2012 All-Vintage Standard Catalog of BBC

[Bob Lemke]

I received my editor's allotment of the 2012 Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards yesterday. I am underwhelmed.

To adhere to the publisher-dictated 700 pages, very little of the dormant material in the data base was added. For lack of internal resources, much of my past year's input in terms of new sets, additions to checklists, photos, etc., appears to have dropped into a black hole.

The system which output the data into page form used an entirely new alphabetization protocol which will confound the reader to no end. I predict the Alphabetical Index in the back will be the most often referred-to pages.

The printing of this edition ends my involvement with the Standard Catalog. If and when a "replacement" editor is named, I'll pass that on here for your future contacts concerning the book. Until then, you can direct any emails about the book to tom.bartsch@fwmedia.com


My thanks to all among you who have contributed to past editions.

[Rich Klein]

I'm still looking forward to purchsing this work but trust me I understand more than anyone else on this board your frustration

Most of you do not know this; but I felt the exact same way after the 1st volume of the Beckett Almanac was published. I literally almost killed myself or put myself into a sheer exhaustion breakdown for what was, frankly, a book not worth the price.

After that debacle, and trust me that was; there was a lot more corporate support for volume 2 and the result was like night and day and helped make the book what it was until I left Beckett as a full-time employee in 2007.

Bob, always be proud of YOUR work and I empahize and understand how you feel.

I will not reiterate some of my earllier comments but if Bob is disappointed, I'm very upset that he did not feel that his work was represented properly

When I purchase the book, I'll add to one of the two threads, but right now --- let's understand Bob's frustation

Regards
Rich

[ethicsprof]

Bob,
Rich has already said it very well.
You're always top drawer in my thinking.
all the best,
barry

[Orioles1954]

We just got our copies today and to say it's confusing is an understatement. Topps issues are thrown all over the place, not to mention Exhibits being scattered around.

[Bob Lemke]

Rich, Thanks for expressing your understanding. By the way, I have not been associated with Collect.com Auctions for about a year now.

[alanu]

Got mine today and on the good side, the pictures seem clearer and it's visually clearer and easier to read.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Wish I would have read Bob's post a few hours earlier, at which time I ordered my copy from Amazon.

[alanu]

Upon further review, it will take a little while to get used to finding some things, but overall I like the look of it.

The biggest differences I see so far is:

The Topps inserts/test issues are now included alphabetically be name and not by year.

The "E", "T", etc. issues are not lumped together but are listed alphabetically throughout the catalog.

The exhibits are not all grouped together, but are listed alphabetically throughout the catalog.

Just my thoughts

-Alan

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by Bob Lemke

To adhere to the publisher-dictated 700 pages, very little of the dormant material in the data base was added. For lack of internal resources, much of my past year's input in terms of new sets, additions to checklists, photos, etc., appears to have dropped into a black hole.

Deal Breaker

[campyfan39]

+1

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Wish I would have read Bob's post a few hours earlier, at which time I ordered my copy from Amazon.

[ValKehl]

I ordered my 2012 Catalog on Sept. 28th and received it on Oct. 3rd. I have thus far only given it a cursory look, but I am already frustrated by the "new alphabetization protocol." I was shocked to find the 1951 Topps CM All-Star cards listed on page 523 and the 1951 Topps ML All-Star cards on page 528!!

I am even more most disappointed to learn that most of Bob Lemke's updates were not incorporated into the book. My practice has been to buy a new Catalog every 2 or 3 years to save $$. Last year, I was going to buy the 2011 edition to replace my 2008 edition, but Bob kindly suggested to me that I wait until the 2012 edition because his updates would not make it in time for the 2011 edition. Bob, thanks again for the heads-up; I only wish things had worked out as you intended.

It is my great wish that someone or some organization would undertake to produce a truly first-rate, more-comprehensive, and more-informative catalog of vintage bb cards. I could see this being undertaken by an organization such as Old Cardboard or VCP, with lotsa assistance and input from knowledgeable collectors. I think an electronic/online product would work best, as revisions and updates could be made at any time. A collector would buy a subscription to access the Catalog (similar to a VCP subscription).

