Hobby history: The first Old Judge checklist, 1944

[trdcrdkid]

So far in my series of posts on material from the 1939-1944 Card Collector's Bulletins, I've posted the following checklists that Jefferson Burdick published in CCB in those years, all of which were (I'm pretty sure) the first printed checklists of these sets:

Hobby history: The first T206 checklist, 1941
http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=239973

Hobby history: The first T205, T202, T207, T201, and T204 checklists, 1940-41
http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=240161

Hobby history: First checklists of T209, T210, T211, T212 (1942-43)
http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=240273

Burdick did not print checklists of T213 through T216, because those sets had not been listed in the 1939 first edition of the American Card Catalog. (They would appear in the 1946 edition, which also introduced the numbering system we're familiar with.) However, in CCB #30 (June 1, 1944), Burdick did print a rudimentary checklist of Old Judge baseball cards (#127 in the 1939 ACC, #172 in subsequent ones), which I've posted below. As he acknowledged, it's not a complete checklist since it only lists the players on each team without differentiating among different poses (or different years). Still, it was a start.

Following that, I've also posted the second part of Buck Barker's checklist of the numbered 1887 Old Judges, which appeared in the April 1, 1963 Card Collector's Bulletin (#143). Part one must have appeared in CCB #142, which I'm missing. Barker, Preston Orem, and Walter Corson had published some important research on Old Judges in CCB in the 1950s and early 1960s, which I scanned and posted here: http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=225081. This checklist was a continuation of that research, but I missed it when I was writing the earlier post, so I figured I would include it here alongside Burdick's 1944 checklist.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg98/dkathman1/IMG_8356.jpg
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg98/dkathman1/IMG_8357.jpg
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg98/dkathman1/IMG_8358.jpg
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg98/dkathman1/IMG_8359.jpg
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg98/dkathman1/IMG_8360.jpg
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg98/dkathman1/IMG_8361.jpg
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg98/dkathman1/IMG_8362.jpg

[Joe_G.]

Interesting list, this early (1944) attempt to catalogue the set missed many players. A quick study of Detroit reveals:

9 of 9 1887 Detroits are present
2 of 6 1888 Detroits are present (missing Getzien, Gilligan, Scheibeck, and White)
4 of 5 1889 Detroits are present (missing Wheelock)

This follows expectations (card rarity), thank you for sharing!

[oldjudge]

In the team listings they missed Lowell and Wilkes Barre. They are also missing the California League teams (who isn't?). However, all considered, a great effort.

[Leon]

Hey Jay
You saying great effort with respect to Old Judges is still pretty good. One of these days (maybe at this National if you are going) I will let you get some more detailed OJ lists Mr. Wharton-Tigar had.....

David, always a pleasure to read the old pubs, thanks again.

In the team listings they missed Lowell and Wilkes Barre. They are also missing the California League teams (who isn't?). However, all considered, a great effort.

[oldjudge]

I think the job these guys did was amazing. To compile lists like this pre-internet is incredible.

[Angyale]

Are unknown Old Judges with Cleveland. How did they end up on the list?

Eric

[Angyale]

Jimmy Williams is not on the Cleveland list but he has 2 poses.

Eric

[z28jd]

Are unknown Old Judges with Cleveland. How did they end up on the list?

Eric

Snyder and Lohbeck are possible in N173 form for Cleveland. Not Fry though

[kkkkandp]

Also missing the McQuaid umpire card.

Anyone know what the author means by "NOTE - These cards should be collected via selected approvals..."?

[btcarfagno]

Also missing the McQuaid umpire card.

Anyone know what the author means by "NOTE - These cards should be collected via selected approvals..."?

My guess is that it is a warning that the cards are tough to find so if you send them to someone "on approval" make sure you trust that person. My dad used to collect stamps "on approval". Several collectors/dealers would send him a group of stamps and he would pay for the ones he wanted and return the rest.

Tom C