Ask the Standard Catalog . . .

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

I'm going to work up an FAQ presentation for the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards (also to run in SCD). I invite you to ask any question you have about the book, general or specific. If you post your question here, I'll answer here, as well. If you wish to e-mail your query, you'll get a response in kind. Those questions which arise most frequently will be published in the book each year. For instance:
1) Why do graded "commons" often sell for much more than the "catalog" values listed?
2) Why are the SCBC's prices different than those in the Beckett Almanac?
3) How come and how do you price some cards which don't exist, or at least are unknown in a particular grade?
No question is too "tough," if it's on your mind, it is on the mind of thousands of other collectors.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric

Hello Mr. Lemke,

Thank you for creating this post, I've had a couple ideas on my mind that I thought to be suitable for the SCD. Alike many other collectors on this board, I only collect pre-1950 material. With that in mind, I've always wished that the SCD were broken down into the following sections: pre-1950, and 1950-present.

I know this may create a rather small section in the front of the book, but it seems to me like a natural break in time (in terms of cards). I've always viewed the entry of Topps onto the market as an entirely new age of baseball card collecting. Plus, I think most vintage card collectors stay under the timeframe of the 1950's.

One other thought I had, was to merge major and minor league sets together. I can't especially speak to how this would work in a post-1950 section, but as far as the pre-1950 section, it would make perfect sense. Most vintage collectors collect both major and minor league cards, whereas modern card collectors are probably more decisive about which to collect.

Eric Eichelkraut

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

Hi Bob:

First, thanks for the book, we all use it and even though there are complaints, I and I am sure others, are greatful for your efforts. This is how I use the book. First I buy 2 and put one on the shelf for future reference next to all the earlier issues. Second I cut up the other book and cut and paste it into a format that groups 19th century, E cards, T cards including minor league issues.

I arrange the N cards N28; N29; N43; N162; N172; N173; N284; N300 etc.

I arrange the E cards E90-1,2,3; E91-a,b,c,; E92- Dockmans, Crofts candy, Crofts cocoa, Nadjas; E93; E94; E95; E96; E97; E98; E99; E100; E101; E102; E103; E104-1,2,3; E105; E106; E107.

I arrange the T cards T200; T201; T202; T203; T204; T205; T206; T207; T208; T209; T210; T211; T212; T213-1,2,3; T214; T215; T216; T217; T222.

I then take other issues of interest such as CJ's and M116 etc. and cut and paste them also.

I then use these cut and pasted pages to make 5 or 6 copies that are about 35 pages long and inset the into 3 ring binders, along with excell spreadsheets of my cards, and leave the binders at home, work, vacation house and with my son - have not got the wife into it yet - and we are set to go for another year! - thanks.

I think you could make 3 books out of you bible. First up to 1930, second 1930 to 1969 and third to present including minor leagues with each issue. Issue 1 would be heaven.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Actually, the logical seperation is 1945, otherwise you split the Bowman sets between vintage and modern. Also, WW2 is where the big change in cards occured.

on to Bob's request:

Why is a set like 1917 White Sox set lised with prices for all grades for each cards when there is only one known complete set and singles have never been sold?

Is it possible to create an ACC index so that those of use that are more familiar with ACC designations can find sets more easily? This should only a page or 2 at most and is my biggest complaint with your book since spend way too much time for sets that I know the ACC designation but not what you have decided to call it. Simple index that list the ACC designation where it can be found in your book would be a great help.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Bob, your questions were good ones. Someone onced asked if I made up the questions for my newsletter and I said "No, just the answers."

Here are my questions:

4) Why do the prices in SCD, Beckett and major price guides in general reflect 'retail' pricing and not the prices normal people get? I understand that ten years ago there were mostly retail stores, but today's selling and buying is mostly done at places like eBay? I'm not suggesting this retail pricing is wrong, I'm just wondering is the theory behind it.

