I don't see how a variation only category list would work.

I would put variation cards on the list right next to the normal card and just put "Variation", or similar, in the title with a required picture illustrating the variation. I see no reason that the variations shouldn't be listed, what does it hurt? Then it would be possible to just search on "Variation" to get a list of them all.

thats a great idea. as for the 92 donruss name color, it is just the name that is a diff color.the rest of the photo color is the same.if it were a shade diff the whole card would be darker and it is not.

As long as the narrative is included when searching the card it should work. Without Robs narrative it would be difficult to spot the difference.

Narratives will either have to be part of the title or included as part of the picture as there isn't a way to add something else at present.

At least, I belive we are now moving on the right direction. To determine how they should be added is a possitive thing, not just for the Juan's collectors, but for all the visitors that use this site as a reference also. Just to make sure, if the card is added on the current existing year, should start as:
Variation 1990 Donruss - No period after INC - (On Description Field)

I agree that the variations should be added...aren't we trying to make this site the most "complete" Juan Gonzalez collectors site?

Kevin

Variations added! The only one I decide not to add is the 33 Donruss with yellow dot under letter O because after search mines I found A- Yellow dot over J. B- Yellow dot under O. C- Yellow dot after Z. Plus a couple of white dots here and there, so I believed those are some kind of dirt marks on the printers.

Nice job Roberto!!! However in my opinion the donruss error with Lonnie Smith should not be added...it is a miscut not a variation...its a card that is way off center thats all...

Kevin

here is a 1996 stadium club "no foil no name"

Thank you very much, your opinions are always welcome! In relation to the Donruss with Lonnie, that's why I list it as an error, not as a variation.