ACC designations [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

08-29-2006, 11:10 PM

Posted By: jay behrensI think this has been brought up before, but if someone were to do an update of the ACC, would anyone care outside of geeks like us? The book really does need to be updated. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

08-29-2006, 11:16 PM

Posted By: bcornellif someone were to do an update of the ACC, would anyone care outside of geeks like us? Speak for yourself, Jay. The answer is that it doesn't need updating - a few obscure issues isn't worth that effort. And, of course, there's no one to own it. Better to worry about whether the Twinkies will make the playoffs... Bill

Archive

08-30-2006, 07:23 AM

Posted By: jay behrensI speak for everyone, you know that <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> There are a lot of X-Unc sets that need designations. There also sets like e92s that really should be broken down into seperate sats and designate as e92-1, e92-2 etc. Breaking the m101-4/5 set into it's serperate sets would solve a lot of issues as to what is an m101-4 or 5. It probably wouldn't hurt to reclassify some set that are designated incorrectly such as Old Mill cabinets. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

08-30-2006, 07:35 AM

Posted By: leonJay- I agree with you. I am not sure it's feasible for many reasons though....

Archive

08-30-2006, 09:31 AM

Posted By: Glen VThe last thread on this: <a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1136233608/last-1136612724/ACC+update" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1136233608/last-1136612724/ACC+update</a>

Archive

08-31-2006, 09:03 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesThis post is about to drop off the first page, and I do not think it is ready to be put to bed. I am up for putting numbers on the -unc designations we have tabulated and enlisting the support of the price guides, hobby publications, price and image software owners and anyone else whose cooperation is important. It is clear from the previous thread that many board participants do not seem to care about this issue. It is also clear that others, perhaps those who frequently deal with a diversified collecting base, do care about designations. This proposed effort went nowhere last time, and will go nowhere this time unless someone picks up the ball. Ok, I pick up the ball, since someone has to. Now I need help - I have no knowledge to speak of. One thing I need is a list of the -unc sets. Please give them to me. Then I will need to see what designations are available. I have a '75 Sports Collectors Bible. Is that the ideal starting point? Or is an alternate better? We can do this.

Archive

08-31-2006, 09:09 PM

Posted By: leonWhy don't you just make it easy on yourself and start with the current Big Book Krause SCD? If you work backwards in them, through the years, you will have most of the uncat sets....I will be more than glad to help but honestly don't think the there is enough support to get it done. You, I, and a handful of folks on the board might be about it....I would certainly vote to leave the ACC the exact way the last revision was and not touch it. I would propose coming out with a smaller "ACC Uncategorized Cards Update". A little bit like Lew did in his "Old Judge" series....but more comprehensive......good luck....I'll be watching

Archive

08-31-2006, 09:11 PM

Posted By: jay behrensWe also should make a list of sets, such as the e92 and m101-4/5 that need to broken down into seperate sets. The m101-4/5 could get a bit messy with the designation, but a double hyphen isn't unprecedented. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

08-31-2006, 09:20 PM

Posted By: jay behrensLeon brings up a good point. We wouldn't be making changes to the whole ACC, just the baseball card portion. Cleaning up some of Burdicks oversights and mistakes in the orignal ACC isn't a bad idea though. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

08-31-2006, 09:28 PM

Posted By: leonIMHO, the ACC is sacred and should not be changed in any way.....again, I am sure there are different views but I view it as sacred to collecting...We all know the mistakes made but they are what they are....I would vote only to categorize the baseball cards that aren't in there....there has to be a few hundred....and maybe it would be entitled with a "Baseball" in the name of it so it wouldnt be confused with the whole ACC being updated....No way would I want to do that....but bless our collecting grandfathers for doing it....

Archive

08-31-2006, 09:33 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesIf the Price Guides accept it, it is done. Will they accept any change? The rest is just secretarial work. Changing the ACC designations is different though. That is a more difficult sale. Have you sounded out the Guide guys? Edited to add: Yeah, it is also a difficult sale to collectors. I don't want to relearn things, even if they make more sense.

Archive

08-31-2006, 09:55 PM

Posted By: jay behrensFor Burdick, the ACC was always a work in progress, as evidenced by his updates. I can't claim to know him at all, but I would think he would appreciate someone picking up the torch and updating his catalogue. Changing things like e92 into 4 differents designated e92-1, e92-2, etc might be a tough sell, but the all the UNCs need a number to clear up the confusion. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

09-01-2006, 03:52 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesI downloaded from Bobby Bresdo's site what appears to be a complete tabulation of uncatalogued sets broken out by type (F,W,H,N, etc.) and including year of issue and estimated number of cards in each set. I will insert available designation numbers in the order that the cards are tabulated and numbers are available. This will be a deliverable to this board early this weekend for your perusal. The guideline will be: if you don't complain now, don't complain later. After a week of arguing, I will have the format and content complete and prettied up. This may be as far as I can run with the ball. At that time we should decide how to best present this tabulation to the price guide manufacturers. IMHO this is needed, there are several pages of uncatalogued sets. All advice, ideas, etc., will be appreciated.

Archive

09-01-2006, 04:01 PM

Posted By: leonSounds great....once we see it we can further elaborate....thanks for spearheading this....

Archive

09-01-2006, 11:16 PM

Posted By: Troy KirkWhen Burdick was writing the ACC, other collectors such as Lionel Carter urged him to lump E92, E101, E102 and E105 together, not break up E92 into subgroups, but he didn't do it for whatever reason. I've always thought it was strange that he put T205 before T206, but I don't think he knew the dates when he listed those, though he should have known since he was about 10 years old when those sets came out.

