[nittany13]

Has anyone ever commented on the nameplate letters? As a player collector it really bothers me that nameplates are treated as one card, even though there are a number of obvious variations. I really think that each letter variation should be listed separately. I've never seen an adequate response from them as to why they don't. Would make trading for them a lot easier too.

Secondly, while they do list red ink variations of Press Pass autos they do not list inscription variations. Press Pass releases this information regarding how many of each inscription was released so it's not like Beckett doesn't know. And again for player collectors, there are certainly at least some that care about it.

I remember I previously commented on this in this thread, sharing the same opinions that you stated. I think I used the Lettermen series as an example. Later, after thinking about it a little more I realized why these type of nameplate letter cards may not be listed individually by Beckett so I think I understand, and now even agree, with the logic.

My belief is that the Beckett staff views these nameplate letter cards like typical patch or even simple swatch cards. If a player patch card has 50 copies produced, as a random print run example, chances are there are going to be many patch variations. Some patches may have different colors, seams, texture, or even a partial team logo shown (assuming that the patch was not doctored by an unsavory seller). Granted, some patch or nameplate letter cards of the same player are going to be more collectible than others resulting in steeper asking prices, however one typically will not find the different types listed individually of the same card.

Generally, I use this as a rough rule of thumb when determining whether Beckett would deem a card a variation or not. Simply, if the cards themselves are different from one another then it is always a true variation. Examples include the player lettering on front being a different color, error cards and corrections, ones that refract and others that do not, varying foil colors, asterisks (1972 Topps Parker Brothers Pro Draft), number sizes (Private Stock PS-2001), and many more examples are out there that I could come up with if I sit down and think about it some more.

Conversely, if something has later been affixed to the card after its been printed then it becomes a case by case basis. This is why I do not think those earlier Upper Deck base cards are listed multiple times in respect to the variations of the hologram stamp. If a group of autographed player cards are signed in different colors of ink then those would not be listed separately either. The glaring exception to that is if it was intentional, that is having the card company instruct the players to sign a small fraction of cards in a certain ink color. I am not up to speed with the Press Pass or the Inscriptions cases but the supplied reasoning may answer the question.