recataloging

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren J. Duet</b><p>Any thoughts on revamping the current old cardboard cataloging system?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I am very interested in cataloguing stuff too. Can you explain a little more what your thoughts are? Do you mean different ACC #'s or......

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glen V</b><p>It seems like there are lots of new cards that never were given ACC #s (Four Base Hits, Lections, G. Ruth Candy, etc.) Also there are a number of things that could be changed, like giving Colgan Tin Tops and Red Borders different #s (instead of both being E270) and making the Old Mill Cabinet a T card (instead of H801-7).<br /><br />However, ACC #s have limited use. Besides W's cards and some old standards, ACC numbers just aren't needed. How many people talk about an N566 instead of a Newsboy Cabinet, or an F7-1 instead of a '37 Dixie Lid? Plus, you couldn't change most of the existing numbers, or things would get really confusing. I can't imagine collectors ever accepting a different name for T206s. And if a new system was created, I doubt it would ever catch on, unless Beckett and/or SCD implemented it in their price guides.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>You must have not checked your friendly ACC lately. Four Base Hits is designated as N690....as I do on my current checklist.....I'll comment more later...I am trying to catch my breath on the board today....<br /><br /><br />edited as my mistake of not saying "not" was completely wrong <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> The ACC is full of surprises

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren J. Duet</b><p>There are many "newly" id'd set and cards since the ACC came out. I feel that T206 should always be T206, but we could do a better job at pigeon-holing and cleaning up old cardboard. <br /><br />I'd like to see a "clean" cataloging system that just plain made sense, and one that would help collectors/historians/dealers keep there area or areas of interest organized.<br /><br />I'd also like to see the STANDARD CATALOG follow a format that would be more user friendly to this cause(organization based on specific cardboard characteristics). I think its a bit out of whack to have E-cards, T-cards spread throughout instead of linked together. Alphabetical is a standard, I know; but come on 1913 Tom Barker Game is immediately followed by 1974-1980 Bob Bartosz Postcards.????? I love SCD and will always buy the latest one-----I also think Our Hobby has evolved into a more specific past-time.<br /><br />Revamping our cataloging system would be fun, educational, & conroversial--just like life. I'd like to hear more ideas, general, specific, pros, cons, whatever. I'm gonna have fun with this and any and everyones opinions are welcome.<br /><br />I respect history and tradition(I love it-one can tell by my collections), but I also embrace and accept the future.<br /><br />Your Friend,<br />Darren<br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Eric</b><p>Hello Darren,<br /><br />The subject of recataloging has been approached several times by several different enthusiasts looking to improve the system. I can't cite exact sources or information on this one, but there was a guy that created a recataloging effort of his own back in the 80's I believe. His wasn't a re-cataloging effort so much as I hear that it was more or less an attempt to give some uncataloged issues an ACC designation of their own. I don't know the specifics of what he did, but if I remember correctly, he was the one responsible for issuing the W9316 designation to the uncat strip card set often referred to by collectors as the "crude drawings" issue. As I've been told, his system never really caught on (except the W9316), and his attempts to alter the ACC system were widely ignored.<br />I'm sort of in your corner about recataloging..but, I don't think any of the existing designations should be changed. We all know that many issues should have been classified with a different designation (ie..a W should have been an R), but those mistakes are etched in stone. What can be done, however, is the task of assigning catalog designations to popular uncataloged issues. Take the Voskamps issue for example. This is a food (actually tea/coffee) issue..and doesn't have an ACC designation. I think it would be great for an issue like this to have a D, or more appropriatly, K designation in front of it. <br />The Cubs will win the World Series before ACC adaptations are made and fully excepted by the vintage card collecting society (pricing guides, grading companies, and collectors). I would think that a panel could be assigned to determine new ACC additions, but again, too many people in vintage card collecting are against change, and my thought is that too many people would resist even the addition of newly catalog designations. The other thing to consider about the difficulty of adding ACC designations to baseball cards is, baseball cards make up maybe 1/10,000 of the different types of cards cataloged by the ACC. Assigning the exact letter-number combo's would be very tricky.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I think the only place where changes, or I should more accurately say additions, be made to the ACC are for uncatalogued sets of unknown origin or manufacure. There are far too many w-unc out there. These really do need a proper designation since there is no readily identifible manufacturer or issuer. It wouldn't be so bad to redesignate sets that are improperly catalogued. You can still leave the original deignation in the book, but then make a not that it has been recllassied as...<br /><br />An issue like Voskamps, while it would be nice to give it a designation, isn't really needed since the issuer is readily known and set is known as Voskamps by everyone. Any new issue of the ACC would have to have an alphabetical checklist of sets and the first place anyone would look for Voskamps is under that name. Most people couldn't even tell you the ACC designation for any of the 30s gum sets.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Something else I just thought of, I am assuming you are talking about strictly baseball cards. It might be worthwhile to contact non-sports card collector too and get their input. we would have a better chance of broad acceptance if we do a revamp of the whole thing and not just baseball.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.