Archive

09-02-2006, 01:09 AM

Posted By: Glen VI agree that if SCD and Beckett add updated “ACC” numbers to their catalogs, that the updates will stick. However, I think coming up with the numbers is more than just a trivial secretarial task. First, the community must determine which cards get designations. That can lead to big debates about what is really a “card”. There can also be problems about who made the card – should it really be an E card, or an R, W, etc.? Also, how far does this effort go? Only cards before a certain date? Does it include premiums? Foreign cards? Pins? Seems like it can get out of hand quick. So how big an effort are we talking about? I can't think of too many cards that need numbers. There can't be too many B, E, and W cards that are uncataloged and can't be easily identified with a name. If the effort goes beyond that it might turn people off. Few people care about the ACC, and if all of a sudden there are new numbers to call "uncat" cards rather than saying Lections, Voskamps, Plow Boy, etc., it might have a negative effect on the collecting community. Beckett and/or the SCD might throw in 10 or so new numbers, but it might be a tough sell to get them to change 100+ issues with new designations that aren't needed and just add confusion. That being said, there are issues where having an actual "ACC" number would be a benefit. If the issue doesn't have a name or the name doesn't help one recognize the card, then an "ACC" number should be applied. Here are some issues that should be considered, along with questions that might be worth thinking about: E-Unc Oakland Oaks 1912 B-Unc Felts (are these really cards, or a trimmed down pennant?) <a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1912Felt.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1912Felt.html</a> 1910 E-Unc Orange Borders (name is probably good enough here - who will call these E568s instead of Orange Borders?) 1910 E-Unc Candy www.vintageball.com/files/Uncat_Evers2.jpg 1915 Unc B&W Cards (are these E or W cards???) <a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1915B-W.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1915B-W.html</a> 1936 E-Unc Candy 1910 W-unc colorized portraits (cut from a page – really cards?) <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> 1913 W-Unc Notebook Cards (E95/96 like cards cut from a notebook cover - really cards that deserve an ACC #???) <a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1913Notebook.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1913Notebook.html</a> 1916 W-Unc Big Head (name probably good enough here) <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> 1920/1 W-Unc IFS “Blue and Orange” <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> 1921 W-Unc Self Developing Strip Cards www.luckeycards.com/swunc1921hornsby.jpg 1923 Unc Sepia Shoulderless (E/W? Card?) <a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1923Shoulderless.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1923Shoulderless.html</a> 1925 W-Unc Playing Cards (a version of W560?) <a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1925-29Playing.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1925-29Playing.html</a> 1921/9? W-Unc Hand Drawn Playing Cards <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> 1931 W-Unc (or just a W502 sub-set - really need a new number?) <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> 1935 W-Unc Manager Strip Cards (cut from a calendar - deserve a number???) <a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1930/1935Mgr.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1930/1935Mgr.html</a> ???? W-Unc (similar to W555) <a href="http://www.oldjudge.com/auction/baseball/type/89/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldjudge.com/auction/baseball/type/89/</a> 1910? W/WG-Unc Game pieces (anyone know what these really are - can you assign a number to something if you don't know what it is?) www.luckeycards.com/swuncredandbluegamepieces1910ish.jpg 1920s PC-Unc Manager Series <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> 1908 PC-Unc Pirates Stadium Issue <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> B-Unc Pennants .

Archive

09-02-2006, 07:54 AM

Posted By: jay behrensBurdick never made a distinction as to what was a card and what was not. Basically, for him, anything on a paper product was considered a card. He catalogued pins, postcards, newspaper premiums, etc. so there is no issue there. As for giving Lections an ACC designation, that's a no issue too. People will continue to call them as such and the ACC # will just be a trivia question, just like most people can't tell you what the ACC# for Goudeys and PLay Balls are. Burdicks catagories are pretty cut and dried as to what goes where. For UNCs that have an unknown origin, I would think that defaulting them into one of the main catagories T, E, etc. Would be the thing to do. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

09-02-2006, 08:01 AM

Posted By: leonI think Glen has valid points as well as Jay....If nothing else it's fun to talk about....well, in a geeky sort of way, anyway. As for Lections I know folks used to think they were a candy but I think they are an "H" for advertising trade card.... <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1157119268.JPG">

Archive

09-02-2006, 06:22 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesWell gentlemen, you raise some questions that I should address before I get too far afield here. Since I am assembling data, I need to make an initial determination of what data to reject (what is not a card). My feeling is that Burdick was very liberal in his assessments and I think that we should follow that beginning. It really is up to individual collectors to specialize. However, I do not plan to include items which are not composed of cellulose, ie. metal, plastic, natural and synthetic fibers, etc. It gotta be a paper type product. I have no limitations envisioned regarding size, weight, shape nor other physical characteristics. Regarding initial catagorizations, as you point out, there is plenty of room for arguement here, and research, and more. But in general, I do not believe that t, e and other primary designations should be our default. I think that you have to earn it to be a t-card. H or W is a different story. I think those are better default catagories until we can more clearly establish a card's origin. But the more stuff which we have undocumented regarding catagorization, the harder our sell becomes. I do not think that we should put forth as the product of our efforts a documentation of uncertainty, unless it is necessary. An acceptable (to me) net result of this initial effort could be the determination of what further study has to be performed in order to present a summary of caliber adequate for inclusion in a guide. Afterall, we can not change our mind each year. And if we do this well, we have credibility established for generation of other, more difficult sell, changes. If the above is unclear please tell me.

Archive

09-02-2006, 11:50 PM

Posted By: Glen VSo there still is the question: how big is this effort? Even limiting inclusion to paper products, there must be hundreds of issues w/o ACC #s. Cutting out premiums and postcards would greatly reduce the number, but that doesn't seem like a good solution. We all know most people don't care about the ACC. For the ones who do, if you leave out their area of collecting, it will turn them off too. To do this right, it must be as complete as possible. However, I think that could be the projects downfall. I would think that too many new numbers for issues that don't need numbers would only reduce the chance that new ACC #s ever get accepted. As for non-paper items, some of the no-name felts would be ideal for new ACC #s. Why leave them out? There are so few to include and numbers would actually make sense in their case. There's one shaped sort of like an iron - anyone have a picture of that type. Some people are probably thinking "what are you taking about", which is exactly why that issue could use an ACC #. Two more that really deserve #s: <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1157175718.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1157175753.JPG"> I may be completely off base here. What do others think? I can't believe there are so few posts about this topic!

Archive

09-03-2006, 06:38 AM

Posted By: leonI am with you. I think everything that we collect as cards, or close to cards (like those little 1910 felts you've shown) needs to have a letter/number. Gil has sent me a large amount of work, via email, but it's not quite ready for prime time yet. I agree too, maybe it's only a handful of us avid type card collectors that would enjoy doing this...and if that's the case it might not be well received. It could/would more than likely fail for that reason.....

Archive

09-03-2006, 10:04 AM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesFail? It depends on what your definition of "is" is. It will fail if your hopes are that any designation will achieve the stature of t206 as a household (among some households) name. However, if success is general acceptance of a numerical nomenclature to replace the current lack of any designation, then success is guaranteed. Admittedly, most will not care much, but that same "most" will prefer to have any logical basis for set reference, so long as it is clear, rather than the no designation current status - which clearly lacks clarity. I think that the guides will agree. Although few will care about most relatively obscure sets, they prefer to have them organized so that if they ever have to go there, it is understandable.

