Uploading for Net 54 type 2 collection: Getting rid of those little red x's

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Max</b><p>Ben and others <br /><br />Since I am certain I won't be able to offer any card to the new type collection (assuming a second type collection thread is going to follow), I can at least offer some storage space on my web site, so those annoying little red x's don't appear after a week, and we can enjoy the thread in its entirety for longer. <br /><br />So if anyone who doesn't have their own web site wishes to e-mail me a jpg of their scanned file, I will upload it my web site. When you are entering the description, please use the following URL; http: //members.shaw.ca/weder/filename.jpg (of course, without a space after http: and by substituting the name of your scanned file for "filename"--[now where is that darned "any" key?<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>]<br /><br />Since I can't upload the file from work, I'll only be able to do it from my home computer at night or first thing in the morning.<br /><br /><br />Max

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ben</b><p>I guess I'll post my preliminary list here as well. If anyone has any suggestions for additions to part 2, you can email me at fisherboy7@hotmail.com or just post them here. Also, let me know if you think we should waive the 1 card-per-person rule for this next thread. Looking at the the difficult list below, it seems pretty unlikely that we'd get close to completion if the rule is observed.<br /><br />Lorillard Team Card (1886)<br />Four Base Hits (1887)<br />N690 Kalamazoo Bats (1887)<br />N693 Kalamazoo Bats team cards (1887)<br />N184 Kimball Champions (1887)<br />N175 Gypsy Queen small & large (1887)<br />N173 Dog's Head Cabinets (1888)<br />Joseph Hall Cabinets (1888)<br />M117 Sporting Times (1888)<br />N321 SF Hess California league (1888)<br />N333 SF Hess Newsboys League<br />WG1 Base Ball Playing cards (1888)<br />N142 Honest (Duke) Cabinets (1893)<br />Just So Tobacco (1893)<br />Cameo Pepsin Pins (1898)<br /><br />E107 Briesch Williams type 1 (1903)<br />Allegheny Card Co. (1904)<br />Rose Company postcards (1908-09)<br />Carl Horner Cabinets (1909)<br />T204 T.T.T. Cigarettes (1909)<br />Plow Boy Tobacco (1910-12)<br />Baltimore News Orioles (1910)<br />Washington Times (1910) <br />E221 Bishop & Co. PCL teams (1910)<br />Hermes Ice Cream Pirates Pins (1910)<br />Orange Borders (1910)<br />H801-7 Old Mill Cabinets (1910)<br />T211 Red Sun (1910)<br />Baseball Bats (1910)<br />Big Eater Sacramento Salons (1911)<br />Jones, Keyser & Arras Cabinets (1911)<br />Western Playground Association (1911)<br />PE2 Diamond Pin Gum (1911)<br />Boston Garter (1912-13-14)<br />A Fan For A Fan (1913)<br />Voskamps Coffee (1913)<br />PM1 Ornate Frame Pins (1915)<br />Lections (1923)<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>The Other One (Julie)</b><p>what Max is talking about; it's too bad I don't have any decent 19th century cards, but I guess that's what you guys have been telling mre all along, isn't it?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Is it ok if I post just one from each of those sets? I wouldn't want to take up all that space on the internet by posting all of my complete sets.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>The Other One (Julie)</b><p>card you have is a Kimballs, and it has back damage. Is there some reason why the cards begin in 1886? No Peck and Snyders? (after all that address controversy, too!)Does a type collection contain exclusively rare cards--are we never to see a Spotted Tie, Brown's Champ, Player's League, or a just plain action or portrait card from the Old Judge set? I've heard many people say that the N162 set (the WHOLE set) is one of the most beautiful ever made--but we don't have any of those. Some of us are very partial to Mayos, even if they are only lowly halftones. Scrapps are certainly the Weirdest 19th century cards, but they don't appear. For ten years, the only Anson and Ewing I had was an E.R. Williams game card...<br /><br />But maybe I mistake the purpose of this list--you want only the rarest cards--minus the Peck and Snyder...<br /><br />Again, I can't picture the 20th century without a T206 or T205, a T3 (often called the only cabinet set the average collector has any HOPE of completing)...a Cracker Jack. The only Diamond Gum Pin I own is THE ONLY ONE I'VE EVER SEEN...<br /><br />OUT OF THE 12 CARDS IN OUR CARD HOF, ONLY 4 SETS ARE REPRESENTED IN THIS LIST.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ben</b><p>There's no doubt that n162s, n172's, mayos, t205's T3's, and all the other sets you mentioned in your private email are all great sets. But those sets are fairly abundant (some more than others). This thread is a great opportunity to see some cards from sets you NEVER see on ebay or otherwise. <br /><br />Btw, whose only 19th century card is a kimball's with back damage, and why is that insulting to you?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>The Other One (Julie)</b><p>if you're going to be so snooty? I was just assured that a "type card collection" should ALSO contain the popular types as well.<br /><br />I meant, the only 19th century card on your list that I have is a Kimballs, and it has back damage!<br /><br />Of course i want to see rare cards, but how about some really lucious more common ones...you know, by today's standards, almost ANY 19thy century card is rare!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris</b><p>Julie, I am 100% certain the intent of Ben's post was to get people to show off some extremely difficult cards to acquire; not to exclude people. A good number of us (including myself) have none of the cards on the list -- I for one just look forward to seeing some cards that dont often surface!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ben</b><p>Julie - I added Duke Cabinets, Just So's and Gypsy Queens (small and large). No need to get upset over it, lets just enjoy the thread.<br /><br />sincerely,<br /><br />mr. snooty

