2006 Standard Catalog Index Error

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

Sigh. Last year it was the T207 pricing columns, this year the Chronological Index in the back of the 2006 Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards is incorrect. Actually, it WAS correct back in the 2004 book. Somehow the pagination files for the Chronological Index were picked up from the 2004 edition. Thus, none of the sets are indexed to their correct pages, there are no sets indexed after 2003 and there are many sets in the Index that do not appear in this edition. Thankfully the Alphabetical Index is correct in the 2006 book. I'm currently unsure whether we will attempt to make available a "corrected" chronological index.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Got mine from Amazon today!

The only other error is that there is no listing for "Hal Lewis" in the beginning of the book where people are "thanked" for their contributions.

(hee, hee, hee)

I know Bob, all I do is cause more work for you every time I call a new fact to your attention. Feel free to blame me for the pagination error!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Also got mine from Amazon today. The "chronological error" is a little annoying but it gets me within a couple pages and then I look alphabetical. Much better book than my 2002 edition!

Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: RobertS

Bob--

What pre-war sets have been eliminated in this year's book? Last year, the 1906-09 V.O. Hammon Chicago cards were eliminated, what went this year?

Also, when will there be an updated memorabilia guide and will it include more pre-war stuff?

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

Amazon

Items Ordered Price
1 of: 2006 Standard Catalog Of Baseball Cards [Paperback]
By: Bob Lemke

Order Placed: September 20, 2005
Shipping estimate: November 25, 2005
Delivery estimate: December 2, 2005

[Archive]

Posted By: Don J

Anyone notice any major pre-war price swings?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Honestly...

I never look at the prices in that thing because they are never what you can buy the cards for.

The guide is GREAT as a reference book and checklist...

but the prices aren't really accurate.

Not Bob's fault, of course, since it would be impossible to print something once a year and accurately reflect every sale in the previous year.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

If only there actually were no sets issued after 2003.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

(mine has shipped..)

[Archive]

Posted By: Michael Campbell

Wow...my T207 Buck (George Weaver went from $200.00 to $6000.00 this year. Something is amiss here. Mine is a grade 5 anonymous back - Virginia Factory 25.

I've had my book for a while. Not sure why amazon got mine to me so fast. I've had it 10 days or so. Anyway...nice to see the new book Bob. Hopefully the new price is correct........Nah. I will never part with this card. One of my favorites. Love the smile.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

No Julie.

[Archive]

Posted By: BcDaniels

http://www.psacard.com/set%5Fregistry/display_cards.chtml?rsetid=10649&alltime=yes&rank=4&tied=0&requesttimeout=9999

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Today...

I consider myself...

the luckiest man...

on the face of the earth.

[Archive]

Posted By: eric p.

why don't they just produce a catalog that only contains pre 1950 cards in it, that's right, 1949 leaf and 1949 bowman would be the last issues allowed in the catalog, that would be the greatest thing since ebay for me personally, i hate thumbing thru all of that other crap, mr. lemke is there a possibility that will ever happen?, you can even make the cut off 1952 if you want, i don't care, but making me thumb thru all of those newer issues is almost like forcing me to eat brussel sprouts, does anyone else feel my pain?

[Archive]

Posted By: robert a

Hi Eric,
Great point! Although, I would prefer a Standard Catalog for Pre 1920.
Robert

[Archive]

Posted By: one-in-ten

Just making it pre-1980 would get rid of 95% of the crap.

--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: R. D. Cook

Here we go again!

Please use the search tool and look for runscott's big book plastic surgery procedure.

Btw, is Alan Rosen's mugshot still decorating the big book?

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike Campbell

Yes he's smilin' large.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Dwyer

What would really be nice is if Mr. Lemke would issue the book on cd-rom! PDA format would even be better. I would gladly pay for a subscription. Piracy would be minimal if he updated the cd every 4-6 months.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

Prices keep going up anyway...

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Mine is supposed to be delivered tomorrow. Amazon must have had a run on them and are now backordered. I can't figure out why else they would take over 2 months to ship one.

I think Richard's idea is great. Even an online subscription wouldn't be a bad idea. That way, updates can be made during the course of the year and subsciptions could support the webmaster's efforts. Just a thought.

Yes, there is plenty of coverage for 1980's+ stuff (Beckett, Tuff Stuff, etc). I would rather see pre-1970 at least.

Overall, nice job Bob!

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

P&S aren't in there because they aren't cards, they are photos

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

I wish I had the e-mail still where Bob explains "why" they can't start segmenting and make separate books. Face it, the vast majority of those who buy the Standard Guide don't collect vintage cards, or know what they are. The Standard Guide is a "one size" fits all geared to the Border's crowd who want to know the value of the 1990 baseball cards in their closet. With the rapid and amazing decline of the modern card industry, alas, they still consist the majority of the collector's out there. A "pre-1960" Standard Guide would probably sit on stores shelf forever.

