ACC designations

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I think this has been brought up before, but if someone were to do an update of the ACC, would anyone care outside of geeks like us? The book really does need to be updated.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: bcornell

if someone were to do an update of the ACC, would anyone care outside of geeks like us?

Speak for yourself, Jay. The answer is that it doesn't need updating - a few obscure issues isn't worth that effort. And, of course, there's no one to own it. Better to worry about whether the Twinkies will make the playoffs...

Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I speak for everyone, you know that There are a lot of X-Unc sets that need designations. There also sets like e92s that really should be broken down into seperate sats and designate as e92-1, e92-2 etc. Breaking the m101-4/5 set into it's serperate sets would solve a lot of issues as to what is an m101-4 or 5. It probably wouldn't hurt to reclassify some set that are designated incorrectly such as Old Mill cabinets.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Jay- I agree with you. I am not sure it's feasible for many reasons though....

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

The last thread on this: http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1136233608/last-1136612724/ACC+update

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

This post is about to drop off the first page, and I do not think it is ready to be put to bed. I am up for putting numbers on the -unc designations we have tabulated and enlisting the support of the price guides, hobby publications, price and image software owners and anyone else whose cooperation is important.

It is clear from the previous thread that many board participants do not seem to care about this issue. It is also clear that others, perhaps those who frequently deal with a diversified collecting base, do care about designations.

This proposed effort went nowhere last time, and will go nowhere this time unless someone picks up the ball. Ok, I pick up the ball, since someone has to.

Now I need help - I have no knowledge to speak of. One thing I need is a list of the -unc sets. Please give them to me. Then I will need to see what designations are available. I have a '75 Sports Collectors Bible. Is that the ideal starting point? Or is an alternate better?

We can do this.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Why don't you just make it easy on yourself and start with the current Big Book Krause SCD? If you work backwards in them, through the years, you will have most of the uncat sets....I will be more than glad to help but honestly don't think the there is enough support to get it done. You, I, and a handful of folks on the board might be about it....I would certainly vote to leave the ACC the exact way the last revision was and not touch it. I would propose coming out with a smaller "ACC Uncategorized Cards Update". A little bit like Lew did in his "Old Judge" series....but more comprehensive......good luck....I'll be watching

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

We also should make a list of sets, such as the e92 and m101-4/5 that need to broken down into seperate sets. The m101-4/5 could get a bit messy with the designation, but a double hyphen isn't unprecedented.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Leon brings up a good point. We wouldn't be making changes to the whole ACC, just the baseball card portion.

Cleaning up some of Burdicks oversights and mistakes in the orignal ACC isn't a bad idea though.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

IMHO, the ACC is sacred and should not be changed in any way.....again, I am sure there are different views but I view it as sacred to collecting...We all know the mistakes made but they are what they are....I would vote only to categorize the baseball cards that aren't in there....there has to be a few hundred....and maybe it would be entitled with a "Baseball" in the name of it so it wouldnt be confused with the whole ACC being updated....No way would I want to do that....but bless our collecting grandfathers for doing it....

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

If the Price Guides accept it, it is done. Will they accept any change?

The rest is just secretarial work.

Changing the ACC designations is different though. That is a more difficult sale. Have you sounded out the Guide guys?

Edited to add:
Yeah, it is also a difficult sale to collectors. I don't want to relearn things, even if they make more sense.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

For Burdick, the ACC was always a work in progress, as evidenced by his updates. I can't claim to know him at all, but I would think he would appreciate someone picking up the torch and updating his catalogue.

Changing things like e92 into 4 differents designated e92-1, e92-2, etc might be a tough sell, but the all the UNCs need a number to clear up the confusion.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I downloaded from Bobby Bresdo's site what appears to be a complete tabulation of uncatalogued sets broken out by type (F,W,H,N, etc.) and including year of issue and estimated number of cards in each set.

I will insert available designation numbers in the order that the cards are tabulated and numbers are available. This will be a deliverable to this board early this weekend for your perusal.

The guideline will be: if you don't complain now, don't complain later.

After a week of arguing, I will have the format and content complete and prettied up. This may be as far as I can run with the ball.

At that time we should decide how to best present this tabulation to the price guide manufacturers. IMHO this is needed, there are several pages of uncatalogued sets.

All advice, ideas, etc., will be appreciated.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Sounds great....once we see it we can further elaborate....thanks for spearheading this....

