ACC update

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Has anyone given thought to updating the ACC, at least on the baseball side. Or has it become so archaic that it isn't a worthwhile project? There are so many new X-unc sets, that it seems a shame that they don't have proper designations. Or is it only old school collectors that still think in terms of ACC designations?<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glen V</b><p>With the majority of collectors buying newer cards, most people don't care about ACC #s. Even with vintage collectors, the majority stick with the more common issues, like T206, Goudeys, and Crackerjacks. Most will never care that a Crackerjack is an E card, and some might even think T206 is the name of a card set (which it has sort of become). And most issues, catalogued or not, are easier to refer to by name than some obscure number.<br /><br />That being said, if there ever was a group that could extend the ACC, this board certainly has a strong enough voice to attempt it. Throw in some help from Old Cardboard and SCD, it it certainly could happen.<br /><br />Of course, there would probably be some tough choices. First, the ACC wasn't just for baseball cards. How high do the numbers go for some issues? Past 900? Would people want an E-1001? There has been discussion about a few issues as to whether they are "cards" or not. Who would decide? Would all the baseball cards be catalogued? Or just vintage baseball? Or just N, T, R, & E issues?<br /><br />I know a few people would love to have the ACC updated, but I don't think enough people care. Good luck to anyone who takes on the challenge. I'm sure plenty of people on the board would be happy to help.<br><br>.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>It would potentially make set identification clearer, if accepted by the guide publishers.<br /><br />Leon and other type set collectors probably have the best handle on what is out there, and what needs doing. Anybody have ideas?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>It would be fun but as Glen pointed out it would be difficult to get a consensus on many issues (pun intended). If there could be a collaboration of grading companies, SCD&lt; and a collectors committee, it might work. I would love to see many of our issues get out of the "unc" categories. If I am not mistaking there was an attempt by something like the "Collectors Bible" in 1980 that attempted an update. I am probably mistaking on the name but the date and premise are close. It is where the H998 designation for the Western Playgrounds came from so whatever that was, is what I am speaking of..I'm open to helping......best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>So we are going to need a high energy organization guy. One who can contact grading cos, publishers, collectors, others and pull it all together. Then package it sell it and implement it. All the while putting up with complaints, criticisms, knuckleballs and knuckleheads.<br /><br />Sounds like we need a Hurricane Relief guy clone. Wait - maybe he is done with that stuff, and just sitting around bored. Yeah, right.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>There would need to be room in the categories. For example "T" cards is full all the way to the Red Man issues of the 1950s (T232-T235). Besides T224, the next open number is T236. <br /><br /> With "E" cards there is a larger gap from E108 to E119 so it should be easier. Also "D" has a good gap as well from D329 to D349. The other categories like "M", "N", "F", "R", "V", etc. have some smaller gaps. <br /><br /> On top of that you would need to put them under the right subcategory within the category (ie. Allen & Ginter Issues N1-N67, Duke Issues N70-N158, Goodwin Issues N162-N175, Kimball Issues N180-N190, Buchner Issues N280-N291).<br /><br /> What sets would be added? Plowboys, Derby, Geo. Ruth Candy Co., Star Player Candy, Big Eater, Orange Borders, Base-Ball Bats, Colgans Square, Honey Boy, etc.? Someone would need to come up with that list first, then see if there is room. <br /><br /> It would be great if it could happen. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>I second the nomination for 'Hurricane Relief Guy', but from what I understand, we may have to wait a few weeks for him to resurface once the auctions (etc) are done, so that he can catch up on some sleep.<br /><br />Richard.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>William Heitman</b><p>Ted, my friend, the ACC was updated throughout the '60's and '70's by way of Charles Bray's Monthly Card Update. And Burt Sugar's Sports Collector's Bible tried to do the same. To even just slightly scrap the old system (and I don't know if that's the right word) would be a boon to the grading services. And it wouldn't do much for the hobby. I don't know about you, but I just couldn't care less what catalog number we call 1993 Upper Deck. I would have loved to see T206 broken down into its very obvious subsets and the like, but it's 45 years too late. Jeff Burdick is long gone now and Shoeless Joe is never going into the Hall of Fame (even though I would argue that he is already there). Like so much in card collecting, the American Card Catalog was just a beginning--an early attempt to assemble so much into something that made a little sense. It worked. But it was not the word of God and it certainly wasn't the last word on cards. It has been a useful tool. By the way, the ACC did not list 19th Century Tobacco cards as N something. They were merely the number. Old Judge Baseball was catalog # 172, not N172. It's surprising to me how few have actually looked at the book itself.