Trading Card Database

[BobC]

Originally Posted by BobC

We shall see how good/responsive they are. I just informed them through their "See any inaccuracies" function of some rather obvious errors in a couple of their set checklists, and an unreported error in one of the same sets that they do not list. I also inquired about another known set they do not list at all, and then mentioned an additional set that is uncatalogued, but known and documented through sales in a major auction house, and provided the links as proof.

I did not sign up as a member, and don't intend to. But if they do nothing and claim that my not formerly signing up/registering with them is a reason/excuse for them taking no action on very obvious errors, the problem and mistake clearly is on them! We'll see how good they are in monitoring and making any corrections and needed changes, and how quickly they act.

These are pre-war sets I'm talking about, not modern sets. I leave the modern stuff to sites like theirs, and have no opinion or comment on how good and accurate they are in their listings, descriptions, and checklists of such modern sets. Just surprised with all the errors I still come across on various sites regarding pre-war cards. You would think after all these years, and the decades of the SCD Catalogs, that there would be fewer, if any, errors still showing up in checklists for these old sets that other sites keep using/posting.

Update to my earlier post. Haven't seen any changes made to the checklist/item errors I had reported to the site. I specifically used the link provided to report any inaccuracies, and followed the instructions as given, but haven't seen a thing done to correct anything. I thought I followed the rules in reporting the checklist errors I saw, and nothing on the site said or indicated there was anything further I needed or was supposed to do in regard to such error corrections, so I am at a loss as to the deficiencies I'm clearly seeing in this process.

Also, in regard to the twist this thread took in relation to copyright questions and issues that we assumed were well settled (or so we all thought), seems our current judicial branch is creating even more potential turmoil in our lives once again. Not necessarily exactly the same issue being discussed in this thread, but appears to bring up questions in regard to the Fair Use Doctrine when it comes to using/showing images of others.

[DaClyde]

Originally Posted by BobC

Update to my earlier post. Haven't seen any changes made to the checklist/item errors I had reported to the site. I specifically used the link provided to report any inaccuracies, and followed the instructions as given, but haven't seen a thing done to correct anything. I thought I followed the rules in reporting the checklist errors I saw, and nothing on the site said or indicated there was anything further I needed or was supposed to do in regard to such error corrections, so I am at a loss as to the deficiencies I'm clearly seeing in this process.

Can you name a specific correction you submitted? I waded through all 7-8 pages of outstanding issues, and didn't see anything for Pre-War stuff.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by DaClyde

Can you name a specific correction you submitted? I waded through all 7-8 pages of outstanding issues, and didn't see anything for Pre-War stuff.

Their S74-1 white, ad-backed silk checklist includes five players/silks that actually do not exist.

Peaches Graham - Cubs
Tommy Leach
Bugs Raymond
W.D. Scanlan (Scanlon)
Harry Steinfeldt - Rustlers

It took some years, but finally about 10-15 years ago I believe Bob Lemke and the SCD catalog staff finally started listing these five S74-1 players/images as "Existence now questioned." in their vintage catalogs. You can check with any serious S74 silk collectors, and they'll tell you the same thing, ad-backed white silks of these five players/teams never existed. And as additional proof, look at the images given for all the S74-1 silks on the TCDB checklist page. TCDB just so coincidentally has a posted image for every single white, ad-backed silk in the set, expect for these same five players/teams. And why not......because they don't exist. And for the record, the OBC site still erroneously includes these same five non-existent white, ad-backed S74-1 silks on their checklist as well.

Now jump over to TCDB's S74-2 colored silk checklist and you'll see it erroneously lists a colored silk for Happy Smith. No silks ever existed for Happy Smith in either the white or colored silk sets. Look at the photo image shown on the TCDB page, it clearly states the silk is of Tony Smith, not Happy Smith, and the image is the exact same one as on the S74-1 white, ad-backed silks that are listed as Tony Smith. Tony and Happy Smith are actually two different people, who both played for the Brooklyn Superbas in 1910. And for even more additional and irrefutable proof, look at the image used for Tony Smith's page in Baseball Reference, it is the exact same photo/image used Tony Smith's S74-1 and S74-2 silks.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...mithto03.shtml

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...mithha04.shtml

And also for the record, both the OBC site and the SCD catalog checklists incorrectly show/showed a Happy Smith silk existing as part of the S74-2 colored silk set, instead of correctly showing the player as Tony Smith. Given the ease with which one can check the Baseball Reference site to see these are two entirely different players, this error on the S74-2 checklist is even more egregious than the errors in the S74-1 checklist IMO.