[Archive]

Posted By: Troy Kirk

When Burdick was writing the ACC, other collectors such as Lionel Carter urged him to lump E92, E101, E102 and E105 together, not break up E92 into subgroups, but he didn't do it for whatever reason.

I've always thought it was strange that he put T205 before T206, but I don't think he knew the dates when he listed those, though he should have known since he was about 10 years old when those sets came out.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

I agree that if SCD and Beckett add updated “ACC” numbers to their catalogs, that the updates will stick. However, I think coming up with the numbers is more than just a trivial secretarial task. First, the community must determine which cards get designations. That can lead to big debates about what is really a “card”. There can also be problems about who made the card – should it really be an E card, or an R, W, etc.? Also, how far does this effort go? Only cards before a certain date? Does it include premiums? Foreign cards? Pins? Seems like it can get out of hand quick.

So how big an effort are we talking about? I can't think of too many cards that need numbers. There can't be too many B, E, and W cards that are uncataloged and can't be easily identified with a name. If the effort goes beyond that it might turn people off. Few people care about the ACC, and if all of a sudden there are new numbers to call "uncat" cards rather than saying Lections, Voskamps, Plow Boy, etc., it might have a negative effect on the collecting community. Beckett and/or the SCD might throw in 10 or so new numbers, but it might be a tough sell to get them to change 100+ issues with new designations that aren't needed and just add confusion.

That being said, there are issues where having an actual "ACC" number would be a benefit. If the issue doesn't have a name or the name doesn't help one recognize the card, then an "ACC" number should be applied. Here are some issues that should be considered, along with questions that might be worth thinking about:

E-Unc Oakland Oaks
1912 B-Unc Felts (are these really cards, or a trimmed down pennant?)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1912Felt.html
1910 E-Unc Orange Borders (name is probably good enough here - who will call these E568s instead of Orange Borders?)
1910 E-Unc Candy
www.vintageball.com/files/Uncat_Evers2.jpg
1915 Unc B&W Cards (are these E or W cards???)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1915B-W.html
1936 E-Unc Candy
1910 W-unc colorized portraits (cut from a page – really cards?)
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/colorized-portraits/cp.asp?cardsetID=849
1913 W-Unc Notebook Cards (E95/96 like cards cut from a notebook cover - really cards that deserve an ACC #???)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1913Notebook.html
1916 W-Unc Big Head (name probably good enough here)
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/big-head/big-head.asp?cardsetID=850
1920/1 W-Unc IFS “Blue and Orange”
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/ifs-blue-orange/ifs-blue-orange.asp?cardsetID=854
1921 W-Unc Self Developing Strip Cards
www.luckeycards.com/swunc1921hornsby.jpg
1923 Unc Sepia Shoulderless (E/W? Card?)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1923Shoulderless.html
1925 W-Unc Playing Cards (a version of W560?)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1925-29Playing.html
1921/9? W-Unc Hand Drawn Playing Cards
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/red-bg-game-cards/red-bg-game-cards.asp?cardsetID=852
1931 W-Unc (or just a W502 sub-set - really need a new number?)
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/w502/w502.asp?cardsetID=810
1935 W-Unc Manager Strip Cards (cut from a calendar - deserve a number???)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1930/1935Mgr.html
???? W-Unc (similar to W555)
http://www.oldjudge.com/auction/baseball/type/89/
1910? W/WG-Unc Game pieces (anyone know what these really are - can you assign a number to something if you don't know what it is?)
www.luckeycards.com/swuncredandbluegamepieces1910ish.jpg
1920s PC-Unc Manager Series
http://www.oldcardboard.com/pc/managers/managers.asp?cardsetID=943
1908 PC-Unc Pirates Stadium Issue
http://www.oldcardboard.com/pc/pirates/pirates.asp?cardsetID=940
B-Unc Pennants


.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Burdick never made a distinction as to what was a card and what was not. Basically, for him, anything on a paper product was considered a card. He catalogued pins, postcards, newspaper premiums, etc. so there is no issue there. As for giving Lections an ACC designation, that's a no issue too. People will continue to call them as such and the ACC # will just be a trivia question, just like most people can't tell you what the ACC# for Goudeys and PLay Balls are.

Burdicks catagories are pretty cut and dried as to what goes where. For UNCs that have an unknown origin, I would think that defaulting them into one of the main catagories T, E, etc. Would be the thing to do.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I think Glen has valid points as well as Jay....If nothing else it's fun to talk about....well, in a geeky sort of way, anyway. As for Lections I know folks used to think they were a candy but I think they are an "H" for advertising trade card....

