How do you organize your binder sets?

[Bliggity]

As a prewar set collector on a budget, my sets have stalled out over the past couple of years due to the price boom. For the time being I've decided to switch over to Topps sets starting at 1980 and working backwards. I'm about to start putting sets into binders and wanted some input from other set collectors on how you organize your individual binders. I know numerical is easiest, but sorting by teams seems to present much better. And how about non-individual-player cards like League Leaders, World Series, etc? Some of those may be team-specific, but some not.

So for example, I'm about to put 1979 Topps into a binder. In addition to the individual-player cards, there are five subsets:

League Leaders (8 cards, various teams)
Record Breakers (7 cards, various teams)
All-Time Record Holders (8 cards, various teams)
Manager/Team cards (26 cards, team-specific)
B&W 3-player RC cards (26 cards, team-specific)

Of course I could do #1-726, but I'm leaning away from this. My thought is to start with teams in alphabetical order, with the Manager/Team card for each team going at the head of each team section. Then the insert-type sets (League Leaders, Record Breakers, Record Holders) will go last. And I don't know about the B&W 3-player RCs; they're team-specific, but don't fit as well in the team section because they're B&W.

So many options! I know I'm overthinking it...just don't want to get a few sets deep and then change my mind about how I'm organizing everything. Looking forward to hearing your good ideas.

[G1911]

I sort my large sets by team, alphabetical order by city, National Lease first and then American League. Within a team, cards sorted by position order (P, C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, OF, DH), pitchers sorted by innings pitched in the last season, other positions by starter, then the backup. League Leaders, Award Winners, All-Star cards, and others all at the back. Checklists on the top.

I did it this way when I was 7, and just got so used to it that I've never changed this 'fill out the diamond for each team' order.

[GasHouseGang]

I guess I'm not very creative. I've always just sorted them in numerical order and put them in the binders in order.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I guess I'm not very creative. I've always just sorted them in numerical order and put them in the binders in order.

Yep, me too. Always have done it this way. Works for me.

Cheers,

Butch

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

Yep, me too. Always have done it this way. Works for me.

Cheers,

Butch

I have sorted by teams as well as numerically. I ended up deciding to sort numerically as it is easier to tell what card #s I needed to upgraded. I also like that star cards were sorted such that they were at the 100's (i.e. 100, 200, 300...) and the semi-stars were at the 50's (i.e 50, 150, 250....).

It also made it easier when looking at high #'s and figuring out what I needed...which almost always were a struggle. If you buy cards in lots as opposed to individually, it is so much easier to figure out which cards you need and which cards are doubles.....jmho.

Best of luck either way

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

Yep, me too. Always have done it this way. Works for me.

Cheers,

Butch

Me too...all mine are number order. I do love the years that have leaders starting sets. I've often thought of putting leaders up front for the 61, 62, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, (not 74, love the Aarons), 75, and so on up front...just because...but my OCD won't allow me to do it. Just boring numerical order...

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by G1911

I sort my large sets by team, alphabetical order by city, National Lease first and then American League. Within a team, cards sorted by position order (P, C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, OF, DH), pitchers sorted by innings pitched in the last season, other positions by starter, then the backup. League Leaders, Award Winners, All-Star cards, and others all at the back. Checklists on the top.

I did it this way when I was 7, and just got so used to it that I've never changed this 'fill out the diamond for each team' order.

I sort mine similarly for post-war, although I start with AL and put checklists at the back, in front of all the other misc. as a sort of divider. I place the team pic and manager first, then starters as I determined them through closers. Multi-card rookies last, so long as they shared the same team; otherwise they go at the end.

I too started this way at age 7 through about age 17. Then when I got back into collecting sets I started numerically but found it really boring. Why was Joe Zdeb next to Ron Schueler when they seemed to have nothing in common and might not even know each other? Just because Topps said so? It was more rewarding to easily see what a team looked like on the field a particular season. That's why I was quite pleased with the early Fleer issues in the 80's, which also began with the world series teams and pretty much worked their way back to the cellar dwellers.

