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?

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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?

If you give any card two separate numbers, and on of those numbers is found on the card itself, and the other number isn't, then which number is really the number of the card? I'll tell you that it is the number found on the card. The CSGB can give it whatever number they wish, but so could anyone, and in that perspective the Mack could have an infinite amount of numbers associated with it... but you are missing something quite obvious... despite the potentially infinite amount of numbers a card could have, there is an actually number printed on the card itself that it does have.

The CSGB, they can use whatever methods they wish, but that doesn't mean the card is really number 252-2. Same for SGC. They could say that a Burns card is "1887 Old Judge" although it is says "Copyright 1889" on it, they have a right to call it whatever they want. If they wanted to call it a 625 B.C. Old Judge, they could call it that, but that wouldn't make it any more produced in 625 B.C. than in was in 1887. No matter what their methods, both of those numbers are equally wrong because it was really produced in 1889.

So by your standards, anything could be called anything if some grading company or cartophilic society said so. If they decided to call a "hat" a "shoe", and vice versa, you'd be putting shoes on your head and walking down to the drugstore in your new pair of hats. Now, they might have their reasons for doing it, but that is their business - I know what a hat and I know what a shoe is, and I've never walked to the drugstore in my new pair of hats or worn shoes on my head. Not sure if you can say the same.

[cyseymour]

Here is an amazing T206 Wagner PSA 8... despite appearances of trimming, the card is obviously untrimmed, because otherwise it would not have received a numerical grade:

[oldjudge]

Jamie--the two numbers denote two different things. The number in the book is the pose number, which may refer to cards in multiple series with the same image. The "0" number you are referring to is the number of the card in the zero number series. One does not replace the other, they compliment each other, each providing different information.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

If you give any card two separate numbers, and on of those numbers is found on the card itself, and the other number isn't, then which number is really the number of the card? I'll tell you that it is the number found on the card. The CSGB can give it whatever number they wish, but so could anyone, and in that perspective the Mack could have an infinite amount of numbers associated with it... but you are missing something quite obvious... despite the potentially infinite amount of numbers a card could have, there is an actually number printed on the card itself that it does have.

The CSGB, they can use whatever methods they wish, but that doesn't mean the card is really number 252-2. Same for SGC. They could say that a Burns card is "1887 Old Judge" although it is says "Copyright 1889" on it, they have a right to call it whatever they want. If they wanted to call it a 625 B.C. Old Judge, they could call it that, but that wouldn't make it any more produced in 625 B.C. than in was in 1887. No matter what their methods, both of those numbers are equally wrong because it was really produced in 1889.

So by your standards, anything could be called anything if some grading company or cartophilic society said so. If they decided to call a "hat" a "shoe", and vice versa, you'd be putting shoes on your head and walking down to the drugstore in your new pair of hats. Now, they might have their reasons for doing it, but that is their business - I know what a hat and I know what a shoe is, and I've never walked to the drugstore in my new pair of hats or worn shoes on my head. Not sure if you can say the same.

Wow, I don't know what is so hard for you to understand about this. The two numbers are not associated nor are they replacements. Also I was the one that pointed out that there are several years of cards that the TPGs don't acknowledge. Read through the posts again.

The CSGB numbers are for the poses themselves. They help to oragnize what pose can be found in each subset of Old Judges they do not diminish the numbers on the short number of "0" series cards. You can still use the short number's number on the card to build a set for just that set, but if you want to build across all the years and layouts it is good to know what pose can be found across each set. Not every sub set of N172 has a number on it and the two that do have contradicting numbers. THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO BE INTERCHANGEABLE.

Number on the card is the number in the set
Number from CSGB is the number used for the pose
Not every pose is found in the short number or 0 Series cards so there are many cars without an original number given to them, then to top it off some of those cards that do have numbers contradict numbers in the next set.

So instead of thinking they are replacing the number think of it like this: No one is saying card 0137 is actually 252-2. They are saying card 0137 has pose 252-2 on it. I don't know how I could make this anymore clear to you.

The classification by pose allows people to collect by pose rather than by subset if wanted.

[bn2cardz]

I have to add, I know all this information because I read the book.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I have to add, I know all this information because I read the book.

I guess it's impossible for anyone else who's read the book to disagree with you, then.

