Proposed Old Judge Reorganization

[cyseymour]

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.

[barrysloate]

The reason for the number disparity is that the cards are catalogued alphabetically. I see your point about the numbered cards but what about the later series that aren't numbered? A new system may not necessarily makes things easier, although there's nothing wrong with suggesting a new way. I think the numbering system we currently use works pretty well.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

The reason for the number disparity is that the cards are catalogued alphabetically. I see your point about the numbered cards but what about the later series that aren't numbered? A new system may not necessarily makes things easier, although there's nothing wrong with suggesting a new way. I think the numbering system we currently use works pretty well.

Thanks, Barry, for the response. My feeling is that the later cards would be part of a different set - 1888 or 1889 sets. But the 88 and 89 cards that share the same poses with the 1887's should be assigned the same number that exists for the 87's to avoid confusion.

If there are cards that were never given numbers (i.e. the 1887 spotted ties), then they could be assigned numbers after the numbers from the 87 set come to an end. I do realize that it is currently being done alphabetically.

[bn2cardz]

I recently asked both PSA and SGC if they had any plans to change their information to reflect the years that we now know for each series. They both said there weren't any plans to do this.

I too believe it would be nice to know what cards exist in each year and in each layout within each year. I have been trying to obtain this information but those that know the information haven't been able to give it out.

[barrysloate]

There would certainly be utility to adding the year to the mix, so you might have:

1888-John Smith- 252-5.

That would be helpful, without the need to change the numbering system currently in use.

[bn2cardz]

I still believe that even within the years there would be cause to put which style.

[bcbgcbrcb]

The Old Judge book produced by Jay, Richard & Joe breaks the entire set down by year as you would like to see it done. If all collectors followed that as the Old Judge "Bible" then everything would be fine. Unfortunately, the grading companies are not going to go that route as thousands and thousands of Old Judges have already been holdered under the general 1887-90 or 1887 only for all cards format. The card catalogues like Beckett & SCBC could eventually make the change if pressured enough, I believe. The info is certainly available to support it.

Personally, I would like to know every card that was issued by individual year, especially being a rookie card collector.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

There would certainly be utility to adding the year to the mix, so you might have:

1888-John Smith- 252-5.

That would be helpful, without the need to change the numbering system currently in use.

You're right that it would certainly be easier to just add the year, but about the numbering system, I just feel that it's counter-intuitive to give a number to a card that is different than the number written on the card itself. I understand why it was done, but then again, it was the OJ producers who numbered the cards in the first place, just like any other set manufacturer.