5) What are the practicals for determining prices for a card? What kind of data is gathered, from what sources and how what calculations are performed? When does your opinion override or tempor the 'mathamatical' result?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

6) Is it true that you caught a Beckett spy in Iola, with the giveaways that he was wearing spurs, chaps and refused to salute the Brett Favre SLU on your desk?

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I would strongly second (third, whatever, I'm not good with stages) the idea of splitting the books so as to take the post-1980 stuff into a separate volume. I am very concerned about the comments that some of the card-like items might be removed from the vintage listings because of the proliferation of modern cards. In all honesty the big $$ and major focus of the hobby consistently is the pre-1980 collector, and I don't see why we should be penalized because of a refractor virus.

Which dovetails into my first question:

How do the editors decide which items to include?

I would also second the idea of recombining the vintage major and minor league listings. I usually take my book, break it into the three parts, and throw away the modern listings.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

Let me address these as best I can.
First and foremost, at this time it is not an option to divide the catalog into separate volumes, whether pre-War, pre-1950 or pre-1981. The sales department is death on that idea. They figure that the book is, considering the decline of the bbc market in the past 10 years, doing amazingly well and they don't want to chance a major change. You might be surprised to learn that (ballpark figures) only about 30% of the SCBC's sales come from the "hobby," the rest are sold in major chain bookstores and on Amazon.com. Naturally, amy who buy at those "public" venues are true collectors, but the sales people feel to break the book into by-date volumes would be a bad gamble.
At this point I don't see any major changes in format from the current four-section approach of Vintage Major, Modern Major, Vintage Minor and Modern Minor.
To specifically answer Jay's queries: We feel our proprietary pricing "system" can accurately break down a unique set such as the 1917 White Sox or the Alleghany issue based on proven demand for cards of the player, team, era and rarity. It is conjectural until such a set is actually broken, but past experience says it is a reasonable exercise. That said, however, it may make sense for us NOT to price that specific set, since it has not been broken and no other examples have surfaced.
As for the ACC indexing, much of that is already in place in the alphabetical index; it's not complete, but it's a good start. I am of the firm belief that the ACC numbers have outlived their utility and are meaningless to the vast majority. We'll continue to pick away at our cross-referencing in this area, though.
To address David's questions: When we say our book values reflect the current "retail" market that is not meant to imply "store," "show" or "ad" prices, rather, as we say, "what the collector can expect to pay for that card." More and more these days, that means taking into account eBay transactions, as that venue has become the real-world market for much of the hobby. I cannot be specific about the proprietary system by which we generate book values. Our company has been in the hobby price guide business for more than 40 years and has been creating unique computerized analysis tools for more than 25 years. Without being too specific, we have created a virtually infinite number of pricing grids which take into account all aspects which affect a card's supply and demand. Every price which the computer generates is given a critical review by myself and/or our modern baseball analyst and the "human" element factored in. Input comes from recorded transactions in major (and minor) hobby auctions, and increasingly, from legitimate eBay sales. We also work with a very select group of specialists on individual sets.
To address Adam's inquiry on how the selection process is accomplished . . . it used to be very easy, we tried to include EVERYTHING. In the last couple of years, with our page count frozen just beneath the 1,800 mark to allow us to keep the cover price under $40, decisions have to be made on what to do to accomodate the 10,000+ new cards being issued each year. In the SCBC, that decision is mine alone. My goal is to maintain the integrity of the Vintage sections for as long as possible, making cuts to non-card items in the modern section as necessary. We had hoped to be able to migrate much of the non-card content to the 3rd edition Standard Catalog of Sports Memorabilia, but that was not possible due to that title's deadlines. I am confident I can squeeze all the new cards into the 2005 book without making any cuts to core content.
If I had my 'druthers, I'd publish a Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards annually and a companion Standard Catalog of Baseball Collectibles every other year, allowing us to fully utizilize our data base.
Keep the inquiries coming and thanks for your concern and interest.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

1) It is much easier to prove the existance of a card than to prove the non-existance of one.