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert {Bigb13}

I have a question for Mr Lemke, I know there are plenty of cards with the wrong backs but when is it a variation? 1 when there is more than one found. 2 if there are two cards that have each others back. Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Good point

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Peck & Snyders used to be considered photographic trade cards (cards issued to advertise a particular store) but now have morphed into baseball cards, partly because they can be put in holders. I know they are listed in the Becket guide. I feel they stretch the definition of a baseball card just a bit, but not terribly so. They could be collected and they were part of a set and they had baseball players on them, so there you go.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

I'm wrapping up a week-long visit from my daughter and son-in-law and his deer hunting friends. I'll get back to the Forum sometime this weekend and look at all the posts on this thread that have posed questions. If you've got a question, post it on this thread and I'll respond in the next couple of days. Thanks, all, for your continuing input!

[Archive]

Posted By: David

the problem with not listing peck and snyders is that the grand match at hoboken 'cards' are listed. peck and snyders are certainly closer to being cards the the grand match at hoboken tickets.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

And the Grand Match cards are a cricket set- they aren't even baseball.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I really do think that something should be deleted, if need be, and the Peck and Snyders put back in. There is no way they should be left out, imo. They are widely accepted ( of course not 100%) as the first professional team baseball card. They are a classic card in the hobby. I could find literally hundreds of card sets that I feel would be below them as far as needing to be in the catalogue. As for many of the other requests I think they have been debated before...best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

personally, I think all the 5x7 and larger team issue items should be deleted. These are basically pictures and not really cards. This also goes for the Butterfinger premiums and other oversized issues. If you really have to remove sets, then you these seldom collected sets are the ones that should go.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

and if you wanted to be real picky, I suppose you could eliminate the ones that have only team names and info. on the back, as being some elaborate kiind of CdV, but how you can exclude those with the mr. Peck ad or the skate on the back (that makes the back an ad)--is beyond me. They are far more numberous than many Old Judge-sized 19th century cards...or is the damn thing a photo becasuse it's of a team..ever see the 1956 Topps team cards? And, as far as a photo glued to a piece of cardbaord--ever heard of an Old Judge?

Also, even though they are printed on paper, with nothing on the pack, the M101-2 premiums are listed..aren't they?

I'm with Leon, which seems to be a fairly safe place to be...

I would guess about 15 board members have a Peck and Snyder. And they ain't exactly cheap, either!

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

The book should become more of a comprehensive tool as new sets are discovered, old sets are updated, etc. The shiny new crap should be put into a separate book (although I find it hard to believe that anyone really needs a price guide to WORTHLESS cards...how hard is it to count up the contents of a 5000-ct. dime box anyway?).

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

I have a pretty liberal definition of baseball card and it's disappointing to think stuff would need to be deleted so they can include all the new Topps parallel sets. My thinking is more more more! Vintage stuff, of course. Just don't delete the super balls, because, even though I don't collect them or even own one, they are extra super cool.

--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Julie, you really do need to pay attention to the smiley faces people use. For someone that uses them so much, I would think that you would. Look at my original post about P&S, there is a winking smiley there. That means I'm saying it partly in jest.

Besides, what difference does it make whether someone thinks it is a card or not? As long as you want it and like it, that is all that matter. I doubt seriously that the hobby will ever come to a concensous as to what a card really is. Besides, I'm a nobody and whether I think something is a card or not is not going to change the way the hobby thnks.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Geno

If we must have the post-1980 junk in there, then it should be just the stars, with the commons priced as a group. If you really need to collect the 1992 Topps set, do we really care that Mel Hall, Otis Nixon, and Dan Plesac (as well as 800 other dudes) all "book" for a nickel? Just say "Commons - .05" even though we all know they are worthless. I don't agree with the suggestions to get rid of team-issued postcards, etc. They may not be cards, but I'd rather have a 1975 Denny Doyle Angels Postcard than a complete 1990 Topps set. By the way, does anyone have a 1975 Denny Doyle Angels postcard (really, I need one!)??

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Even Leonard Maltin has started a second book of movies to include classic films in a separate volume (his book is getting so thick it's hard to bind). Maybe SCD and others should follow his lead and have a book that starts with Peck and Snyder and ends with 1941 Play Ball, and put 1948 Bowman and up in a second volume. That would make everyone happy, each book wouldn't be as big, and the world would be a better place.

[Archive]

Posted By: Nick

The Standard Catalog is supposed to be a comprehensive guide. No cards/sets should be deleted unless they are found not to actually exist (with the exception that unlicensed modern "Broders", which are technically contraband due to intellectual property violations, can be omitted). If it means there is volume 1 and 2, that may even be a good thing. It would allow more specialized collectors to carry around just what they need.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

I had preordered the book back on the 20th and it had not shipped. I called Amazon yesterday and asked where it was and they said that it was backordered and did not know when it would be coming. It would be at least several weeks before they got any in. I then cancelled my order.

