Quote:
Originally Posted by davepeters239
Still unsure a superfractor was made for this card but with the other member here posting the other cards there could be one and I hope to find out from Topps for sure.
If there is a superfractor version of this card then I would like to ask what this card is then.
|
I'm going to go out on a limb and say there probably was. A quick search will yield the obvious fact that there was indeed superfractors in 2005 over various products with Topps.
I've taken the last several days reading this thread, a few pages here and there and I have a better picture of your ideas/thoughts. Lets be realistic David; the fundamental discussion is whether or not the the card is a superfractor. Clearly you have taken your time, seemingly following a thread of logic based on your answers. Obviously some fellow BO commentors are a bit more passionate about this topic than others.
Each "idea" presented by fellow members, some a little course than others
, still presents an idea about the card in question. I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time with "possibilities" of what the card is, what Topps' intentions were, and what your intentions are.
Like a good scientist, you've presented a hypothesis, but you're having difficulty proving said hypothesis. However, many of the BO commentors have made some valid points about the actual card; if the card was in fact not suppose to be released, but released, then you have a rarer card. Looking at the checklist, it appears that the card was suppose to be released, autographed and non-autographed. With that said, I strongly believe that Topps' initial statement that it was suppose to NOT be released is erroneous. It was. It was because you have one of the throwback cards. Sadly, it was never autographed or stamped.
2005 Bowman Chrome Baseball Box - Complete Set Checklist
It's safe to surmise that the card you have was suppose to be numbered and auto'd;however it was not. It's also safe to surmise that the Topps made extras of the card in case of damage, or what have you, but all that mattered was that Arod sign some cards, Topps could stamp them, then place them in packs.
You were "lucky," in obtaining a card that is unique in it's own right. It simply wasn't meant to be packed out because of sticking. This can be seen even in the current market with cards that are missing the signatures that are pulled on live video.
At the end of the day, it is what it is - this classic argument of the chicken or the egg could go on for a millenia, hopefully not. Mind you, this "error," is not of epic proportions such as the T206 Eddie Plank, Honus Wagner, or more recently the Topps Frank Thomas NNO, or Bill Ripken FF errors. From what I gather, it's most likely Topps' shoddy quality control at it's best.
By the way, if you look carefully at your debate, I think you will come to terms as to why some BO members felt irked by your reasoning. I won't get into that here as I think it's a moot point (forcing a square peg into a round hole - I'm sure you know what I mean).
At this point in your "research," you've been challenged in finding supporters of your hypothesis, have not faithfully considered other hypothesis', and wish to follow a specific, non-altering trajectory with your logic. This is okay by me; it's not MY card. It's yours.
Best wishes on your end-game; I'm afraid you have bit of a long fight ahead of you.
#nomoreofthisthreadformeplease