It was a change, I think you challenged calling it "Gatefold" (I might be wrong), and Steve spoke up with this.

They are a different type of comic, and can be noted that way. Mixing them in with Gatefold doesn't make sense, and Valiant said we was coming back to the Guidelines to update it as such.

My main concern is the fact that this means the database will now have "Foldout Cover" in thousands of comics and it just isn't useful. There was a period of time when the back covers were "foldout" for ads. To me it's just clutter in the cover description and just makes the reports even more frustrating to utilize in a simple list than they already are.

The need to constantly have insignificant information in cover descriptions in nearly every comic honestly makes the Wish List report functionally useless to me.

Depends on the manufacturer. Inkworks uses Loader and the cards reflect that in the numbering - Box Loaders are often BL-x and Case Loaders are CL-x.

Topps uses Box/Case Topper.

That's why I listed both since there is no consistency between the manufacturer.

I've also added an additional term to my initial post with TC terminology - Parallel.

Funny, I think partially the opposite. I hate cover descriptions that don't give you enough to tell it apart while at the store. So what if I know who the artist is if I can't tell who did the artwork from looking at the cover?

And while yes, I don't see a great value on this, it is accurate, and it will stop people from trying to change them to Gatefold.

Since the golden rule on Trading Cards os to match what the manufacture printed on the item, I do see scotteaves point, and it should be noted as such. Topper is preferred and Loader should be used if the item reflects that, either printed on item, or by checklist/advert produced by manufacturer.

Has the original post been updated based on the discussion? If so, I'd like to clean this out for the sake of readability.

Yes it has. Everything else can be eliminated.

Well, it's been over a year and this thread never got "cleaned out". (Hint-hint) I just had to read through 3 pages to find out the initial post had been edited to reflect the discussion.

Anyway, I have another thought on this topic related to Dynamic Forces. Sometimes there is a "true" DF edition, often with the DF logo on the cover but not always. That is very different from a non-DF item that DF has purchased and had remarked or signed. Here is what I have been doing in my recent CRs:

1) If it is a DF-printed variant cover, then I say something like:

DF Alex Ross Variant (Signed by Alex Ross) 1/100

2) If it is a regular cover with value-added by DF, then I write:

Alex Ross Cover (Signed by Alex Ross) DF:1/100

This tells us where Dynamic Forces added their value to the issue. In case 1, they added a new variant cover and had it signed by the artist. Hence it is truly a "DF Edition." In case 2, they took a normal cover and had it signed by the artist. Hence the only DF contribution is in the Numbered COA.

Maybe this is too nit-picky for some, but it bothers me to see a comic listed in the database as a "DF Edition," when it really isn't. The guidelines tell everyone to say "DF Edition" on all DF products.

Any opinions out there?

Should be DF Alex Ross Cover (Signed by Alex Ross) 1/100. We avoid the word "variant" in cover descriptions.


I like the intent. Not sure about the execution. That'll take some thinking, but I like the intent.