Hobby Convention

[oldjudge]

Hobby convention is that when the name on a card incorrectly identifies the image of the player shown on the card, then the photo determines whose card it is. For example, in the Old Judge set, the cards picturing Leech Maskrey that misidentify him as James Macullar are Leech Maskrey cards. With that in mind, I wonder why grading services continue to identify the Yum Yum card which pictures Abner Dalrymple (but misidentifies him as Cap Anson) as a Cap Anson card.

http://www.tonyetrade.com/ImageViewe...30&CompanyID=1

[glynparson]

I believe except maybe in some rare case SGC always goes with how the player is identified on the card. I can think of a number of cards where the player pictured is not the player named on the card yet they are all identified with the written name.

[oldjudge]

Glyn--That's the easy way, but not the correct way

[barrysloate]

Wouldn't it make sense to label the card N403 Anson, but then add an extra line beneath it stating photo actually depicts Ned Williamson? That covers all bases.

Jay says it's Dalrymple; I always thought it was Williamson. I will defer to his expertise.

[Steve D]

Personally, I go by who's pictured on the card. Whereas most collectors call them "wrong player pictured", I call them "wrong caption".

For that reason, I'll consider my T3 HOFer set complete without the Frank Baker/Jack Barry card. For the same reason, I'll never buy an E97/E98 or E90-1 (Cleveland) Cy Young, or any E91-Cs.


Steve

[oldjudge]

If the hobby went by the "wrong player pictured" convention then the Old Judge set would have one additional player, J. Struck, whose name appears below the image of Joe Straus on some copies of pose 442-1. This is not the convention used, and fellow Old Judge collectors anxiously await the first card of Mr. Struck.

[Matt]

Jay - I don't think that is "hobby convention." Maybe that OJ is an exception, but off the top of my head, both the E97 Young and the Tharps/Harringtons Terry follow the caption, not the player depicted. I'm sure there are many more. That is why the grading companies label as they do; they are in line with the convention. It's how the grading companies do it and how they are cataloged in industry publications.

[barrysloate]

Matt- I do see a little gray area here. In the case of the E97 Young it's a hand drawn pitching pose, and the face is indistinct. Convention says it's not Cy but there is not enough for anyone to go on by examining the face.

But the N403 is a portrait photograph. And there is no way that's Cap Anson. It kind of hits you a little harder here.

I can let the E97 Young slide but no way this portrait can ever be Cap Anson. So as I said why not have both Anson and Dalrymple on the label, not just one. Does that make sense?

[yomass]

You got it backwards, Jay. "Hobby convention" is to go by the named player, not the photo. Otherwise I could throw out my 1969 Topps Aurelio Rodriguez cards and still pretend to have a complete set.

The J. Strauss/Struck sounds more like a typical OJ misspelling than anything else. Is there a J. Struck who played at that time?

If every card had to definitively be proven to picture the right player, especially in vintage sets, we would have anarchy! Anarchy I tell you! We just can't allow that.

[oldjudge]

Barry, I think you may be right on Williamson. I was going off the top of my head, but I was thinking of the composite that makes up Anson in Uniform. The bottom line is, it is certainly not Anson. I think that the reason that some cards that have conflicting images and names end up the way they do is simply dollars. Is a card picturing Mighty Joe Young, but labeled Cy Young, worth more as a Cy or a Mighty Joe? Is the Yum Yum worth more as an Anson or a Williamson? This, however, does not make it right. Those of us working on the Old Judge listings have made sure that these rules are followed closely. It would be nice if other sets were similarily reviewed to make sure the listings are consistent. Or, will dollars get in the way?

[oldjudge]

Richard--Regardless of hobby convention I would suggest throwing out the 1969 Topps Aurelio Rodriguez cards. Of course there was a player named Struck. I refer you to that seminal work, The Photographic Baseball Cards of Goodwin & Co, page 97. On this page there is a composite cabinet of the 1888 Milwaukee team picturing both Joe Straus and J. Q. A. Struck. If you don't have a copy one can be ordered from Richard...............whoops.