Finally, I know I'm in the minority but I really like using 8 pocket sheets that allow for easy insertion of soft sleeves or even mylars if I want to pull out a card for closer review. I know this means you page through the album more like a wall calendar than a book, but that is no big deal and is often easier when just basically having the binder on your lap.

[mikemb]

For the sets I collected as a kid, 1965 on, I keep in binders by team.

First is a wrapper or wrappers. Then come world series cards, league leaders and then other non-team related cards. Finally, are the checklists.

The teams are in order of my favorites to least favorites. I put one card per slot, not two front to back. The first card is the team card. Second card is manager card. The center spot on each sheet is a favorite player or star. I try to arrange each sheet to have a variety of cards. This way I space out say multiple player cards, head shots of shots of players with no caps, etc.

I like it when I add a variation, so I get to rearrange some cards.

Mike

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I sort mine similarly for post-war, although I start with AL and put checklists at the back, in front of all the other misc. as a sort of divider. I place the team pic and manager first, then starters as I determined them through closers. Multi-card rookies last, so long as they shared the same team; otherwise they go at the end.

I too started this way at age 7 through about age 17. Then when I got back into collecting sets I started numerically but found it really boring. Why was Joe Zdeb next to Ron Schueler when they seemed to have nothing in common and might not even know each other? Just because Topps said so? It was more rewarding to easily see what a team looked like on the field a particular season. That's why I was quite pleased with the early Fleer issues in the 80's, which also began with the world series teams and pretty much worked their way back to the cellar dwellers.

Finally, I know I'm in the minority but I really like using 8 pocket sheets that allow for easy insertion of soft sleeves or even mylars if I want to pull out a card for closer review. I know this means you page through the album more like a wall calendar than a book, but that is no big deal and is often easier when just basically having the binder on your lap.

You are the first I have found who also sorts them this same way. Team card, then manager, then players by position. It made sense to me as a kid, I liked ‘creating’ a full team, as they existed that year. Number order is east for want lists but makes little sense for most issues where the numbering is essentially random to actually look through. I sorted my Football cards alphabetically by last name within a team, but this method was always my go to for baseball sets with enough cards where you could expect a full teams worth of cards for each club. I might be crazy, but at least I’m not the only one!

[commishbob]

Numerical order. I’ve never thought about doing it by team, not sure why. As a kid I kept them in cigar boxes in numerical order as well.

[toppcat]

Numerical for me, with any variations or extras after the last card. This is because I know the lower right corner numbers and can tell if I've screwed up at any point. I certainly get the team approach as I collected that way as a kid too, but it's easy to miss something, at least for me, using anything other than numerical order. Any slabbed mega-cards (usually just Mantle) get a reprint in the binder slot.

[ALR-bishop]

Dave— I use an extra sheet to overlay variations on top and to the side of the common version with a circle sticky to point out or note the variation. I went back and did the latter after having difficulty spotting or remembering some subtle variations when going back through my numerical sets

[Eric72]

Numerical order has always made sense to me; I continue to organize binders this way.

I understand why some people prefer to organize by team and position. I'd probably have considered this; however, the multi-player cards (league leaders and such) made it a non-starter.

Funny, the way we do things as children tend to stay with us our whole lives...

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Dave— I use an extra sheet to overlay variations on top and to the side of the common version with a circle sticky to point out or note the variation. I went back and did the latter after having difficulty spotting or remembering some subtle variations when going back through my numerical sets

Interesting. I don't usually seek them out so I don't have many, but some are more "variant" than others.

[Bliggity]

Lots of interesting ideas here. I don't put my sets into binders until they're complete, so using numerical order for the ease of seeing what's missing isn't necessary for me. For viewing enjoyment, I think it makes the most sense to organize by teams, and I really like the idea of going by position also.

No one else has mentioned this, but instead of going in alphabetical order by team, I like the idea of going in order of the team standings for that year. By organizing by team, position, and standings, I think you get a really good snapshot of that year's MLB season.

[deweyinthehall]

When I put completed sets into binders it's always numerical.

