Is Anyone Updating the SCD Card Catalog?

[Jobu]

With the unfortunate passing of Bob Lemke about 6 years ago, I am wondering if all updates to the catalog have stopped. I believe PSA looked to the catalog and to Bob and I don't know what the process has been since he passed. If you find a new card for a checklist is it ungradable because it isn't on the checklist? What about and entirely new issue?

[BeanTown]

Don’t know the answer to that. I wish SCD digitized their paper content from back in the 90s. There were many great articles written from Bob and other writers. I asked Bob about this years ago and he said they didn’t archive any of it and most is lost or buried in collections (of those who collect papers).

[rhettyeakley]

The short answer is no.

The long answer should be that there is a governing body in charge of that. It should be made up of people not only involved in Sports Cards but across the breadth of the ACC and there aren’t too many of us that collect that way anymore.

-Rhett

[jethrod3]

I plan to retire in a couple of years, and after having published a couple of editions of books in my field and logging time as an associate editor for a science journal, I thought that this (writing an updated catalog) could be a great thing to take on as a project. But that thought was fleeting: I realized that in all likelihood, because of the issues already mentioned in this thread (and the fact that I seem to ask more questions on this board than provide answers!!!), it would be a herculean effort that would likely require a massive collaboration of experts and resources. It would be fun to be a part of a team that could put out an updated catalog, but with new information surfacing about new issues on a daily basis and a boatload of information that would need to be sifted through on the internet since the last edition was published, all of which would need to be verified to the best extent possible, it would take a village, led by a core of very dedicated individuals.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Jobu

I believe PSA looked to the catalog and to Bob and I don't know what the process has been since he passed. If you find a new card for a checklist is it ungradable because it isn't on the checklist? What about and entirely new issue?

They do accept most online checklisting sites like baseballcardpedia; most manufacturers release checklists of nearly all sets/cards produced, so those also are acceptable to PSA.
They just recently agreed to accept group submissions from COMC, so it's possible that the COMC library of valid checklists and variations may be considered in the future.

[rdwyer]

When I ordered SCOVBC & SCOVFC I requested the pdf versions. I still have the last versions.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by swarmee

They do accept most online checklisting sites like baseballcardpedia; most manufacturers release checklists of nearly all sets/cards produced, so those also are acceptable to PSA.
They just recently agreed to accept group submissions from COMC, so it's possible that the COMC library of valid checklists and variations may be considered in the future.

As an minor FYI -- I moved to the "Cataloguing" area of COMC about 13 months ago and that is adjacent to the area I had been in. I've always done cataloguing work for COMC as part of my day to day job and use my background to improve the information.

If you ever see anything in the COMC database which needs to be fixed just let me know

Rich

[rhettyeakley]

Problem with online catalogs is that people misrepresent and misreport things all the time through error or (worse) on purpose.

There are multiple cards listed on sites like tradingcarddb and places like that that simply do not exist and are just the result of people trolling.

There needs to be an actual independent entity doing it or it is worthless.

Just my opinion so take it for what it is worth.

[DaClyde]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Problem with online catalogs is that people misrepresent and misreport things all the time through error or (worse) on purpose.

There are multiple cards listed on sites like tradingcarddb and places like that that simply do not exist and are just the result of people trolling.

There needs to be an actual independent entity doing it or it is worthless.

Just my opinion so take it for what it is worth.

Beckett is much the same, they've had many of the same errors in their data for 30 years. TCDB will correct errors if they are reported. It isn't an online vs cardcopy thing, it is just the nature of the beast. I can't imagine a more "independent" entity than crowd sourcing. I do wish there was more in the way of research references included on the various sites, so you know where the data came from, but that seems to be left up to the various blogs that find and document the sets.

And unfortunately, for modern realeases, Panini produces horribly inaccurate checklists, getting the card numbering and serial numbering wrong on almost every set.

[bcbgcbrcb]

A couple of years before he passed, I had communicated with Bob regarding my efforts to try and get vintage (pre-1948 Bowman/Topps era) rookie cards identified with an RC designation in the Standard Catalogue for future issues. Bob informed me that the last issue was published several years ago and that there were no plans on the part of Krause for future printings.

As far as my specific request, Bob said, in short, that rookie card identification would be too subjective and would be extremely difficult if not impossible to get a vast majority to agree on the specific cards that would be qualified for each individual. I offered my comprehensive list of HOF’ers as a starting point, of which several dedicated and highly knowledgeable Net54 board members had worked together to compile. Unfortunately, the answer was still no but not entirely dismissed. At this point, I dropped the pursuit as it seemed like the entire Standard Catalogue project was not at a point to move forward anyway.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

As an minor FYI -- I moved to the "Cataloguing" area of COMC about 13 months ago and that is adjacent to the area I had been in. I've always done cataloguing work for COMC as part of my day to day job and use my background to improve the information.

