|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: David Seaborn
Jay- just wanted to say I agree with you on the expansion of Burdick's work. What he did was an incredible labor of love, but it needs to be updated to be relevant. This certainly does not diminish what he did and I believe he would be all for the continued updating of the baseball cards systematics. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: Gilbert Maines
Jay - my thinking was going in just the opposite direction. When I look at all of the different sets which are derivatives of the e121s, I think that it would be way simpler and easier to understand if they were all under the e121 umbrella, as subsets. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: jay behrens
I will agree, if nothing else, the UNCs need numbers. The rest is just nit picking and not that big of a deal. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: Brian Goldner
That the ACC could use some tweaking, but this invites the question: |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: steve f
ut ohh. I had better dump my 1924 W-UNC's before they become 1926 W***'s |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: jay behrens
Brian, hate to burst your bubble, but if the hobby legends really cared about making changes to the ACC, they would have done so long ago. As Leon has pointed out, most people, including hobby verterans, just don't care. Besides, who is to say who is worthy and who isn't to make these changes? It's not like this message board is populated with a bunch of mindless drones like over at the CU board. You have much of teh cream of the hobby lurking or posting here, including the legends you allude to, so it's not like this little endevore is going on completely unnoticed. If these legends want to be involved, there is nothing to stop them. They can even do so privately as we all have email addresses we can be contacted at. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: Gilbert Maines
I sure hope that my comments are not viewed as blasphemy. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: Brian Goldner
You're missing my point. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: jay behrens
Aren't we a defacto committee? As I said before, what makes "legendary" collector/dealers any better to do the job than those of us that are truely interested in doing this? They certainly don't have any interest otherwise this would have happened years ago. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: Gilbert Maines
Brian: Please correct me where I am wrong. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: Brian Goldner
Jay- if you and a few others are truly interested in pursuing this, may i suggest a less aggressive approach. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: jay behrens
1)Just exactly who has the right, the authority AND the credentials to update the work of Jefferson R. Burdick? |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: Gilbert Maines
Brian: I am certain that you speak for many who value thought and reflection as a prelude to action. I can not say that I am not of that ilk. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: jay behrens
Gil, I have web space where I can host the list. Just email the file to me. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: Chad
Gil, Jay, get to work. If it's useful it will fly, if it's not, it won't. I appreciate elders as much as anyone, but all the UNC sets are a drag. I would encourage you guys to get the information out there. The ACC isn't a holy text. It isn't even an uncatlogued subset of a holy text. I say just freaking do it. It will be appreciated by many. Just fling it up on a website and ignore the resistance. Websites are cool, yo. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: Brian Goldner
With regard to updates, my opinion is relatively simple: |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: Chad
However, this information doesn't need to be published in a traditional sense. If Jay and Gil can post this stuff on the web and if they're willing to accept criticism and advice on their work in order to refine it and make it more acceptable to the majority of collectors--and there's no reason to think they aren't--then who cares if it makes it onto the carcass of a dead tree. As long as WE all know what's being referred to, the publisher can take a leap. In fact, this wouldn't be a bad feature to add to the Old Cardboard site. In fact, it would be an awesome feature to add. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: Gilbert Maines
Chad, as usual, we are on the same page on this subject. Specifically, I see no publication per se. However, if someone wants to include these efforts of Net54 in something which they write, I have no problem with that; I'm not sure how our owner feels about that though. I am not in the publication game, I am in the collect baseball cards game. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: leon
I agree almost verbatim with Brian on the updates. I had a few conversations today, with respected members of our community, about this subject. I am all for updating the ACC and leaving the original work exactly the way it is. The Sports Collectors Bible, by Bert Sugar, is what I am thinking our work could emulate. I am researching his works now and believe that is a format I could handle and would generally be accepted. I would also like to get a thumbs up from some of the icons in the hobby, several of which I know, and several are board members. I also agree that there is no big rush on this....easy goes it.....so we'll see..... |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: Gilbert Maines
The emulation of the Sports Collectors Bible is a significantly expanded undertaking beyond the initially envisioned tabulation of the sets which are currently uncataloged. This view is due to the SCB including a list of the cards associated with each set (it also includes prices - which I imagine is not envisioned for incorporation). |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: leon
In our topic about potentially doing an update to the ACC I have acquired #2 and #4 of Bert Sugar's "Sports Collectors Bible". It does in fact look like a supplement to the ACC with much more info given. It is also where our designations of "WG" for game card and "H998" for Western Playgrounds came from. As I read through the revisions I am sure I will catch many more "new designations" too. I have contacted several hobby experts, with more than 30 yrs of time in the hobby ea., and so far everyone is willing to back a project and even help a little if need be. In thinking about getting this project accepted I do believe we need a buy in from many of the hobby icons. I think we can get that. I also think that we need to define a goal. I have never felt good about changing anything in the ACC but adding to what is there. W600's are always going to be Sporting Life cabinets..even though they should be M600. There are many more examples but bless Jefferson's heart as he gave us the ABC's of card cataloguing. I have noticed that there is an expanded list of cards and prices too. I don't think we need to venture into the pricing areas as the SCB did. There are enough ways to ascertain those already. I just figured I would keep the subject alive. It will be slow going but we'll see...One last thing. It looks like Mr. Sugar was a jack of all trades and master of none. There are many stamp and bakery and other issues that he left as "unc". My plan would be to give them all acc-type numbers. We could denote them somehow too......best regards |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: Gilbert Maines
Yeah Leon, Sugar probably included prices because he wanted to sell books. I don't have a book in mind, simply a list. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: jay behrens
I'm a little hesitant to make changes such as w600s, etc but don't see and real probnlem with changing e92s to a e92-1, e92-2, etc format, same for m101-4/5s, but tthat one could get a bit messy and might best be left alone. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
ACC designations
Posted By: leon
I wouldn't mind for E92's to be something like |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ACC modification | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 17 | 05-10-2007 12:15 AM |
Need help on designations | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 12-31-2006 01:03 PM |
Question re: "ACC Designations" | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 05-12-2005 08:49 AM |
T206 Willis Overprint w/Two Factory Designations | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 02-27-2005 12:00 PM |
What do the Factory designations on T cards actually mean? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 06-24-2003 10:09 PM |