I've got to go, but I'll write later this evening.

[oldjudge]

Good job Andy. It's always nice to see that someone has actually taken the time to read what we have written.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Good job Andy. It's always nice to see that someone has actually taken the time to read what we have written.

That book is an invaluable tool for collecting the n172 and all the corresponding sets. It has helped me understand the set a lot better. I just wish the grading companies would buy a book for a reference tool .

[oldjudge]

They have actually bought quite a few copies. I know SGC bought multiple copies and I think PSA did also. Reading the books, however, may be another issue.

[cyseymour]

It is not a knock on the book. I simply don't agree with the numbering system created by the CSGB. There are better ways to go about it, imo. Yes, the CSGB system goes by pose - even people who haven't read the book should realize that. My view is that's not the best approach for the following reasons:

1. Since the CSGB system doesn't factor in year, it has lead the grading companies to apathetically label all the cards "1887 Old Judge". They have been getting away with it because the system is set up so that the cards aren't organized according to year in the CSGB, so the grading companies feel they don't need to distinguish between year. This is really silly because the cards themselves say things like "copyright 1889" on them - and that leads to threads like this one as started by the OP.

2. Since the CSGB doesn't consider subset or year, it means that numbers are given to cards which already have numbers. Since some cards already have numbers, it would be better to go to a system which didn't use numbers. That way it avoids giving cards which already have numbers and second number. There is no precedent I can think of for doing that within the hobby. If you've got a different example of when a card which had a certain number directly on the card was assigned a number which is not on the card, I'd love to see it. Either way, it is counter-intuitive and I find it a flaw in the system.

3. The CSGB system, as it is comprised, creates a single set which is 2500+ cards in size. This is simply too large. Yes, there is one or two collectors who may be attempting to complete it, but 99%+ of collectors would have no chance at all. I mean, no chance of even coming close. Breaking down the set, it would still be quite difficult to complete, but it wouldn't be nearly as difficult, and completing a subset or getting close to completing one is far more attainable than attempting to complete an entire 2500+ set.

4. The CSGB numbering system has very little practical function. If you told a collector you just purchased card number 122-5, he wouldn't understand which card you were talking about anyways. But if you told him that you just acquired a Harry Decker Throwing, he would instantly know which card you were talking about. In that case, what is the point of giving the card a number? There are myriad cards from other sets that are just listed as the player and pose without providing a number. So I see no reason to create new numbers or even think about the numbers unless you are collecting a 1887 numbered subset - for which the numbers already exist anyways.

5. Finally, let me say that, by jumbling all the different subsets together, the CSGB pays short shrift to many of the beautiful and interesting variations within Old Judge cards - year, design, subset, etc. The CSGB system obfuscates them instead of allowing them to shine so that collectors can have different aims and highlight the diversity of cards and years within the set.

For those reasons, I believe the CSGB system to be detrimental to OJ collectiing. You all have a right to disagree, but please make your points based on the cards themselves, instead of accusations that either a) I don't understand the book, or b) that everything which is in the book must be the correct way of doing things. The former is false and the latter is dogma. If you think the CSGB system is fantastic and I am completely mistaken, come and tell me why in your own words. But I feel like I have a right to make my criticisms of that system.

Thanks

[RCMcKenzie]

Everyone collects the set differently. From the way I see it, it is impossible to complete a "full set", as there are simply too many variations. It would be interesting to see all 60-80 scans of Johnz28's player run, to see just how many variations he has between the two poses.

I assume that some people consider these two cards to be the same card. An "0126" or an "285-1". In my mind, these are two completely different Mack Right Hand Held High variations.

The pose number is helpful in communicating with other collectors, because they either know 285-1 is this Mack pose, or they can quickly look it up. Just like people understand what I mean if I say, "Park in the driveway", or "Drive on the parkway".

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I assume that some people consider these two cards to be the same card. An "0126" or an "285-1". In my mind, these are two completely different Mack Right Hand Held High variations.

I completely agree they are not the same card. Which is why I don't think they ought to be treated as such, like they are in the CSGB system.

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

The pose number is helpful in communicating with other collectors, because they either know 285-1 is this Mack pose, or they can quickly look it up.