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I agree. Anyone thinking about anything like this should learn the in's and out's of the ACC first. For what it's worth the n cards not only didn't have letters, they were grouped by mfg, not year....best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Reprints can be had fairly cheaply. I got mine from Frisch for about $25 but they can be had for less...I just didn't look very hard. I am sure original versions are around but I wasn't interested in an original...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Being one of the many who've never seen/read the ACC, I'd be very interested in buying a copy. However, I've never seen one for sale, and I'm pretty sure those that do have copies are holding on to them pretty tightly. <br /><br />Any chance something digital exists, or somebody knows where a copy can be found?<br /><br />Richard.<br /><br />(see post that I just posted....Frisch still has them for sale if nothing else...moderator dude)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glen V</b><p>A good starting point and the best chance to have new numbers stick would be uncatalogued cards with no distinct name. Here’s a few, with pictures and potential questions:<br /><br />1912 B-Unc Felts (are these really cards, or a trimmed down pennant?)<br /><a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1912Felt.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1912Felt.html</a><br />1910 E-Unc Orange Borders (name is probably good enough here)<br />1910 E-Unc Candy<br />www.vintageball.com/files/Uncat_Evers2.jpg<br />1915 Unc B&W Cards (E cards, or W?)<br /><a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1915B-W.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1915B-W.html</a><br />1936 E-Unc Candy<br />1910 W-unc colorized portraits (cut from a page – really cards?)<br /><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/colorized-portraits/cp.asp?cardsetID=849" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/colorized-portraits/cp.asp?cardsetID=849</a><br />1913 W-Unc Notebook Cards (really cards?)<br /><a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1913Notebook.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1913Notebook.html</a><br />1916 W-Unc Big Head<br /><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/big-head/big-head.asp?cardsetID=850" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/big-head/big-head.asp?cardsetID=850</a><br />1920/1 W-Unc IFS “Blue and Orange”<br /><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/ifs-blue-orange/ifs-blue-orange.asp?cardsetID=854" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/ifs-blue-orange/ifs-blue-orange.asp?cardsetID=854</a><br />1921 W-Unc Self Developing Strip Cards<br />www.luckeycards.com/swunc1921hornsby.jpg<br />1923 Unc Sepia Shoulderless (E/W? Card?)<br /><a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1923Shoulderless.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1923Shoulderless.html</a><br />1924 W-Unc Babe Ruth (no-numbers, or #ed 1, 52, or 71)<br />1925 W-Unc Playing Cards (a version of W560?)<br /><a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1925-29Playing.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1925-29Playing.html</a><br />1921/9? W-Unc Hand Drawn Playing Cards<br /><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/red-bg-game-cards/red-bg-game-cards.asp?cardsetID=852" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/red-bg-game-cards/red-bg-game-cards.asp?cardsetID=852</a><br />1928 W-Unc (or just a W502 sub-set?)<br /><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/w502/w502.asp?cardsetID=810" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/w502/w502.asp?cardsetID=810</a><br />1935 W-Unc Manager Strip Cards (cut from a larger panel?)<br /><a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1930/1935Mgr.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1930/1935Mgr.html</a><br />???? W-Unc (similar to W555)<br /><a href="http://www.oldjudge.com/auction/baseball/type/89/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldjudge.com/auction/baseball/type/89/</a><br />1910? W/WG-Unc Game pieces <br />www.luckeycards.com/swuncredandbluegamepieces1910ish.jpg<br />1920s PC-Unc Manager Series<br /><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/pc/managers/managers.asp?cardsetID=943" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/pc/managers/managers.asp?cardsetID=943</a><br />1908 PC-Unc Pirates Stadium Issue<br /><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/pc/pirates/pirates.asp?cardsetID=940" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/pc/pirates/pirates.asp?cardsetID=940</a><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>zach</b><p>Don't forget 1913 Voskamps, those guys need a name to call their own <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>William Heitman</b><p>I still have my original hardbound ACC. In the ACC, N cards were "Central and South American Tobacco Cards." I see a difference between a Catalog and a book of checklists. I always thought the purpose of the ACC was to provide a shorthand way to talk to others about cards. When it came out, most dealings in the hobby were done through the mail. Without the ACC, those letters would have been awfully long. The section that we incorrectly call N1 etc. was the section on "19th Century U.S. Tobacco Insert Cards" and, yes, it was grouped almost entirely by manufacturers, which was a logical way to look at them.