Proposed Old Judge Reorganization

[cyseymour]

I've touched on a few of these topics in the past, but thought that it deserved its own thread. It's about how we perceive OJ's and how we have decided to catalog. Certainly, those who have created the process have put a great deal of thought into it, and I appreciate their efforts. But how things are catalogued now minimizes how the cards are perceived and their rarity, in my view. It would perhaps serve in all OJ collectors best interests if the cards were catalogued differently, and here is my proposal...

My proposal is two-fold:

A) The Old Judge cards ought to be divided into three sets - years 1887, 1888, and 1889. They really are different issues with different designs, so why not reflect that? That way, collectors can chose a year and collect that specific year.

This will help reflect the true rarity of the cards because, assuming a card's population was split equally between 1887, 88, and 89, the card would then be considered three times as rare. Sort of similar to how 1914 and 1915 Cracker Jack's are categorized (if you don't believe that these types of categories affect price, check T206 back prices these days).:eek:

B) Why not use the number system that reflects the number on the card itself? 1887 Old Judges were numbered in just the same way that baseball cards are numbered today. We wouldn't categorize a 1952 Topps Andy Pafko as card "562-3", so then why do it with the 1887 OJ's?

<a href="http://s626.photobucket.com/user/jboneparth/media/OJs/conniemack50percent_zps30c71aad.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i626.photobucket.com/albums/tt350/jboneparth/OJs/conniemack50percent_zps30c71aad.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo conniemack50percent_zps30c71aad.jpg"/></a>

This card is numbered "0127" in the upper righthand corner, so why do we call it, "285-2"?

I understand that there is an issue with new poses being discovered from time to time, and that that effects the numbering system a tad as new poses are added on. But if the set were broken down into different years, this wouldn't be so problematic.

This is an entirely different way of thinking and that those who created the current system had good reasons for doing so. But it obfuscates the actual rarity of the cards, in my respectful opinion, and perhaps in the long run we'd all be best served by a reorganization of n172's.

[barrysloate]

The reason for the number disparity is that the cards are catalogued alphabetically. I see your point about the numbered cards but what about the later series that aren't numbered? A new system may not necessarily makes things easier, although there's nothing wrong with suggesting a new way. I think the numbering system we currently use works pretty well.

[cyseymour]

The reason for the number disparity is that the cards are catalogued alphabetically. I see your point about the numbered cards but what about the later series that aren't numbered? A new system may not necessarily makes things easier, although there's nothing wrong with suggesting a new way. I think the numbering system we currently use works pretty well.

Thanks, Barry, for the response. My feeling is that the later cards would be part of a different set - 1888 or 1889 sets. But the 88 and 89 cards that share the same poses with the 1887's should be assigned the same number that exists for the 87's to avoid confusion.

If there are cards that were never given numbers (i.e. the 1887 spotted ties), then they could be assigned numbers after the numbers from the 87 set come to an end. I do realize that it is currently being done alphabetically.

[bn2cardz]

I recently asked both PSA and SGC if they had any plans to change their information to reflect the years that we now know for each series. They both said there weren't any plans to do this.

I too believe it would be nice to know what cards exist in each year and in each layout within each year. I have been trying to obtain this information but those that know the information haven't been able to give it out.

[barrysloate]

There would certainly be utility to adding the year to the mix, so you might have:

1888-John Smith- 252-5.

That would be helpful, without the need to change the numbering system currently in use.

[bn2cardz]

I still believe that even within the years there would be cause to put which style.

[bcbgcbrcb]

The Old Judge book produced by Jay, Richard & Joe breaks the entire set down by year as you would like to see it done. If all collectors followed that as the Old Judge "Bible" then everything would be fine. Unfortunately, the grading companies are not going to go that route as thousands and thousands of Old Judges have already been holdered under the general 1887-90 or 1887 only for all cards format. The card catalogues like Beckett & SCBC could eventually make the change if pressured enough, I believe. The info is certainly available to support it.

Personally, I would like to know every card that was issued by individual year, especially being a rookie card collector.

[cyseymour]

There would certainly be utility to adding the year to the mix, so you might have:

1888-John Smith- 252-5.

That would be helpful, without the need to change the numbering system currently in use.

You're right that it would certainly be easier to just add the year, but about the numbering system, I just feel that it's counter-intuitive to give a number to a card that is different than the number written on the card itself. I understand why it was done, but then again, it was the OJ producers who numbered the cards in the first place, just like any other set manufacturer.

