It is not a knock on the book. I simply don't agree with the numbering system created by the CSGB. There are better ways to go about it, imo. Yes, the CSGB system goes by pose - even people who haven't read the book should realize that. My view is that's not the best approach for the following reasons:
1. Since the CSGB system doesn't factor in year, it has lead the grading companies to apathetically label all the cards "1887 Old Judge". They have been getting away with it because the system is set up so that the cards aren't organized according to year in the CSGB, so the grading companies feel they don't need to distinguish between year. This is really silly because the cards themselves say things like "copyright 1889" on them - and that leads to threads like this one as started by the OP.
2. Since the CSGB doesn't consider subset or year, it means that numbers are given to cards which already have numbers. Since some cards already have numbers, it would be better to go to a system which didn't use numbers. That way it avoids giving cards which already have numbers and second number. There is no precedent I can think of for doing that within the hobby. If you've got a different example of when a card which had a certain number directly on the card was assigned a number which is not on the card, I'd love to see it. Either way, it is counter-intuitive and I find it a flaw in the system.
3. The CSGB system, as it is comprised, creates a single set which is 2500+ cards in size. This is simply too large. Yes, there is one or two collectors who may be attempting to complete it, but 99%+ of collectors would have no chance at all. I mean, no chance of even coming close. Breaking down the set, it would still be quite difficult to complete, but it wouldn't be nearly as difficult, and completing a subset or getting close to completing one is far more attainable than attempting to complete an entire 2500+ set.
4. The CSGB numbering system has very little practical function. If you told a collector you just purchased card number 122-5, he wouldn't understand which card you were talking about anyways. But if you told him that you just acquired a Harry Decker Throwing, he would instantly know which card you were talking about. In that case, what is the point of giving the card a number? There are myriad cards from other sets that are just listed as the player and pose without providing a number. So I see no reason to create new numbers or even think about the numbers unless you are collecting a 1887 numbered subset - for which the numbers already exist anyways.
5. Finally, let me say that, by jumbling all the different subsets together, the CSGB pays short shrift to many of the beautiful and interesting variations within Old Judge cards - year, design, subset, etc. The CSGB system obfuscates them instead of allowing them to shine so that collectors can have different aims and highlight the diversity of cards and years within the set.
For those reasons, I believe the CSGB system to be detrimental to OJ collectiing. You all have a right to disagree, but please make your points based on the cards themselves, instead of accusations that either a) I don't understand the book, or b) that everything which is in the book must be the correct way of doing things. The former is false and the latter is dogma. If you think the CSGB system is fantastic and I am completely mistaken, come and tell me why in your own words. But I feel like I have a right to make my criticisms of that system.
Thanks
|