Old Judge question

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

You are still missing everything. The CSGB doesn't consider those the same card it would be the same pose but then CSGB would break it down by year and subset within the year. You may be confused because the book only shows one variation of each pose instead of showing every variation of every pose. Yet the detailed CSGB lists every pose and every year and every variation. It is very detailed. I just wish I could get my hands on the list.

I didn't know that - if that's the case, then the information should be transferred over to the OJ book and the set registries. This supports my argument that the OJ set is really 6 or 7 different sets in its entirety. That doesn't mean I agree with the concept giving each pose a number, because I still don't see the purpose of it.

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

This was all covered in another thread. I guess you didn't get the answers you wanted so you hijacked this one.

I was just answering his question...

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

The numbering system for the poses is for cataloging them. You saying that the cards should just be described could be compared to getting upset that the library uses a Dewey Decimal System in their card catalogs instead of just using the names of the books. Or the fact that the stores use bar code numbers instead of typing in the description of every product.

Right, except a library uses a Dewey Decimal system because there are tens of thousands of books - even within that, many books have the same Dewey decimal. With OJ cards, the players are already sorted by last name (the front part of the number is simply synonymous with a last name) and then within the category of the last name, you can find the pose. No different than several different books having the same Dewey decimal.

Stores have bar code numbers because they use an electronic system and if the product doesn't scan the cashier can punch in the bar code. Unless you plan to purchase your OJ's at your local CVS, I don't see how that's relevant to the conversation.