Observation - Variations within 1887 N172 "0" numbered cards
 

Posted By: <b>Joe_G.</b><p>I noticed some of the 1887 cards (outside of script series) are missing their OJ "0" number. There is a good example of this on Dave Levins site. He has two Buffington's side by side (50-1a both sold) that appear identical in every way except one is missing the "0" number. And no, one isn't an 1888+, both are 1887 cards. Is this typical, can most 1887 "0" numbered cards be found without a number?<BR><BR>Just curious (being that my main focus is "0" numbered Detroits).<BR><BR>Joe Gonsowski

Observation - Variations within 1887 N172 "0" numbered cards
 

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Joe--You raise an interesting question and, although I don't know the answer, I can make a few observations which might be useful.<BR><BR>1- After looking through about 400 cards I found that the only team that had players both with and without the numbers was Philadelphia. I found a Casey with and without on the same pose and a Fogarty without the number. <BR><BR>2- As you probably know, the numbers come in both black and white. The black numbers were scratched into the negative. The white numbers were written on the negative. <BR><BR>3- For the small sample of players I have seen with and without, the numbers were white. This leads me to believe that perhaps someone at Goodwin just forgot to write the numbers in on a group of negatives. Possibly this error was corrected later and that is why you have both types. Possibly there were multiple negatives of the same pose and some had the number inadvertently left off while others didn't. Who knows?<BR><BR>This is the neat thing about Old Judge. You never stop noticing new things. This would make an interesting collecting niche-collecting cards with and without the numbers on the same pose. I wonder if some numbered cards come with both black and white numbers. Possibly another area to explore.