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Well gentlemen, you raise some questions that I should address before I get too far afield here. Since I am assembling data, I need to make an initial determination of what data to reject (what is not a card).

My feeling is that Burdick was very liberal in his assessments and I think that we should follow that beginning. It really is up to individual collectors to specialize. However, I do not plan to include items which are not composed of cellulose, ie. metal, plastic, natural and synthetic fibers, etc. It gotta be a paper type product. I have no limitations envisioned regarding size, weight, shape nor other physical characteristics.

Regarding initial catagorizations, as you point out, there is plenty of room for arguement here, and research, and more. But in general, I do not believe that t, e and other primary designations should be our default. I think that you have to earn it to be a t-card. H or W is a different story. I think those are better default catagories until we can more clearly establish a card's origin. But the more stuff which we have undocumented regarding catagorization, the harder our sell becomes. I do not think that we should put forth as the product of our efforts a documentation of uncertainty, unless it is necessary.

An acceptable (to me) net result of this initial effort could be the determination of what further study has to be performed in order to present a summary of caliber adequate for inclusion in a guide. Afterall, we can not change our mind each year.

And if we do this well, we have credibility established for generation of other, more difficult sell, changes.

If the above is unclear please tell me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

So there still is the question: how big is this effort? Even limiting inclusion to paper products, there must be hundreds of issues w/o ACC #s. Cutting out premiums and postcards would greatly reduce the number, but that doesn't seem like a good solution. We all know most people don't care about the ACC. For the ones who do, if you leave out their area of collecting, it will turn them off too. To do this right, it must be as complete as possible. However, I think that could be the projects downfall. I would think that too many new numbers for issues that don't need numbers would only reduce the chance that new ACC #s ever get accepted.

As for non-paper items, some of the no-name felts would be ideal for new ACC #s. Why leave them out? There are so few to include and numbers would actually make sense in their case. There's one shaped sort of like an iron - anyone have a picture of that type. Some people are probably thinking "what are you taking about", which is exactly why that issue could use an ACC #. Two more that really deserve #s:



I may be completely off base here. What do others think? I can't believe there are so few posts about this topic!

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I am with you. I think everything that we collect as cards, or close to cards (like those little 1910 felts you've shown) needs to have a letter/number. Gil has sent me a large amount of work, via email, but it's not quite ready for prime time yet. I agree too, maybe it's only a handful of us avid type card collectors that would enjoy doing this...and if that's the case it might not be well received. It could/would more than likely fail for that reason.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Fail? It depends on what your definition of "is" is.

It will fail if your hopes are that any designation will achieve the stature of t206 as a household (among some households) name. However, if success is general acceptance of a numerical nomenclature to replace the current lack of any designation, then success is guaranteed.

Admittedly, most will not care much, but that same "most" will prefer to have any logical basis for set reference, so long as it is clear, rather than the no designation current status - which clearly lacks clarity.

I think that the guides will agree. Although few will care about most relatively obscure sets, they prefer to have them organized so that if they ever have to go there, it is understandable.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Glen V: You continue to raise good and important questions, in the face of apparent disinterest. Please be assured that the lack of a response is not indicative of a lack in interest. I am receiving input from several interested collectors, and other board members are quite interested, although perhaps not outspoken. Many, like myself, are as unsure as you state regarding how best to proceed.

My initial thoughts are to limit the scope of the effort to those items which are best defensible as cards, based on their materials of construction. One deviation from that guideline could open the gate for "you included this item made of cloth, certainly my favorite made of brick is more like a card than his throw pillow". So, at this juncture it appears to me that our initial thrust should be directed at the sufficiently broad slice of the pie which we have chosen to bite off. On this, as all subjects, I am open to rebuttal. I am not the decision maker on this project at all. We jointly are putting together an effort that seems worthwhile - and lets not close any doors just yet. Once the bulk of the effort is behind us, we can more aptly see that there are few reasonable proposals for inclusion still on the table, perhaps all of which are worthy. and will be incorporated with little effort.

Regarding my opinion on some of the specifics which you cited, please consider the following observations and comments.

