Old Judge question

Why are they considered 1887 issues, but the copyrights on some of the photos is 1889?

[cyseymour]

Here is a thread that discusses some of the OJ cataloging issues such as year, number, etc.

http://net54baseball.com/showthread....light=proposal

[bn2cardz]

For some reason the grading companies won't acknowledge that there were several years of release with distinguishing layouts between years.

A great book to read on the differences between the years is:
The Photographic Baseball Cards of Goodwin & Company 1886-1890, Old Judge's baseball cards

[cyseymour]

Yes, like the grading companies, who are happy to tell you what to think, the book can help you to ignore your direct experience of observing the card. So if you have a card that says Copyright 1889, you can learn from the SGC experts that it is a 1887 Old Judge. And if you've got a card with the number "0137" on it, you can realize that in fact the experts in the OJ book will tell you that it is really numbered "252-2". This way you can learn to value expert opinion over what you see with your own eyes.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Yes, like the grading companies, who are happy to tell you what to think, the book can help you to ignore your direct experience of observing the card. So if you have a card that says Copyright 1889, you can learn from the SGC experts that it is a 1887 Old Judge. And if you've got a card with the number "0137" on it, you can realize that in fact the experts in the OJ book will tell you that it is really numbered "252-2". This way you can learn to value expert opinion over what you see with your own eyes.

You are combining two different things. The first number (0137) is the number in the 0 series of cards and isn't found on every old judge card. The book does list every card in this series (including the non baseball players) by their numbers in the appendix. The second number (252-2) is the pose number as distributed by the Cartophilic Society of Great Britain. Those two numbers are not to replace one another and the book acknowledges both and educates about both, but you would have to read the book to fully appreciate that.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

You are combining two different things. The first number (0137) is the number in the 0 series of cards and isn't found on every old judge card. The book does list every card in this series (including the non baseball players) by their numbers in the appendix. The second number (252-2) is the pose number as distributed by the Cartophilic Society of Great Britain. Those two numbers are not to replace one another and the book acknowledges both and educates about both, but you would have to read the book to fully appreciate that.

I have read the book (and I do appreciate it) but even if it were assigned a certain number by the Cartophilic Society, or whatever other experts there may be, I'll still trust my own eyes over the opinion of whatever expert there is, because my own eyes are my direct personal experience with the card.

So no matter how many experts there are out there who want to call the card 252-2, I am going to use my direct personal experience of viewing the card to know that it is really number 0137. If they happen to put an appendix in the back of their book that shows the card to be 0137, that only further undermines the case for the card being called 252-2.

I do want to say that I actually do enjoy reading the OJ book and it is a fabulous resource in many ways. The OJ authors are on this board and every indication has it that they are very nice guys. But I will still trust my own eyes when making an observation about a card over the opinions of grading companies, cartophilic societies and book authors.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I have read the book (and I do appreciate it) but even if it were assigned a certain number by the Cartophilic Society, or whatever other experts there may be, I'll still trust my own eyes over the opinion of whatever expert there is, because my own eyes are my direct personal experience with the card.

So no matter how many experts there are out there who want to call the card 252-2, I am going to use my direct personal experience of viewing the card to know that it is really number 0137. If they happen to put an appendix in the back of their book that shows the card to be 0137, that only further undermines the case for the card being called 252-2.

I do want to say that I actually do enjoy reading the OJ book and it is a fabulous resource in many ways. The OJ authors are on this board and every indication has it that they are very nice guys. But I will still trust my own eyes when making an observation about a card over the opinions of grading companies, cartophilic societies and book authors.

You really are missing the point the two numbers don't contradict each other. Not every card has a number. The number given by the CSGB is a pose number. It allows you to know what pose would be found in each subset and distinguish each. You can still use the short number or 0 numbers for their corresponding sets, but you can't use those numbers on sets that don't have them. At times the short number and 0 don't even correspond with numbers, and again, they cross over to subjects outside baseball. The CSGB number set is only for baseball poses (they have numbers for the other poses of non baseball players).

For instance tell me what number do your eyes see on the burns in the OP?