Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Klein
I had two stints writing E&V -- the 1st was just a bear trying to keep up with all the errors on the new cards (at the time) and it was difficult to make them real interesting.
The 2nd stint was more fun for all concerned and I wrote three side bar aritcles a month (Almanac Set of the Month, Auction Item of the month (Not usually the most expensive of course, and E&V Card of the month. As you see, people remember and loved the 2nd iteration of E&V because there was a chance their name, like Bill's would end up in print. And a side note, the article which drew the most reaction from readers via email was one I did on a typo in the Nolan Ryan RC text. It took several reprint sets before the typo was corrected.
The whole key to these stories was for the item or the player to have an interesting back story which made the card even more interesting. As you see on the Cordova, I referred to an earlier error with just as amazing as a stat goof.
Rich
|
That's some interesting insight into a little bit of what went in to creating content for a magazine that I assume was a big part of the collecting lives of many of us on this board. Thanks for sharing that!
I don't really follow modern now, but I wonder if newer sets still have such random statistical errors and variations, and if collectors still chase them. Yeah, I know there are INTENTIONAL short prints, image variations, color swaps, etc. (especially in Heritage). But do people still notice and/or chase "mistake" errors? I'm guessing not as many collectors even read the backs of their cards anymore, as there are much more efficient ways of finding baseball stats now.