And the fact that no one really seems to care or bother all that much with S74 silks just shows all the more in how these checklist errors have existed for so long. If we were talking different sets, like T206s or '33 Goudeys, any checklist errors of these types would have been corrected decades ago.

[DaClyde]

The Tony Smith was an easy fix in S74-2, so that has been corrected.

I will submit new inaccuracy reports for the S74-1 and reference your post. I think only the Admin can delete individual cards from an existing checklist, but this will get them back in the queue.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by DaClyde

The Tony Smith was an easy fix in S74-2, so that has been corrected.

I will submit new inaccuracy reports for the S74-1 and reference your post. I think only the Admin can delete individual cards from an existing checklist, but this will get them back in the queue.

Thanks, that is great! But how come when I reported these obvious errors on those checklists through the specific link on both checklist pages to report inaccuracies, nothing was done? I followed what I thought were the clear instructions, and there were no other mentions of having to be a registered member or anything, so why bother including such error reporting links if they don't work, or don't actually include all the instructions and such you need to really be able to affect corrective changes?

[nolemmings]

Please make the same change for Hap/Tony Smith's PX7 disk and P2 pin, which also use the same pic found on T205 and S74. It surprises me that this still gets messed up occasionally with graders and AHs. The pic is the same and obvious as what is on T205-- a card that has a faux signature of "Tony Smith" prominently shown.

I see there are several changes that need to be made with the m101-5 set, but the area to report errors and variations is not linkable.

[DaClyde]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Please make the same change for Hap/Tony Smith's PX7 disk and P2 pin, which also use the same pic found on T205 and S74. It surprises me that this still gets messed up occasionally with graders and AHs. The pic is the same and obvious as what is on T205-- a card that has a faux signature of "Tony Smith" prominently shown.

I see there are several changes that need to be made with the m101-5 set, but the area to report errors and variations is not linkable.

PX7 and P2 have been updated. I'm not sure if certain sets only allow registered users to submit corrections, or not. The link works for me, at the set and card level.

Originally Posted by BobC

Thanks, that is great! But how come when I reported these obvious errors on those checklists through the specific link on both checklist pages to report inaccuracies, nothing was done? I followed what I thought were the clear instructions, and there were no other mentions of having to be a registered member or anything, so why bother including such error reporting links if they don't work, or don't actually include all the instructions and such you need to really be able to affect corrective changes?

Honestly, no idea. There have been some busybody members in the past that dumped inaccuracy requests before they were finally revoked their privileges. Seems there's always someone trying to spoil the party for everyone else. I can ask if anyone else has had a similar issue.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by DaClyde

The Tony Smith was an easy fix in S74-2, so that has been corrected.

I will submit new inaccuracy reports for the S74-1 and reference your post. I think only the Admin can delete individual cards from an existing checklist, but this will get them back in the queue.

Jason,

I don't know who, or what, you know over at TCDB, but I see the correction to the S74-1 white, ad-backed silk checklist has now been made as well, and the five non-existent player/team silks removed from their checklist. Thank you!!!

I'm assuming the fact that Bob Lemke and his SCD staff had previously noted that these five particular silks were questioned as ever existing, and the additional fact that no one had ever been able to supply even a single image of one of those five silks to be shown on the TCDB site as pretty conclusive evidence those five never existed. The correction to the S74-2 colored silk checklist properly naming Tony Smith instead of Happy Smith is much easier to prove simply by looking at the silk itself, and the Baseball Reference site pages for Tony and Happy. It is also interesting to note that this similar error was made in other TCDB set checklists, as pointed out by Todd/nolemmings, that mistakenly named Happy/Hap instead of Tony, in the PX7 Domino Discs and P2 Sweet Caporal pins checklists as well. The SCD catalogs and the Pre-War Cards site checklists for these two sets (PX7 and P2) also show the same error naming Happy/Hap Smith, instead of the correct Tony Smith. In these cases though, the error was not duplicated on the OBC site checklists.

Jason, since you're so good at getting these changes made, here's another inaccuracy (or at least an omission) I had reported to the TCDB site for the S74-1 white, ad-backed silk set as well, also involving Tony Smith. The white, ad-backed S74-1 silk set checklist on the TCDB site accurately shows a white silk for Tony Smith with the Brooklyn Superbas. However, the set also includes another white, ad-backed silk using the exact same Tony Smith image and name, but this time showing his team as the Boston Rustlers. This is an uncorrected error as Tony Smith never played for the Boston Rustlers, but my guess has always been that someone putting the set together to begin with mistakenly mixed-up Tony with a third different person/player named Smith, in this case Harry Smith, who did play for the Boston Rustlers in 1910. The TCDB site should list this Smith-Rustlers white silk in their Error/Variation section for this S74-1 set I would think. And here's the Baseball Reference page and image for Harry Smith as evidence and proof that a third, entirely different ballplayer named Smith existed back then.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...mithha03.shtml

If you can get the TCDB site to also look into making this correction/update to their S74-1 set page, that would be super as well. Oh, and in regard to the previous correction TCDB made to their S74-1 set checklist in removing the five player/team silks that actually don't exist, can you let someone know they also need to change the total number of silks they show as being in the set then, from the 92 they previously listed, down to the correct total of only 87 different white, ad-backed silks in the S74-1 set? Thanks.

