Comments on: Sets and Subsets- Zistle Style Guide #1 http://blog.zistle.com/2009/05/26/sets-and-subsets-zistle-style-guide-1/ Official Blog of Zistle.com Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:54:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Don http://blog.zistle.com/2009/05/26/sets-and-subsets-zistle-style-guide-1/#comment-88 Don Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:02:52 +0000 http://blog.zistle.com/?p=308#comment-88 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 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.

]]> By: Mike http://blog.zistle.com/2009/05/26/sets-and-subsets-zistle-style-guide-1/#comment-87 Mike Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:55:03 +0000 http://blog.zistle.com/?p=308#comment-87 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 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.

]]> By: Cliff http://blog.zistle.com/2009/05/26/sets-and-subsets-zistle-style-guide-1/#comment-86 Cliff Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:18:28 +0000 http://blog.zistle.com/?p=308#comment-86 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. 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.

]]> By: Chris http://blog.zistle.com/2009/05/26/sets-and-subsets-zistle-style-guide-1/#comment-85 Chris Thu, 28 May 2009 18:24:41 +0000 http://blog.zistle.com/?p=308#comment-85 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. 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.

]]> By: skoormit http://blog.zistle.com/2009/05/26/sets-and-subsets-zistle-style-guide-1/#comment-84 skoormit Wed, 27 May 2009 21:46:47 +0000 http://blog.zistle.com/?p=308#comment-84 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. 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.

]]>