2003 Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards [Archive]

View Full Version : 2003 Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards

Archive

09-13-2002, 08:18 PM

Posted By: leonMr. Lemke has done another wonderful job. Got mine today on my doorstep in sunny Alaska. It was resting up against my igloo when I got home today, noticed it out of the corner of my eye, and snatched it quickly. It has a bunch of updates to sets, new pricing on quite a few, and quite a few more series...ie the Holmes to Homes and Mall Theatre's m101's.... Glad to see all of the new info... In another periodical plug (hope this is not a "faux pa"- sp?)talking about 2 periodicals in one thread... I was given some of the "Beckett Sports Collecitbles- Vintage" editions recently. Those things have some great articles in them about the cards themselves. There is a great story about T206 backs in there and an article about "defining pre-48 rookie cards" etc etc....I highly recommend both of the periodicals above...and much congratulations to the respective editors and staff.....now maybe one of them will pay me or something.... <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> just kidding on that part but they really are great.....best regards

Archive

09-13-2002, 09:06 PM

Posted By: Jaime LeidermanDid they add the complete OJ checklist like they did in the 90´s?

Archive

09-13-2002, 09:57 PM

Posted By: leonDon't know ...don't care.... <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> regards

Archive

09-13-2002, 09:59 PM

Posted By: Julie Vognar....

Archive

09-13-2002, 10:02 PM

Posted By: leonDon't know what the He## I was thinking....thanks for straightening me out Julie <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-14-2002, 02:13 AM

Posted By: BCDgo to your corner and read the thing!

Archive

09-14-2002, 07:24 AM

Posted By: Tom Boblittthe OJ listings...........just listed each individual player. Still some work to do on that too.......

Archive

09-14-2002, 08:08 AM

Posted By: Jaime LeidermanOk... No OJ (OLD JUDGE) <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> checklist But how about Alan Rosen picture, still there???

Archive

09-14-2002, 12:25 PM

Posted By: B C DanielsBy a long shot but Tom,YOU could make a fairly exstensive one with the two other guys on here that have a great collection of them. Why not do it for all of us in a nice little 6 page print out like the guy did with the knock off of "the Monster' on the T-206's??? That would be hooby friendly!!! regards!

Archive

09-14-2002, 12:58 PM

Posted By: Bob LemkeThe decision not to run the complete "by pose" list of Old Judges (about 3,500 pieces) in recent editions is because relatively few collectors care to that degree and probably most of them own the World Index from whom we license that data. I have long recognized that the by-player list we have been running is deficient. Since the new edition went out the door I have been working on a completely new type of listing for N172 and related issues which I feel will more adequately serve the majority of vintage collectors. Sometime in the coming months a draft of this new format will be previewed in SCD under my "Standard Catalog Update" column head, to allow for reader input, additions and corrections, etc. Watch for it.

Archive

09-14-2002, 08:36 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerBob--I'm not sure what the 3500 number you are referring to is. There are between 2400 and 2500 poses that I know of in the Old Judge set.

Archive

09-14-2002, 08:38 PM

Posted By: jeff sJay: just a stab: perhaps 3500 includes the variations of poses -- i.e. "Chicagos" v. "Chicago's". Either that, or Bob is hoarding ONE THOUSAND POSES THAT YOU DON'T HAVE YET!!! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Also Jay - I am still waiting for the lot of OJs...I will e-mail you as soon as I get them (hopefully very soon!).

Archive

09-14-2002, 09:05 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerJeff---I don't think it is that either because when you look at all the spelling and team variations you get a much larger number than 3500. I think Bob used the word poses and that number is what I stated. Thanks for the update on the cards; I look forward to hearing from you.

Archive

09-14-2002, 10:07 PM

Posted By: jeffi just did a cursory estimate based on the 1996 SCD listings, which seem to come out to just over 5,000 variations. however, bob did say "pieces" in his original post...maybe he is referring to my projected Old Judge set, which, when complete, will have 2500 "cards," but since 40% of them will be torn in half or in some other way defaced by splitting, there will be a total of 3500 "pieces." [note: beware baseball card collectors trained in literary criticism]

Archive

09-16-2002, 08:10 AM

Posted By: Bob LemkeAccording to the Old Judge "by pose" (just our internal identifier) data we have, there are about 3,700 "different" cards if you include minor variations in the presentation of team and position designations.