Archive

09-03-2006, 02:56 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesGlen V: You continue to raise good and important questions, in the face of apparent disinterest. Please be assured that the lack of a response is not indicative of a lack in interest. I am receiving input from several interested collectors, and other board members are quite interested, although perhaps not outspoken. Many, like myself, are as unsure as you state regarding how best to proceed. My initial thoughts are to limit the scope of the effort to those items which are best defensible as cards, based on their materials of construction. One deviation from that guideline could open the gate for "you included this item made of cloth, certainly my favorite made of brick is more like a card than his throw pillow". So, at this juncture it appears to me that our initial thrust should be directed at the sufficiently broad slice of the pie which we have chosen to bite off. On this, as all subjects, I am open to rebuttal. I am not the decision maker on this project at all. We jointly are putting together an effort that seems worthwhile - and lets not close any doors just yet. Once the bulk of the effort is behind us, we can more aptly see that there are few reasonable proposals for inclusion still on the table, perhaps all of which are worthy. and will be incorporated with little effort. Regarding my opinion on some of the specifics which you cited, please consider the following observations and comments. E-Unc Oakland Oaks === Name IDs it as e-card, will get appropriate e-designation. 1912 B-Unc Felts (are these really cards, or a trimmed down pennant?) <a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1912Felt.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1912Felt.html</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1912Felt.html</a</a>> === material of construction does not meet guideline; decision postponed. 1910 E-Unc Orange Borders (name is probably good enough here - who will call these E568s instead of Orange Borders?) ===Yes, name will no doubt be most common usage, but will get a number too. 1910 E-Unc Candy www.vintageball.com/files/Uncat_Evers2.jpg === Name IDs it as e-card, will get appropriate e-designation. 1915 Unc B&W Cards (are these E or W cards???) <a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1915B-W.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1915B-W.html</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1915B-W.html</a</a>> ===Don't know, fkw indicates correlation with candy. Please elaborate, fkw. 1936 E-Unc Candy === Name IDs it as e-card, will get appropriate e-designation. 1910 W-unc colorized portraits (cut from a page – really cards?) <a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/colorized-portraits/cp.asp?cardsetID=849" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/colorized-portraits/cp.asp?cardsetID=849</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/colorized-portraits/cp.asp?cardsetID=849</a</a>> ===Yes, a card. My thinking on this is that if cutout by kid, was done so to play with or otherwise enjoy. That is a good definition of a card. I will not overrule the thinking of a kid of 1910, I have no authority to do so. 1913 W-Unc Notebook Cards (E95/96 like cards cut from a notebook cover - really cards that deserve an ACC #???) <a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1913Notebook.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1913Notebook.html</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1913Notebook.html</a</a>> ===Yes, a card. My thinking on this is that if cutout by kid, was done so to play with or otherwise enjoy. That is a good definition of a card. I will not overrule the thinking of a kid of 1910, I have no authority to do so. 1916 W-Unc Big Head (name probably good enough here) <a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/big-head/big-head.asp?cardsetID=850" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/big-head/big-head.asp?cardsetID=850</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/big-head/big-head.asp?cardsetID=850</a</a>> ===Yes, name will no doubt be most common usage, but will get a number too. 1920/1 W-Unc IFS “Blue and Orange” <a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/ifs-blue-orange/ifs-blue-orange.asp?cardsetID=85" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/ifs-blue-orange/ifs-blue-orange.asp?cardsetID=85</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/ifs-blue-orange/ifs-blue-orange.asp?cardsetID=85</a</a>> ===Nice set 1921 W-Unc Self Developing Strip Cards www.luckeycards.com/swunc1921hornsby.jpg ===Leon has fantastic examples, I wonder if they are all that good. 1923 Unc Sepia Shoulderless (E/W? Card?) <a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1923Shoulderless.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1923Shoulderless.html</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1923Shoulderless.html</a</a>> ===Don't know, fkw indicates correlation with candy. Please elaborate, fkw. 1925 W-Unc Playing Cards (a version of W560?) <a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1925-29Playing.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1925-29Playing.html</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1925-29Playing.html</a</a>> ===I really don't know about these playing cards, Old Cardboard is calling them game cards - should they get a WG designation - if so, what about others such as w560? 1921/9? W-Unc Hand Drawn Playing Cards <a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/red-bg-game-cards/red-bg-game-cards.asp?cardsetID=852" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/red-bg-game-cards/red-bg-game-cards.asp?cardsetID=852</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/red-bg-game-cards/red-bg-game-cards.asp?cardsetID=852</a</a>> ===I really don't know about these playing cards, Old Cardboard is calling them game cards - should they get a WG designation - if so, what about others such as w560? 1931 W-Unc (or just a W502 sub-set - really need a new number?) <a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/w502/w502.asp?cardsetID=810" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/w502/w502.asp?cardsetID=810</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/w502/w502.asp?cardsetID=810</a</a>> ===Numbers are cheap, but ideally they can be used to clarify. In this case I think a subset designation is best. 1935 W-Unc Manager Strip Cards (cut from a calendar - deserve a number???) <a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1930/1935Mgr.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1930/1935Mgr.html</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1930/1935Mgr.html</a</a>> ===This is a bit tricky. Although I believe that if a kid cut something out years ago to be enjoyed as a card, it is a card; I also believe that if an adult cut it out recently to make a profit, then it is like the AAA certified cut outs. I see no indication that these were cut out by a kid years ago. What do you think? ???? W-Unc (similar to W555) <a href="http://www.oldjudge.com/auction/baseball/type/89/" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.oldjudge.com/auction/baseball/type/89/</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldjudge.com/auction/baseball/type/89/</a</a>> ===A new designation appears appropriate. 1910? W/WG-Unc Game pieces (anyone know what these really are - can you assign a number to something if you don't know what it is?) www.luckeycards.com/swuncredandbluegamepieces1910ish.jpg ===I think that these were game pieces which were fitted into a base and moved around a board, hence the damage at the bottom of each. Seems like a WG designation is appropriate. 1920s PC-Unc Manager Series <a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/pc/managers/managers.asp?cardsetID=943" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/pc/managers/managers.asp?cardsetID=943</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/pc/managers/managers.asp?cardsetID=943</a</a>> ===PC designation 1908 PC-Unc Pirates Stadium Issue <a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/pc/pirates/pirates.asp?cardsetID=940" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/pc/pirates/pirates.asp?cardsetID=940</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/pc/pirates/pirates.asp?cardsetID=940</a</a>> ===PC designation B-Unc Pennants === material of construction does not meet guideline; decision postponed. Please do not hesitate to point out my errors and potential errors in judgement here. I admit that my observations and comments have been hasty, and many of these items deserve more time to adequately assess.

Archive

09-03-2006, 08:53 PM

Posted By: jay behrensOne of the concerns was what catagory do we put some of the cards in where we have no clue was to their distribution. My though is that if it's not already used, that these cards should get a new catagory "U" for Unknown. Simple enough. If set has an unknown origin, then it becomes U-1, U-2 U-3, etc. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

09-04-2006, 07:46 AM

Posted By: leon"U" is already used by Burdick and is a "clouded" designation as he put it. Group 1 of U is Match Cover Designs. After that there are Match Box Labels, Theatre Issues, Oil and Gasoline Issues, Weighing Machine Cards, and Miscellaneous. Rice Stix Shirts and Signal Gasoline, among others, fall into the "U" category. Burdick would put either a letter or letter/number after the U, also. I would propose some kind of designation before any letter, with all new additions, to show that they are the current revision. That way we know if it was Burdick or after him. In my own cataloguing of scans I use an "s" for selling or a "p" for personal or an "o" if it's not mine, before every scan and cat#....Burdick didn't use all of the letters in the alphabet and I think our new additions should start with something to identify them as new. We still need to get some more buy in before this will go anywhere, too. If 5 of us do it then the other 10,000 people won't have a clue what the heck we are talking about. I am still a little skeptical but moving forward....