[barrysloate]

Of course the image counts far more than the caption, and the grading services should consider putting both names on the label for those cards that have been misidentified. It will take time to get them all right so it can simply be a process.

[gracecollector]

It is Williamson on the Yum Yum. All those mustaches begin to look the same!

Williamson on Old Judge.


Dalrymple

[Matt]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Matt- I do see a little gray area here. In the case of the E97 Young it's a hand drawn pitching pose, and the face is indistinct. Convention says it's not Cy but there is not enough for anyone to go on by examining the face.

But the N403 is a portrait photograph. And there is no way that's Cap Anson. It kind of hits you a little harder here.

I can let the E97 Young slide but no way this portrait can ever be Cap Anson. So as I said why not have both Anson and Dalrymple on the label, not just one. Does that make sense?

Barry - I think you might be confusing two issues. One is a discussion of what the current hobby convention is, and it's clearly to use the intended subject of the card, as dictated by the description, not the image. The E97 Young image is conclusively Irv - it's the same image used for Irv's T206, yet the card purports to be of Cy and is cataloged/slabbed as such, due to the name/team on the card; the same for the Terry I mentioned. The other issue is what should be, and on that, your point of listing both on the flip is reasonable.

[Bosox Blair]

PSA apparently used Barry's suggested approach with this Tango Eggs Buck Weaver card (which actually shows Joe Tinker):

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...x?itemid=13579

Cheers,
Blair

[HRBAKER]

Hobby convention certainly is to charge Cy Young prices for Irv Young cards that are captioned Cy Young.

[oldjudge]

Matt-The problem may be that the catalog is inconsistent, but the convention is certainly not going by the name on the card. I can point out ten examples, at least, in the Old Judge set where the image determines whose card it is. None of these are big names though. The Irv Young card is called Cy Young because it will sell for more as Cy. It is an Irv Young card with improper identification. Do you actually think if the card pictured Cy Young and had the name of Irv Young that it would be sold as an Irv Young card? The same with the Yum Yum. If it pictured Anson and was labeled Williamson do you think it would be sold as a Williamson card? Why do graders use the label on the card for the name on the slab? My guess is because it is easier and in most cases they don't know whose image it is.

[Matt]

Jay - if all your examples are OJs or pre 1900s examples, then perhaps there is a split in the "convention" and maybe there is no "hobby convention" at all.

[rhettyeakley]

I think the hobby convention is to actually follw the greater common denominator.

That meaning that if the card names a popular (or HOF) player and depicts a more common player it will always sell for more than the common but probably less than it would had it depicted the popular/HOF player...thus following MORE the value of the popular player than the common. The other way around could also work as well... say, a more common players card actually depicts a popular/HOF player it would also sell for far more than the common and more closely to what the more popular/HOF card would sell for (for example if a Yum Yum "Williamson" card actually depicted Anson--it would sell for far more than if it actually depicted Williamson.)

-Rhett

[gracecollector]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I think the hobby convention is to actually follw the greater common denominator.

That meaning that if the card names a popular (or HOF) player and depicts a more common player it will always sell for more than the common but probably less than it would had it depicted the popular/HOF player...thus following MORE the value of the popular player than the common. The other way around could also work as well... say, a more common players card actually depicts a popular/HOF player it would also sell for far more than the common and more closely to what the more popular/HOF card would sell for (for example if a Yum Yum "Williamson" card actually depicted Anson--it would sell for far more than if it actually depicted Williamson.)

-Rhett

But what if the images are substituted in the same issue? Say the card labeled Anson actually pictures Williamson, and the card labeled Williamson actually pictured Anson. Which one is then the Anson card? It's always been my experience the card with the printed name/wrong image is the one that is refered to as that player's card. Guides will usually checklist it as Anson and footnote it "card actually depicts Ned Williamson."

