
Amendments & Corrections
I prepared the
template for this page in the knowledge that I knew there were errors and/or
omissions given the sheer volume of material presented (what happens when you
don't have an editor to cover your backside <g>) Update: I've
asked and he's agreed - GoFrankGo (eBay ID) is the site's Official Editor-At-Large.
His skill and observation has continually saved me from embarrassment and added
a richness to the site that wouldn't be there if not for his input. On behalf
of all Big Hurt Collectors - thank you GL!
|
Suggested
Amendments/Corrections (7/19/08) - My thanks to 'GoFrankGo' (eBay
ID) |
|
Correction
& Amendment (7/3/08) - My thanks to RH
- Buffalo Grove, IL. And as if that weren't proof in the pudding. I keep telling you guys - these Checklists are complicated. It's been what...7 years since I first put that page together and I'm STILL making corrections. <shaking head & laughing> :-) |
|
Amendment
(6/28/08) - My thanks to Justin D. (eBay ID: Bustin_Knuckles)
and RH (eBay ID: RikaKris) Man, that embossed Fleer Logo is so barely 'there'! So difficult to see without a bright direct light source. Personal note: I could have sworn there was an UD Fleer issue where someone was caught faking card numbers in an attempt to capitalize on a "hand-numbered serial numbered limited edition". RH noted that he has one without the embossed logo - and this might why I mistakenly qualified the Buy Back as bogus. I recall visiting/reading several boards (Beckett, Bench, Card Corner) where heated discussions were occuring about the time these buy-backs were released. Thank you again to both guys. <nod of appreciation> |
| Amendment
(6/4/08) - Personal notation 1991 Upper Deck Checklist. UD Hologram Variations noted. |
|
Corrections
(11/28/07) - My thanks to Brad Wakerlin
(www.markgrace.com) That's when
I ran, for the very first time, the SpellCheck feature. Guys, if you see a typo, please let me know. <laughing s'more> ;-D |
|
Suggested
Amendment (11/8/07) - My thanks to 'BustinKnuckles' (eBay
ID) I would also like to say that BustinKnuckles has an extremely good eye for detail. Very impressive, as his knowledge of subtle differences - even between different artwork/negatives/presses - is very impressive indeed. <nod> :-) |
|
Amendment
(10/25/07) - Observed change I'm not sure how far I want to push this - as I don't want to spend the estimated $800-1,200 for a professional chemical breakdown. Additionally, and not the least of which, I'll have to scrape a "meaningful sample" OFF the card. It was at this point I relented. :-) Although I'm not entirely convinced - I have taken down the page and replaced it with another tough Frank card. <g> |
|
Suggested
Amendments/Corrections (10/22/07) - My thanks to 'Rikakris' (eBay
ID) The second however is an amazing addition. Rikakris noted that there is in fact a 1991 Arena Holograms Big Hurt PROMO. I've annotated the 1991 Checklist to reflect this discovery. Once again - way to go RH! <nod of deep respect> |
| Suggested
Amendments/Corrections (10/20/07) - My thanks to 'GoFrankGo' (eBay ID)
1992 Checklist. Good eye GL! The 92 Leaf Preview base card was in fact missing. It's been corrected and the notation identifying the source (for both the base and the gold parallel) have been added. And ANOTHER great editorial catch. ;-) |
|
Corrections
(8/23/07) - Personal discovery I learned that there are in fact TWO versions that Barry created - both authentic. There's been a misunderstanding of these issues as far back as 1994 (I have a well-known checklist which lists only one version). I want to apologize again to all my fellow Frank Collectors for misunderstanding this issue. Although understandable - I recognize how many of you have come to rely on this site to provide only the cold hard facts. You can read more about it on the revised 1992 Colla Autographs Page. Note: I have edited the 1992 Checklist to reflect this amendment/correction. |
| Suggested
Amendments/Corrections (7/21/07) - Personal discovery 1992 Checklist. 1992 Donruss McDonald's printing variations. |
| Suggested
Amendments/Corrections (7/19/07) - My thanks to 'Rikakris' (eBay ID) 1991 Checklist. 1991 Donruss Factory & Regular Issue variations! Also note the 1991 Stadium Club printing sheet variations. Awesome notations - sharp eyes dude! Thank you RH! |
|
Suggested
Amendments/Corrections (7/13/07) - My thanks to 'GoFrankGo' (eBay
