View Full Version : Collecting question
Archive
03-04-2009, 08:00 AM
Posted By: <b>Jim</b><p>Hi, new to this forum and am looking for some advise. I'm in the process of collecting baseball cards of the top 1000 MLB pitchers. If the player was prior to 1950 then I try (if available) to get a card of the player that was produced while the player was still active. One of the cards needed is for Herb Scott Perry and according to Beckett's checklist the ONLY card available is a 1921 E220. However, after a little research it seems the player depicted on the card tittled "Scott Perry" is actually a pic of Ed Rommel... So, should I go ahead and get the card or make my own with his picture like I do with players who do not have any cards available?
Archive
03-04-2009, 08:28 AM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Hey Jim - sounds like a great collection! You're really the only one that can answer the question you asked. It comes down to what you would be more comfortable with. If you're collecting the cards because you want an image of each player, then don't use the E220; if you're collecting the cards because you want to complete the checklist, then go with the e220. <br>The image of Irv Young is used on some of Cy Young's cards (E97) but I believe that most Cy Young collector's would go after those cards if they were trying to complete a Cy Young master set.<br><br><p><br><br><br><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/mwieder" rel="nofollow">My Trade/Sale Page</a></p>
Archive
03-04-2009, 08:51 AM
Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p>I've grappled with the issue myself. For example the Meyer card in Tango Eggs is clearly Fred Jacklitsch. There is also the Weaver/Tinker mixup in a couple of caramel sets.<br><br>I collect both Jacklitsch and Weaver. I don't think I'd go real strong for any of the mixup cards.
Archive
03-04-2009, 08:52 AM
Posted By: <b>Mark L</b><p>Since the principle of my collecting seems to be getting at least one card of every pre-war player I've ever heard of, I sympathize. I would get the E220 and be satisfied because it is a Perry card and it is the closest that you can come to fulfilling your goal. <br>
Archive
03-04-2009, 11:00 AM
Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I think the card can be considered both a card of the pictured and the named player. For example, the 1987 Donrus Opening Day Barry Bonds card picturing Johnny Ray is considered a Barry Bonds card. If there are any, Johnny Ray collectors likely also consider it a Johnny Ray card. It's an error card, and some error cards have dichotomous information-- which is why they are errors.<br><br>A fair guess is that the card maker intended the card to be of the player named, but accidentally got the wrong image. Donrus intended the Bonds/Ray card to be a Barry Bonds card, but accidentally used the wrong image.
Archive
03-04-2009, 11:17 AM
Posted By: <b>Brian T.</b><p>Word of the day... dichotomous.
Archive
03-04-2009, 11:39 AM
Posted By: <b>Jim</b><p>Thanks for the responces, and I agree with all(don't know what that word means). Guess I will get the E220 card and insert a self-made photo card into the same top loader.... That way I can even add stats!
Archive
03-05-2009, 08:21 AM
Posted By: <b>Mark Lutz</b><p>Ok, now that that has been cleared up, how can you classify Scott Perry as one of the 1000 best pitchers of all time? If I limit myself to the original 16 franchises, I'm pretty sure that I can think of forty or fifty pitchers from each one that are more accomplished than Perry. It's true that he had one heck of a season in 1918. Who do you include among the 1001-1010 best? Maybe you could bump one of them up, and you won't have to buy the E220 of Perry.
Archive
03-05-2009, 01:48 PM
Posted By: <b>Jim</b><p>Being as this is my own list I do have many guidelines ie HOF, lifetime ERA under 3.00, etc and one catagory is prior to 1950 any pitcher thad had a 20 win season with an ERA under 3.00 and after 1950 I lower the standard to any pitcher with a 20 win season.