E-Unc Oakland Oaks
=== Name IDs it as e-card, will get appropriate e-designation.
1912 B-Unc Felts (are these really cards, or a trimmed down pennant?)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1912Felt.html>
=== material of construction does not meet guideline; decision postponed.
1910 E-Unc Orange Borders (name is probably good enough here - who will call these E568s instead of Orange Borders?)
===Yes, name will no doubt be most common usage, but will get a number too.
1910 E-Unc Candy
www.vintageball.com/files/Uncat_Evers2.jpg
=== Name IDs it as e-card, will get appropriate e-designation.
1915 Unc B&W Cards (are these E or W cards???)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1915B-W.html>
===Don't know, fkw indicates correlation with candy. Please elaborate, fkw.
1936 E-Unc Candy
=== Name IDs it as e-card, will get appropriate e-designation.
1910 W-unc colorized portraits (cut from a page – really cards?)
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/colorized-portraits/cp.asp?cardsetID=849>
===Yes, a card. My thinking on this is that if cutout by kid, was done so to play with or otherwise enjoy. That is a good definition of a card. I will not overrule the thinking of a kid of 1910, I have no authority to do so.
1913 W-Unc Notebook Cards (E95/96 like cards cut from a notebook cover - really cards that deserve an ACC #???)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1910/1913Notebook.html>
===Yes, a card. My thinking on this is that if cutout by kid, was done so to play with or otherwise enjoy. That is a good definition of a card. I will not overrule the thinking of a kid of 1910, I have no authority to do so.
1916 W-Unc Big Head (name probably good enough here)
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/big-head/big-head.asp?cardsetID=850>
===Yes, name will no doubt be most common usage, but will get a number too.
1920/1 W-Unc IFS “Blue and Orange”
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/ifs-blue-orange/ifs-blue-orange.asp?cardsetID=85>
===Nice set
1921 W-Unc Self Developing Strip Cards
www.luckeycards.com/swunc1921hornsby.jpg
===Leon has fantastic examples, I wonder if they are all that good.
1923 Unc Sepia Shoulderless (E/W? Card?)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1923Shoulderless.html>
===Don't know, fkw indicates correlation with candy. Please elaborate, fkw.
1925 W-Unc Playing Cards (a version of W560?)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1920/1925-29Playing.html>
===I really don't know about these playing cards, Old Cardboard is calling them game cards - should they get a WG designation - if so, what about others such as w560?
1921/9? W-Unc Hand Drawn Playing Cards
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/red-bg-game-cards/red-bg-game-cards.asp?cardsetID=852>
===I really don't know about these playing cards, Old Cardboard is calling them game cards - should they get a WG designation - if so, what about others such as w560?
1931 W-Unc (or just a W502 sub-set - really need a new number?)
http://www.oldcardboard.com/w/w502/w502.asp?cardsetID=810>
===Numbers are cheap, but ideally they can be used to clarify. In this case I think a subset designation is best.
1935 W-Unc Manager Strip Cards (cut from a calendar - deserve a number???)
http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1930/1935Mgr.html>
===This is a bit tricky. Although I believe that if a kid cut something out years ago to be enjoyed as a card, it is a card; I also believe that if an adult cut it out recently to make a profit, then it is like the AAA certified cut outs. I see no indication that these were cut out by a kid years ago. What do you think?
???? W-Unc (similar to W555)
http://www.oldjudge.com/auction/baseball/type/89/>
===A new designation appears appropriate.
1910? W/WG-Unc Game pieces (anyone know what these really are - can you assign a number to something if you don't know what it is?)
www.luckeycards.com/swuncredandbluegamepieces1910ish.jpg
===I think that these were game pieces which were fitted into a base and moved around a board, hence the damage at the bottom of each. Seems like a WG designation is appropriate.
1920s PC-Unc Manager Series
http://www.oldcardboard.com/pc/managers/managers.asp?cardsetID=943>
===PC designation
1908 PC-Unc Pirates Stadium Issue
http://www.oldcardboard.com/pc/pirates/pirates.asp?cardsetID=940>
===PC designation
B-Unc Pennants
=== material of construction does not meet guideline; decision postponed.

Please do not hesitate to point out my errors and potential errors in judgement here. I admit that my observations and comments have been hasty, and many of these items deserve more time to adequately assess.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

One of the concerns was what catagory do we put some of the cards in where we have no clue was to their distribution. My though is that if it's not already used, that these cards should get a new catagory "U" for Unknown. Simple enough. If set has an unknown origin, then it becomes U-1, U-2 U-3, etc.
Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

"U" is already used by Burdick and is a "clouded" designation as he put it. Group 1 of U is Match Cover Designs. After that there are Match Box Labels, Theatre Issues, Oil and Gasoline Issues, Weighing Machine Cards, and Miscellaneous. Rice Stix Shirts and Signal Gasoline, among others, fall into the "U" category. Burdick would put either a letter or letter/number after the U, also. I would propose some kind of designation before any letter, with all new additions, to show that they are the current revision. That way we know if it was Burdick or after him. In my own cataloguing of scans I use an "s" for selling or a "p" for personal or an "o" if it's not mine, before every scan and cat#....Burdick didn't use all of the letters in the alphabet and I think our new additions should start with something to identify them as new. We still need to get some more buy in before this will go anywhere, too. If 5 of us do it then the other 10,000 people won't have a clue what the heck we are talking about. I am still a little skeptical but moving forward....