[barrysloate]

It's always tough getting people to change a system that has been in use for many years.

[Matthew H]

I like the way you think Cy, but don't forget, the 0-number series includes other athletes and boxers... That numbering system doesn't really help baseball subject collecting IMO. I also don't see a good reason to renumber a 2500+ card set just because a few have a number at the top. And lastly, coming from a struggling collector :) , trying to break the set down by year makes collecting the set too difficult. I personally like the way it is, it's not hard I figure out what year a card was first produced, and whether or not it was produced other years. (using the OJ bible, of course)

I'll also add that there is a zero-number checklist in the back of the book.

[oldjudge]

It's always great to talk about the Old Judge set. You are right that the Old Judge set is really many sets. Some of these are entirely baseball sets, and others are sets where baseball players are joined by boxers, actresses, other athletes, and political figures. The first photographic Goodwin & Co set including baseball players was issued in 1886, not 1887. It is the script series, and it is also made up of boxers. Next came the Short Number set, and then the "0" Number set. If I understand what you are proposing it is to use the "0" numbers as pose numbers. You can do this for the "0" number cards but you have now classified about 550 poses of the more an 2500 poses now known in the set. Also, in the short number set number 102 is a Jim McCormick pose. In the "0" number set number 0102 is a Jim Fogarty pose.
I think if one wanted to treat the Old Judge set like we treat current baseball sets we would subdivide the Old Judge set into the following subclasses:

Script Cards--baseball players and boxers
Short Number set-baseball players, actors and actresses, other athletes, politicians
"0" Number set--baseball players, boxers, other athletes
1888 Fa set
1888 Fb set
1889 set
1890 set
Old Judge cabinets

You can collect the cards like this. However, I collect poses and I want all the poses of a particular player aggregated together. I can use the Cartophilic Society listing to disaggregate the pose listing into year, and/or set, if I chose to. If you get the Cartophilic Listing you can do the same.

Phil--if you are interested in what year a particular player had his first card issued you can also use the Cartophilic Listing or, for HOFers, you can ask me (there aren't that many).

[bn2cardz]

The Old Judge book produced by Jay, Richard & Joe breaks the entire set down by year as you would like to see it done. If all collectors followed that as the Old Judge "Bible" then everything would be fine. Unfortunately, the grading companies are not going to go that route as thousands and thousands of Old Judges have already been holdered under the general 1887-90 or 1887 only for all cards format. The card catalogues like Beckett & SCBC could eventually make the change if pressured enough, I believe. The info is certainly available to support it.

Personally, I would like to know every card that was issued by individual year, especially being a rookie card collector.

I know you say the grading companies won't change, but I think it is only a matter of time just like they had to change when it came to t206 backs to meet the demands of the collectors. If one company starts to show more respect towards the Old Judge set and listing them correctly they may gain those collectors. At this point it is best to be the first to do it than the last.

[bn2cardz]

If you get the Cartophilic Listing you can do the same.

Phil--if you are interested in what year a particular player had his first card issued you can also use the Cartophilic Listing or, for HOFers, you can ask me (there aren't that many).

This is my problem, I can't seem to get this list. I have even contacted the CSGB and haven't been able to get this list tracked down. I have been told it is being updated, but I still can't get any list.

[cyseymour]

I like the way you think Cy, but don't forget, the 0-number series includes other athletes and boxers... That numbering system doesn't really help baseball subject collecting IMO. I also don't see a good reason to renumber a 2500+ card set just because a few have a number at the top. And lastly, coming from a struggling collector :) , trying to break the set down by year makes collecting the set too difficult. I personally like the way it is, it's not hard I figure out what year a card was first produced, and whether or not it was produced other years. (using the OJ bible, of course)

I'll also add that there is a zero-number checklist in the back of the book.

Matt,

Just to respond to a couple of your points... I just looked at the Appendix of the OJ book and see that the checklist is back there... thanks, I hadn't even realized it. Great work from the book authors.

If you look at that list, the boxers are at the beginning of the list, from 0-34. But also there are baseball cards with those same numbers - the King Kelly cards, and also the Browns Champs.

As such, you can see that if you replace the boxers with the King Kelly and Browns Champs, the "checklist" is really for all the 1887 baseball cards. The 1887 set comprises of the entire NL, plus the AA champs of St. Louis, and additionally Brooklyn.

I can only imagine that since Brooklyn was based in New York, the OJ producers felt compelled to include them. They may have later received complaints that the New York Mets were excluded, hence the limited run of the spotted ties. Just a hypothesis.