Archive

09-04-2006, 10:37 AM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesI am not sure what the advantages of including an asterisk or equivalent to any new desgnation could be, particularly in light of the fact that there have already been post-Burdick designations included in general use without any qualifier. For simplicity, I prefer not including apparently extraneous indications unless there is clear justification. But I may not be viewing the big picture here, being bogged down in the basement, searching through old journals and dusty manuscripts by flickering candlelight .... and the intensity of the dripping, dripping, relentless dripping, and the eerie howling - let me out into the light! Ahhh. Thats better! I have tabulated some 19th Century stuff, it seems. For now, I plan to list all 19th Century material with a N designation, independent of whether it is tobacco, cabinets or other. Seems to me that Burdick did not ever hear of N cards, so there may be sufficient latitude here for us to do this, if we wish. Sometimes I may have combined things that you may want seperated, othertimes (in the inconsistent style we are learning to love) I may have allowed things seperate which should be combined. A single (and there are several) example of this is the 1886 J. Wood Studio Cabinets of the N.Y. Giants and Metropolitans, in this instance I followed the Standard Catalog's seperate listing, but Im having second thoughts about that. All of the cards slated for an N designation are tabulated below. The actual designations are not included yet, but that is not viewed as a big deal, any day now. Set NameYear Hall (Joseph) Cabinets1888 Hall (Joseph) Imperial Team Cabinets1888 Lorillard Team Cards1886 Warren Studio Boston Red Stockings CDVs1872 Ashman Studio Cabinets1895 Chickering Studio Cabinets1899-90 Conly Studio Cabinets1891 Gilbert & Bacon Cabinets1888 Hastings Cabinets1887 MacIntire Studio Cabinets1888 Police Gazette Cabinets1889 Smith (G. Waldon) Boston Beaneaters Cabinets1889 Smith (G. Waldon) Cabinets1890 Stead (J.U.) Studio Cabinets1892 Stevens Studio Austrailian Tour Cabinets1888-89 Stevens Studio Chicago Pirates Cabinets1890 Tomlinson Studios Cabinets1887 Uhlman St. Paul Cabinets1888 Wood (J.) Studio N.Y. Giants Cabinets1886 Wood (J.) Studio N.Y. Metropolitans Cabinets1886 Gee, I even modified the table - and it still comes out crappy. Let me know if you want a way better e-mail version. Here is the other page: Four Base Hits1887 Gypsy Queen California League1888 Just So Tobacco1893 Alpha Photo-Engraving Baltimore Orioles1894 Climax Poster1884 Diamond S Cigars, Boston NL1889 Dukes Terrors of America1889 Handcock’s Syracuse Stars1886 Jordan & Co.1863 N.Y. Clipper Woodcuts1879-80 National Copper Plate Co. Portraits1898-99 Police Gazette Supplement1895 R & S Artistic Series Baseball1888 Reccius Cigars1899 Red Stocking Cigars1886 Sanders (W.H.) New York Baseball Club1886 Scrapps Tobacco Die Cuts1888 Stage, The – Stars of the Diamond1889 Sterey Photographers Troy Haymakers1867 Tobin Lithographs – Black & White1887 Tobin Lithographs – Color1887 Virginia Brights Polka Dot Nine1887 Ward (John M.) Fan1880-89 Warren Studio Boston Red Stockings CDVs1872 White (C.S.) & Co., Boston NL1889 45 sets, if I counted right.

Archive

09-04-2006, 11:22 AM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesWe have to select our ending date for this effort. Although it could be extended into the second half of the century, I do not prefer that choice. For me it really comes down to "do I want to include the Leafs and early Bowmans or not". I vote - do not include them and sacrifice everything after 1945 to suffer its own fate, as it has since its inception. If no one disagrees with this viewpoint (why do I hear an echo here?) it will be implemented. The deadline for voicing an opposing viewpoint never ends, so feel free to e-mail me about this years from now.

Archive

09-04-2006, 11:30 AM

Posted By: leonBurdick used N as "Central and South American Tobacco Cards". There were Cuban, Mexican, Peruvuan and several other countries listed..Something tells me that "N" was designated as Nineteenth Century tobacco after Burdick finished his last revision, which was around 1960. To remind folks- Burdick only used a number for his 19th Century tobacco, and no "n" before it. My copy will be in the mail to you Tuesday...slow down... <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> regards

Archive

09-04-2006, 12:05 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesId rather consider N to be all 19th century baseball(independent of whether it is tobacco related) of course with the exception of e223. This accomodation will facilitate the inclusion of many cabinets in an understandable existing catagory, and minimize the motivation to give cabinets their own designation. Which I do not wish to do. Designations by manufacturer type or era are existing, designation by card type are not. Edited to add: Ooops, mouthed off again without thinking! Postcard designation is by card type, so the precedent is set. There appears supporting sentiment for seperate classification of Cabinets, Minor League Sets and other catagories. Although Id rather not muddle up our focus here, it may be worthwhile considering for potential future efforts.

Archive

09-04-2006, 12:05 PM

Posted By: Glen VAlready have numbers: H891 Tobin Lithographs N88 Duke Talk of the Diamond (small) N136 Duke Talk of the Diamond (large) Wouldn't Hancock Clothing be an "H" issue? Number 7 Cigars are N526. Wouldn't Diamond S be the same set, maybe an N526-2?

Archive

09-04-2006, 12:50 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesSo Leon, that gringo, Burdick, has already pillaged pictures of Latin bugs, plants, mollusks, and the like from countries including Cuba, Mexico, Peru, and others. But not pictures of their wimmen, or their players of beisbol. And so far, no shots have been fired over the steenken ACC. Very interesting, I will take that under advisement. Pablo.

Archive

09-04-2006, 01:05 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesGlen V: I will include both Tobins in the H891 designation, if no one objects. Your mention of the Duke Talk of the Diamond was because you would like the Terrors of America included in that designation? Or what? I particularly am pleased that the Early Candy and Gum issues have reached into the 19th century to claim G&B as theirs, I certainly have no objection to the H designation staking a similarly justified claim on the Syracuse Stars. Regarding the similarity between No.7 and Diamond S Cigar issues: these sets appear to differ only on their backs. Id like to use the same designation for both, and incorporate that philosophy in other catagories where the main difference is on the card's back. I do note that the choices become tricky when the same fronts are used among different manufacturer types (D & E, for example).

