I realize that our opinions may differ regarding what constitutes a baseball card

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>And I hope to not cover old ground in this thread, however, I recently came across a noteworthy card in Leon's collection which I did not realize existed. It is an uncataloged 19th Century gold bordered card displaying a baseball game in progress, entitled Grand Prix de l'exposition universelle de Paris 1878. Now my French is a little rusty, but I don't think that they are showing a game played in this country.<br /><br />And here is where my quandry lies. In a effort to identify cards worthy of including in a cataloging effort, each choice can not effectively be discussed at length. So the individual conducting the tabulating effort makes many decisions on the run. Occasionally (now) I come across a card of particular artistic merit, which I normally would dismiss as not representative of the American pastime.<br /><br />But the extenuating circumstance is that who is anyone to exclude any card from being recognized as a collectible? Particularly one which a reasonable person may seek to acquire upon identifying its existence.<br /><br />So my question is would you include this card if you were in an initial decision making capacity regarding what cards should be included in a ACC update? (card posted in Leon's personal collection)<br /><br />Edited to add:<br /><br />It is really way worse than that. You see, just before encountering this card, I came across another attractive card depicting an unidentified female pitcher. In general, I feel that unidentified ballplayers are an unacceptable grade below identified ballplayers who are generically represented (I wonder why I feel one to be better than the other). In any case, I dismissed the female card as not collectible because the player is not identified, yet the French card does not identify the players.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>First of all we need to decide if only baseball is going to be updated. That's all I would be interested in doing but ....?? Another question is what years are we going to go up to? As far as baseball cards getting catalogued I think any card depicting a baseball scene or player should be catalogued. This one is relatively easy in that we would need to figure a strategy and stick to it. This is an international card (English I think) so it could go in the International Baking/Bread section, imo. I am always open to debate but that would be my first, initial thought....btw, these are great looking BIG, gold bordered cards....<br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1157766150.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Regarding the scope of the cataloging effort, I recommended to end it at 1945. I obtained no disagreements, and at least one agreement. Therefore, to date, my tabulations have been within that framework. Recognizably, it would not be a sizable task to redo that, expanding the scope to achieve a wider span of years covered. Several worthwhile sets have been eliminated in order to exclude Leaf and early Bowmans from our efforts.<br /><br />Regarding other considerations, I do not feel that it is our responsibility to determine what cards are baseball cards, because that choice is up to individual collectors intrepetations. Eventhough I feel that way, it is not how I have behaved. When faced with a card which did not have an identifiable ballplayer, I eliminated that card set (this certainly is not common - but it did occur).<br /><br />As far as cataloging cards other than baseball cards, I have neither objection to, nor interest in such an activity.<br /><br />Also Leon, what international baking and bread section were you referring to? Are we also creating new catagories? Or shoehorning cards to fit into existing ones? For example: where does the c. 1915 Cramer Photo Plates cards belong?<br /><br />There are considerations and choices here, and if we continue to treat this subject as - go ahead and catalog 'em up, then we will talk about it; (maybe) minor decisions are going to be made without seeking concurrence, because concurrence appears to be not available. Maybe that is true. We may be undertaking an effort of no general collector interest.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>However Leon, if the x-unc tabulation ain't meaty enuff <br />for you, I'd be up for the following expansion:<br />tabulate the cards which have the player mislabeled<br /><br />I know that one of the batter up catchers is really Birdie<br />Tebbetts, who does not "appear" in the set.<br /><br />Of course the Irv/Cy errors<br /><br />And many, many others.<br /><br /><br />A collector deserves to know that the rookie card he has<br />been saving up for, isn't even the player he thinks it is.<br /><br /><br />Comments please.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>And while we have the chance, why not put a game name with<br />those blue and red playing pieces which you have, Leon?<br />Id think that Butch & Co. could name that game in seconds, <br />if you would post a scan in their thread.<br /><br />Edited to add:<br />And what is with these modern zinc cents which you show on your scans? If you need a genuine vintage wheat cent, please say so. Otherwise, at least use one of the pre-1982 all copper cents. Sheesh.