Hardly anyone would know 285-1 is that Mack pose, so instead of calling it 285-1, why not just call it "Mack Right Hand Held High" in the first place, like you yourself did in the previous paragraph, so that collectors can immediately understand it without having to look it up?

[RCMcKenzie]

The Mack I used as an example is sort of an iconic card that collectors recognize if I say, Mack rhh or Mack right hand neck high.

If I used a Mike Dorgan fielding card as an example it would get really confusing.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

If I used a Mike Dorgan fielding card as an example it would get really confusing.

Even for Dorgan, it is not that hard to differentiate. There are five different fielding poses (some descriptions taken from VCP):

Catch-both hands above head ball at fingers
grounder-squat hands on ground
Bent over to catch ball below knees
Bent over and leaning left
Catch - hands at face level

Another thing is that a lot of those Dorgan poses already have numbers on them. Not all of them were necessarily produced in 1888 or 89... so a lot of those cards can simply be identified by the numbers which already exist on the cards themselves.

[cyseymour]

Here's how I would break it down (and consider each "subset" its own set):

1886 Script
1887 Type A
1887 Type B
1888
1889
1890 P.L.
Gypsy Queen

I wouldn't split 1888 into Type A and B subsets because they are so similar in appearance that the difference is negligible.

For 1887 you have the zero-numbered cards and regular numbered cards, plus some type A's without a number. But they are all produced in pretty much the same type, so they ought to be combined into one set (excluding the non-baseball cards, or perhaps having a master 1887 Type A set with all the non-baseball type A's included in addition the basic 1887 Type A baseball set).

The California League cards are all 1889 so that makes it the toughest one to complete, but still easier to collect most of the 1889 set than having to tackle all 2500+ cards in the current system.

The above approach would create much more symmetric, aesthetically pleasing collections than the current mish-mash of different types and subsets which comprise of most collections.

[RCMcKenzie]

To me, it's easier to say, " I have Dorgan, 132-9", than to say, "I have a Dorgan fielding, you know the one where his knees are bent, and his right leg is further back than his left leg, and both his hands are cupped, and he is looking down. You know? That one."

I don't think we have compiled enough information on the set to start excluding previous information. I think more people should collect and write articles and start threads and write books about n172 and n173. It's an interesting set to collect and discuss.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

To me, it's easier to say, " I have Dorgan, 132-9", than to say, "I have a Dorgan fielding, you know the one where his knees are bent, and his right leg is further back than his left leg, and both his hands are cupped, and he is looking down. You know? That one."

I don't think we have compiled enough information on the set to start excluding previous information. I think more people should collect and write articles and start threads and write books about n172 and n173. It's an interesting set to collect and discuss.

Wouldn't you just say, "I have Dorgan, 0327", which is the actual number on the card? And when would you even be saying all these numbers anyways, when virtually everything is communicated via scans on internet auction websites? Has ever an auction occurred where a bidder didn't know what a card was because the auctioneer neglected to put the CSGB catalog number in the description?

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I completely agree they are not the same card. Which is why I don't think they ought to be treated as such, like they are in the CSGB system.

You are still missing everything. The CSGB doesn't consider those the same card it would be the same pose but then CSGB would break it down by year and subset within the year. You may be confused because the book only shows one variation of each pose instead of showing every variation of every pose. Yet the detailed CSGB lists every pose and every year and every variation. It is very detailed. I just wish I could get my hands on the list.

This was all covered in another thread. I guess you didn't get the answers you wanted so you hijacked this one.

The numbering system for the poses is for cataloging them. You saying that the cards should just be described could be compared to getting upset that the library uses a Dewey Decimal System in their card catalogs instead of just using the names of the books. Or the fact that the stores use bar code numbers instead of typing in the description of every product.

[Matthew H]

Cy, why do you argue this point so often? If you want to collect a specific year then just do so. Why do you care how other people collect? From my perspective, the absolute best way to collect is by the player. I don't really care what the border looks like, though I do like the look of the 1888 fb cards.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

You are still missing everything. The CSGB doesn't consider those the same card it would be the same pose but then CSGB would break it down by year and subset within the year. You may be confused because the book only shows one variation of each pose instead of showing every variation of every pose. Yet the detailed CSGB lists every pose and every year and every variation. It is very detailed. I just wish I could get my hands on the list.

