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?)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1912Felt.html>
=== 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???)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1915B-W.html>
===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?)
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/colorized-portraits/cp.asp?cardsetID=849>
===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 #???)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1913Notebook.html>
===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)
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/big-head/big-head.asp?cardsetID=850>
===Yes, name will no doubt be most common usage, but will get a number too.
1920/1 W-Unc IFS “Blue and Orange”
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/ifs-blue-orange/ifs-blue-orange.asp?cardsetID=85>
===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?)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1923Shoulderless.html>
===Don't know, fkw indicates correlation with candy. Please elaborate, fkw.
1925 W-Unc Playing Cards (a version of W560?)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1925-29Playing.html>
===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
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/red-bg-game-cards/red-bg-game-cards.asp?cardsetID=852>
===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?)
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/w502/w502.asp?cardsetID=810>
===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???)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1930/1935Mgr.html>
===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)
http://www.oldjudge.com/auction/baseball/type/89/>
===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
http://www.oldcardboard.com/pc/managers/managers.asp?cardsetID=943>
===PC designation
1908 PC-Unc Pirates Stadium Issue
http://www.oldcardboard.com/pc/pirates/pirates.asp?cardsetID=940>
===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.