If you ever see anything in the COMC database which needs to be fixed just let me know

Good to know. That's a great place for your knowledge and talent!

[Jobu]

Thanks for the input.

I wonder if we could form a SABR-like committee that could have some bylaws around voting to make checklist updates/new sets/level of proof required, etc. The group might need to focus on pre-1930, at least initially, otherwise the amount of effort might be too great. And with each year after 1930, the amount known about the issues from those years grows, so I am less concerned about the need to have people focused on them.

How to start would be a good question. Contacting Bob Lemke's family to see about digitizing his notes could be a good start.

[RCMcKenzie]

prewarcards.com is a good resource. I asked him one time if he was the new SCD and he said he was doing the best he can.

If anyone has a question about a set, or thinks they see something new, they can always make a post on here and people will chime in.

I'm talking like 1988 and back. I have no idea how anyone could track the new stuff.

[TCMA]

Funny, this is something we discuss in our office regularly. Several times in the past few months we’ve discovered errors and/or cards yet to be cataloged. Should be exciting hobby news, recorded somewhere for the collecting community to benefit from. Instead, we have trouble getting the grading services to recognize them at all. It’s been frustrating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Leon]

First of all, I feel the top TPG's need to pull their proverbial heads out of their asses. Until they recognize W503, W575-1 etc... aren't hand cut, as well as many others, their opinions are clouded with inaccuracies. You would think they would have gotten those right by now. To me, it's like arguing with someone who still believes the earth is flat or man never landed on the moon. One can hope they correct their mistakes, then we can have a discussion based on reality and the facts. Maybe TPGs just don't need to be included in the mission, since they are quite inept at knowing things they should.

That said, I am all for an update, but only with collectors/dealers who aren't lemmings. Maybe CGC can help.....I don't think Andy B will follow the other lemmings.

And Fred, here is the making of the Egan update...again..

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=144460

Originally Posted by TCMA

Funny, this is something we discuss in our office regularly. Several times in the past few months we’ve discovered errors and/or cards yet to be cataloged. Should be exciting hobby news, recorded somewhere for the collecting community to benefit from. Instead, we have trouble getting the grading services to recognize them at all. It’s been frustrating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by Leon

First of all, I feel the top TPG's need to pull their proverbial heads out of their asses. Until they recognize W503, W575-1 etc... aren't hand cut, as well as many others, their opinions are clouded with inaccuracies. You would think they would have gotten those right by now. To me, it's like arguing with someone who still believes the earth is flat or man never landed on the moon. One can hope they correct their mistakes, then we can have a discussion based on reality and the facts. Maybe TPGs just don't need to be included in the mission, since they are quite inept at knowing things they should.

That said, I am all for an update, but only with collectors/dealers who aren't lemmings. Maybe CGC can help.....I don't think Andy B will follow the other lemmings.

And Fred, here is the making of the Egan update...again..

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=144460

My inclination would be to keep the TPGs out of the entire project. This would not be something that was being done for them as much as it would be done for the hobbyists. I just have a real hard time seeing any positive input from them in this endeavor. They are all about the coin, and this project would be all about the cards and such.

That being said, how could this product ultimately drive the TPGs to abide by the information within the many pages. Or maybe 'we' don't care???

More questions......

B.T.

[Exhibitman]

The only way it would work is to have the individuals who are experts in specific fields serve as editors for those fields and have others contribute. For example, I wrote the Exhibit book but i can think of at least three other collectors who have better knowledge than I do about specific elements of the issues.

That is how we do it; the question of where we do it is probably an online database of some sort administered by someone on a nonprofit basis.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

The only way it would work is to have the individuals who are experts in specific fields serve as editors for those fields and have others contribute. For example, I wrote the Exhibit book but i can think of at least three other collectors who have better knowledge than I do about specific elements of the issues.

That is how we do it; the question of where we do it is probably an online database of some sort administered by someone on a nonprofit basis.

There is no doubt about the fact that if this is even seriously considered is that there must be input from many different experts. Honestly, I am just a tiny collector and hardly an expert in most if not all of this.

How would a consiortum of this magnitude come together for a common outcome? Who would these hobbyists look like and would they even agree to come together for such an undertaking. Who has access to these many individuals to even tweak an interest?

B.T.