I don't know how many people are into trilogo variations but the cardback variations are quite cool, either way they all have designated and recognised backs according to their variation.

The designations are :
70A
70B
70C
70D

Now 70A + 70D are quite character specific so I guess it kind of makes sense not to bother, 70A is the hybrid trilogo with the Palitoy front and the 70D is only the POTF figures with the barcode in the top corner.

When it comes to 70B +C the difference is small but still important- there are a few characters that can be found on both b+c backs but there are lots that haven't been found on C backs and people might well be looking for them.

Pros: It would help collectors find exactly the variation they needed and they could also check the AFA pop report to find out if a certain character had ever been graded on a certain cardback.
Con: It would mean certain rare figures on 70C cardbacks would be highlighted for more people to see and it could lead to less deals + more bidding wars.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Also a side question- I wanted to know if AFA actually use Kellermans Kenner designation system - the archive one, their own or a combination?

Personally, I am all for more designations. I think its good for the hobby and will help to spread knowledge of the various cardback types. I can however see both sides of the argument. But I lean more towards the designations than not.

As far as which designation AFA uses, I thought I read somewhere on RS that AfA uses a combination of both the archive and Kellerman's. With Kellerman getting more and more popular all the time as his is becoming more and more standard with collectors. I'll see if I can dig up that thread.

I kind of feel the same, I guess the people really looking for 70c's hidden on ebay etc even when graded know what to look at so its not going to change a huge amount but it might net some people
some more realistic sales when the 70c is mentioned, especially if people remember the designations etc.

I don't think its a bad idea at all, I would send my 70c if they would designate it, but at the moment they would just call it a palitoy trilogo which is correct but not all the information as far as I am concerned, especially when websites + a book has been published using these specific cardback designations.

If you do dig that thread up on the Kenners Chris post it here man !

Joe_O wrote:

I kind of feel the same, I guess the people really looking for 70c's hidden on ebay etc even when graded know what to look at so its not going to change a huge amount but it might net some people
some more realistic sales when the 70c is mentioned, especially if people remember the designations etc.

I don't think its a bad idea at all, I would send my 70c if they would designate it, but at the moment they would just call it a palitoy trilogo which is correct but not all the information as far as I am concerned, especially when websites + a book has been published using these specific cardback designations.

If you do dig that thread up on the Kenners Chris post it here man !

Well.... I guess maybe I remembered the thread wrong.

This was the thread I was thinking it was, but I thought Tom or someone came right out and said "AFA uses X".

Kellerman Thread

I'll keep looking though.

Dave T said : They use the SWCA version.

And Raven said : But from what I've seen lately they've made an attempt at using his (Kellerman's) system as the collector's choice

I guess they may adapt as they go and rely + research pieces based on the submission information, if they come up against a back that isn't listed on the archive they probably check with John's book and vice versa.

Would be nice if it stated on their site which one they use though and perhaps link to the archive or kellerman's site- I think if they started using the common Tri designation I would expect them to at least nod to Jason + Stephane?

Joe_O wrote:

Dave T said : They use the SWCA version.

And Raven said : But from what I've seen lately they've made an attempt at using his (Kellerman's) system as the collector's choice

I guess they may adapt as they go and rely + research pieces based on the submission information, if they come up against a back that isn't listed on the archive they probably check with John's book and vice versa.

Would be nice if it stated on their site which one they use though and perhaps link to the archive or kellerman's site- I think if they started using the common Tri designation I would expect them to at least nod to Jason + Stephane?

I agree Joe. I wish someone would come out and say one way or another. Maybe that is all there is to it though? It might be time for an email to Tom?

It can be difficult to alter established variation categories. There are many pieces out there that are graded by AFA using the existing variation categories. When I extended the categories used by John Ford on http://www.palitoy.org/cardback/palitoy.html (which are also used by AFA to an extent), I chose not to change any of the variation letters, but added sub variation letters on the end. So a 45a became a 45a/45ab/45ac etc.

Mr Palitoy's Cardback Guide
http://www.freewebs.com/mrpalitoy/

Jason

mr_palitoy wrote:

It can be difficult to alter established variation categories. There are many pieces out there that are graded by AFA using the existing variation categories. When I extended the categories used by John Ford on http://www.palitoy.org/cardback/palitoy.html (which are also used by AFA to an extent), I chose not to change any of the variation letters, but added sub variation letters on the end. So a 45a became a 45a/45ab/45ac etc.

Mr Palitoy's Cardback Guide
http://www.freewebs.com/mrpalitoy/

Jason

Hi Jason good to see you buddy hows things?

Im a fan of rating systems and categorisation where possible i think its important as its help further peoples understanding of the vast array of changes and variations that MOC issues undertook.

I personally use your extend system which has really helped me over recent years

Jay

jaymassive619 wrote:

Hi Jason good to see you buddy hows things?

Im a fan of rating systems and categorisation where possible i think its important as its help further peoples understanding of the vast array of changes and variations that MOC issues undertook.

I personally use your extend system which has really helped me over recent years

Jay

I agree Jay. I use Jason's site all the time. And love how he's taken up the torch and ran with it from where John left off.

I think someone needs to fire off an email to Tom or AFA in general to figure out what their categories are. Inquiring minds want to know!