Archive

09-04-2006, 02:22 PM

Posted By: Glen VSorry, I typed Talk of the Diamond instead of Terrors of America. Anyway, I think all of them have numbers associated with them. Some Duke issues: N86 Duke Perilous Occupations N88 Duke Terrors of America (small) N120 Duke Miniature Novelties N135 Duke Talk of the Diamond N136 Duke Terrors of America (large) N154 Duke Presidential Baseball

Archive

09-04-2006, 02:41 PM

Posted By: leonThanks for the input. Where's Eric and Dan M?, I think they are our only other culprits that are going to be interested in this stuff? Not sure what more you are referring too with the Terror cards? We already know that those, along with several hundred more "n" cards have numbers. Burdick didn't put an "N" before them though....And I was wondering who first started that? kind regards

Archive

09-04-2006, 06:11 PM

Posted By: Richard MassonGil- Don't forget the Warren 1872 Boston cabinets (vs. CDV) and do the Newsboys already have a designation?

Archive

09-04-2006, 06:22 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesThank you, Glen and Richard. I have taken the Terrors out and put the '72 Warren Studios, Boston Cabinets in.

Archive

09-04-2006, 07:09 PM

Posted By: jay behrensNo objection to stopping at 1945. Even I couldn't tell you what the ACC designations for Goudey's are. The modern stuff is all known by it's name. No need to confuse them. They stiff haven't figured out that shiney stuff is worthless and pointless. I don't think we should be making designations as to before Burdick and after Burdick. Or may the can be designated BB and AB <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> I'd agree that cabinets need their own catagory like postcards. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

09-04-2006, 07:09 PM

Posted By: ElliotThe Newsboys are N566.

Archive

09-04-2006, 07:52 PM

Posted By: leonThe only way to keep what Burdick did, sacred, is to have some delineation of the before and after. I am opposed to adding to, or changing anything he did. But we'll see how it goes. I would agree to an R, or some letter, before every new letter/number to show the "revised" issue being spoken of....So maybe Orange Borders would be RE2, or something like that...but again, there could be a million ways to do it....I don't think I could ever be for changing, modifying, or adding to the original work....but who knows I have chnaged my mind before...

Archive

09-04-2006, 08:14 PM

Posted By: jay behrensThe ACC was an ongoing work for Burdick. Just because he isn't around anymore doesn't mean that the work shouldn't continue. There is really no need to denote what Burdick did or didn't contribute. When this project is done, it will still be 90% or more Burdickk's work. Some of his orignal work needs to be update. The e92s need to be sperated into sperate sets, as does the m101-4/5s among other sets. Old Mill cabinets and other sets that are in the wrong catagory need to be moved. The ACC is rpetty useless if it's not updated. Burdick put a lot of time and effort into it, but it needs to be updated and corrections made if it is to remain a viable reference for vintage collectors. This board is as a good a place as any to get a project like this rolling. We seen the power of this board before and there are plenty of influential poeple that read this board and participate. If we do all the leg work and get it published, even only on the web, there is no reason for the major price guides to ignore the effort. It will only make their job that much easier and their boks that much easier to find the sets you are looking for. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

09-04-2006, 08:40 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesWe may like prewar cards, but we are in the minority, by quite a margin. Due to that, our collective financial impact on a price guide may not be significant. So really, it does not matter how well thought out and implemented this effort is, the bottom line will be: why should they bother modifying a section of their guide, when there is only the potential for a miniscule amount of additional revenues. (you know - whats in it for me?). I hope that this is not the way it goes down, because the net result would not be favorable. Just a note: by only naming the sets which have no ACC designation now, we are talking about over 200 sets uncataloged.

Archive

09-04-2006, 08:55 PM

Posted By: leonWe can agree to disagree on this subject. I agree Burdick's ACC was an evolving science but I think it shouldn't be changed whatsoever....only added to as I have previously mentioned...with some * for the updates....again, only my opinion.....maybe we'll have to take a vote...and all 5 of us interested in this can be the rule makers.....

Archive

09-04-2006, 09:29 PM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)Could you imagine trying to catalog all of the CRAP since just 1983? Hell it would take a catalog in itself to list all the insert sets from the 90s alone. All the shiney inserts and all the 1 of 3's, etc. What a nightmare. I do believe that someone mentioned a logical ending point. Just where do people figure the "modern era" started?

Archive

09-04-2006, 09:55 PM

Posted By: jay behrensThe release of Leaf and Bowman cards is generally considered the start of the modern era. 1945 is a safe cut off as there is almost nothing issued during WW2. Leon, I'm of the opinion that we would being doing more of a disservice to Burdick's work by trying to denote which were his and which are new designation. The designation nation would not be as "neat and clean" if you start adding letters or whatever to denote new additions. Your idea runs into trouble with sets like e92 if we decide to split them up into e92-1, ets? Under your proposal, how would you handle that? Adding a letter because it's new designation would just confuse things even more and would make harder to sell that designation to collectors familiar with the issue. Making Dockman's e92-1, Crofts Candy e92-2, etc, is a much easier sell to collects than re92-1, re92-2, etc. Collectors will look at those designation and go "huh?". Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

09-04-2006, 10:01 PM

Posted By: leonI politely disagree. I think it would confuse matters to try to change what has been known for 70'ish years. ("N" not withstanding).... I wouldn't try to do anything with what has already been catalogued. If anyone wants to change what Burdick did then they will be doing it without my support....which is ok too. I am open for discussion but I would be surprised if I could be persuaded to "approve" of rewriting the ACC. I don't see how I could ever support that.....

Archive

09-04-2006, 10:33 PM

Posted By: jay behrensSince the hobby still uses the ACC, it needs to be updated. In many ways I am purist about most things. There comes a time though when things need to be updated. Especially something that has not been updated since around 1960. To say the ACC is outdated and antiquated is an understatement. Updating it and correcting it will be of more of a service to the hobby than leaving things the way they are. Changing the ACC for the better will not diminish the contributions that Burdick made to the hobby. It might also serve to bring his name back to the public again for a time. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

09-05-2006, 10:28 AM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesOk Jay: you've got that ball. Figure out what should be changed, and how to do it. The -unc tabulation is nearly complete. I just have to make a run through F. Ward's site to pick up whatever I may have missed, then submit it to our in house experts for mutilation, correction, etc.

Archive

09-05-2006, 07:21 PM

Posted By: fkwSome parts of the ACC have already been expanded, for example the ACC#'s for baseball related trade cards (sets) only goes to H804-9. But Frank Keetz's "Baseball Advertising Trade Cards" book expands that list on up to at least H804-40 for trade cards that are part of baseball related sets (he has completely separate lists for single cards with titles and single cards without titles) Within the Baseball Trade Card circles the (H891) Tobin cards are (also) well known as... H804-21 Major League Players Series (the common multicolor cards) H804-22 Major League Players Series (scarce B&W version) H804-23 Tobin "149" series (very rare, redrawn Tobin cards, B&W with different captions) So some of the work is done.

