There have been incidents of corrected errors, mostly cause the STAR won't sign. Lawrence Montagnue found an error in his (right name, wrong character), Levar Burton didn't like how his name was signed. FUnny thig is, those error cards are coveted for their rarity more than they are fussed about for them happening

quote:

Originally posted by STCardGeek:
The phrase should have been can decide NOT to collect, but then I suppose we all knew that and I find it pretty funny to make a typo in a thread about typos and QC
What I like about Star Trek and what I like about cards is unrelated to the ooops that get made by companies. I read an article the other day that NASA uses Armageddon on new hires. Has them find as many discrepancies as they can. THe record is 168. That movie makes me cry. Neil De Grasso Tyson has strong opinions on accuracy vs. entertainment and is quite happy to cut slack with truth if it's entertaining. (see here- Disneys' Back Hole, Armageddon, Gravity)
THere is a series of books called Nitpicker's Guide to...Star Trek...TNG...etc etc. Great books, good read. Pages and pages of mistakes by the CREATORS of ST.
I have a customer who can literally spend hours IMing me the errors he finds on cards. I have suggested on several occasions that if bothers him to the degree it seems to, he should stop collecting. It's not worth the hassle. I am pretty sure we can all agree, this is a visible ooops. But, to me it's like, oh well, THAT'S embarrassing and I move on. To me, the themes that Trek represent, the utopia I see there and want to have myself, isn't marred by wrong logo on the card. If your expectations are otherwise, act on that. It's all good.
On a side note, I think it's very daring of you to use the words rookie and schoolboy. I'd be nervous to use those words and then fall flat on my nose after having made a mistake myself In front of everyone!

"Daring" / "Fall flat on my nose"? The error was yours, not mine, and your omission completely changed the meaning of what you wrote, hence why I asked. Why is it a mistake to take anyone as written? Plenty of people post stuff on here that makes no sense!

My gf drives me nuts getting irate at inaccuracies in films whereas I am more than capable of suspending my disbelief to enhance my enjoyment of works of fiction. I also agree that Trek has some very admirable overarching themes that we'd all do well to observe. As to what either of these things has to do with poor proof reading, I'm not too sure.

quote:

Originally posted by wolfie:
I'm sure Rittenhouse are somewhat embarrassed about not picking up this error at any stage of it's production. Jeri Ryan must have been totally confused as to why she was being asked to sign it but not confused enough to turn the money down and send them back.

Having got the cards made and signed it would seem a decision was taken that even though it was wrong collectors would rather have it than see it thrown in the bin.

I'm sure you're completely right wolfie, and absolutely no point binning the cards that late in the day. That would truly be a waste.
Does make you wonder what the actor thinks in situations like this, assuming that they notice.
Always reminds me of RA getting Will Yun Lee to sign 2x Bond 40th anniversary style cards, using identical images, years apart because they'd forgotten he'd signed for them previously. Bet it was all very déjà vu for Lee.

quote:

Originally posted by X:

Plenty of people post stuff on here that makes no sense!

quote:

Originally posted by wolfie:

quote:

Originally posted by X:

Plenty of people post stuff on here that makes no sense!

quote:

Originally posted by X:"Daring" / "Fall flat on my nose"? The error was yours, not mine, and your omission completely changed the meaning of what you wrote, hence why I asked. Why is it a mistake to take anyone as written? Plenty of people post stuff on here that makes no sense

I wasn't speaking of that sentence error, since it was, as you note, clearly MY error, I was speaking in general In GENERAL saying errors are rookie mistakes or schoolchiildish is just asking to make one oneself! Usually in public. Karma is soooo mean. (edited) But, I take my statement back. It would be silly to comment on you making a public oops right after I made one! (even though I was supporting oops). So, it's been nice discussion, I enjoy a healthy debate!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: STCardGeek,

So, shifting the direction away from errors (that may or may not even be in the set, far as we know it could be just the advert that's wrong). What do you think about Whoopi, Daniel Davies, all the colorful sketches The autograph format is colorful!!

Daniel Davis is a GREAT signing, whoopi too but I hope there are more than 50. Auto cards look nice too

Wow , 76 autograph cards in this set, is this a record?

Paul Dooley is signing! Sweet!

As nice as some of the autograph pulls sound, I may give this a pass because of the number of autographs. I will just wait and check E-Bay for a Chris Sarandon for my wife.

I've been taunting RA on their forums that if they get a few more auto cards that we will have as many in this one set as we had in the SkyBox TOS 1-3.

You mean it isn't as many?

quote:

Originally posted by Rich65:
I will just wait and check E-Bay for a Chris Sarandon for my wife.

Are you sure you don't mean Chris SaraNNdon?



That's the way it was misspelled on the official autograph card for Chris from the 2001 NECA Nightmare Before Christmas set, a pretty glaring error considering his even more famous ex-wife, Susan, has also used the name for around 40 years. Chris is either a very gracious fellow or utterly oblivious, but whatever, he signed the card, warts and all. That autograph set is small at just four different cards, and suffers from lacking photographs of the signers or even their characters, but two autographs are from NBX creator Tim Burton and composer of the songs and score (and singing voice of Jack Skellington), Danny Elfman. Not too shabby and their names are even spelled correctly on their cards.

As for Rittenhouse's occasionally baffling errors, I just don't think any one card can ever top this entire run of series II Twilight Zone wrappers which suggested we look for autogrPAHs in the packs. Never found one of those, but I did get some pretty great autograph cards in those packs.