But from the time I begin building a set until the very final card is obtained I keep the growing set in in a 660-ct box in this order:

- alphabetical By team (team card first)
- League Leaders
- post season cards
- Multi player star cards (I'm in the 1960s now, so you know what I mean)
- Multi-player, multi-team rookie cards (that can't be placed with one team or another)
- Checklists
-variations

I also keep numerical AND team checklists running as I build.

I find that by doing this I really learn the set and the players better than by just keeping them numerical the whole way. And it just seems to make the process more enjoyable.

Within each team I don't keep the players alphabetically - when I started collecting in 1978 I sorted them by position and I am still doing this to this day - Mgr, P, C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, OF, multi-position, multi-player rookies.

[abothebear]

Numerical except for my sweet spot for collecting: 84 - 93. Those are sorted by team. For the other sports, numerical.

[JollyElm]

245. Club Orthoboxy
Keeping your cards sorted by teams and not in numerical order.

[Bigdaddy]

All my binders are in numerical order. But yeah, I agree that the stars get lost and the order makes no sense.

As a kid, I kept teams together with a rubber band. Team card on front, then manager, then pitchers, then position players (1B, 2B, 3B, SS, C, OF) and then any multiplayer RCs. They were all in shoeboxes, so no order of the teams themselves.

If I was to put a set in a binder by team, I'd arrange the teams by League and Division (AL East, Central, West, etc.) and in the order of their finish the year of the cards.

Within a team - Team card, manager, and then alphabetical order for players, RCs last. Then finish with league leaders, and other multi-team cards grouped together.

I'm working on a second 1980T set now and still have it in a box. Maybe I'll try doing this with it when I'm done.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Admittedly my '50 Bowman partial isn't in a binder, but I am enjoying this discussion nonetheless. I display many of my cards, so some of my '50 Bowmans (Jackie, Ted, Yogi, and Duke) are in Pro Mold one screw holders in my card room. The rest reside in Card Saver 2s or their Ultra Pro equivalent in a box. I like having them in these because I can take them out of the box and see them individually and rearrange them on a whim. For instance, I've had them in numerical order since I started buying them a while back, but last night I sorted them all out by team. It's hard to explain, but the process was a blast and it made me see the cards in a whole new light! It was neat seeing the 16 teams represented in the two 8 team leagues as they once were. It was interesting seeing how many Tigers I have for example and the construction of that team for that year. It was also very telling to see how Bowman opted to depict certain teams that year. I haven't gone back and counted, but it felt like some teams had more posed action shots than others, home vs road uniforms, etc. I know, I'm a nerd. After reading the comments in this thread, I may go back and organize each team further by position and later I might switch up by alphabetical order. I like this process so much that I think I'm going to rearrange my '52 Bowman and '53 Topps sets as well.

I know this may sound crazy, but it's so easy to get into a rut no matter how much you like the cards. I find myself on the hunt constantly for more instead of simply enjoying and treasuring what I already have. This thread has nudged me back in that direction. That's especially important right now considering that prices have risen for many cards. I had made up my mind I didn't want to set build anymore but as I said this thread is making me see the cards in a fresh way again. I think I may go on ahead in the future and try to finish '50 Bowman (including the copyright/no copyright variations). It makes more sense to my brain to add new cards to their team. I can still track my overall progress with my checklist just as I was. Thanks for this thread, guys.

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

last night I sorted them all out by team. It's hard to explain, but the process was a blast and it made me see the cards in a whole new light! It was neat seeing the 16 teams represented in the two 8 team leagues as they once were. It was interesting seeing how many Tigers I have for example and the construction of that team for that year. It was also very telling to see how Bowman opted to depict certain teams that year. I haven't gone back and counted, but it felt like some teams had more posed action shots than others, home vs road uniforms, etc. I know, I'm a nerd. After reading the comments in this thread, I may go back and organize each team further by position and later I might switch up by alphabetical order. I like this process so much that I think I'm going to rearrange my '52 Bowman and '53 Topps sets as well.