It's true the Allegheny set is probably one of a kind,
but it certainly has been broken up--I even got a small corner.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Bob, I'm assuming I will be getting paid, as you used my question ... To be frank, I wouldn't have posed the questions if I didn't think there was a good chance I'd get some dinero out of it.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I know there is a snowballs chance in he** but I too would like to see a vintage-only big book....say from even '81 and back?.....and would gladly pay the same price as the one today.....thanks

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Oops, I appologize, Bob. A board member advised me that Wisconsin is not quite up to date on that currency thing. In leu of cash, I will accept barter. I will accept one milk-giving cow. Please note that it will have to be small, as it will live on the balcony of my second floor condominum. As I live in an urban area, the shipping papers will have to state that it's dog or cat. Lastly, please include instructions on how to milk it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff O

Krause did do a vintage only book once... it was the "1887-1947 Baseball Card Price Guide" published in 1993, and it's basically a Standard Catalog for just the 1887-1947 era. Bob - how did this book do when it was released? I'm guessing not well, since it was never done again... hell, the only person I know who's even ever referred to it is TBob. Personally, I use it as often or more often than the annual guide - it's much smaller and easier to manage, and it uses the ACC designation system.

Jeff

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

If the ACC desigantions are out of date, does that mean TBob is out of date?

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Jeff,
I use it too. Even though it has multiple errors, the size is perfect. I've dropped the 10lb version on my toe, way to many times........
Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

if you won't entertain the big pre-1981 book, how bout this for a compromise. I bet most people here would even pay MORE for the book/books if you went the Barry Halper Collection route and made a slipcover with 2-3 different volumes. You'd have to sell the WHOLE thing, but those who rue the new stuff would have at least two different books to work from. Maybe Pre 1980, Modern, and Minor League or some other division to make it 2-3 different volumes.

It has been narrowly reported that some pricing inaccuracies in your guide may or may not be intentional to make it easier to identify if someone is 'stealing' your prices for another publication. Thinking in a conspiracy-minded way, one might also think that would hold true for the cards that are in your checklists that no one has ever seen. Straight up, is this true or not? Are some prices printed in error for this purpose?

My wife marvels that the book is so dang big. If nothing else, it does somehow, in some way, justify that this is a legitimate hobby to her that a single book can hold so much information about things from 1880's to 2003.......she still thinks I spend too much though.....

[Archive]

Posted By: brian p

I actually purchased that 1886-1947 Vintage SCD catalog when it came out, and it was one of the few things that riled me up enough to write a letter of complaint and return it. I had just purchased their normal Standard Catalog that year, and was excited to find out they were planning to issue just a vintage catalog for the cards I collected. The promise was that it would contain additional sets and have more in depth coverage. Boy was I disappointed. If I remember correctly, they added about 3-4 minor issues, but dropped about ten (I actually spent the time comparing the two catalogs with a fine tooth comb). I mailed them a detailed letter pointing all this out, and even spoke with someone on the phone when I was informing them of my return and disatisfaction. I believe the person on the phone mentioned that the editor of that catalog had lost his job because of it. Whoever was that editor (not Bob Lemke) was asleep at the wheel and even let through several pages of 70's cards, as well as a lot of errors that could have easily been spotted by a cursory run through. And besides this the pricing was all exactly the same as in their other guide. It really was just a slapped out rehash of the current Standard Catalog, and I felt like I had been taken for my money.

However, if the same catalog were issued today with all the additional sets that have since been added I would buy it instead of the refractor infected one. A lot of improvements have been made to the catalog, and by separating out the older issues for its own publication would allow for deeper coverage on issues such as the Old Judge set, and further space for all the more unusual issues that still have not made their way to its pages.

Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

It is really hard to hold the big book while sitting on the toilet (aka the married man's reading room).

