Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_G.
So right you are. Shame on me!  I guess if I need to stick to 1887, I'll change my answer to Gaffney. I kind of like that card and he co-umpired the 1887 Championship. Otherwise, no 1887 wants. Plenty of 1888 wants and a couple 1889. |
I've always wondered why OJ's are all lumped together on flips as "1887". It's clear that they were produced mainly over three years. Cracker Jacks are treated as two different sets, 1914 and 1915, so why not OJ's? If they were treated this way, people would see that they are a lot more rare when broken up by year.
Same with the various poses - yes, certain advanced collectors try to get every pose, but mostly the rarity of a player is considered with all the poses combined. Yes, a few players have 8-9 poses, but most only have 3-4, and even in the T206 set, there are plenty of players with 3-4 poses.
My point is that if the cards were dissected by pose and by year produced, collectors would realize that they are a lot more rare than when they are all lumped together as "1887 Old Judge". Even my cards of Nichols and Delahanty, whom we know didn't play in 1887, still have "1887 Old Judge" written on the flip.