[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

The definition of error card has never required the "error" to be unintentional. Famous error cards like Billy Ripken FF and Juan Gonzalez reverse negative (along with a lot of other error cards in that period of 1989-1990) were widely rumored to have been allowed into the product intentionally. This never caused anyone to question whether they were to be considered error cards. The error, you might say, is that they were released in improper form. Intent is immaterial, just like whether or not the error was ever corrected is immaterial. Still error cards.

This has nothing to do with printing errors, foul language, a Marlboro ad in the background, etc. You are really taking a huge logical leap here to equate a product not only produced but released in wide distribution, with specific errors on single cards. The difference between this and, say, the Alex Gordon card I posted earlier, is that this alleged error with 21 BB was never corrected.

The FF Ripken was corrected. The Alex Gordon card was hunted down by Topps and very few escaped into the wild. There was no recall on 21 BB.

BB21 prospect cards were obviously released in improper form, because they were released in a form that violates Topps' agreement with the MLBPA. Error cards. The error is the sole reason why they fall under the traditional definition of RC. An exception is warranted.

As was the 2007 Alex Gordon but, again, Topps attempted to destroy or mutilate any they could find before they were packed out. That violated the MLBPA/Topps codified agreement on production of baseball cards when that Alex Gordon was packed out. And they attempted to correct that error.

No one has attempted to correct this error on 21 BB if it was indeed an error, so again, your logic is faulty.

The RC definition is a list of exceptions (must be a base card (as opposed to what? inserts and parallels) must be a major release (as opposed to what? small regional releases), must be a set that includes veterans (as opposed to what? dedicated prospect releases)). Each exception exists to exclude some cards from being defined as a RC.

Another exception is warranted here. Can't be an error card where the error is what causes what would have otherwise been not a RC to fall under the definition of RC.

You literally made this up and posted it. The worst arguments are the ones where a guy literally makes up some crap and says there, that's why I'm right. Please point to one baseball card publication in the history of mankind that says what you have said here today. Go ahead and prove that your definition here exists anywhere in a hobby publication. Who's the ultimate appeal when you offer this argument? You made it up? Ok then? Would you like to tell us all what is and is not a rookie card on every product released hereafter since you've made yourself the ultimate arbiter of the rookie card definition?

The numbering of the entire BB21 set is the error. Should have been numbered the same way every prior BB set was numbered--with prospects separate from the actual RCs and veterans. Improper release of an improperly numbered set does not qualify these as RCs in my book. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. This is a rational and reasonable argument, even if you decide you don't agree with it.

It's not really rational if you literally made up this "standard" out of thin air.

The moon is made of cheese. This is a rational and reasonable argument, even if you decide you don't agree with it.

The earth is balanced on the back of a cosmic turtle deep at the bottom of our solar system. This is a rational and reasonable argument, even if you decide you don't agree with it.



I'd like to take your argument seriously but it can't just be something you made up.