I didn't know that - if that's the case, then the information should be transferred over to the OJ book and the set registries. This supports my argument that the OJ set is really 6 or 7 different sets in its entirety. That doesn't mean I agree with the concept giving each pose a number, because I still don't see the purpose of it.

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

This was all covered in another thread. I guess you didn't get the answers you wanted so you hijacked this one.

I was just answering his question...

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

The numbering system for the poses is for cataloging them. You saying that the cards should just be described could be compared to getting upset that the library uses a Dewey Decimal System in their card catalogs instead of just using the names of the books. Or the fact that the stores use bar code numbers instead of typing in the description of every product.

Right, except a library uses a Dewey Decimal system because there are tens of thousands of books - even within that, many books have the same Dewey decimal. With OJ cards, the players are already sorted by last name (the front part of the number is simply synonymous with a last name) and then within the category of the last name, you can find the pose. No different than several different books having the same Dewey decimal.

Stores have bar code numbers because they use an electronic system and if the product doesn't scan the cashier can punch in the bar code. Unless you plan to purchase your OJ's at your local CVS, I don't see how that's relevant to the conversation.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Cy, why do you argue this point so often? If you want to collect a specific year then just do so. Why do you care how other people collect? From my perspective, the absolute best way to collect is by the player. I don't really care what the border looks like, though I do like the look of the 1888 fb cards.

Matt, I just have a different way of viewing the cards, is all. I didn't have much interest in reopening the conversation, but when the OP posted ridiculing the SGC flip, things just went in that direction with Andy, mainly because the whole reason behind the grading companies putting 1887 on everything is that they see no incentive to get the year correct since it doesn't conflict with the system of identifying each card by pose and neglecting year and type.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I didn't know that - if that's the case, then the information should be transferred over to the OJ book and the set registries. This supports my argument that the OJ set is really 6 or 7 different sets in its entirety. That doesn't mean I agree with the concept giving each pose a number, because I still don't see the purpose of it.

It is about time you admit you don't know what you are talking about. Also, I am not an author, but from what I understand through communications with one author is that they don't have the rights to distribute the information gathered by the CSGB.

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I was just answering his question...

Your first post did, your second post is where you decided to hijack this thread to rehash your thoughts already expressed in a previous thread.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Stores have bar code numbers because they use an electronic system and if the product doesn't scan the cashier can punch in the bar code. Unless you plan to purchase your OJ's at your local CVS, I don't see how that's relevant to the conversation.

I am already having a tough time trying to educate you on the cataloging of this particular thing, but I will try to explain the correlation of the UPC and the n172 cataloging. The UPCs first six digits are the manufacturer and the next 5 are the item number. So yes the UPS is good for entering into a machine, but there is a method to it that allows the stuff to be cataloged using numbers. The numbers are for people that use data bases and need to catalog the cards. For someone that just picks up one or two wouldn't care about cataloging, but when the CSGB (or other researchers) are trying to track EVERY pose it makes it easier.

[cyseymour]

Let me just say one more thing before I wrap this up, as I'm flying out tomorrow and will be occupied with other stuff like actually looking at baseball cards:

Mike Dorgan is numbered 132 by CSGB. No cards that aren't Dorgan are numbered 132. No Dorgan cards are numbered anything other than 132. If that's the case, what's the purpose of the number 132? Why not just call it "Dorgan"?

Can you see how those numbers are completely useless? The only reason why you're thinking of them is because they are already there... but they have no practical application.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Everyone collects the set differently. From the way I see it, it is impossible to complete a "full set", as there are simply too many variations. It would be interesting to see all 60-80 scans of Johnz28's player run, to see just how many variations he has between the two poses.

I wish I had 60-80! Sorry I don't have a better scan for detail, but yes you can see differences between cards that are the same variation. They have different locations for the Old Judge sign in the picture, different sizes and some don't even have it in the picture. Someday I'll get better individual scans

[cyseymour]

Andy, give it a rest. You are acting like you are this all-knowing being who is trying to educate me. Come at me like an equal and stop with this condescending nonsense. Per hijacking the thread, as I explained earlier, it is on the topic of why the flips are wrong (that being the failed system in place), and quite frankly, you have played just as much a role in this with your own responses as I have.