Val

[JLange]

Bob: thank you for your hard work on the catalog over the years, and I really enjoy your blog with checklist updates and uncommon commons. I have purchased the Standard Catalog several times over the years and I have the 2012 edition in transit right now.

Since the latest does not incorporate all of the changes / updates desired, and since over the years prior some issues and sets (particularly less collected regionals, etc.) were dropped due to editing constraints, I am wondering what year volume offers the most comprehensive information to the hobby, if you disregard price?

I have a 2000 version that I still reference quite often because it seems to have more older sets and issues than some of the more recent catalogs, but I would pursue a different year volume if it might be more comprehensive. In short, which year would be considered the "best" reference volume, for most comprehensive information (on older stuff, of course)

[peterb69]

Bob, thanks for all the hard work you do for card collecting. I've always enjoyed your work.

Sorry they forced an unreadable format. I'll probably still buy it, but I wish they did a better job of listening to you.

Peter

[rjackson44]

thank you for your hard work and the heads up,,,i got one today very confusing at best ,

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Bob Lemke

I received my editor's allotment of the 2012 Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards yesterday. I am underwhelmed.

To adhere to the publisher-dictated 700 pages, very little of the dormant material in the data base was added. For lack of internal resources, much of my past year's input in terms of new sets, additions to checklists, photos, etc., appears to have dropped into a black hole.

The system which output the data into page form used an entirely new alphabetization protocol which will confound the reader to no end. I predict the Alphabetical Index in the back will be the most often referred-to pages.

The printing of this edition ends my involvement with the Standard Catalog. If and when a "replacement" editor is named, I'll pass that on here for your future contacts concerning the book. Until then, you can direct any emails about the book to tom.bartsch@fwmedia.com


My thanks to all among you who have contributed to past editions.

Hi Bob:

I too am sorry to see you no longer will be involved with the catalog. In my eyes it was "your baby", Sorry too, that the new edition does not incorporate the new sets, additions to checklists, photos, etc., that you referenced.

I wonder if there is some way you can share those things that did not make the catalog with us? Either on this forum or perhaps your blog.

I am sure I speak for all of us that we would LOVE to have this info.

Thanks for all your tireless work in the past for us collectors.

Fred McKie

[Bob Lemke]

Fred, Much of what I submitted to the SCBC data base has appeared on my blog since I began it in June, 2009. Ceertainly most of the sets that were submitted have been presented there, as well as many of the checklist additions, etc.

Your suggestion has merit, however. As time allows, I'll have to compare the material I compiled to what was actually printed and see what warrants exposure on the blog.

[canjond]

Gotta agree with Bob here... I'm very underwhelmed with the book (my copy arrived today). Sets dropped (i.e., Lections) and incredibly hard to navigate.

[Hot Springs Bathers]

Bob I am sure the book in whatever configuration will be a valuable tool for most of us. Mine should be here next week along with three other new baseball books.

I love birthdays and Barnes & Noble gift cards. Also ordered the new Bart Starr book!

Wasn't there supposed to be a new Cracker Jack book this fall with photos of actaul cards?

[matty39]

I have been in the printing business for 30 years, primarily publishing small catalogs, etc. During all that time I had never heard of printing ANYTHING without a signed proof okaying the copy. I can,t imagine using a new protocol for scanning the old book and noone checking the results. Bob spends a year updating files for the new book and noone checks to see if they are incorporated into the book.
I collect bf3 pennants. On page 49 is a paragraph describing bf3s, but the actual pennants are found at the end of the book under "T" for types. The new book has little value for me. With no updates and mass confusion my two year old book is a better resource.
Just my opinion. jim sexton

[Misunderestimated]

Seems like a more complete version (like the one Bob Lemke would want if he had his druthers) could be profitably "published" by Krause in a Kindle or iPad format etc...... The issue from Krause's "business perspective" is presumably the paper costs (and the sheer weight and "heft") of over 700 pages...
My older Kindle doesn't do images very well (or at all sometimes) but I doubt that will continue and the iPad has no such problems.
Just wondering...
If someone wrote this already I apologize I skimmed the thread.
Also, Amazon is very good about returns for anyone who really feels like they didn't get what they ordered (and purchased the book before reading Bob's post).