Hi Raven and Ed,

I have to disagree with both of you. You can say the act of a company sending out an item for dealers to give away to their customers is a promotion. It's true that you can't say the card is promoting the "Get Smart" set because it got cancelled but it promotes the company, "paying-it-forward," and goodwill in general. People talked about it later and how nice it was for RA to just give it away. It generated some buzz.

Raven, it's true that the card was not originally intended to be a promo but that is what it ended up being. Rittenhouse Archives could have saved it and made it an odd chase card slipping it into some other TV comedy set packs as a surprise or it could have added it to a dealer incentive or it could have just sold them outright at a nominal price to try to recover the printing cost and Kopell's signing fee.

Ed, when I look at the artful cards you generously give away, many of them promote shows, and you can say they promote the artists whose work is featured on the front but some of them just have your address on the back. You call all those cards promos even though they don't promote a particular product. At least one of them just says "Happy New Year."

I would agree that not every giveaway is a promo. If RA handed out oranges at a show, you might call that just a giveaway, but when a trading card company gives out a special trading card for dealers to give to their customers, I would say it qualifies as a promo.

And Raven, it's also an example of a 1-card set.

Jess

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
And Raven, it's also an example of a 1-card set.

Jess

This is why card collectors can never agree on anything. Everyone has there own points to make and their own interpretation of "facts".

If a card was not made to be a promo, the mere fact that its distributed as a dealer incentive doesn't turn it into a promo. The dealer is likely to be charging for it, not handing it out free himself, and in this case, there isn't even a product made to promote. That would be my interpretation.

As for the 1-card set, again I disagree just on the definition of it. Can you have a 1-shoe, pair of shoes? Don't you need more than one to claim a set of anything? And wouldn't this autograph card be a 1-card hit or chase or insert card anyway?

I think there was a discussion along these lines somewhere on Card Talk and someone came up with a mathematical equation about negative values or something like that. That's fine, I yield to science. But in practical terms, I think a one card single doesn't make a set. This is a card that stands by itself and belongs to no released set to me.

But I'm not trying to convince you Jess, because you can't convince me either.

Uh, Raven, you've already conceded the point in another thread that there can be a 1-card set but we can go over it again. I think you can agree that there is such a thing as a 3-card set. An example would be the well-known "Cat Baseball" 3-card promo set (Purr-fecto, 1993) which never led to a regular set. There is also a 2-card set such as the Star Wars Day promo set from 1994.

Bill Mullins brought up the fact that the null set, which is a set of zero elements, exists in mathematics. If a set can have zero, two or three elements, then it follows that there can be a set of one element. That's logic. It's inescapable.

You brought up the pair of shoes again. A pair requires two. Always there are two. "Pair" comes from Old French, "paire" meaning a set of two or a couple, and "paire" comes from Latin "paria" meaning equals as in part and counterpart.

Furthermore, the precedent in literature is the Promo Card Encyclopedia which has used the term "1-card set" for at least 20 years to refer to instances when only one card exists to represent the promo complement and sometimes the entire series as well.

The defense rests...

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
And Raven, it's also an example of a 1-card set.

Jess

This is why card collectors can never agree on anything. Everyone has there own points to make and their own interpretation of "facts".

If a card was not made to be a promo, the mere fact that its distributed as a dealer incentive doesn't turn it into a promo. The dealer is likely to be charging for it, not handing it out free himself, and in this case, there isn't even a product made to promote. That would be my interpretation.

As for the 1-card set, again I disagree just on the definition of it. Can you have a 1-shoe, pair of shoes? Don't you need more than one to claim a set of anything? And wouldn't this autograph card be a 1-card hit or chase or insert card anyway?

I think there was a discussion along these lines somewhere on Card Talk and someone came up with a mathematical equation about negative values or something like that. That's fine, I yield to science. But in practical terms, I think a one card single doesn't make a set. This is a card that stands by itself and belongs to no released set to me.

But I'm not trying to convince you Jess, because you can't convince me either.

quote:

Originally posted by cardaddict:
This is the OUTER LIMITS SEX CYBORGS AND SCIENCE FICTION unreleased promo card (copied from E-Bay):




This one is confusing because the released P2 card has the same back as the unreleased card, while the released P1 and P3 cards state 3 autos per box.
My head is spinning!

Managed to get this for £2.20 very pleased

Oh it was you was it. I was watching this and then forgot about it.

Wow, Hammer, that was an incredibly good deal you scored. I'm surprised that there wasn't more interest in that one. It's hard to get a bead on the current value/ I haven't seen any other recent sales. It's possible that is still rare - just not in demand anymore.

A few years ago, I found one for about $7 and thought that was great.

Jess