But either way, you can see that the 1887 OJ's really are their own set with their own numbers, since it seems that every pose was given a number (excluding the rare spotted tie series).

[cyseymour]

If I understand what you are proposing it is to use the "0" numbers as pose numbers. You can do this for the "0" number cards but you have now classified about 550 poses of the more an 2500 poses now known in the set. Also, in the short number set number 102 is a Jim McCormick pose. In the "0" number set number 0102 is a Jim Fogarty pose.

I think if one wanted to treat the Old Judge set like we treat current baseball sets we would subdivide the Old Judge set into the following subclasses:

Script Cards--baseball players and boxers
Short Number set-baseball players, actors and actresses, other athletes, politicians
"0" Number set--baseball players, boxers, other athletes
1888 Fa set
1888 Fb set
1889 set
1890 set
Old Judge cabinets

You can collect the cards like this. However, I collect poses and I want all the poses of a particular player aggregated together. I can use the Cartophilic Society listing to disaggregate the pose listing into year, and/or set, if I chose to. If you get the Cartophilic Listing you can do the same.

Phil--if you are interested in what year a particular player had his first card issued you can also use the Cartophilic Listing or, for HOFers, you can ask me (there aren't that many).

Okay, thanks Jay, I see now that you have catalogued both the short numbers and zero numbers. There is a conflict with card 102, but that may not be an insurmountable difference. There is certainly enough overlap to see that the OJ producers intention was to number the cards in an orderly manner.

Definitely, there are some advanced collectors out there that have collected by pose irrespective of year produced, including yourself. I have a tremendous amount of respect for your efforts, as well as the efforts of others. It doesn't mean that someone couldn't collect the set in that way if they were to choose, as a sort of master OJ set.

[cyseymour]

Just a quick note that I wonder if the zero series was produced after the season was over and the short numbers produced the previous spring in 1887. The reason being that McCormick retired at the end of the season. Perhaps they then replaced his card with the Fogarty "sexy pose" since maybe they felt it no longer made sense to produce McCormick cards with him having been retired?

edited to add: The zero may have been placed in front to signify when it was printed without disrupting their numbering system.

[oldjudge]

Cy--please read the book and familiarize yourself with the series before you hypothesize. The Short Number series starts with card 1, Ike Weir a boxer, and goes to at least card 130, Cus Cuerrero, a pedestrian. The "0" Number series starts with card 01, Arthur Chambers a boxer, and goes to at least card 0575, Bill Phillips a baseball player. The numbering of the "0" Number set wasn't a continuation of the the Short Number set, it is a new set. And if you want to be really picky, the "0" Number set is really two sets, Type A and the shorter Type B. There is also probably a transition set between the Script cards and the Short Number series (Script cards with an Ax rather than an Ay company line).

[cyseymour]

Cy--please read the book and familiarize yourself with the series before you hypothesize. The Short Number series starts with card 1, Ike Weir a boxer, and goes to at least card 130, Cus Cuerrero, a pedestrian. The "0" Number series starts with card 01, Arthur Chambers a boxer, and goes to at least card 0575, Bill Phillips a baseball player. The numbering of the "0" Number set wasn't a continuation of the the Short Number set, it is a new set. And if you want to be really picky, the "0" Number set is really two sets, Type A and the shorter Type B. There is also probably a transition set between the Script cards and the Short Number series (Script cards with an Ax rather than an Ay company line).

Thanks Jay, I hadn't thought about that. I did read the book but my conclusions aren't always accurate, as you know. But regardless of the differences in the Short and Zero Series, they were both made in 1887 and there is no overlap, with the exception of one card so they could combined still be considered the same set. For instance, 50's Topps cards have high numbers series, different color backs, and so forth.

Not much more to say about it, except to each his own, and however a set is made, categorized or collected is open to interpretation.

[oldjudge]

You are not listening--there are a lot of overlaps, as in about 130(Short Number set 1-130, "0" Number set 01-0575). Most are not baseball player vs baseball player, but quite a few are.

[cyseymour]

You are not listening--there are a lot of overlaps, as in about 130(Short Number set 1-130, "0" Number set 01-0575). Most are not baseball player vs baseball player, but quite a few are.


I went through the list, and all I can see as baseball vs. baseball overlaps are the ten Jim McCormick cards and Mascot Willie Hahm. But they could be catalogued with the overlap, i.e., just have two cards #'d 94... or have a 94a and 94b.

