Trading Card Database Photoshopping Shenanigans

[Cliff Bowman]

Update, the Trading Card Database deleted the scans for the bogus 1975 Hostess Burt Hooton and bogus 1979 Kellogg's Carl Yastrzemski, and also the incorrect scans for the 1966 Topps Bob Heffner Purple Trees and the 1979 Kellogg's Ron Guidry and are letting me send the correct scans. Getting them to add the 1966 Topps Bob Heffner Pink Trees variation and include the variations for the two Pirates in the 1971 OPC set and eliminate the 1979 Kellogg's second print 33 triples error variation will be the next step.

[swarmee]

Are they going to ban the original submitter of those images? ;-)

[JollyElm]

I always include the 'lens flare' (my term) card to the purple tree variation grouping. Is this what you mean by the pink trees version, or is it something else?

1966heffner432purpletree.jpg

I have a couple of them.

[Cliff Bowman]

Yes, the one on the left is the Purple Trees and the one on the right is the Pink Trees. I would have never tried to get these listed as bona fide variations but they already had a Purple Trees variation listed and the scan that someone sent in for it was just a normal 1966 Bob Heffner card.

[Cliff Bowman]

Here are the two 1971 OPC variations for anyone not familiar with them, they are the only OPC variations that I am aware of other than that 1969 card with the very subtle line shift on the back that was discovered here recently.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Yes, the one on the left is the Purple Trees and the one on the right is the Pink Trees. I would have never tried to get these listed as bona fide variations but they already had a Purple Trees variation listed and the scan that someone sent in for it was just a normal 1966 Bob Heffner card.

I have one of my 'lens flare' cards off in Bobby's group sub. I'm assuming it will get a PD qualifier, but I digress. Whereas the 'purple tree' version features the foliage itself colored wrongly, the pink version has extraneous white areas involved there too. I guess that's what really differentiates it. It's almost like there was a weird explosion of ink happening. To me, the 'problem' with calling it pink, is that arguments will start over whether or not the purple (in a particular card) is light enough to qualify as the pink version. Just my personal preference, I guess. Ha ha.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I have one of my 'lens flare' cards off in Bobby's group sub. I'm assuming it will get a PD qualifier, but I digress. Whereas the 'purple tree' version features the foliage itself colored wrongly, the pink version has extraneous white areas involved there too. I guess that's what really differentiates it. It's almost like there was a weird explosion of ink happening. To me, the 'problem' with calling it pink, is that arguments will start over whether or not the purple (in a particular card) is light enough to qualify as the pink version. Just my personal preference, I guess. Ha ha.

Yeah, you're right, I will abandon the attempt to get TCD to recognize the pink version because they always want some sort of proof before they will recognize one of my variations. I got them to recognize the two 1971 OPC variations but only after they verified them on eBay and the PSA site.