I've touched on a few of these topics in the past, but thought that it deserved its own thread. It's about how we perceive OJ's and how we have decided to catalog. Certainly, those who have created the process have put a great deal of thought into it, and I appreciate their efforts. But how things are catalogued now minimizes how the cards are perceived and their rarity, in my view. It would perhaps serve in all OJ collectors best interests if the cards were catalogued differently, and here is my proposal...
My proposal is two-fold:
A) The Old Judge cards ought to be divided into three sets - years 1887, 1888, and 1889. They really are different issues with different designs, so why not reflect that? That way, collectors can chose a year and collect that specific year.
This will help reflect the true rarity of the cards because, assuming a card's population was split equally between 1887, 88, and 89, the card would then be considered three times as rare. Sort of similar to how 1914 and 1915 Cracker Jack's are categorized (if you don't believe that these types of categories affect price, check T206 back prices these days).
B) Why not use the number system that reflects the number on the card itself? 1887 Old Judges were numbered in just the same way that baseball cards are numbered today. We wouldn't categorize a 1952 Topps Andy Pafko as card "562-3", so then why do it with the 1887 OJ's?
This card is numbered "0127" in the upper righthand corner, so why do we call it, "285-2"?
I understand that there is an issue with new poses being discovered from time to time, and that that effects the numbering system a tad as new poses are added on. But if the set were broken down into different years, this wouldn't be so problematic.
This is an entirely different way of thinking and that those who created the current system had good reasons for doing so. But it obfuscates the actual rarity of the cards, in my respectful opinion, and perhaps in the long run we'd all be best served by a reorganization of n172's.