Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Sorry if these are stupid questions, but it may have something to do with me being stupid:<br /><br />Is the "ACC" available to purchase?<br /><br />Is the "ACC" available on line?<br /><br />Is the "ACC" only for vintage cards?<br /><br />Is the "ACC" still updated every so often, and if so, by who?<br /><br />Is the "ACC" the creation of Mr. Burdick?<br /><br />Are Exhibit cards really listed in the ORIGINAL "ACC", or were they added more recently?<br /><br />Why are all of the Exhibits cards from 1921 through 1928 designated as ONE set?? (W461)<br /><br />

Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I got mine yesterday as a reprint from Frisch. I probably could have posted here and saved money but it was $28 delivered and done (it's a $10 reprint from several years ago)....You can do it online.....awesome reading and learning. That book, Oldcardboard.com magazine, Lew's Encyclopedia, and the big SCD should be on all collectors shelves...although I was late they are finally there...good luck...

Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Hal, as Leon stated, you can get a repro of it. No, it isn't being updated. It has most everything in it and many issues that are not cataloged by Krause, why I have never figured out. If I was krause, I would have started by cataloging everything out of the ACC. The M131's were just recently cataloged by krause. Leon's Consolidated rarities are in the ACC. It is a super book, written when this was a hobby and not a stock market filled with money that doesn't care about their cards. J/K Hal. If you can't find a copy, lmk, I can point you to one. My best Dan.

Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>Chuck R</b><p>Hal: I can answer a few of your questions. The ACC (yes, mainly a Burdick creation) first came out in 1939. There was another updated edition just after the war (1947?) and then a couple more updated editions in the 50's. The last update was in 1960 and a hardback version of that one shows up on eBay every once in a while. More commonly you can find some paperback reprints of the 1960 edition that were made in 1967 and then again once later (80's), I think. So, the bottom line is that the last update of the ACC was in 1960. Still a great read, though, not only to soak up Burdick's attitude toward collecting but to have you jaw drop at the prices.

Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>FourstarDave</b><p>...Chuck could you drop me an e-mail I have a question for you.<br /><br />

Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>Chuck R</b><p>Hal and others: For a very thorough history of Burdick's various publications (including the Card Collector's Bulletin and the ACC), read the great article on oldbaseball.com by George Vrechek. On the main OBC page, go to the tab for "The Library" and then the article on hobby publications. Grab a glass of wine and take half an hour to enjoy it. <br /><br />Chuck R

Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>Chuck R</b><p>Actually, didn't realize till just now that the article also appeared in full in SCD and in condensed form in the first edition of Old Cardboard. So, many here have probably already read it.

Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>Patrick McMenemy</b><p>I happened to be looking at the paperback reprint of the ACC a few days ago. This green covered paperback was reprinted by Mr. Gelman from NY. I was checking on the post card designations, and I noticed about 20 designations missing on the section under sports. I was looking for the designation for Novelty Cutlery Post Cards, which I believe are listed as PC-803, but couldn't find it. <br /><br />Curious if to whether the reprint missed part of a page? Just thought it was strange.<br /><br />Patrick

Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>Chuck R</b><p>Patrick: I don't see that listing in the 1960 original either (or in the blue cover '67 reprint). When you look at the ACC numbering system, it's pretty obvious that Burdick intentionally left gaps for later discoveries. For example, in the era I collect (30's), the nonsports in the ACC run from R1 to R 189, the 30's sports cards run from R300 to R346 and then the post war sports start at R401. Looks like he was aware that there was a lot of stuff yet to be uncovered. After the last issue of the ACC (1960), the folks who took over the Card Collector's Bulletin continued to designate ACC numbers to new discoveries. In the post card section, the sports issues in the 1960 ACC run from PC740 to PC798 and then the advertising post cards pick up at PC820. So, it may be that the set you're looking for turned up for the first time after 1960 (i.e. it was the fifth sports-related post card set uncovered after the last ACC).

Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Although the later sets obviously are not in the earlier ACC editions (e.g., post-war sets are not in the 1939 edition) and the post-1960 sets are not in there at all. <br /><br />Why Burdick lumped them all together is impossible to say; he actually has more entertainment sets than baseball sets. He mistreated the boxing the same way, which is even more curious because the 1921-1928 sets had biography backs with copyright dates on them. The "standard" for differentiation of the sets was first done by Elwood "Woody" Scharf in a series of articles in The Trader Speaks. His nomenclature is still employed by some old-time dealers and collectors.

Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>As shown in the Sports Collectors Bible, as recently as 1975 there was no premium associated with cards of star players. Card prices appear to be based solely on the rarity of specific cards. All of that changed quickly though. By 1979 the initial Becketts reflects the desirability of many "name" players in the prices listed.

Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>My copy of the Sports Collectors Bible has separate prices for "commons" and "Hall of Famers." But I believe mine is the second edition. I had the first edition but lost it over the years. Too bad. It probably has some value.

Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I saw an original first printing of it a couple of years ago in a used book store. I was excited and ready to buy it, until I saw the price - $150. Nice for nostalgia, but I would rather have a card. Nice to know there are reprints<br />JimB

Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>at a used bookstore for $5, because I had a reprint. My bad; I was thinking like a reader not a collector.

Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Paul: when was your copy printed?<br /><br />An example of some of the differences between the '75 SCB and '79 Becketts are shown below. I am interested in what your copy indicates for these cards.<br /><br />Card.................'75 SCB..........'79 Becketts<br />T207 Loudermilk.......$150................$450<br />T206 O'Hara............$30................$150<br />T206 Wagner..........$1500+..............$4800<br />T206 Demmitt...........$30................$150<br />'52T #311 (Mantle).....$11................$500<br />'52T #312 (Robinson)...$11................$160<br />'52T #313 (Thomson)....$11.................$70<br /><br />In general there were no premiums associated with HOF players in 1975, however, I saw one reference for $200. for a mint goudey Ruth.<br /><br />From the above, one could conclude that price appreciation of rarer cards varied from 3x to 6x during the four year period, but appreciation due to demand for star players ('52T #s 311 + 312) increased much faster.

Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>jackgoodman</b><p>I can dig out my first edition of the Sports Collectors Bible if someone wants some info on prices (can also dig out first edition annual Beckett) for similar research. Let me know.

Question re: "ACC Designations"
 

Posted By: <b>Chuck R</b><p>The Wagner was $50 and the Plank was $10 in the 1960 ACC. I think the Wagner was the only card over $10 at that time. Most of the cards we consider vintage went for between 2-5 cents.