Another possibility would be to renumber in the cataloguing the ten McCormick cards using the #'s 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 28, 29, 30, and 31... those ten numbers are available since the overlap is non-baseball vs. non-baseball in those cases.

Not that it's perfect, but there are workarounds, and it is arguably superior to ignoring the numbers for every single card, and it allows for collectors to collect whichever set they wish such as 1887, 88, 89, etc.

P.S. They must have had quite a fascination with the "Belfast Spider" if they stuck him before King Kelly in the numbering!

[oldjudge]

No need to ignore anything--just consider each series as a separate entity.

[cyseymour]

No need to ignore anything--just consider each series as a separate entity.

That would certainly be possible for those who wish to collect the pugilist/non-sports cards as well as the baseball. For those who wish to collect solely the baseball cards, it would be a way of condensing the two series into one 1887 OJ set.

[Joe_G.]

I think if one wanted to treat the Old Judge set like we treat current baseball sets we would subdivide the Old Judge set into the following subclasses:

Script Cards--baseball players and boxers
Short Number set-baseball players, actors and actresses, other athletes, politicians
"0" Number set--baseball players, boxers, other athletes
1888 Fa set
1888 Fb set
1889 set
1890 set

Well stated Jay, this has been discussed many times. Truth be told, there are also Fb actress cards and so on.

For those not familiar with Old Judge cards, even when subdividing N172s to this extent, there are subsets within the proposed sets such as Spotted Ties (within Script), Browns Champs (within short number), Brooklyn minis (within "0" number), and California League (within 1889). The California League subset is a good example of how very different the rarity can be within the proposed subdivided list above. So many, many ways to slice the N172 set; the best baseball card issue of all time :)

[jcmtiger]

Seymore I was confused about Old Judge cards. Mainly about the Detroit Players. After many emails with Joe G. he set me free, he has the knowledge to help. Helped me with the 1887 Detroit players, the Fa, FB Detroit players and the international players.

email joe g he can help

Joe

[cyseymour]

Joe,

Any insight into why 1887 was divided into the Short Number set and the Zero set?

Also, do you think that, seeing that "n172" is only supposed to encompass baseball, 1887 OJ's could be broken into a baseball set since there are 575 baseball poses (excluding Willie Hahm) and the Zero set goes to 575? I am detecting some symmetry there...

Thanks

[Joe_G.]

Joe,

Any insight into why 1887 was divided into the Short Number set and the Zero set?

Also, do you think that, seeing that "n172" is only supposed to encompass baseball, 1887 OJ's could be broken into a baseball set since there are 575 baseball poses (excluding Willie Hahm) and the Zero set goes to 575? I am detecting some symmetry there...

Thanks

Not entirely sure I understand your question or if my answer provides anything Jay hasn't already shared. At any rate, there are 32 different short numbered baseball poses w/ McCormick enjoying some re-issued poses with team update (Pittsburgh). The zero numbered baseball subjects start at "032" which I believe to be purely coincidental w.r.t. there being 32 different short number baseball poses. The zero numbered cards have many missing numbers between "032" and "0575", most of them being in the Brooklyn grouping (highest numbers).

I believe Goodwin & Co. did a fine job assigning numbers in 1887 but by the time 1888 rolled around, the scope of the set more than doubled with full coverage of all NL, AA, and WA teams. There was a lot of player movement and the cards design was somewhat simplified. No more careful placement of the "Old Judge Cigarettes" banner in the photo area, no more number.

Going back to the 1886/1887 issue, I do believe there was overlap amongst the script, short number, and "0" numbered cards. Some of the surviving uncut sheets suggest this. Some script cards are more common than others. For example, the poses that can be found in both Ay and Ax formats are typically a bit more common with what I suspect was an early (Ay) and a later (Ax) production date. All of the Spotted Ties are of the Ay (early) format while others such as the script cards of Roger Connor can be found with both and show up more frequently than any of the Spotted Ties.

A careful read of the Old Judge book should make good sense of all this and more.

[Joe_G.]

Joe,

Any insight into why 1887 was divided into the Short Number set and the Zero set?

Also, do you think that, seeing that "n172" is only supposed to encompass baseball, 1887 OJ's could be broken into a baseball set since there are 575 baseball poses (excluding Willie Hahm) and the Zero set goes to 575? I am detecting some symmetry there...

Thanks

My response above may have been the result of me over-thinking your question.