I suspect the reason that things like this aren't corrected are simple cost considerations. These companies likely don't make too much profit on any one set, and the cost of reprinting the TZ II wrappers, for instance, might've simply eaten all of that up, so they took the hit, knowing those would sell out pretty quickly anyway, which they did.

Hard to say if that's the reason behind the mind boggling error that appears on the Harrison Ford autograph in Cryptozoic's recent "Ender's Game" set. The name of Ford's character is misspelled as "Gaff" instead of "Graff", fitting since the word "gaff" also means "mistake", and this was a big one, given the caliber of the signer, and that this was his first (and could end up being his only) on-card autograph.

I can understood why no one caught it since so few people saw that movie, and it's likely Ford would not have objected and refused to sign as a result of this anyway. Given his laid back approach to movie making, he probably never even learned his character's name in that movie in the first place.

Well if we are going to start pointing out error cards, let me just add that it isn't really an error card unless there is a corrected version of the card. Otherwise it's just an error on the card, no big deal except for collectors who enjoy finding them.

It really has to do with how the card production runs. If it's a single printing, one and done, there is no corrections on anything. That is the modern way for non-sport cards, especially for limited products. We can still have variants, but true error cards that have corrections are almost unheard of now. I can't really think of a single one in non-sport releases in the last few years.

I'm not thinking about error cards so much as in most other (bigger) industries, these items would not have been issued in that form.

Can you imagine a modern Disney item getting out like this? No way. They'd correct the error, whatever the cost. If they'd seen the "Saranndon" card and caught the error on it, I'm sure they'd have made NECA fix that, but especially were that a current product now that NBX is part of Disney proper umbrella, as opposed to the Touchstone stepchild it was for its first few years when they were skittish to have the Disney name on stuff that was in any way darker in tone.

As for error cards, I'd pretty much always rather have a corrected version of the card than the error card, if there is one to be had. The error is a mistake which detracts from the card, aesthetically speaking, and frankly, it makes autograph card in particular look fake, because it's hard to believe the licensor, manufacturer, AND signer would all let that go.

Those error cards with corrected versions do take on value though, because there are perceived to be less of them. They were a huge thing in sport cards for a good while, starting with the 1989 Upper Deck baseball reverse negatives and that hilarious Fleer Bill Ripken card from the same year. Some of those were pretty fun to collect, and then it became pretty clear companies were doing them on purpose.

Topps still issues the same cards but with slight to major differences to them and in varying print runs, mostly in their sports cards, but they call them "variations" now. (They did have a set of 3 in each of the Star Wars Galactic Files set and there were some nice ones in the recent Wacky Packages Chrome set).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chesspieceface:
Those error cards with corrected versions do take on value though, because there are perceived to be less of them. They were a huge thing in sport cards for a good while, starting with the 1989 Upper Deck baseball reverse negatives and that hilarious Fleer Bill Ripken card from the same year. Some of those were pretty fun to collect, and then it became pretty clear companies were doing them on purpose./QUOTE]

I know you know this CPF, but to the less experienced it might seem like you are saying error cards take on more value. It depends, often the corrected version of the card got the premium price, not the error. It all depended on which version was thought to be made in fewer numbers.

Quite right, some of those sportscard errors and corrections were done on purpose. Yet if you check the guides now, very few of them held any kind of value despite some going for a lot at the time. I can remember chasing down that Ripken FF bat card and a couple of the ever-changing corrected versions. In hindsight it was not worth it.

For those not familiar with the famous Billy Ripken error card, what happened was he'd been pranked by another player who wrote something that rhymes with "ruckrace" on the barrel of his bat before the photo session that yielded the image used on his Fleer 1989 baseball card. The word was easily legible on the original version of the card.

While somehow missed by Fleer, collectors caught on to it very quickly and there were numerous versions intended to obscure the offending word that were created throughout the print run (which was massive and likely ongoing for months as sports cards were made multiples millions for each major set back then)

The corrections began with hasty fixes like just scratching out the word on the printing plate and then the use of "white out" to cover it, and finally a neat black box over the word. For some time, these variations held value, with the most valuable one being one of the quick fixes, which was considered "scarcest". The problem was, none of those cards were scarce. They were all printed in numbers so massive, there was really no way for them to hold their early value once the proper corrections occurred as people realized the supply far exceeded the demand.

The corrected cards were perhaps scarce relative to the other cards in the set, but compared to modern cards, even the "rare" error cards from then would be considered massively overprinted today. Too much supply, not enough demand. The same thing always happens with that formula.

That said, the original version of the Ripken card is still awesome, and I had to have one, especially after it was spectacularly parodied in Simpsons Series II from Skybox in 1994 as a giveaway promo issued in a Simpons Comic Book.
I didn't mind paying the $10 or whatever I paid for the "FF" Ripken. All of the corrected versions that block the word out are worthless to me, and I wouldn't pay a nickel for them, whatever their production runs. (Interestingly, while the value of the Ripken card has crashed and burned, the P4 variant version of the Simpsons "Dupe Dipkin" card used to sell for over $200 and can still bring nearly $100 (a quantity of them surfaced meaning they weren't as rare as people thought either), which is as much as the best Ripken at the height of their poplularity, if I'm not mistaken).

I can't believe I never noticed that on the Sarandon card, my wife has had all 4 autos in that set for years and I never noticed the error.

Jason Sobal Jadzia Dax AR



Jason Sobal 7 of 9 AR



Jason Sobal T'Pol AR