Archive

09-05-2006, 11:00 PM

Posted By: Glen VI can see fixing the Old Mill Cabinet designation (which can't affect many people), but question other changes to the ACC. Does E92 really need subtypes? Then what about all the other issues with multiple backs. T206s are really three sets, should that be spelled out? If the existing ACC does get changed, might as well make the R302 M.P. & Co. a "W" card too. What about tickets, blotters, coasters, and generic baseball scenes? Eric has quite an assortment on his website: <a href="http://www.freewebs.com/goudeyhunter/uncatalogedcards.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.freewebs.com/goudeyhunter/uncatalogedcards.htm</a>

Archive

09-05-2006, 11:20 PM

Posted By: jay behrensThe reason I would want to see the e92s broken into seperate sets and not t206s is because each of the diffferent e92s backs is recognized as seperate sets and the Nadjas are quite different from all the others. The t206 set on the other hand is considered one set. No one collects it as just one back. Personally, I think that each back is a seperate set, but it would never fly with collectors and would cause way too many problems. Breaking the e92 and m101-4/5s into their different backs would not create much of a problem. E90s and e104s were broken into seperate sets, so why not e92s? MP&co will get redesignated, as will other sets that are in the wrong catagory. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

09-06-2006, 05:25 AM

Posted By: David SeabornJay- just wanted to say I agree with you on the expansion of Burdick's work. What he did was an incredible labor of love, but it needs to be updated to be relevant. This certainly does not diminish what he did and I believe he would be all for the continued updating of the baseball cards systematics. Gil- There are several of us who email regularly and have sat back and lurked on this so far. I, for one, appreciate you picking up the ball on this and find it quite interesting (and important). I'll send an email to you soon. Leon- Just another thread that illustrates why this board is the best thing around!

Archive

09-06-2006, 06:05 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesJay - my thinking was going in just the opposite direction. When I look at all of the different sets which are derivatives of the e121s, I think that it would be way simpler and easier to understand if they were all under the e121 umbrella, as subsets. Further, although we may achieve support from many quarters to put names (numbers) on currently uncataloged sets; we may meet resistence to any other changes from all quarters. I am therefore uncertain whether the possible difficulty in the resultant sale of the concept of ACC changes justifies upfront effort. It may be more prudent to assess the feelings of other board members, prior to expending much effort in that direction. Because if you can't sell it here, you are really biting off a tuff one.

Archive

09-06-2006, 06:47 PM

Posted By: jay behrensI will agree, if nothing else, the UNCs need numbers. The rest is just nit picking and not that big of a deal. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

09-06-2006, 07:00 PM

Posted By: Brian GoldnerThat the ACC could use some tweaking, but this invites the question: Tell me: exactly who has the authority to make changes, to such a sacred body of work?? J.R. Burdick devoted much of his life to this, and to suggest that a few people on a messageboard could informally decide that they are going to make changes to such a work, IMO is not showing proper respect for the master historian, regardless of whether such changes are warranted. My suggestion is consultation with the hobby's living elders, about what additions and/or changes could be proposed, and forming a committee of prominant collectors, to formally present such changes for consideration. The National Convention would be a logical place for this to occur. To consider changing/updating something that one man devoted his life to, would require the blessing of the elders, as well as the blessing of the vast majority of contemporary vintage collectors. It must be done with care, and respect for our predecessors.

Archive

09-06-2006, 07:00 PM

Posted By: steve fut ohh. I had better dump my 1924 W-UNC's before they become 1926 W***'s

Archive

09-06-2006, 07:42 PM

Posted By: jay behrensBrian, hate to burst your bubble, but if the hobby legends really cared about making changes to the ACC, they would have done so long ago. As Leon has pointed out, most people, including hobby verterans, just don't care. Besides, who is to say who is worthy and who isn't to make these changes? It's not like this message board is populated with a bunch of mindless drones like over at the CU board. You have much of teh cream of the hobby lurking or posting here, including the legends you allude to, so it's not like this little endevore is going on completely unnoticed. If these legends want to be involved, there is nothing to stop them. They can even do so privately as we all have email addresses we can be contacted at. It's not like we are revamping the whole ACC. We are just going after the baseball cards. I've never done a tabulation, but I'd guess that baseball cards are 20% or less of the book. Saying the ACC is sacred is almost as bad as saying Newtonian physics shouldn't be overturned even there is new evidence to make changes to it. we are doing a disserves to Burdick by NOT updating his lifes work, then leaving it as he left it. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

09-06-2006, 07:52 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesI sure hope that my comments are not viewed as blasphemy. Edited again to state: I don't get it, this is only cards. But I guess, Jay, this is a part of the resistence which I was referring to. And what Brian has shared with us is not an isolated viewpoint. For example to a greater or lesser extent, I think that Leon feels similarly.

Archive

09-06-2006, 09:23 PM

Posted By: Brian GoldnerYou're missing my point. Read my original post again. I didn't say that was against an updated version of the ACC. What i did say is that there is a right way to approach it, and a wrong way, as well. This messageboard can lay the groundwork for an updated version, but decisions such as these, must still be made by committee, in a format similar to what i suggested in my earlier post. I realize that a few people want to grab the ball and run with it, but i'm sorry, it's just not yours or my ball to grab and run with. I am not questioning anyone's hobby credentials here, but only by committee, would we have Burdick's credentials, or the authority to bring about such change. Would Burdick want his work to be updated? My guess is: conditionally yes, but only under a set of circumstances similar, to what i have described. I'm just saying, that a consensus must be built, in order for meaningful change to occur.

Archive

09-06-2006, 11:05 PM

Posted By: jay behrensAren't we a defacto committee? As I said before, what makes "legendary" collector/dealers any better to do the job than those of us that are truely interested in doing this? They certainly don't have any interest otherwise this would have happened years ago. Waiting until the National or some other show to form your proposed committee is a major waste of time. All of that work can be done here. I am sure that all these legendary people you are thinking of either read this board, or know someone that does. There really isn't much keeping them from getting involved right now if they want to. And who is going to determine who is worthy of being on this committee? Does Mr Mint get to be on it, because he certainly is a hobby legend. Your wanting to set up committees, etc reminds me of the ad for RBS where the guy is sinking in quicksand and everyone stands around talking about forming committees and action groups but not actually doing anything to get the job done. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