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Cut the book into two sections - vintage and modern - and leave the modern section on the back of the toilet for future use

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Since doing a permamnent breakdown of the book seems out of the question, is it possible to to do a vintage only edition every 5 years or so that would include all the smaller and newer vintage sets, and full listing of OJ variations that are not in the big book? Most vintage collectors seem to be more interested in having the checklists and info on the sets than the price guide.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I like your idea. Mr. Lemke, any chance of doing like the Halper catalogue and package it with 2 seperate books in a sleeve? Can't be that much more cost and I would easily pay a buck or two more for it that way.......great suggestion.......one other small thing.....E94 overprints at 25%-50% over a common? I sort of follow those very carefully and the last 20 (separate sales) have sold for 15x-20x book....

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

Thanks for the continuing dialog.
To answer Tom's question, specifically: No, we do not "seed" goofy prices or non-existent cards to trap pirates. In fact, case law holds that you cannot copyright data, only the form of its presentation, and further, that a logical form of presentation cannot be protected, either. That's why we don't make our data baseavailable on-line or on CD; it would make it too easy for someone to produce their own "vintage-only" catalog! The occasional out-of-left-field price you find in the book is either a very human typographical error, or the computer's attempt to correct what it views as an error. Despite Julie's several snide comments over the years about cards which don't exist being listed in the SCBC, she has yet to provide any details. As those of you know who read SCD, we've spent considerable column space in recent months on exactly that topic, trying to weed out non-existent cards which have been carried in checklists for decades. Example: the T3 Vic Willis - Pittsburgh. Unless one shows up soon, that card will be removed from the catalog and from the want lists of many advanced collectors.
Jeff . . . you just had to bring up the "1887-1947 Baseball Card Price Guide" didn't you? That was a debacle foisted on the hobby in the years between Dan Albaugh's stewardship of the data base and my own. Whether it bombed because it was merely a rehash of the SCBC's vintage section of the day, or because the market would not support a vintage-only book is unknown. But bomb it did, and that contributes to management's reluctance to try that tack again.
A slip-cased multi-volume set is not possible because it would not add just a couple of bucks to the cost, but would add tens of dollars due to the extra bindery charges and extra covers, not to mention the slip case itself.
I will forward all of your comments relative to the desire for a vintage-only book to my boss.
And Dave, your Wisconsin bovine is on her way to you. She's been kind of a family pet, but has been acting very peculiar lately; due to a recent tendancy to froth about the mouth, we affectionately call her Foamy.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The real question is, can Foamy still stand on her own?

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

Now, or in the past. The E254 cards which Larry Fritsch, (the world's greatest collector of same--also 270s, both kinds) has undoubtedly told do not exist continue to be listed. They are in the E-270 Tin Top set, which looks exactly the same from the front.

After a few years, you acknowledged Mark Macrae's discovery of the Tin Top Walter Johnson (a "new" card), but you never removed, or even commented on thre inclusion of a Cobb variation and a Wagner variation which simply aren't.

Why is it that when I say something, I'm snide, while when a--someone else--says you are presumably putting off-the-wall prices in your book to discourage thieves, you take it quite calmly?

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H.

Some years ago the notorious Alan Hagar published a book. One of the things I found especially interesting (besides the copy-editing) and useful in that book was its attempts to determine the actual scarcity of vintage issues. I found this particularly useful as it adjusted my expectations about whether I could realistically ever obtain certain issues.

