considered as such if it contains all three unseparated panels. Go online and look up the checklist for this set. I think it is more often shown as the complete three-panel cards, as opposed to the separated mini cards. I always say to follow the money, and in this case, separating the mini cards from their original three-panel cards severely reduces their value. That alone should tell you despite what Topps may have or originally thought or intended for these mini cards, the hobby has dictated that a complete card is all three unseparated panels.

And this isn't exactly an unprecedented occurrence in regards to trading cards either. Look at the 1941 Double Play set. They showed two players per card, but each player had their own unique card number, just like these '80-'81 Topps mini card panels. And just like the '80-'81 Topps basketball cards, you occasionally come across '41 Double Play cards where someone had cut them in half and separated the players into their own, unique mini cards. But in all cases like with the '80-'81 basketball cards, separating them is considered to damage the cards, and severely reduce their value. The only difference is the Double Play cards did not have a factory provided perforation. But again I say to follow the money in determining what is considered a complete and unique card in both of these sets, and hands down and without a doubt, it is only the unseparated cards/panels that are considered as complete and unique cards.

And here's one more argument going back even further, the S74-1 white version silks that originally came with paper/cardboard advertising backs attached. The advertising backs clearly stated they were to be removed, and the silks then used to be sewn into and make pillows, slip covers, whatever. Sort of along the same lines as you saying Topps implied their '80-'81 basketball cards were supposed to be separated into mini panel cards, except for the silks there was no mere implication as to their intended use and removal of the advertising backs, it was flat out printed on the back of each and every S74-1 white silk. And yet, in today's hobby, do true silk collectors go by and collect the white version silks based on what their manufacturer/distributor said/implied was to be done with them......hell no! To really collect the most valuable white silks, you want them complete and unused in any sewing and other projects, AND with advertising backs still attached. SGC won't even grade S74-1 white silks anything but "A" for authentic if they're missing the advertising backs.

So why should '80-'81 Topps basketball cards be treated any differently than these earlier sets, and each three-panel card not be considered as a complete, unique card, as they are obviously looked at and considered by a vast majority of today's hobby world? So put the monkey wrench back in your tool box before you accidentally hurt yourself.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I decided to do some research regarding the 1980 Topps Hoops conundrum...I mean, if you think a simple image search is research. My goal was to see what Topps considered these guys at the time - single cards containing three images, or three separate cards.



• First, each panel has it's own number, so three different numbers per card. That's a start. If it was supposed to be a single card, then the entire thing should have a single identifying number.



• Secondly, the packaging (wax pack wrapper, wax pack box) indicates the cards were meant to be separated. Look at the graphics of separation...



Attachment 498346



• Now for the monkey wrench ('spanner' for you Brits). It indicates "24 PICTURE CARDS" in every pack. I don't have an unopened pack handy. Hell, if I did I wouldn't be here, I'd be celebrating my newfound wealth maskless (FREEDOM!!!!!!!!) in a Wing Stop somewhere. So the crux of the issue is this, were there 24 individual 'attached' cards or were there simply 8 (24÷3) total 'attached' cards within the waxy confines of a pack??



- Twenty four would end the debate. Each three panel (triptych?) piece of cardboard would be considered a card that kids could separate into individual elements, if they so desired.



- And if the pieces numbered eight, that would solve it in the other direction. Each separated piece would be a card in and of itself.

Interesting research Jolly. I would bet the packs were 8 sets of 3 panels, for 24 individually separated "player-cards" in total. 24 x 3 would make for a very thick pack.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Interesting research Jolly. I would bet the packs were 8 sets of 3 panels, for 24 individually separated "player-cards" in total. 24 x 3 would make for a very thick pack.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

That's what I wasn't sure of, how many cards a 'normal' basketball pack usually contained. Twenty four would seem more like a cello pack. In a way, this reminds me of the 1973 Kellogg's cards. When you bought the entire set, it came in strips of attached (perforated) cards, that were obviously meant to be separated, but weren't.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I decided to do some research regarding the 1980 Topps Hoops conundrum...I mean, if you think a simple image search is research. My goal was to see what Topps considered these guys at the time - single cards containing three images, or three separate cards.

• First, each panel has it's own number, so three different numbers per card. That's a start. If it was supposed to be a single card, then the entire thing should have a single identifying number.

• Secondly, the packaging (wax pack wrapper, wax pack box) indicates the cards were meant to be separated. Look at the graphics of separation...

Attachment 498346

• Now for the monkey wrench ('spanner' for you Brits). It indicates "24 PICTURE CARDS" in every pack. I don't have an unopened pack handy. Hell, if I did I wouldn't be here, I'd be celebrating my newfound wealth maskless (FREEDOM!!!!!!!!) in a Wing Stop somewhere. So the crux of the issue is this, were there 24 individual 'attached' cards or were there simply 8 (24÷3) total 'attached' cards within the waxy confines of a pack??

- Twenty four would end the debate. Each three panel (triptych?) piece of cardboard would be considered a card that kids could separate into individual elements, if they so desired.

- And if the pieces numbered eight, that would solve it in the other direction. Each separated piece would be a card in and of itself.

Excellent points.

Topps says they are 24 cards, that settles the argument.

What collectors prefer is irrelevant. Collectors prefer complete Hostess panels, but they are still cards if separated. Just because separating them lowers the value, doesn't change the basic definition of what they are.

[JollyElm]

Here's a video of a pack opening...

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...6FORM%3DHDRSC3

Eight total card panels (of three perforated players each) in the pack. Pretty cool.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by BobC

Then why are cards that are separated, considered as damaged and no better than poor maybe?????

Once you put something out into the universe you can't control what happens to it. I'll use myself as an example. When I made the thumbs-down gesture I was showing my disapproval of a Yankees' home run. The Yankees took my gesture and turned it into a rally cry. I certainly didn't intend for that to happen.

Topps may have created the cards with the idea that they be separated, and collected as individual mini-cards, but obviously the hobby sees it differently.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

Once you put something out into the universe you can't control what happens to it. I'll use myself as an example. When I made the thumbs-down gesture I was showing my disapproval of a Yankees' home run. The Yankees took my gesture and turned it into a rally cry. I certainly didn't intend for that to happen.

Topps may have created the cards with the idea that they be separated, and collected as individual mini-cards, but obviously the hobby sees it differently.

Mine was basically a rhetorical question because someone came along and is trying to say the unseparated three panel cards don't really count as a separate, unique card now because Topps may have originally intended them to not be that. But as you mentioned, and I had previously pointed out and gave examples of, the hobby itself will decide and determine what it considers to be a complete, unique card. And it is pretty clear to me that most collectors want these '80-'81 Topps basketball cards as complete and unseparated three-panel cards. So despite what some others may be trying to say, people collect six different and unique Larry Bird cards from this set, not three.