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>Hey, don't get me wrong! I am totally in favor of curing all of the ills in the world. But the original suggestion by Jay, if I understand it correctly, solely asked about providing a designation for the -unc sets which have been identified.<br /><br />Attempting to address existing inconsistancies, errors, conventions and other problems associated with the ACC, is an effort orders of magnitute more difficult than the task Jay proposed. One of the main problems with that task is that people have learned what exists, and do not want to relearn anything (even if it makes more sense). The same applies to grading.<br /><br />I recommend that we initially only consider updating the -unc issues to give them a specific identity.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Gil is correct, my proposal is to simply give a more specific designation to the x-unc sets. <br /><br />I find it kind of strange that many in the hobby think that the ACC has become archaic and usesless, yet new sets that are discoved immediately get the ACC x-unc designation. The SCD big book doesn't use ACC designations anymore except in the case where the set is commonly known by it, such as the t206 set. For someone like me that is used to using ACC designations, the big book is a pain in the ass to find sets I'm looking for since there isn't an index for ACC cross reference.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Eric</b><p>I've had extensive conversations with Glen on this topic, and I think we've both reasoned that newly assigned ACC numbers would be beneficial to the hobby. The word "additions" is key here. A couple of people here have suggested revamping the entire ACC. This is a Utopian idea..and simply won't work. Although the ACC has a great deal of flaws that we as collectors would love to see fixed, it's just not that simple. Collecting vintage baseball cards is a deeply rooted hobby, thus the ACC book, which was created almost 50 years ago. Although flawed in many aspects, the ACC is a cornerstone to the hobby, and that of legitimizing card issues. In my opinion it would be a great mistake to alter any existing ACC designations in any way. <br /> I like what Glen, Frank and Leon have stated before me, that a collaborate effort would be needed to attempt this project. Experts would be needed on the ACC. A historical knowledge of previous attempts at assigning new designations would be extremely helpful. It would also be wise to include as many card experts as possible, while getting everyone's opinion on the subject, who wanted to lend one. <br /> Before starting a project of this nature, it's best to realize what the goal is that we'd like to achieve. Are we doing this so grading companies will accept new designations? Is it solely for the use of collectors in general (like a hobby lingo thing?) Or, are we doing this to better the identification of vintage card issues, by making many of those not designated a new part of the ACC system? I'd like to think of the latter being the final achievement. Determining this question would more easily define the route with which this project is carried out.<br /> If the final goal is for bettering the identification system, known as the ACC, I'm in for helping the project to an end. But to those who wish to add new ACC designations, if you truly want this to be publically accepted, then the vital aspect becomes one of widespread legitimacy and acceptance. The biggest consideration here is finding a partnership with publishing and supporting the additions we wish to propose. Initially, I think that Old Cardboard/Lyman Hardeman would be a great resource to assist with this project. His magazine might serve as a starting ground for proposed ACC additions. Looking beyond that, I think a long running hobby publication would have to support the additions as well. SCD would seem to be a perfect partner, in that aspect. <br /> I'm open ears for this project, and would love to hear from anyone who wishes to hash out initial plans for attempting this. I don't read the board much these days, so please keep me in the loop.<br /><br />Eric<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>BlackSoxFan</b><p>.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glen V</b><p>A few more Uncat. cards to add. BF-Unc, W-Unc, E-Unc<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1136612599.JPG"> <br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1136612584.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1136612615.JPG">