Question about Old Judges [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

View Full Version : Question about Old Judges

Archive

01-21-2003, 12:32 PM

Posted By: Albie O'HanianI have zero cards from this set in my collection and am hoping to add a Hall of Famer from this set. In the Sloate auction he has cards of Kelly, McCarthy, Clarkson, Brouthers, Comiskey, Duffy and Delahanty. Are any of these cards tougher to get than the others? and when it comes to Old Judges are most collectors less concerned with the backs of the cards and scrapbook removal? Thanks.

Archive

01-21-2003, 12:37 PM

Posted By: Andy BaranThe Delahanty is far more difficult than the other HOFers offered in the Sloate Auction.

Archive

01-21-2003, 02:04 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerAlbie--In my opinion the order from toughest to least tough of those HOFers is Delahanty, Comiskey, Duffy, Kelly, McCarthy, Brouthers and Clarkson. Andy is correct. Delahanty is one of the toughest HOFers in the Old Judge set.

Archive

01-21-2003, 02:27 PM

Posted By: jay behrensand combined with the fact that Big Ed just doesn't have many cards, makes him very desirable. Jay

Archive

01-21-2003, 02:37 PM

Posted By: Albie O'HanianThanks. I was wondering if Delahanty was tough because he had so few other cards or because the Old judge card was difficult and now I know it is for both reasons. I know this topic was posted before but what do most collectors usually look for in collecting old judges-is eye appeal the most important thing?

Archive

01-21-2003, 04:57 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerThere are definately different sectors of the Old Judge collecting fraternity. Some, like myself, are primarily concerned with the clarity of the photo. After that my main concern is the general appearance of the front of the card. The back of the card means next to nothing to me. There is another part of the Old Judge collecting fraternity who is grade conscious. Those people must take into account all the factors that are important to their grading company of choice.

Archive

01-22-2003, 11:22 AM

Posted By: warshawlawThe cards are little photographs, so clarity of the photo is key. For example, I've got two N174 Jack Dempsey cards. One is in decent shape (SGC 40) with an average photo (normal degree of toning, ok clarity). The other is in a much lower technical grade (SGC 20) but with a great photo (the seller, not a card collector, found it in a scrap book and peeled it out. The back has a missing thin layer of paper but the photo is crisp and almost white). Which card is "better"? Certainly, many would say the higher grade one that is intact. I prefer the other card because it looks so much better. Oddly, for printed cards, I am just the opposite. There, I far and away stress condition. Thinking about it, I do the same thing with 1953 Bowman cards--I own and am satisfied with far lower grade cards from that set than from other 1950's sets. Good topic.

Archive

01-22-2003, 12:19 PM

Posted By: runscottI collect pre-1900 baseball albumens, so I occasionally pick up an Old Judge as a cross-over item. Interesting poses, surface and photo clarity are what I'm looking for, with reasonable borders and back condition a non-factor.

Archive

01-22-2003, 02:32 PM

Posted By: JulieDon't for a minute think the Delahanty (correct spelling-from ME, believe it or not!) will go either cheap or reasonable.(You actually see a fair number of Old judge Delahantys, because they're so desirable). As for backs, if the printer put something on it, even if it's just black (like a Mayo), I like it to be as unblemished as possible. If the printer put nothing on the back, I can put up with all sorts of stuck-on, written-om, printed-on, shaved off stuff. But not skinned (missing the whole back part of the card). And (especially to watch with old judges) re-backed, unless I'm told first.