I think it would be most useful if the catalog would note things such as one-of-a kind cards instead of simply pricing them in 3 grades when the only specimen might not even qualify as VG.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric

Mr. Lemke~

I just wanted to clarify my suggestion on the division of dates, as maybe it was originally misinterpreted. I completely understand from a financial standpoint that the SCD must remain as one book, I'm not asking or suggesting that it be broken into separate books or volumes. I understand that this would be a large mistake for KP, financially speaking. My suggestion is, instead of using the current breakdown dates (1980 and before, and 1980-present), I was suggesting that this dateline be changed to possibly 1946-before, and 1947-present. The dividing year in the 1940's is subject to various opinions, 1947 and 1942 are also good years of separation, depending on how you look at it. My opinion is influenced by what I collect of course, but I truly feel that the majority of baseball card collectors also would like this split. Actually, I'd probably make a three-way split, representing: 1947-present (the vintage era), 1948-1980 (the Topps era), and 1981-present (the modern era).

I don't have the publishing insight that you do, but I think the hobby might like these separations a bit more than what is currently used. Maybe an open forum to address this specific debate might be a consideration for you. These are just my opinions, and I thank you for considering them!

Eric Eichelkraut

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

but I would make the break after 1941 (last year for Play Ball and Goudey), which also fits the "pre-war" idea better.

Also, I like the previous suggestion of combining minors with ML issues.

And separate indices for the two sections.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

1945 is a better date because there are a number of small, lesser known set issued between 1942-1945 and fit better in pre-war section than they would the 1946-1980 section.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

Julie, and all, while Larry has mentioned to me on occasion that he feels there are problems with the Colgan's listings, we have never sat down to look into it. That day may or not ever come. Those listings derived from SOMEWHERE in the hobby's distant past and unless somebody has a good explanation of why this or that player could not/should not appear in one or the other of the E270 series, I can't justify taking unilateral action in de-listings.

Scarcity assessments? Alan Hager's attempt was self-serving and futile. We make a few notations of cards which are known/thought to be unique or nearly so, but by and large this information cannot accurately be pinned down. Heck, the hobby can't even agree on how many specimens of its most famous card exist. I think telling readers what a card is "worth" or what it has sold for at public auction (in the case of great rarities) should allow them to determine relative scarcity.

[Archive]

Posted By: Nickinvegas

Bob,
Is there any plan for adding more of the pre-war cuban issues? There are some great cuban cards out there that should be featured in SCBC.

Also, I know it has been taken off the table but, seperating the issue into two volumes would be great. Especially if it could be packed like the Halper catalog was. I know that you mentioned the sales department was "death" on the idea but what happen to listening to the customer? My sales managers often take the same approach, and I have to remind them of what their role is. And that role is to sell.

As a card shop owner I can tell you modern and vintage card collectors would love it!

Regards,
Nick

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

I am one of the guys who bought and loved the old Vintage 1887-1947 guide despite its being replete with mistakes. It was much more collector friendly with its grouping E sets, etc, together. Since everyone else is giving their bitches here, I'd thought I'd throw in mine- the current SCD prices for 1910 Obak Series 150 and E94 Overprint cards is way, way low compared to the sales I have seen and been involved in.
Take care,
Bob

[Archive]

Posted By: brian p

I agree with tbob that the best and most collector friendly organization of vintage cards would be to have them grouped by the type of card. In my ideal version of this set up, the ACC numbers would not be utilized to organize the sets, except for the main classifications--i.e. the Early Candy cards (E) could all be listed together, the 19th century cards (N), etc. I would then alphabetize the listings within each grouping, and provide the ACC number (when it exists) within the description. An alphabetical and chronological index in the back (such as is seen in the current guides) should also be included as an aid for those unsure of the type of card they are looking for.

I think the majority of the Pre-WW2 vintage collectors out there would appreciate this type of organization, because, as Bob mentioned, it gives you a clearer idea of the similiarity between the issues within a category. The current system of arranging the myriad of sets in strict alphabetical order is very disjointed and not collector friendly--flip through the pages and you have got a button next to a tobacco card next to a thirties gum card next to a felt issue...not too conducive for getting to know the range of the various types of issues. I also think the majority of collectors out there focus their collections upon one or more of these group of cards, and would benefit by such an arrangement.

Just what I would do if I were Mr. Big at Krause Publications...

Brian