If your question is simply why are there different sets from late 1886 & 1887 then the answer is a bit different. It is clear from the player and team combinations found within the 1886-1887 issues that the script cards (Ay examples in particular) pre-date the numbered cards and that the short numbered pre-date the "0" numbered. It is possible that the Baseball card issue was re-scoped several times over late 1886-1887. As more baseball negatives arrived from various studios such as Gray Studio, the card maker/producer had decisions to make. For example, how would the cards be organized and mass produced? It is possible, perhaps likely, that the studio(s) responsible for making the cards for Goodwin and Co. changed during 1887. It may have taken multiple studios to meet the demand for the baseball card inserts. All of these scenarios could help explain the many differences during late 1886-1887. Not only the script vs short number vs "0" number, but Type A vs Type B "0" number, Brooklyn minis and the many other variations (Ay & Ax script cards, missing numbers on cards that should have them, cards with and without copyrights, etc.). In the absence of proof, we can only speculate why the separate issues and the many variations.

[cyseymour]

Joe, thank you very much for your extensive and interesting answers. I'll need to go back and study the book to better understand all the details of the printing, but from a collector's perspective, on a purely practical level - do you like the idea of dividing OJ's into 1887, 88 and 89 (86 and maybe 90, even), for the sake of set registry's, pop reports, things like that?

Point being that while the differences in the subsets is all very interesting, the set could still largely be broken into 1887, 1888, and 1889 cards comprising of three different sets, and that for the 1887's, it would be fairly easy to track them by the number that actually appears on the card, even if you were combining the Zero and Short series print runs into a larger 1887 baseball set.

Thanks

[Joe_G.]

Personally, I would support breaking the set into the following:

N172-1 = 1886-1887 Script
N172-2 = 1887 Short Number
N172-3A & 3B = 1887 "0" Number (A & B referring to the type)
N172-4 = 1888 Fa
N172-5 = 1888 Fb
N172-6 = 1889
N172-7 = 1890

In each case, I would order the cards in alphabetical order. I do collect the 28 sequential "0" numbers from 0481 to 0508 as these represent the Detroit Wolverines. One might expect me to like the idea of ordering them as Goodwin did; but not the case. I would like to see the cards in alphabetical order for consistency.

So my beloved NL Detroit Wolverines would all fall under N172-3A and N172-5 (with a small number of re-issues showing up as N172-4)

An alternate naming convention could be as follows (non-conventional naming, but easier for those of us who have studied the set for many years):

N172 Script
N172 Short Number
N172 "0" Number
N172 Fa
N172 Fb
N172 Fc
N172 Fc NL/PL

I'm also OK leaving it as just N172 :)

[cyseymour]

Personally, I would support breaking the set into the following:

N172-1 = 1886-1887 Script
N172-2 = 1887 Short Number
N172-3A & 3B = 1887 "0" Number (A & B referring to the type)
N172-4 = 1888 Fa
N172-5 = 1888 Fb
N172-6 = 1889
N172-7 = 1890

In each case, I would order the cards in alphabetical order. I do collect the 28 sequential "0" numbers from 0481 to 0508 as these represent the Detroit Wolverines. One might expect me to like the idea of ordering them as Goodwin did; but not the case. I would like to see the cards in alphabetical order for consistency.

So my beloved NL Detroit Wolverines would all fall under N172-3A and N172-5 (with a small number of re-issues showing up as N172-4)

An alternate naming convention could be as follows (non-conventional naming, but easier for those of us who have studied the set for many years):

N172 Script
N172 Short Number
N172 "0" Number
N172 Fa
N172 Fb
N172 Fc
N172 Fc NL/PL

I'm also OK leaving it as just N172 :)


Joe, thank you for your response. I'm hearing what you're saying about the complexity of the set and the many different sub-types. First question is: theoretically, if you chose to break the 1887 into Short and "0" Number subsets, would you recategorize the boxers, celebrities, actors and actresses as n172's? Because they are currently n171's and n174's. And what would be the harm in combining the "O" and Short Series into an umbrella 1887 baseball set? Isn't that why most series are called "series" and not "sets", because the series is contained within the set?

I hear what you're saying about alphabetical order being more consistent, but then there is the problem that because they are alphabetical, the grading companies fail to distinguish between poses, while if they were categorized by numbers, the poses would be automatically recorded as the pop report would report the number of the card.

Another problem with alphabetical, remember, is then you have to create an entirely new numbering system apart from what is already on the card, and the convenience of knowing the number by looking at the card is lost. So I'm not sure whether making it alphabetical and creating a new numbering system really makes things more simple as opposed to more confusing?