ID) |
| Suggested
Amendments/Corrections (6/17/07) - Personal observation & change 10 Toughest List. I've noted at least five separate & different auctions in the past few months for the 1995 Pinnacle Checklist Artist's Proof #450. Throughout the late 1990's and the early part of the 00's - I spent many years trying to obtain an example, constantly searching with nothing to show for it. But in 2007 - five. Go figure. <g> I've moved it off the "10 Toughest" List to the "10 Near-Toughest". Should even more show up I'll take it off completely and move another card into the lists. <wink> ;-) |
| Suggested
Amendments/Corrections (6/11/07) - Personal discovery 1992 Checklist. 1992 Fleer Sensations Dealer Sheet Sample. |
| Suggested
Amendments/Corrections (5/12/07) - My thanks to 'DaBigHurt35' (eBay
ID) Foil Vs On-Card. I'm embarrassed to admit - I put up a 'sticker' auto as an example of an 'on-card'. It's been corrected. |
| Suggested
Amendments/Corrections (4/23/07) - My thanks to 'GoFrankGo' (eBay ID)
1992 Checklist. Once again I can count on GoFrankGo to be my editor-at-large and ombudsman. Located an issue I have never seen before: 1992 High 5 Decals Promo. What can I say except - you rock GL! :-D |
| Suggested
Amendments/Corrections (2/28/07) - My thanks to 'MrWhiteSox30' (eBay
ID) Foil Versus On-Card. After further investigation - I agree that there's a greater consensus regarding this issue. I've changed that page to reflect that consensus and the term "in-person" had been amended to read "on-card". Note to fellow Frank collectors: Since I refer to this subject on different pages - if you notice it - please email me where it should be changed. |
| Suggested
Amendments/Corrections (2/25/07) - Again, my thanks to 'GoFrankGo' (eBay
ID) Food/Oddball Checklist. Correct typo for 1993 Humpty Dumpty year of issue. And correct the years for the Score Board Phonecard issues. |
| Suggested
Amendments/Corrections (2/10/07) - My thanks to 'GoFrankGo' (eBay ID) 1990 Checklist. Clarify the two ProCard and CMC/ProCard variations and their dissemination into the hobby. |
| Suggested
Amendments/Corrections (2/4/07) - My thanks to 'GoFrankGo' (eBay ID) 1992 Checklist. Clarify '92 Upper Deck silver/gold hologram variations and their dissemination into the hobby. |
| Suggested
Amendments/Corrections (12/29/06) Galleries Cards - Page 1. Gold Glove auto is from 2001, not 2004 (my personal favorite autograph card of him) Galleries Cards Section II - Page 5. I'm pretty sure the 2005 Diamond Kings Challenge has 450 copies and not 500. Galleries Cards Section II - Page 6. You forgot the "m" in Bowman's. - "Foil versus In-person Autographs". I belong to the Beckett.com message boards and there have been many debates about sticker autographs. I don't think I've ever heard non-sticker autographs referred to as "in-person autographs" because that makes me think of someone getting it themselves. 1996 Leaf Signature Purple Variation. Are you sure that the scan you have is of a Purple autograph? Sometimes older issued autographs signed in a black ink fade over time and then start to look purple. |
Regarding the
term "in-person". A personal description. I haven't seen a consensus
regarding this issue. I discount the use of the term "hand-signed"
since that makes no sense (at least to me) since all signatures are by definition
signed by hand, regardless of what material or medium is being used. Note, I'm
not counting autopens. And some of the others I've seen: "card signed",
"not sticker", "non sticker", "on card", etc,
are equally inelegant. Should one term be 'adopted' by the hobby, I will certainly
amend that page. <nod>
Regarding the
1996 Leaf Signature Purple Autograph = I am currently doing more research. I
appreciate and respect your collecting insights and will amend the page should
I discover that age/fading or light exposure is indeed the cause. I'm contemplating
purchasing an extra black auto, depending greatly on availability and market
price, and leaving the bugger under a florescent lamp (simulating a hobby shop
display case) to see what appreciable changes occur, if any. But for now the
page stands as I investigate further. I have noted that the legitimacy/validity
has been called into question on the various pages which mentions or refers
to it. I'll keep you updated. (12/29/06) UPDATED
10.25.07: See above.