Home > Zistle Style Guide, Zistle Updates > Sets and Subsets- Zistle Style Guide #1

Sets and Subsets- Zistle Style Guide #1

May 26th, 2009 ashley Leave a comment Go to comments

This is the first in a series of posts that will begin addressing issues in creating a Zistle Style Guide. The Zistle Style Guide will be a collaborative project in Zistle members will reach consenus regarding naming conventions and categorizing that will be used for the Zistle Library. Before I delve into this post, I want to make the point that there are many different naming practices that exist–thereby creating the confusion in the first place. This discussion is not to decide what is the “right” way but what is the best way for Zistle and its members. I am aware that some of you are quite passionate about your views and I ask you to think about what is the best for everyone–not your personal preferences.Thanks in advance for your participation and enthusiasm.

Brands vs. Sets

While it may seem obvious, I think it is important to distinguish the difference between a brand and a set and the implications for Zistle. A brand is the name of the Card Manufacturer: Topps, Upper Deck, Razor, Donruss, etc. On Zistle, sets are the actual sets released by a manufacturer. So Topps is a set in addition to Topps Heritage. Topps Heritage is not a subset of Topps. There are a few reasons for this but the most important reason is parallel sets and categorization. Most sets include multiple subsets (parallels, inserts, autos, relics) often with the same numbers (parallels). If we do not have subsets, it becomes impossible to sort these cards correctly. A good rule of thumb is that if you can buy a pack of it, it is a set. If you can’t buy a pack of it, it is a subset of another set. There are exceptions and often there are inserts from other sets in many sets. These are admittedly more difficult to classify and requires a second post. I think most people agree on this topic, however, if anyone has any ideas for how to deal with sets that fall outside of the conditions listed above or if anyone has any additional comments, please share them.

Main Set vs. Subsets

In my personal opinion, this is one of the most difficult issues to resolve and I am extremely interested in what people think about this topic. The main set is another way of saying “base set” or “base cards”. Normally these cards are numbered numerically and have no particular distinguishing attributes (i.e. 1-400). Parallel cards should be categorized as a subset. Insert cards should also be categorized as a subset unless they belong to a different set.

Again, outside of a few exceptions, there seems to be general consensus on this topic. The one problem we need to resolve is when a card is in the normal numbering system but it is distinct from the base card design. For example, Season Highlights in Upper Deck occur in the normal numbering system, but they are obviously different in design from the regular base card. On one hand, if you take them out of the main set, there appears to be a hole in the numbering and can often lead to duplicates. However, if you don’t make them a subset, there is a loss of some detail. Some members have kept them in the main set, but added the title of the card, so that they can be searched. While this keeps the detail, some card names are often too long.Your thoughts on this are most appreciated.

Specific Sets: Bowman, Upper Deck, Topps

There are a few sets that I would like to address specifically and ask for help from the Zistle community on how to deal with these sets.

Bowman- Bowman released two products pre-2008– Bowman and Bowman Chrome. Within those sets, there are the draft cards as well- Bowman Draft and Bowman Chrome Draft. Both of the sets have multiple subsets. Because of this, Zistle lists them as four separate sets: Bowman, Bowman Draft, Bowman Chrome and Bowman Chrome Draft. Are there any thoughts on this? Is this a good solution or do you find it confusing?  In 2008, Bowman started releasing a Draft Pick and Prospects set which may have solved this problem going forward but I would love to hear your thoughts pre-2008.

Topps/Upper Deck–Series 1 and Series 2- Both Topps and Upper Deck release their main product in two distinct releases, Series 1 and Series 2. Currently, Zistle lists both Topps and Upper Deck as one product and puts those two sets together. While it diminishes some confusion, the carda are technically labeled distinctly by their respective series and often contain different subsets. Is it better to have one big Upper Deck/Topps set or better to distinguish them as separate sets?

I am going to start some discussions in the Zistle Forum about the above mentioned topics so you can join the discussion there or leave a comment on this post. Of course, feel free to start your own discussion thread about any issues that you feel need to be resolved. Thanks everyone for contributing to this!

Categories: Zistle Style Guide, Zistle Updates Tags: , , , , ,
  • Don
    I want to chime in on this. First, don't separate the series.

    On the subsets vs. sets. If a subset (League Leaders, Record Breakers, etc.) is checklisted as a part of the main set it should be numbered with them. Inserts (2009 topps SPs, Generation Now, Moments and Milestones, etc.) that are found in packs, or in some instances factory sets, should be listed as a sub set of the brand (not separately).

    Some confusion may arise with such issues as 1990 Donruss Baseball's Best AL & NL. These are listed as subsets under Donruss but in fact were sold separately as a complete set and, IMO, should be listed as a separate set.
  • I think I got a headache. These kind of issues don't arise with cards from the 70's.

    1. I agree with not separating out each series. Separating 2008 Topps Series 1 and 2 would be like separating 1972 Topps Series 1 through 7.

    2. The priority should be given to numbering of the base set. There may be subsets within that, but they belong there (kind of like the Boyhood Photos in 1972 and 1973). Even if they look different, they should stay in the base set to maintain its integrity.

    3. What I think should be called a subset and listed separately are the insert stuff, like the Legends of the Game that Topps is doing this year. I guess the real issue there is whether they're a separate 2009 Topps set or whether they're a subset of 2009 Topps. The confusion comes if you can get them in packs of Topps and Topps Heritage (for example).

    Aarrrgh.
  • I'm not sure what you're trying to do here but I agree with Chris. A card which is in the normal card numbering sequence is a subset. Also, the odds of getting one of these cards is generally the same as the base cards. An insert set is generally numbered separately and the odds of getting one are less than a base card. Parallel sets are inserts as well. Where I have a problem with classification is when cards which are in the general numbering system but are short printed (sometimes even serial numbered). I generally call these subsets as well.
  • Chris
    My 2 cents...

    1) Concerning the sets vs. subsets debate, I think you are confusing some terms here. Back in the day, before insert sets, a subset was considered a part of the main set that had a common theme ( like record breakers, league leaders, etc. ). When you use the terms subset and insert interchangably, you create confusion. When it comes to determining where to list subsets, I think they should be listed with the main set, after all, that is how they are numbered. Inserts and parallel sets should have their own listings. In general, use the checklists the company provides as your guide, if they see fit to list and number the cards separately, they deserve a separate section.

    2) I can agree with skoormit on his first and second points above. In regards to the multiple series, the cards are still numbered sequentially and should be considered part of the same set.
  • skoormit
    Couple things:

    1)

    "some card names are often too long"

    I disagree with this idea. While I suppose there must be a max length for the card name field, some card names are and should be very long. In particular, the league leader cards with three players on them. To be thorough, the full card name should be the title of the card (AL HR Leaders, e.g.) followed by the names of the players on the card.

    2) Sets released in multiple series are still the same set. I see very little benefit to listing separate series as separate sets, and I see it generating a lot of confusion.
blog comments powered by Disqus