Also, what you're suggesting is a rather either/or scenario between the two extremes of categorizing everything according to the smallest detail, or lumping everything together under the moniker of "n172". Either way, it makes it almost impossible to get a set together, because getting every n172 card is basically impossible, but also breaking everything down by subset makes collecting each subset a near impossibility (for instance, 1888 Fa and Fb). Why not just combine things like Fa and Fb into an umbrella "1888" so collectors can include both of them in an 1888 set and therefore make it more attainable?

Thanks

J

[Joe_G.]

Many different options. I can see the benefit of listing by year, throwing all the various types from that year together, perhaps as follows:

1886-87 Script
1887 Numbered (includes short number & both type A & B long /"0" numbered)
1888 (both Fa & Fb)
1889 (Fc)
1890 (Fc NL/PL)

Maybe even just call the Script 1886 to avoid overlapping with the numbered cards even though some script cards absolutely date to 1887.

No strong opinion on the N171 and N174 issues. They deserve to be split up just like the baseball cards above, but I don't much like the idea of trying to list all the Fb actress cards to join the baseball cards. By 1888, I believe Goodwin primarily issued baseball cards during the baseball season and actress cards during the winter (at least in the US). They really could and should be considered separate issues. Its a tougher call during 1887 when the cards were likely issued together.

To recap, you could separate the set out by year as shown above. Five sets in total. But I'd still prefer to separate out the short from long /"0" numbered. The reason for cataloging in the various ways I've suggested is to bring clarity to each individual type of Old Judge card. Each type of issue (short vs "0" number, Fa vs Fb) is different and easily identified if you know what to look for.

Despite all this conjecture, I'll restate that I'm also OK with just leaving them all lumped together as 1886-1890 N172s. There are more collectors who go after players, teams, poses they find interesting, or subsets within a given year than those who focus on just a particular year. The best solution for the complex set may be what we have today, an exhaustive listing of everything rolled into one alphabetic list.

If the OJ set were catalogued by year, would it change the way you collect the set?

[oldjudge]

What is your purpose for wanting to combine the Short Number and "0" Number series? It obviously isn't to aid in your own collecting--all the numbers are provided in the book so you have an effective checklist. Are you planning in trying to complete either of these series--my guess is no.

[cyseymour]

What is your purpose for wanting to combine the Short Number and "0" Number series? It obviously isn't to aid in your own collecting--all the numbers are provided in the book so you have an effective checklist. Are you planning in trying to complete either of these series--my guess is no.

I have very little skin in the game. I'm just interested in the set, to be honest. My purpose for combining the Short and "O" series is that it would make it so that there could be the following sets:

1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
N173's
GQ's

This might be more efficient in the sense that it's generally the case in the hobby that sets are listed by year, and of course, the "0" and Short series have the same design, so it seems reasonable they ought to be included in the same set. It also eliminates the n171's and n174's which many don't want to collect since it is not baseball.

Those are my reasons for combining them, as for my reasons for having the conversation, I find it intellectually stimulating to think about things - and sometimes think differently. It could help the values of the cards, yes, but also I think it would enhance the enjoyment of the set since it would be easier to collect and complete the sets, as well as enjoy the use the original numbering system.

[cyseymour]

Many different options. I can see the benefit of listing by year, throwing all the various types from that year together, perhaps as follows:

1886-87 Script
1887 Numbered (includes short number & both type A & B long /"0" numbered)
1888 (both Fa & Fb)
1889 (Fc)
1890 (Fc NL/PL)

Maybe even just call the Script 1886 to avoid overlapping with the numbered cards even though some script cards absolutely date to 1887.

No strong opinion on the N171 and N174 issues. They deserve to be split up just like the baseball cards above, but I don't much like the idea of trying to list all the Fb actress cards to join the baseball cards. By 1888, I believe Goodwin primarily issued baseball cards during the baseball season and actress cards during the winter (at least in the US). They really could and should be considered separate issues. Its a tougher call during 1887 when the cards were likely issued together.

To recap, you could separate the set out by year as shown above. Five sets in total. But I'd still prefer to separate out the short from long /"0" numbered. The reason for cataloging in the various ways I've suggested is to bring clarity to each individual type of Old Judge card. Each type of issue (short vs "0" number, Fa vs Fb) is different and easily identified if you know what to look for.