09-07-2006, 06:18 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesBrian: Please correct me where I am wrong. It is my understanding that we are proceeding in a committee format. Specifically, I have accepted the responsibility for the initial assembly of the bulk of the set identification necessary to be compiled in order to address the work scope. Upon completion of this effort (Revision 0 is complete) it will be posted somewhere to be investigated by all. The intent of this posting is to seek input regarding: - which of the sets are already ACC designated - which sets were overlooked in my tabulation - which sets should be combined - which should be identified seperately - which set groupings should also be included (foreign, cloth or other materials of construction, advertising trade cards, others - what else should be done - what else should be done differently Once this group effort is complete, I will retabulate the sets, add proposed ACC designations, and repost the "pre-final" revision for final comments, corrections and other adjustments. Upon posting of the final configuration for this phase of our effort, discussion of how to present the labor of our love, and identification of who it should be presented to will establish the recommended course of action. At that time, someone or several individuals hopefully will pick up those balls. Any effort to change the existing ACC, if it proceeds at all, could proceed on a different course. This is my view of what we are doing. I could be alone on this, because as you aptly point out, we have not clearly defined our approach. I am open to alternate paths, so long as they terminate at the same destination. Please everyone cite the path you prefer that we take. I am currently seeking a location to post the information (which is in Word format). It does not come out well, if I post it in this thread. If no location is forthcoming, I will seek out the card pricing utility operators, to determine if they will host the posting. Or I will come up with a Geocities page. ItsOnlyGil

Archive

09-07-2006, 10:32 PM

Posted By: Brian GoldnerJay- if you and a few others are truly interested in pursuing this, may i suggest a less aggressive approach. Coming on too strong, will not convince those who are on the fence, to support your cause. It will only give them cold feet. Quicksand? My goodness, what's the rush? Gil- i am a believer that this kind of undertaking, is better accomplished face to face, rather than by messageboard and e-mail communications. However, i do understand that this board and e-mail, would lay the groundwork for such a task. Also, it has been mentioned in many threads, about many people being hesitant to offer their opinion (about almost any topic) on this board. That would most certainly apply in this instance. Perhaps individual, in-person meetings with influential hobbyists, would offer a better idea of what many people might be thinking. Ultimately, before any person or small group tries to take the bull by the horns, at least 2 questions must be answered: 1)Just exactly who has the right, the authority AND the credentials to update the work of Jefferson R. Burdick? and 2)If a person or committee was granted the right and authority, and possessed the necessary credentials, would the hobby embrace the proposed, updated edition? I can't answer these questions, nor can you. The hobby must answer them, and such people must be encountered, in a setting in which they are comfortable to speak their minds. IMO, that place is not here. Another issue that would have to be addressed: in the event that a person or group were to be granted the right & authority to update the ACC, what updating might be considered permissable, and what should be considered off-limits? I will offer an opinion on this issue, later in the thread.

Archive

09-07-2006, 11:18 PM

Posted By: jay behrens1)Just exactly who has the right, the authority AND the credentials to update the work of Jefferson R. Burdick? Just exactly who has the right to DETERMINE who has the right, authority and credentials to update the ACC? Maybe we need a committee to determine that too? and 2)If a person or committee was granted the right and authority, and possessed the necessary credentials, would the hobby embrace the proposed, updated edition? All you can do is make the effort. No one has bothered before, so who knows, but if you go in with a defeatist attitude, then you are already defeated. I see no need for face to face meetings. There is no information that needs to conveyed in that manner. If that were one of the requirements, then you are limiting the number of people that can particiapte even more than you think this board restricts participation. How many people are are willing to spend money, out of pocket to travel for a face to face meeting? Yes, most "important" people go tot he National, but that is one show a year. One face to face meeting is not going to make a difference. You say that people are shy about posting here. There is no requirement to post here. My email address and everyone else contributing here is available. If they don't want to post but are interested, all they have to do is email one of us. The rush is that there are people interested in moving this forward. Your ideas would only bog it down, causing people to lose interest. Just imagine trying to maintian momentum for this until the National next year. It won't happen. Plain and simple, you are making this out to be much more complicated than it really is. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

09-08-2006, 05:26 AM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesBrian: I am certain that you speak for many who value thought and reflection as a prelude to action. I can not say that I am not of that ilk. However, this subject has been discussed before on this board, and prior to that discussion, many viewed the quantity of uncataloged cards increasing. I have undertook the task of assembling a list of these cards from several sources. I have no doubt that this list is incomplete. Imho, if we continue to turn up card sets without cataloging them, sets will possibly become lost to our awareness, and identifying those which are not lost will be cumbersome and unclear. Precedent has been set by several persons relating to cataloging needed sets. As fkw pointed out in this thread, trade cards have been organized to some extent, prior to that B.R. Sugar cataloged sets in his SCB, and I imagine others have done similarly. We diverge on our interpretation of the task at hand, Brian. I see it as of benefit to the hobby. And I therefore conclude that it is my responsibility to do what little I can in that regard. At no point in time do I view my actions as a tresspass on the work which preceeded this effort, because it is not. The cataloging of uncataloged sets supplememts all which as previously been done. I neither see this activity as a big deal, nor as my work. I view it as a collaborative effort of general benefit. As such we need no permission, and there is no hobby hierarchy anyway to seek permission from. I am uncertain regarding the identity of the elders of our hobby. Oh. I have met T-Rex, and he is indeed a hobby elder, actually, while Julie is on leave he is the elder statesman of our Forum, I believe. I am his junior by half a decade. But I really consider neither of us as hobby elders, and am curious who these individuals are, in your estimation. I have to agree with Jay regarding dragging this thing out. The longer it takes in my estimation, the less likley we are to maintain momentum. ************************************************** ******** To that end: If anyone is willing to host a list of card sets including set ID, estimated year of issue and #of cards in the set on their website, please respond by putting your e-mail address in this thread, and I will send our list to you. ************************************************** ****** No manipulation of the list is required. Just viewing of it. If other approaches seem preferable, please advise me. Gil

Archive

09-08-2006, 08:36 AM

Posted By: jay behrensGil, I have web space where I can host the list. Just email the file to me. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

09-08-2006, 09:09 AM

Posted By: ChadGil, Jay, get to work. If it's useful it will fly, if it's not, it won't. I appreciate elders as much as anyone, but all the UNC sets are a drag. I would encourage you guys to get the information out there. The ACC isn't a holy text. It isn't even an uncatlogued subset of a holy text. I say just freaking do it. It will be appreciated by many. Just fling it up on a website and ignore the resistance. Websites are cool, yo. --Chad

Archive

09-08-2006, 10:51 AM

Posted By: Brian GoldnerWith regard to updates, my opinion is relatively simple: 1)i have no problem with assigning catalogue numbers, to sets that haven't been previously catalogued, 2)in most instances, i wouldn't object to the designation of sub-types (under Burdick's original catalogue number), to the variety of sets that were lumped together, in the earlier editions. 3)What i would object to, would be the changing of any of Burdick's catalogue numbers, due to real or perceived errors in the original manuscript, or for any other reason thereof. I just don't see it as wise course of action, to correct any of Burdick's real or perceived errors. However, expanding upon Burdick's work, in theory, is an acceptable course of action. Other considerations: 1)who owns the publishing rights to the ACC? Nostalgia Press Inc.? What are the legal ramifications, to such a venture? Would attorney's have to enter into the equation? Would rights have to be purchased? 2)under an assumption that rights need not be purchased, what if another small group forms, and decides that they are more knowledgable and better capitalized, and can do the job better than the original small group? Then what? 3)along with the notoriety of expanding such a work, comes responsibility. That responsibility would entail the dealing with a publisher. Enough copies must be purchased initially, to make it worth a publisher's while, to become part of the venture. Once published, there is the responsibility of making certain that there enough copies printed, to accomodate everyone who might want one. I'm sure that there are other things to consider here, as well. Call it the dirty work, if you will. In any event, i would recommend that all of the bases be covered, before jumping into this headfirst.