Archive

09-16-2002, 10:20 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerBob--I dug up an old SCD catalog to see what you are talking about. The 3500 type number includes team variations (both different teams and spelling of the same team)and position variations(although not the spelling thereof) in addition to pose variations. It does not, however, include some name variations (A.C. Anson vs Anson vs Capt. Anson). In my humble opinion this is an inconsistent way of doing things. My suggestion is that you either simplify the list by leaving off the slight variations in team spellings---Cincinnati vs Cincinnatis--- or go in the other direction and work out a deal with the Cartophilic Society where you publish the complete listing. For almost all people I think the former would be more than enough. More importantly, if SCD is going to publish this listing I would encourage an updating of the material. Perhaps SCD could take the next step and publish a book solely dedicated to the Old Judge series.

Archive

09-16-2002, 11:16 AM

Posted By: jeff shire Jay as a consultant, and me as "lowly collector." A good idea, especially if there is enough data collected to make for a semi-accurate price guide.

Archive

09-16-2002, 10:39 PM

Posted By: Tom Lawrielist every conceivable OJ variation, first by player, then by year, then by pose, then by typeset variation (e.g. different 1888 printing widths), then by name/position/team listing variations The problem with the current checklist in the Standard Catalog and the other major almanacs is that a particular player might only have one tough card (say an 1887 script or an 1889 script or a PL or NL designation), but it is impossible to ascertain that from the current checklists. The result is that in some cases the pricing information may only be accurate for one or two cards of a particular player (say in a particular pose) but is inaccurate for all of the other cards for that player. And unless collectors are really familiar with Old Judge's, they could easily be misled by the pricing information as it now appears. Better to leave it out altogether than to be sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

Archive

09-17-2002, 12:40 AM

Posted By: John(z28jd)I would like to see it the way Tom suggested too,if not for prices just for general knowledge. It would be alot of work for the amount of people that actually collect Old Judges closely tho,so that might be the reason it hasnt been done. Im sure if there was more demand for it,part of the reason why im writing this,there would be a better chance someone(probably more than one person) would take on this task. I'd be more than willing to help what little i could,everyone knows im an expert on at least one player from the set <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Plus i do have a slight variation thats not listed,but its of a common player(joe mulvey)

Archive

09-17-2002, 06:38 AM

Posted By: leonMost of the Old Judge collectors seems to be old school too. That is they don't like to give out info that could cost them money in the future. I have had this same discussion with several advanced collectors and everytime I say something about helping the hobby they say "what's in it for me?" <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> .....sad but true (or maybe I am naive or just one of the dumb newcomer kids <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> ).......regards all

Archive

09-17-2002, 08:59 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerI think several people are assuming there is alot more knowledge out there than there really is. There is no one who knows which poses are scarce versus which aren't for more than a small group of players. I believe that there is no way that a catalog could ever differentiate between pose scarcity for the Old Judge set. Don't get me wrong--there are generalizations that can be made. Orr's spotted tie card is scarcer than one of his later cards. However, is one California Brown pose scarcer than another--I don't have a clue and I would bet no one else here does either.

Archive

09-17-2002, 11:09 AM

Posted By: Tom LawrieJay, Hi. I agree, but still think that the checklist should be as complete as possible (and I'm guessing it would run to over 10,000 with all variations). The way the pricing should work should be a general or standard price for a particular player (e.g. 1500 for Wilbert Robinson in EX, 250 for James Holliday in EX, etc.) Then there could be pricing exceptions for particularly difficult cards (e.g. next to the Holliday 1890 NL cards, the price could be 750, and for a pose such as "Hands crossed below waist on bat," which doesn't appear on any other more common issues, the price could be 1000 or whatever it is). For all of the pose variations, typeset differences, etc. that really don't make a difference in price, they should just be left blank - thus indicating that they likely sell for the standard price for that player. That way people don't overpay for Phenomenal Smith cards post-1887, as if the 1888-89 issues were as difficult as the 1887 script, or so that people don't pay as much for a St. Louis Browns card as they should for a St. Louis Whites player. At least this way any mistakes in pricing will be legitimate ones, whereas the way the catalogues work now, the pricing information is available but is not correctly listed for lack of space. Just my opinion, Tom