Despite all this conjecture, I'll restate that I'm also OK with just leaving them all lumped together as 1886-1890 N172s. There are more collectors who go after players, teams, poses they find interesting, or subsets within a given year than those who focus on just a particular year. The best solution for the complex set may be what we have today, an exhaustive listing of everything rolled into one alphabetic list.

If the OJ set were catalogued by year, would it change the way you collect the set?

Joe, I completely agree with pretty much everything you're writing here, thanks for making such a great synopsis. To answer your question, the way that I collect is already evolving, but really for me is more for the greater interest of the cards and the hobby.

That said, there are infinite amounts of ways to view a particular set. Someone could choose to color code a set, seeing that there are millions of colors, or use binary computer code (imagine describing my Connie Mack as "0111011010101"!!!!). There is no right or wrong... it's just that some systems or organizations might have certain benefits which I describe above.

So it's really not about judging people or how they've done things, just thinking outside the box to help advance the hobby, and maybe organize things in a way that could be perceived as more collector-friendly; but even that is subject to debate, as it should be.

Cheers

J

[RCMcKenzie]

Jaime,

Thanks for starting this thread. I have learned a lot from reading it. I collect by year, by player, and by team, but mostly I collect by "I'm going to try and win that card" (See Dell Darling port ebay last week(underbidder), or Mack in 1st post(underbidder). I try to buy when I can and usually lose. There are so many cards, and so many ways to collect, I like the current player system.

[Matthew H]

Cy, the system you're proposing isn't going to make collecting the set easier, it'll make it much harder. Right now, a player collector could get a player from any availible year, '86-'90, and be done with him. Trying to find a specific year for a pose makes things wayyy to complicated for most.

[cyseymour]

Jaime,

Thanks for starting this thread. I have learned a lot from reading it. I collect by year, by player, and by team, but mostly I collect by "I'm going to try and win that card" (See Dell Darling port ebay last week(underbidder), or Mack in 1st post(underbidder). I try to buy when I can and usually lose. There are so many cards, and so many ways to collect, I like the current player system.

Rob,

Sorry about the bad ebay luck. I was also an underbidder on the Dell Darling card (my snipe was a little low and never registered). Someone got a terrific card. Better luck in the future.

J

[cyseymour]

Cy, the system you're proposing isn't going to make collecting the set easier, it'll make it much harder. Right now, a player collector could get a player from any availible year, '86-'90, and be done with him. Trying to find a specific year for a pose makes things wayyy to complicated for most.

Matt, it would make it easier to collect an entire set since other it is more or less impossible to get every n172 due to the California OJ's and other extreme rarities. As for people collecting subsets, such as a specific team, position, HOFer, etc, they are more than welcome to make their own rules about crossing over between year since they are the ones deciding the terms of their own subset. It seems that Joe chose not to for his Detroit run but many other have chosen to (including myself).

[bn2cardz]

Cy, the system you're proposing isn't going to make collecting the set easier, it'll make it much harder. Right now, a player collector could get a player from any availible year, '86-'90, and be done with him. Trying to find a specific year for a pose makes things wayyy to complicated for most.

As for people collecting subsets, such as a specific team, position, HOFer, etc, they are more than welcome to make their own rules about crossing over between year since they are the ones deciding the terms of their own subset.

People already make their own rules for collecting. Some people add Coupon cards in with their T206. People combine '14 and '15 cracker jacks. Organizing into the proper sets should be done to educate people on what they are collecting and what the possibilities are, it isn't meant to restrict someone into collecting something they don't want.

[cyseymour]

I do want to point out one other thing - while Joe G. does opine that he would rather view the cards alphabetically, his actual collection of Detroit players is very much aligned with how I propose to categorize OJ's. So while everyone else generally has a hodge-podge of different years and series, Joe himself is generally following the same guidelines that I propose in this thread.

This is not to say that he is doing so with any sort of malicious intent, just to note that in this particular instances, his opinions are incongruous with own actions with regards to how he is choosing to collect the set. I'm sure it wasn't his intent to mislead anyone, but, as they say, "actions speak louder than words."

[Matthew H]

Cy, I understand your point about team collecting... If I was collecting a specific team I'd probably want to buy every example that came up.

Proposing to break up the set by year is not going to make anything easier. 1889 OJs probably pop up the most frequent, but cal leagues OJs are 1889,,,, so it's impossible to complete an 1889 set without an incredible find.

Most of the other extremely rare cards are 1888 so good luck with that.

