Ooops - SP Game Used Photo Error

[RGM81]

Saw this one going around yesterday:



That's Keith Kinkaid.

Upper Deck is aware of the situation - Chris Carlin posted about it, saying:

Yes, we are aware and apologize for the error. This was caught a bit too late to make the change. The product would have been delayed a lot. It's an uncorrected error card. Trust and believe our photo manager was very clear to the team these types of errors are not acceptable

[30ranfordfan]

lol. That's a pretty big oops.

[30ranfordfan]

Though I have to add this..... I had to go back to 2015-16 to find a goalie that played for the Oilers, but didn't get a card as an Oiler... it was Andres Nilsson.

If UD had put out a Cam Talbot card in 2016-17, that actually showed Nilsson, I would have definitely wanted a copy.

[Savard18]

Now, the real question here is if this card is an actual Carey Price card or a Keith Kinkaid card?

I say it's a Keith Kinkaid card, I always consider the card to be a card of the player pictured.. Of course when it comes to photo errors like this it's pretty subjective and it could go either way depending on the collector but I think it makes the most sense to go with the player pictured..

So IMO , this isn't a Carey Price card at all, it's a Keith Kinkaid UER..

Steve Larmer's 83-84 OPC rookie card had the same issue, Steve Ludzik is pictured instead of Larmer, tho it's considered - at least by Beckett (not that I care) - to be his "rookie card".. Now let me ask, how can a player have a card - let alone a rookie card - and NOT be pictured?

IMO, Larmer's "true rookie" should be 84-85 Topps/OPC

Of course you have that 90-91 Pro Set error (I forgot the player) where the player that is pictured in the card is not the player listed on the card, however the player listed in the card is in the background of the photo, lol...

[subban7677]

For it to be considered a Kinkaid UER, it would mean they meant for it to be a Kinkaid card, but put a Carey Price patch in by mistake...wouldn't it?

[creasecollector]

Ahhhh that's a tough one. Dang.

[RGM81]

Now, the real question here is if this card is an actual Carey Price card or a Keith Kinkaid card?

I say it's a Keith Kinkaid card, I always consider the card to be a card of the player pictured.. Of course when it comes to photo errors like this it's pretty subjective and it could go either way depending on the collector but I think it makes the most sense to go with the player pictured..

So IMO , this isn't a Carey Price card at all, it's a Keith Kinkaid UER..

Steve Larmer's 83-84 OPC rookie card had the same issue, Steve Ludzik is pictured instead of Larmer, tho it's considered - at least by Beckett (not that I care) - to be his "rookie card".. Now let me ask, how can a player have a card - let alone a rookie card - and NOT be pictured?

IMO, Larmer's "true rookie" should be 84-85 Topps/OPC

Of course you have that 90-91 Pro Set error (I forgot the player) where the player that is pictured in the card is not the player listed on the card, however the player listed in the card is in the background of the photo, lol...

Well it's got Carey Price's name on it, Carey Price's stats on it, Carey Price's game-used memorabilia on it, and it's Carey Price's name on the checklist.

[Savard18]

Well it's got Carey Price's name on it, Carey Price's stats on it, Carey Price's game-used memorabilia on it, and it's Carey Price's name on the checklist.

But Carey Price isn't the player pictured.. I mean "wrong backs" have those attributes too but I've never seen a card with a wrong back listed as the player on the front..

It's clearly subjective..

When it comes to photo UER's I generally consider it to be the card of whomever is pictured - not that either way is wrong.

Still, I find it astounding that the card made it to production, past QC and then into the collectors hands before anyone noticed the error - there is absolutely no excuse for that - especially when it's a premium product and a xx/25 patch to boot. SMH, lol...

I wonder if UD would exchange that card for something else of equal value? I mean if I was a Price fan that would be something I would consider if I was guaranteed another Price patch.

[scarrman]

I wonder if it was a signed patch card, do you think Carey would have caught the mistake? I know it's not signed, just saying if it was. Wonder if he would have been either "ah, whatever just get these cards outta here", or "wait a minute, I'm not signing this crap"!

[RGM81]

If nothing else, it will give Keith Kinkaid's legions of fans the chance to finally get a Habs card of him.

But yes, this card is an abomination that should have never made it past QC. As the quote above from Carlin indicates, they caught it very late in the process. Ultimately, it probably should have been pulled entirely and they could have re-purposed the jersey swatches, patches, and the 1/1 tag in a future release. There's no real shortage of Price MEM cards out there, having one fewer on the market wouldn't hurt.