I also have a much greater appreciation for the teams and the set as a whole after having done my '79 set this way. You do start to see patterns and differences with the teams in ways that you'd never realize when sorting numerically.

I decided to do mine this way:

- Leader/Record/WS cards

- Teams, each organized by team/manager card, starting pitchers, then 2-9 position starters in order, then relief pitchers, then utility players, and then multi-player RCs. Baseball Reference makes all this information super easy to find.

- Teams start with WS winner from the previous year, followed by the league runner up (championship series loser), and then the rest of the teams from that league, in order of win %.

- Checklists in the middle to separate AL from NL (or vice-versa).

- WS runner-up, followed by the league runner up, and then the rest of the teams from that league, in order of win %.

It takes a lot more effort than numerical order, but it's a fun project. For those who haven't organized by team before, here's what it ends up looking like. I'm halfway through putting the '79s into binders, so here's everything through the checklists. I put them in 18-slot pages with a black insert so they really pop.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by Bliggity

I also have a much greater appreciation for the teams and the set as a whole after having done my '79 set this way. You do start to see patterns and differences with the teams in ways that you'd never realize when sorting numerically.

I decided to do mine this way:

- Leader/Record/WS cards

- Teams, each organized by team/manager card, starting pitchers, then 2-9 position starters in order, then relief pitchers, then utility players, and then multi-player RCs. Baseball Reference makes all this information super easy to find.

- Teams start with WS winner from the previous year, followed by the league runner up (championship series loser), and then the rest of the teams from that league, in order of win %.

- Checklists in the middle to separate AL from NL (or vice-versa).

- WS runner-up, followed by the league runner up, and then the rest of the teams from that league, in order of win %.

It takes a lot more effort than numerical order, but it's a fun project. For those who haven't organized by team before, here's what it ends up looking like. I'm halfway through putting the '79s into binders, so here's everything through the checklists. I put them in 18-slot pages with a black insert so they really pop.

That sounds like a lot of fun, Dan. And I understand what you mean by how it makes you notice things about the sets you wouldn't otherwise have noticed. I don't have the data in front of me, but I was doing this with my '53 Topps set this weekend. Some teams had an inordinate number of pitchers represented and few infielders and outfielders. Some had like three catchers pictured and fewer pitchers. Maybe the Topps/Bowman contract battle played into that. Maybe some guys just wouldn't sign, and maybe the companies felt some players just weren't worth the effort. Some teams were represented by coaches/managers, while others weren't. Like you said, it's more work, but I'm always looking for an excuse to play with my cards. Most of my cards are 50s, but I do have some 70s and 80s sets that I might take out and rearrange as you're describing. I like that a lot. You know how it goes when you're working on a set, it can get mundane and if you don't watch it, it's easy to fall into a rut of just checking off commons. Organizing them by team almost makes it feel like a subset or something. It provides a little more meaning and fun for me. To be honest, I was done with set building, but this thread got me to looking at commons and lesser stars I had left for dead. I feel energized again, and I'm excited about what's to come!

[Bigdaddy]

One thing that sticks out when organizing by team is the photography. In the 1979 example, some teams have 10+ action photos while other teams have none. I'm assuming many of the posed photos were taken in spring training and the action photos were taken during the season (or previous season). And probably most of a team's photos were taken by the same photographer; you can pick up on the photographer's choices of poses or action photos.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

One thing that sticks out when organizing by team is the photography. In the 1979 example, some teams have 10+ action photos while other teams have none. I'm assuming many of the posed photos were taken in spring training and the action photos were taken during the season (or previous season). And probably most of a team's photos were taken by the same photographer; you can pick up on the photographer's choices of poses or action photos.

I'm going to have to get my '79 set out soon.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Bcwcardz]

I do numerical like most just because that’s the way the checklist is. I’ll put them in the BCW portfolio binder when I’m done with the set otherwise it’s in a box if unfinished. I do like to have that first page with the best condition cards I can get. When I was younger I did everything by teams just like Fleer did their sets.My binders were star players only and everything else teams. I ditched that years ago though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk