Net54baseball.com Forums - Standard Catalogue Listing

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)

- Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - Standard Catalogue Listing (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=239638)

Standard Catalogue Listing

While perusing the 4th edition of the Standard Catalogue of Vintage Baseball Cards (yes, I do this a lot), I came across the 1977 Burger King Detroit Tigers issue listing. Take a look at this. Notice anything off? What is the explanation?

Black guy with bat...quite a descriptor!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Of course, the bigger question is Fidrych indeed 'holding' glove or is he 'wearing' it? :rolleyes:

As someone who used to 'wear' a glove more often than 'holding' one, I take offense at that description.

What about "white guy with bat"? Are the pictures so fuzzy you cant tell anything but black/white guy?

Fidrych should have been described as "Goofy guy with glove"

Brian

The terms "white" and "black" haven't always been seen as derogatory. If someone calls me a white guy I don't take offense. If they call me caucasian I don't take offense either. If they call me late for dinner, I take offense!!

On one level as a person who did and now does cataloguing again I understand the bizarre logic of that. As a cataloguer you may be assuming the reader does not know whom those players are. Therefore you need to create an easy way to ID. Added to say, I would look for more detail of how they are holding the bat, etc.

On the other hand, if you have to use those terms as either a collector or a dealer for an item such as that which involves quite a bit of knowledge needed, that is absolutely stupid in terms of descriptions.

And I agree with Leon on this, please don't call me late to dinner

Rich

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Klein (Post 1661551)

On one level as a person who did and now does cataloguing again I understand the bizarre logic of that. As a cataloguer you may be assuming the reader does not know whom those players are. Therefore you need to create an easy way to ID.

On the other hand, if you have to use those terms as either a collector or a dealer for an item such as that which involves quite a bit of knowledge needed, that is absolutely stupid in terms of descriptions.

And I agree with Leon on this, please don't call me late to dinner

Rich

That was my thinking as well. The catologuer, no doubt, was looking for the most obvious way to differentiate the two portraits. Keep in mind, many people who would use the SCBBC are those who don't know anything about baseball cards, and are trying to figure out what they have in a collection they perhaps inherited. They don't know Mickey Stanley from Lord Stanley, or Ron LeFlore from Ron Burgundy.

Nowadays however, in our hyper-sensitive culture, the terms we have used in the past, are looked at in a completely different light.

And I agree with the other two esteemed Texans above.....never call me late for dinner!

Steve