Non-Sport Update's Card Talk NSU Home | NSU Store | In The Current Issue... | Contact Us |
Non-Sport Update    Non-Sport Update's Card Talk  Hop To Forum Categories  Announcements    December's Poll
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
December's Poll
 Login/Join
 
Administrator
Picture of H_Toser
posted
Hello:

We've just posted our online poll for December. This month, we want to know what you think of card numbers. More specifically, do you like card numbers that are easy to read with card sorters in mind? Or card numbers that are designed to go with the general look of the card but maybe not so easy to read?

Vote now by clicking here:
http://www.nscardcollector.com/cover_poll.shtml

Then come back here and tell us why you voted the way you did.
 
Posts: 12898 | Location: Harrisburg, PA, USA | Registered: November 29, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Moderator
Picture of Quaint1
posted Hide Post
I voted for 'easy to read' - I've got terrible eyesight, and I dislike sorting out sets at the best of times. (I love opening the packs, I just don't like the tedious sorting out that has to be done afterwards!)
REcent sets that have caused me problems have included Star Trek C2K - some of the nmbers (3's and 5's) were very difficult to differentiate btween.
Au Res.,
Paul
 
Posts: 7200 | Location: Basildon, Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: November 30, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
NSU Writer
Picture of Don Norton
posted Hide Post
Easy to read! I have seen cards numbered in such a way they were extremly hard to read, an example was a set of Evil Ernie or Lady Death cards that came out several years ago, the 3's and 8's were almost identical.I have also seen numbers on dark or colored backgrounds or fancy type fonts that are hard to read when small.The first 12 cards and the last 20 cards or so from Topps Planet of the Apes set, for example.
No matter what the design is on the card, a small, easy to read number will not detract from the design. Another idea - put the card numbers in the same place on all the cards in the set, regardless of the format on the front of the card or the subset.
Okay, there's my 4 cents worth. Off my soap box now...
 
Posts: 2783 | Location: Crystal Lake, IL | Registered: December 04, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
Picture of Raj
posted Hide Post
I voted for easy to read but I don't see that that the 2 options should be mutually exclusive - if the designer is good enough.
 
Posts: 3052 | Location: Luton, UK | Registered: October 07, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Moderator
Picture of miket999
posted Hide Post
I too voted "Easy to read".

Several times I had gone back through sets after I thought that I had sorted them properly only to find that I had read the card number wrong because it looked like another number.

The other comment mentioned is to keep the numbers in the same spot on each card. I would have to agree with that as well!

Thanks.

Mike.
 
Posts: 5347 | Location: Warrenton, Virginia, USA | Registered: January 08, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Bronze Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
Whoa..as a dealer, this is a no-brainer ..Easy to read please!! Breaking cases and collating sets accurately.. Even as a collector I always preferred 'easy to read' and that was before I needed reading glasses.

I don't see easy to read and nicely designed as mutually exclusive however.

Some of the worst numbering I've come across recently has been in Power Puff Girls cards.but lots of others come to mind as well.

CCG cards are the worst. Used to make more sense when these were aimed at gamers who usually used the title alphabetically, but now that companies are aiming at collectors as well and are still producing 125-250 card sets/expansions...the numbers are being used by everyone....of all ages...
 
Posts: 622 | Location: Boston, MA USA | Registered: December 28, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Moderator
Picture of STCardGeek
posted Hide Post
Not me man, I can not even come CLOSE to reading the numbers on a CCG set and I hate to be wicked, but if ya want singles from me, ya gotta list them by name. smile I'd carry the arguement a little further and say for me, perhaps personally, since my vision is 20/200 that most backs are diffucult for me to read period. I miss alot of stuff with my cards, I know, as I don't always take time to dig ot a magnifying glass to read every single card...I was so excited when Rittenhouse put out the 5x7 archive cards with only 6 or so words on 'em, a set for meeeeeeee smile
 
Posts: 4160 | Location: Pittsboro, NC USA | Registered: November 30, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Colin Whyte
posted Hide Post
Easy to read. The numbers are there to be used, not for decoration.

And keep them in the same corner, please!!
 
Posts: 69 | Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. | Registered: May 05, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Bronze Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
Another for easy to read. Goes back to memories of my 60s collecting when the numbers were essential for card trading in the playground. We used to go through our swaps in number order. Got, not got, got..Happy days.

ps a question arises from this nostalgia. My first set I remember collecting was Land of the Giants by A&BC. Quite a common set in the UK but a seemingly rare in the US according to the NSU ,as a test set. Why the difference?

Also why are US trading cards bigger than the UK counterpart? US cards seem massive for a young kid to deal with.
 
Posts: 685 | Location: Manchester UK | Registered: September 07, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Moderator
Picture of STCardGeek
posted Hide Post
:snicker snort: I think the person who purchased (or made) this set wishes the numbering scheme had been better!!!
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1054496952

0's and 8's were buggers in this set.....
 
Posts: 4160 | Location: Pittsboro, NC USA | Registered: November 30, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

Non-Sport Update    Non-Sport Update's Card Talk  Hop To Forum Categories  Announcements    December's Poll

© Non-Sport Update 2013