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>brian p</b><p>Ben has consistently come up with the most fun and usually interesting threads on this board. The stated intent was to give people a chance to share very uncommon cards from sets that are not normally seen. If I had a scanner I would love to post the one or two examples from this list that I possess. So if anyone has an objection to such an unoffensive thread, please start up a separate thread with your own specifications if this one doesn't suit you or your collection. <br /><br />Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>The Other One (Julie)</b><p>that I deduced that he wanted to be a TEACHER, so there. Thanks for adding the three things to your list, Ben. I don't know why--I only had one thing on your OTHER list, and it didn't bother me, and of course I like to see rare cards that I wouldn't otherwise get to see (and I already have thread #1 saved in FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES).<br /><br />I actually have FOUR things on your list--but 3 are 20th century! I'm angling for a 5th--because I've always wanted one, so you'd think I'd be pleased. I don't know why--it just suddenly struck me as--elitist (did anyone happen to notice Paul's post in passing?).<br /><br />The list also made me wonder (I hope someone besides me is interested in all this stuff) if maybe I'd been going about collecting wrong. I tend to get little PATCHES of fairly common 19th century cards that I really like--22 (big patch) of Old Judges, 8 Mayos, 8 N162s, 5 Tobin Lithographs, 5 "pages" from an A35 album, 18 Scrapps (good lord, who would want 18 Scrapps?) 9 or 10 Harper's Woodcuts. Now if I HADN'T wanted all those Mayos, Old Judges, N162s, etc. and just settled for one of each, I could probably have gotten a Duke's, a Kalamazoo Bats, a S.F. Hess California League, a Cameo Pepsen pin, and some of the cards in the last thread: a N167 Old Judge, an N173 ditto. <br /><br />I just felt like Id been told I'd been doing things wrong, mainly. And NOT having scads of dough, it's often a choice between one card or another(if that! it's been a month since I bought a card)--not both. And more often than not, I choose to add to a set I already have some of--like an Old Judge Delahanty, because he doesn't look too athletic in his Mayo suit.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ben</b><p>I'll be starting the new type collection thread tonight, so please wait until then to post your scans. Also, any further suggestions are welcome, although the list does look pretty impossible as is.