You'll need a Hahm card to complete an 1887 set, as well as full pose runs of some pretty tough cards.

People already collect the 1886 "dotted ties" subset. Everyone knows they're scarce.

I have the "hodge podge" of years you describe. I can't imaging taking what I've acquired so far and breaking it up into 7 sets, honestly it seems silly to me. I'm really happy it's catalogued the way it is.

[cyseymour]

Cy, I understand your point about team collecting... If I was collecting a specific team I'd probably want to buy every example that came up.

Proposing to break up the set by year is not going to make anything easier. 1889 OJs probably pop up the most frequent, but cal leagues OJs are 1889,,,, so it's impossible to complete an 1889 set without an incredible find.

Most of the other extremely rare cards are 1888 so good luck with that.

You'll need a Hahm card to complete an 1887 set, as well as full pose runs of some pretty tough cards.

People already collect the 1886 "dotted ties" subset. Everyone knows they're scarce.

I have the "hodge podge" of years you describe. I can't imaging taking what I've acquired so far and breaking it up into 7 sets, honestly it seems silly to me. I'm really happy it's catalogued the way it is.

Good point, Matt. It would at least be theoretically easier, though still insanely difficult. Another thing that I've been thinking is that the 1887 set would really have to be broken up into type A and B since those designs are different.

Maybe the OJ set is a hodge podge and I am just a purist. I don't know. I like the idea of collecting a series, or a subset with a series, like Joe did with the 1887 Fa cards. Another problem I've noticed is that I think there were Fb poses that weren't in Fa.

It really would be cool to have a set where the numbers on the card matched the checklist. I'm not still against the idea of breaking the set up into different years, but upon further review I can see that there are certain obstacles that I hadn't before considered.

[Joe_G.]

I do want to point out one other thing - while Joe G. does opine that he would rather view the cards alphabetically, his actual collection of Detroit players is very much aligned with how I propose to categorize OJ's. So while everyone else generally has a hodge-podge of different years and series, Joe himself is generally following the same guidelines that I propose in this thread.

This is not to say that he is doing so with any sort of malicious intent, just to note that in this particular instances, his opinions are incongruous with own actions with regards to how he is choosing to collect the set. I'm sure it wasn't his intent to mislead anyone, but, as they say, "actions speak louder than words."

Truth is, I collect absolutely any and all Detroit cards, all variations. It just so happens that the 1887 "0" numbered cards are easiest and they were the first subset I completed. The fact that Detroit won the World Championship in 1887 makes that subset a little extra special. All the 1887 Detroit players would be re-issued cards in 1888 as either Fa or Fb (in the case of Wiedman, a team change card showing him with the NY Giants). Additionally, new Detroit players were introduced (all the new players are Fb). Finally, in 1889, with the Detroit NL team dis-banded, a new Detroit team was formed to compete in the International Association. Goodwin & Co. did Detroit proud by issuing a number of 1889 cards for these minor league players (all team change cards themselves). I collect them all but do sort them by subset in my personal collection. I also collect the GQs and cabinets. Any photographic Goodwin & Co. card or cabinet featuring a Detroit player is of interest to me. I will collect them this way regardless of how the set or sets are catalogued.

[cyseymour]

Truth is, I collect absolutely any and all Detroit cards, all variations. It just so happens that the 1887 "0" numbered cards are easiest and they were the first subset I completed. The fact that Detroit won the World Championship in 1887 makes that subset a little extra special. All the 1887 Detroit players would be re-issued cards in 1888 as either Fa or Fb (in the case of Wiedman, a team change card showing him with the NY Giants). Additionally, new Detroit players were introduced (all the new players are Fb). Finally, in 1889, with the Detroit NL team dis-banded, a new Detroit team was formed to compete in the International Association. Goodwin & Co. did Detroit proud by issuing a number of 1889 cards for these minor league players (all team change cards themselves). I collect them all but do sort them by subset in my personal collection. I also collect the GQs and cabinets. Any photographic Goodwin & Co. card or cabinet featuring a Detroit player is of interest to me. I will collect them this way regardless of how the set or sets are catalogued.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Anyways, it seems this thread has about run its course... doesn't look like change is imminent, but nevertheless it was an interesting conversation and I thank both Joe and Jay, as well as everyone else, for their contributions. Maybe one day the set really will be re-examined, but for now it seems that there are enough collectors who are content with the current structure to make a re-org superfluous. Either way, I very much enjoyed our conversation and learning more about the set, so thanks again to everyone who participated.