Standard Catalog opinions
 

Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>What do people think of the relative merits of the 2006 and 2007 editions of the Standard Catalog?<br /><br />I'm thinking it's about time I updated my 2002 copy, especially since the book may change (and decline?) in future years, now that Bob Lemke is no longer in charge.<br /><br />-- some posts on amazon indicate that some copies of the 2007 edition had pages printed out of order. Did anyone have this problem?<br /><br />-- one year-- I forget which-- mangled the T207 pricing so that rare cards were looking like commons and vice versa. Was this '06 or was it longer ago?<br /><br />-- supposedly some vintage sets were removed for the '07 edition-- I didn't follow the discussion: did this cause significant damage to its value?<br /><br />Thanks for any opinions--<br /><br />Tim<br />

Standard Catalog opinions
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The checklists and number of sets covered is very impressive.<br /><br />The prices are not always on the money, but how do you keep up with such a volatile market once the catalog is six months to a year old?

Standard Catalog opinions
 

Posted By: <b>Jason Carota</b><p>I have the 07 edition and I can't say I have found any problems with it as of yet. Price ranges aren't too bad, either. For most of the purchases I have made this year (and ones that have got away,) the SC has been close with respect to closing prices.

Standard Catalog opinions
 

Posted By: <b>joe</b><p>Previous copies had an alphabetic index as well as the chronological index. The 2007 issue does not have the alphabetic index. I used that often in the previous books. Maybe it's just my book.<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br><br>Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

Standard Catalog opinions
 

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I think the T207s were messed up in the 2005 edition.

Standard Catalog opinions
 

Posted By: <b>Patrick McMenemy</b><p>Tim,<br /><br />I believe last year's edition had the page/index problems. I has thumbing through the 2007 at the bookstore earlier today, and I didn't notice any problem with the chronological index. <br /><br />Patrick