[Peter_Spaeth]

It seems to me you have to go by the name, as the intent was to depict that player, even if the wrong photo was used, or the drawing bears no resemblance to the player. It should still be devalued, but may not be -- see the T206 Johnson pitching, can anyone claim it has any resemblance to him?

[rhettyeakley]

Peter, I'll do you one better... how about the E92 Frank Chance, does that really look like him? Maybe it just throws me b/c I don't recognize Chance's booty!?!

[Troy Kirk]

How about E91 cards. For two of the three sets, they purposely misidentify the players.

[brianp-beme]

About the E91's--the E91A set has been mostly confirmed (at least in my eyes) as being fairly accurate representations/designations of the players. The approximate half of the E91B set that retains the same designations as the E91A's I consider valid. The rest of the E91B's and all of the E91C's I would assume would have to be considered to be identified by the name designated on the card (for example the Walter Johnson E91C would have to considered a Walter Johnson card, even if the artwork was based upon Rube Waddell--if memory serves me correctly). The point earlier about photographic images versus artwork is an important factor in deciding how something should be listed.

Brian

[E93]

Anyone have an N172 Anson in uniform for sale for half price since it is not Anson from the neck down?
JimB

[barrysloate]

Excellent point Jim!

Maybe the label on that one should read "Anson's head on Williamson's neck."

[E93]

I do not mean to denigrate what is probably one of the top 5 cards in the hobby. I was just joking around. I think the larger question about when the faces don't match the labels is an interesting one. I don't have the answer.
JimB

[HRBAKER]

Do we collect the photo/picture/drawing or do we collect the text. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept that the "card" is who the words say it is even if that is not who is pictured. It seems very counter intuitive to me.

[M's_Fan]

Would there be, or should there be, a different convention if the card company meant to put the wrong picture with the name? I think there have been many instances of lazy card companies putting the wrong picture because they didn't have a true picture on hand, and a substitute was "close enough". In my opinion, the card should be the player reflected in the text in such instances.

[barrysloate]

I was joking too.

I think the answer is to really look at each card individually, as there are differences.

In the case of the N403 Anson, that's a slam dunk. It's not Anson and never can be.

The example of the Tango Eggs Buck Weaver/Joe Tinker is not as easy. That is nothing more than a poorly rendered generic image. So it might be handled differently. Not every example has the same solution.

[kkkkandp]

I said this same thing in the grading thread - first and foremost, these things we collect are picture cards. I don't see how we can ever say that the name underneath makes the picture (and, therefore, the card) something it isn't regardless of why the name and picture don't match.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by kkkkandp

I said this same thing in the grading thread - first and foremost, these things we collect are picture cards. I don't see how we can ever say that the name underneath makes the picture (and, therefore, the card) something it isn't regardless of why the name and picture don't match.

However, as most folks (not me) in the hobby have been set collectors, they really have to collect by the name on the card, for all practical purposes in order to complete a set. I can't imagine collecting a set by only pictures and not the names. Interesting debate.

[kkkkandp]

Originally Posted by Leon

However, as most folks (not me) in the hobby have been set collectors, they really have to collect by the name on the card, for all practical purposes in order to complete a set. I can't imagine collecting a set by only pictures and not the names. Interesting debate.

I think collecting a set is a different twist to this topic. This is not meant in any way to be a knock on set collecting, but in that endeavor the cards can sort of just become widgets - they could just as well be a finite number undefined objects of which you need one of each. In that scenario you really don't care as much that the words and picture don't match - you still need it to have a complete set.

If you are collecting players, on the other hand, I think you want the picture to depict the guy you're chasing, not the words. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

[HRBAKER]

Agree with Kevin here. In regards to set collecting the card does become much more of a name/number but if you are a player collector or a HOF collector, etc. I can't imagine collecting a card of "X" with "Y's" photo just because the card says "X" on the front.