[DaClyde]

Originally Posted by BobC

Jason, since you're so good at getting these changes made, here's another inaccuracy (or at least an omission) I had reported to the TCDB site for the S74-1 white, ad-backed silk set as well, also involving Tony Smith. The white, ad-backed S74-1 silk set checklist on the TCDB site accurately shows a white silk for Tony Smith with the Brooklyn Superbas. However, the set also includes another white, ad-backed silk using the exact same Tony Smith image and name, but this time showing his team as the Boston Rustlers. This is an uncorrected error as Tony Smith never played for the Boston Rustlers, but my guess has always been that someone putting the set together to begin with mistakenly mixed-up Tony with a third different person/player named Smith, in this case Harry Smith, who did play for the Boston Rustlers in 1910. The TCDB site should list this Smith-Rustlers white silk in their Error/Variation section for this S74-1 set I would think. And here's the Baseball Reference page and image for Harry Smith as evidence and proof that a third, entirely different ballplayer named Smith existed back then.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...mithha03.shtml

The BBREF entry for Harry shows him with the Boston Doves in 1910, but no Smiths at all with the 1911 Boston Rustlers. Not sure of the lineage of the teams, but in either case, I added a UER note to the card.

Originally Posted by BobC

If you can get the TCDB site to also look into making this correction/update to their S74-1 set page, that would be super as well. Oh, and in regard to the previous correction TCDB made to their S74-1 set checklist in removing the five player/team silks that actually don't exist, can you let someone know they also need to change the total number of silks they show as being in the set then, from the 92 they previously listed, down to the correct total of only 87 different white, ad-backed silks in the S74-1 set? Thanks.

A change request has been submitted to adjust the set total.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by DaClyde

The BBREF entry for Harry shows him with the Boston Doves in 1910, but no Smiths at all with the 1911 Boston Rustlers. Not sure of the lineage of the teams, but in either case, I added a UER note to the card.



A change request has been submitted to adjust the set total.

Yes, I knew that Boston was referred to as the Doves in 1910, just a Freudian slip on my part in referring to them as the Boston Rustlers in 1910 as well. But whoever was creating the set probably realized that Boston changed to the Rustlers name after the end of the 1910 season, and may have just mistakenly noted someone with the last name of Smith had also played for the Boston team in 1910, and erroneously switched the team name to the Rustlers assuming the player was going to be with the Boston NL team in the 1911 season then as well. In fact, the name change of the Rustlers pretty much cements the fact that these S74-1 white silks were not issued until 1911. The former owner of the Doves team had died in 1909, and his family finally ended up selling the team following the end of the 1910 baseball season. And then a month later, on December 17, 1910, the team was again sold to a group headed by William Hepburn Russell, who was the one that changed the Doves name to the Rustlers. It seems literally impossible that even if Russell had announced the team's name change to the Boston Rustlers the same day he bought the team, that the people creating and issuing the silks would have been able to make the team name change and still been able to get the silks out into distribution before the end of 1910. From the December 17th purchase date till the 31st would have only given them two weeks, at most, to learn of and show the team name change on the silks, and still get them out before the end of 1910. Given the Christmas and New Year's holidays along with the extremely short period of time that otherwise remained in the year, I don't see how the S74-1 white silks could have possibly been created and shipped prior to 1911. Yet when you look at some other sites for cards, like the OBC or the Pre-War Cards sites, they still continue to erroneously show the S74-1 white silk set as being issued in 1909-10. They clearly could not have been issued that early, based on the timing of the Doves to Rustlers name change. TCDB accurately lists the S74-1 white silks as a 1911 issue. Regardless of whether the team was named the Doves or the Rustlers, the Tony Smith - Boston Rustlers white, ad-backed silk is a definite error, and should be correctly shown as such. Thanks for submitting this additional change.

And thanks for also submitting the additional correction to the revised number of silks comprising the S74-1 set as 87, instead of the incorrect previous number of 92, which erroneously included the five white, ad-backed silks that actually never existed.