Just saying that I don't know what I'm talking about doesn't cut it - you have to make counter-points based on the arguments at hand. As far as I can tell, much of what you have written has failed to hold water. No, I didn't know that the CSGB separated the cards by year and type as well, but that only supports my arguments. And at least I'm secure enough to say when I don't know something. It doesn't mean I'm wrong in my arguments just because I didn't know some tidbit about the CSGB (a tidbit which supports my argument, btw).

Goodnight everyone.

[RCMcKenzie]

John, thanks for that scan. I think your collection illustrates why this set is so difficult to categorize. It's not like the caramel set of 30, (which I think is also a cool set), where you can collect all 30, and move on to another set.

If there is an existing CSGB that has information that they are withholding, that seems preposterous to me. The collecting community of these cards is relatively small. If my bid gets blown out of the water on ebay or at an auction house, there's a good chance it's by one of the folks that chime in on these threads. If you see a lot 2 OJ in a major auction, one of those guys probably consigned it.

[oldjudge]

Jamie--maybe this will help a little. The attached image is the Cartophilic Society listing for Dan Brouthers. Please excuse the marks; at one time this was a checklist for me. The Brouthers cards are first subdivided by pose, then by the way the name plate is presented, and finally as to which subset the card is in. BTW, it is no less correct to say the Old Judge "set" is really many sets, issued over several years, some of which were solely baseball sets, others which were multiple topic sets.

[cyseymour]

Jay, thanks for sharing. It is good to see that they were meticulous. As you know, I have my criticisms of certain organizational decisions that they made (and how some of those decisions have played out among grading companies, collectors, etc.) If you read what I wrote above in post #22 among other posts you'll see that I am among those who believe the OJ set is really multiple different sets. I may not agree with how the CSGB laid things out but it is very interesting to see their work and still wish it were accessible to every collector (maybe even published in the revised OJ book?). Thanks again for sharing...

It sounds the cards were produced over a 2-3 year period (1887-89) but the TPG companies simply lump them all into one set, that being "1887 Old Judge" regardless of what year the cards were actually produced.

[Joe_G.]

FWIW, the Old Judge book does provide an example of a full Carto listing on page 126. There you will find all the variations of one pose for Medoc Wise.

[Joe_G.]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Here's how I would break it down (and consider each "subset" its own set):

1886 Script
1887 Type A
1887 Type B
1888
1889
1890 P.L.
Gypsy Queen

I wouldn't split 1888 into Type A and B subsets because they are so similar in appearance that the difference is negligible.

For 1887 you have the zero-numbered cards and regular numbered cards, plus some type A's without a number. But they are all produced in pretty much the same type, so they ought to be combined into one set (excluding the non-baseball cards, or perhaps having a master 1887 Type A set with all the non-baseball type A's included in addition the basic 1887 Type A baseball set).

The California League cards are all 1889 so that makes it the toughest one to complete, but still easier to collect most of the 1889 set than having to tackle all 2500+ cards in the current system.

The above approach would create much more symmetric, aesthetically pleasing collections than the current mish-mash of different types and subsets which comprise of most collections.

I agree with most of the subsets you listed, but differ as follows. Short number should be separated from the long or leading "0" number cards since there is so much overlap. 100 is McCormick, 0100 is Fogarty. A further complication arises when you consider that many of the numbered cards can be found with or without a number (true for both short and "0" numbered cards). There are also some errors where the same pose can be found with two different numbers or two different poses share the same number.

I would certainly separate Fa from Fb, they do not look nearly identical in my eyes and cover very different groupings of cards with a little overlap. All Chicago Maroons for example are Fb.

1890 deserves to be separate but should be labeled as both NL & PL.

Furthermore, I'd separate the small Gypsy Queens from the large.

[CaramelMan]

thank you to the OJ experts for explaining and showing....

I understand..does ANDY?

[CaramelMan]

Originally Posted by Gobucsmagic74

It sounds the cards were produced over a 2-3 year period (1887-89) but the TPG companies simply lump them all into one set, that being "1887 Old Judge" regardless of what year the cards were actually produced.

gee that sounds familiar. Same as American Caramel. Called 1909 but may have been produced in 1908-1911. That doesn't upset me, does it upset anyone else?