Archive

09-08-2006, 11:00 AM

Posted By: ChadHowever, this information doesn't need to be published in a traditional sense. If Jay and Gil can post this stuff on the web and if they're willing to accept criticism and advice on their work in order to refine it and make it more acceptable to the majority of collectors--and there's no reason to think they aren't--then who cares if it makes it onto the carcass of a dead tree. As long as WE all know what's being referred to, the publisher can take a leap. In fact, this wouldn't be a bad feature to add to the Old Cardboard site. In fact, it would be an awesome feature to add. I do agree that we don't need to reinvent the wheel as regards to current ACC designations. I imagine most of the UNC sets will fit under an already existing designation. If they don't, then go ahead and make one up and we'll all argue about it until we get some semblance of consensus. Fellas, the more I think about this, the more fun it sounds. It would be like the exceptional EPDG thread only moreso. Excellent! --Chad

Archive

09-08-2006, 04:08 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesChad, as usual, we are on the same page on this subject. Specifically, I see no publication per se. However, if someone wants to include these efforts of Net54 in something which they write, I have no problem with that; I'm not sure how our owner feels about that though. I am not in the publication game, I am in the collect baseball cards game. And Brian - you have raised some valid points, (or seemed to infer them). Specifically: - one of the strengths of Net54 is the ability to draw upon the opinions of a diverse collecting base; representing persons of differing ages, financial orientation, backgrounds, and other differences - there is really no urgency here, things have been awry for a while, we really won't lose momentum if we take a breather and allow some of our collector depth and breadth to chime in with their opinion - we should be sure that our path is optimized before we charge ahead. To that end, I will hold off any action for a few days to allow that breather - which I think is a good choice at this juncture. And Jay, your hospitality in offering your site as a host for this joint effort is appreciated, and if Leon feels that he does not prefer the list posted here, I will certainly take you up on your offer. Its Not Only Gil

Archive

09-09-2006, 05:00 PM

Posted By: leonI agree almost verbatim with Brian on the updates. I had a few conversations today, with respected members of our community, about this subject. I am all for updating the ACC and leaving the original work exactly the way it is. The Sports Collectors Bible, by Bert Sugar, is what I am thinking our work could emulate. I am researching his works now and believe that is a format I could handle and would generally be accepted. I would also like to get a thumbs up from some of the icons in the hobby, several of which I know, and several are board members. I also agree that there is no big rush on this....easy goes it.....so we'll see.....

Archive

09-12-2006, 08:17 AM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesThe emulation of the Sports Collectors Bible is a significantly expanded undertaking beyond the initially envisioned tabulation of the sets which are currently uncataloged. This view is due to the SCB including a list of the cards associated with each set (it also includes prices - which I imagine is not envisioned for incorporation). Although such an endeavor would be worthwhile, and perhaps of long term value; the effort would ideally be dynamic, incorporating the capability of easily updating, as awareness of new cards and sets are presented. The best way, in my estimation, of maintaining the ability to easily implement changes to this new SCB, is to maintain control of the documentation. As such, the information produced could remain in the possession of this Forum, available in the public domain, but maintained by us. A link to this element of our "library" could easily be offered (I guess). Progress on the initial effort is under review by Jay, in the hopes that it can be adequately cleaned up to be worthy for initial presentation to this board. It is a stand alone compilation of information, not specifically designed as a supplement to any previously published listing.

Archive

09-27-2006, 12:16 PM

Posted By: leonIn our topic about potentially doing an update to the ACC I have acquired #2 and #4 of Bert Sugar's "Sports Collectors Bible". It does in fact look like a supplement to the ACC with much more info given. It is also where our designations of "WG" for game card and "H998" for Western Playgrounds came from. As I read through the revisions I am sure I will catch many more "new designations" too. I have contacted several hobby experts, with more than 30 yrs of time in the hobby ea., and so far everyone is willing to back a project and even help a little if need be. In thinking about getting this project accepted I do believe we need a buy in from many of the hobby icons. I think we can get that. I also think that we need to define a goal. I have never felt good about changing anything in the ACC but adding to what is there. W600's are always going to be Sporting Life cabinets..even though they should be M600. There are many more examples but bless Jefferson's heart as he gave us the ABC's of card cataloguing. I have noticed that there is an expanded list of cards and prices too. I don't think we need to venture into the pricing areas as the SCB did. There are enough ways to ascertain those already. I just figured I would keep the subject alive. It will be slow going but we'll see...One last thing. It looks like Mr. Sugar was a jack of all trades and master of none. There are many stamp and bakery and other issues that he left as "unc". My plan would be to give them all acc-type numbers. We could denote them somehow too......best regards

Archive

09-27-2006, 05:23 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesYeah Leon, Sugar probably included prices because he wanted to sell books. I don't have a book in mind, simply a list. However, the SCB (I only have #1) contains detail on each set. This detail is identification of each known card for each identified set. There is no way that I have most of that information, nor an idea how to obtain it, for those sets still outstanding. With regard to my current status: I am in the process of combining two databases, one of which I fowarded to you and Jay for your perusal. Considering your suggestion of goals for this effort, I recommend - a determination of whether we want to identify the specific known cards for each set (like SCB) or to just tabulate sets (like ACC) - an establishment of a timeline for completion of the tabulation phase. A target date. - identification of a review process including volunteers who would clean up obvious errors and identify areas for further work, before presentation to our colleagues for comment, changes, etc. I think that we are in agreement that the scope of work identified to be undertaken at this time does not include the changing of anything which has already been done. If at another date, it is viewed as desireable to implement changes to the listings in the ACC or in what we generate, that task can be addressed by others as they may see fit. And Leon, certainly solicit participation and consultation from all sources of value. This effort was never intended to be mine nor yours. Its thrust as I saw it, was generated by our common need; precipitated by the hobby's prolonged inaction relating to our "newly identified" set cataloging.

Archive

09-27-2006, 06:33 PM

Posted By: jay behrensI'm a little hesitant to make changes such as w600s, etc but don't see and real probnlem with changing e92s to a e92-1, e92-2, etc format, same for m101-4/5s, but tthat one could get a bit messy and might best be left alone. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

09-27-2006, 06:50 PM

Posted By: leonI wouldn't mind for E92's to be something like E92-1 Dockman E92-2 Crofts and Allen E92-3 Nadja F92-4 Crofts Cocoa (thought I would slip that one in) regards