About 5 min later, I went back into Amazon and placed another order and paid $16 for overnight shipping. That was yesterday. Lo and behold, it arrives today. I guess Amazon has preferrential treatment for those who pay through the nose for shipping?

Hal - I consider you lucky too! That was quite a pop for the iron horse!

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

it is a joke for which I paud quite a few thousands of dollars--more than any other CARD I own...and I love Mr. Peck on the back. Tain't funny, McGee. I have a couple of photos I treasure, too, but that one is treasured as a CARD...Jay: you had no problem with including BOTH the Peck and Snyder ad back AND the P and S team back in the first year of the baaseball card HOF...

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Richard, it sounds like you ran into a doofus at Amazon. I ordered mine last week; the shipping was nominal. It arrived a day past their scheduled delivery but looks pretty good. I would still LOVE to buy caramels at the VG price listed on pretty much everything.

I still can't get over why an E102 Cobb is more than 2X as much as an E101. I guess someone still thinks it's his rookie card. Last time I checked (for whatever it's worth), the pop reports for E102s was nearly double that of E101s.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Julie, the P&S being in the card HOF had nothing to do with my decision. That was voted on by the board members here. I just host the pictures.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: William Brumbach

Several years ago I was wandering around Fort Washington, probably just got there since I wander The Fort right to left. I generally don't pay much attention to Mr. Mint's table, though the poinsettias this past December show were a nice touch. Anyways, I walk past his table and notice an SCD, only thinner. Upon close inspection I see that he ripped one in half and only had the first half sitting there. Brilliant! I've been doing it ever since, even reenforcing it with shipping tape this year so the back pages don't fall off.

There are drawbacks of course, especially with the index and minor league sets in the back of the second half. But overall I like the idea. So, two volumes, with the first ending at 1980 would be a capital idea.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

First, you rip the back 3/4 off the first 1/4. But you want the indexes, so then you re-tape the indexes, and the back of the book, to the first 1/4. You know what? It's STILL too big to carry around to shows..but it's a lot easier to schlep from room to room...

Of course, if you have a TABLE at a show, no porblem at all.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

I'll just hunt you guys down at the shows and borrow yours. I would hate having to haul a backpack around, just to carry it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

Here's what I can tell you about the concerns raised . . .

As far as I can see into the future, the Standard Catalog will never be broken up into more than one volume. The VAST majority of these books are purchased at chain book retailers and on Amazon. Surveys show those buyers demand full coverage right up to the current year and that most would rather see vintage pages deleted than the shiny stuff. Anecdotal evidence says many of these sales are to gift-buyers who are far more likely to recognize Barry Bonds than Grover Alexander. Our book salespeople in the field says the big chain buyers believe the baseball card hobby to be dead or dying and thus they are unwilling to take a chance on shelf space for a new title that would be a subset of what is in the Standard Catalog. As much as I love all y'all on this forum, even if we were to each buy five copies every year, we'd still be a small minority of the market for the Standard Catalog.

What pre-war sets have been eliminated for 2006? I can't think of any general category, or even many specific sets. We did down-size the 1921-1930 Major League Die-Cuts and J.D. McCarthy postcards and Jay Publishing picture packs by eliminating the checklists.

On the positive side, it has become apparent that the book's page count is not an overwhelming factor in printing costs; thus we can afford to add pages each year for a while, especially now that some of the current card companies have ceased production or cut back the number of new sets.

Updated memorabilia guide? Not on the schedule. Sales don't fit the parameters of our new ownership.

CD Rom, on-line or PDA format in works? No. Although our new president has a strong history of multi-media adaptations and I'm sure this is being studied closely across all our titles.

Why no Peck & Snyders? Last edition we made the decision to eliminate most "team" cards. Exceptions were made for those with strong association to other issues, such as T200 Fatimas and Kalamazoo Bats and for the Joseph Hall cabinets. Peck & Snyders could easily be returned to the pages and I'll make a strong effort to do so next year.

Wrong backs vs. variations? These are judgement calls, based partially as suggested on the number of examples in the marketplace and the hobby's acceptance. We've added many vintage variations in the new book and will continue to do so, though I am at a loss to identify how or why a particular card makes the cut.

Why not bunch "commons" to shorten checklists? Again, this is contraindicated by buyer surveys as it pertains to current and recent cards.

The bottom line is that if the Standard Catalog is to survive, it must appeal to an audience that is decidedly different than the composition of this forum. If the markets (book and card) change, I expect the catalog will, too.

Thanks, all, for your questions, comments and concerns. Keep them coming.

Oh, yeah, almost forgot . . . we "found" the correct chronological index and I'm looking into getting it posted on our website for reference or downloading.