Problems with Standard Catalog Old Judge section

[Archive]

Posted By: Plastic Dog 

I understand the point about Old Judges interesting only a minority of collectors, but it would almost be better to omit the section altogether than to list them as they currently appear.

For example, some cards are difficult (and of course expensive) in a particular pose in a particular year. But the Standard Catalog doesn't generally distinguish between different years (with some exceptions, like Spotted Ties - which I will buy for the prices listed every day of the week.) Anyway, take non-Spotted Tie Script series cards from early 1887 (assuming they're not any earlier); players from that set might be listed in the Standard Catalog only with a premium price (e.g. Smith) or without any premium (e.g. Lynch, Orr, etc.). The non-Spotted Tie script 1887 card of all 3 should bring a premium, whereas their 1888 or 1889 issues should be commons (Jay, I'm just trying to make a point, and if I'm wrong due to some rare team change, please just go with it for now). And what about 1890 Players League (or "NL") cards? It would be great to buy them as "common" Old Judges, as the 1889 and 1890 cards look the same (at least in their poses). But how would somebody selling their newly-deceased great grandfather's collection (look, it was an accident that I spilled arsinic in his coffee, and only coincidental that it was the day after I found out about his will) realize that they could buy a new house, and not just a new roof, with all of their rare Old Judges?

And if the Standard Catalog doesn't keep up with new poses and variations in the Old Judge series, who will? Maybe the Topps Almanac, (but I'll be damned if I can ever find anything in there with that horrible index and Table of Contents).

Personally, I want every spelling variation, slight pose difference, and team change listed for every player. And I would like it broken up by year (as it currently reads, the Standard Catalog only lists Old Judges as 1887, while the example photo is of 1889). If a player has a Chicago Maroons card one year (premium), and a New York card the next (no premium), how is the collector supposed to distinguish value from the Standard Catalog? From the reader's perspective, both cards would be worth the same amount. And we all know that New York teams are worthless (I mean worth less).

To me, incomplete or incorrect information is worse than no information at all.

That's my two cents,
Tom

[Archive]

Posted By: David

If you want it done right, do it yourself.

If you make up a booklet, I promise you I will buy a copy. If you make a website, I promise to visit.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

It was one of the earliest topics on this board and Bob Lemke was involved in the thread. At that time, he was not hot on the idea of listing the variations to the minutest detail as he did last time ("New York" vs. "New Yorks", for example) and I agree with that position.

But I also agree that there is a need to list significant variations and poses and years are among them. Jay could speak more intelligently on whether one pose variation over another within a given year would command any kind of premium and whether it would be worth while to try to value poses differently. That was not done in the last listing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jaime Leiderman

<<...To me, incomplete or incorrect information is worse than no information at all.>>

Strongly AGREE with your point.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Tom---You make a good point, an exhaustive listing of Old Judge where the value of each variation was spelled out would be an extremely useful tool. Unfortunately, from a practical standpoint, it is an extremely difficult task to construct such a listing. With all due respect to the staff at SCD (or Beckett for that matter) they don't know the value of the cards in the set well enough to even attempt the task. The current catalog just doesn't contain incomplete information. It contains prices that are just dead wrong, and in some cases wrong by a factor of ten or more. Aside from the checklist value of the SCD listing, the "value" numbers are useless and should come with an equivalent of the warning on a pack of cigarettes.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

are so rarerly seen, in general, that identifying and properly pricing all of the variations is a significant challenge.

However, perhaps one of the experts on this board will get some great ideas from Doug Allen and Art M's T-206 book (if it ever comes out) and use that as a template for the 2003 Old Judge Encyclopedia!