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I am not sure what the advantages of including an asterisk or equivalent to any new desgnation could be, particularly in light of the fact that there have already been post-Burdick designations included in general use without any qualifier. For simplicity, I prefer not including apparently extraneous indications unless there is clear justification. But I may not be viewing the big picture here, being bogged down in the basement, searching through old journals and dusty manuscripts by flickering candlelight .... and the intensity of the dripping, dripping, relentless dripping, and the eerie howling - let me out into the light!

Ahhh. Thats better!

I have tabulated some 19th Century stuff, it seems. For now, I plan to list all 19th Century material with a N designation, independent of whether it is tobacco, cabinets or other. Seems to me that Burdick did not ever hear of N cards, so there may be sufficient latitude here for us to do this, if we wish. Sometimes I may have combined things that you may want seperated, othertimes (in the inconsistent style we are learning to love) I may have allowed things seperate which should be combined.

A single (and there are several) example of this is the 1886 J. Wood Studio Cabinets of the N.Y. Giants and Metropolitans, in this instance I followed the Standard Catalog's seperate listing, but Im having second thoughts about that.

All of the cards slated for an N designation are tabulated below. The actual designations are not included yet, but that is not viewed as a big deal, any day now.

Set NameYear
Hall (Joseph) Cabinets1888
Hall (Joseph) Imperial Team Cabinets1888
Lorillard Team Cards1886
Warren Studio Boston Red Stockings CDVs1872
Ashman Studio Cabinets1895
Chickering Studio Cabinets1899-90
Conly Studio Cabinets1891
Gilbert & Bacon Cabinets1888
Hastings Cabinets1887
MacIntire Studio Cabinets1888
Police Gazette Cabinets1889
Smith (G. Waldon) Boston Beaneaters Cabinets1889
Smith (G. Waldon) Cabinets1890
Stead (J.U.) Studio Cabinets1892
Stevens Studio Austrailian Tour Cabinets1888-89
Stevens Studio Chicago Pirates Cabinets1890
Tomlinson Studios Cabinets1887
Uhlman St. Paul Cabinets1888
Wood (J.) Studio N.Y. Giants Cabinets1886
Wood (J.) Studio N.Y. Metropolitans Cabinets1886


Gee, I even modified the table - and it still comes out crappy. Let me know if you want a way better e-mail version. Here is the other page:


Four Base Hits1887
Gypsy Queen California League1888
Just So Tobacco1893
Alpha Photo-Engraving Baltimore Orioles1894
Climax Poster1884
Diamond S Cigars, Boston NL1889
Dukes Terrors of America1889
Handcock’s Syracuse Stars1886
Jordan & Co.1863
N.Y. Clipper Woodcuts1879-80
National Copper Plate Co. Portraits1898-99
Police Gazette Supplement1895
R & S Artistic Series Baseball1888
Reccius Cigars1899
Red Stocking Cigars1886
Sanders (W.H.) New York Baseball Club1886
Scrapps Tobacco Die Cuts1888
Stage, The – Stars of the Diamond1889
Sterey Photographers Troy Haymakers1867
Tobin Lithographs – Black & White1887
Tobin Lithographs – Color1887
Virginia Brights Polka Dot Nine1887
Ward (John M.) Fan1880-89
Warren Studio Boston Red Stockings CDVs1872
White (C.S.) & Co., Boston NL1889

45 sets, if I counted right.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

We have to select our ending date for this effort. Although it could be extended into the second half of the century, I do not prefer that choice.

For me it really comes down to "do I want to include the Leafs and early Bowmans or not".

I vote - do not include them and sacrifice everything after 1945 to suffer its own fate, as it has since its inception.

If no one disagrees with this viewpoint (why do I hear an echo here?) it will be implemented. The deadline for voicing an opposing viewpoint never ends, so feel free to e-mail me about this years from now.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Burdick used N as "Central and South American Tobacco Cards". There were Cuban, Mexican, Peruvuan and several other countries listed..Something tells me that "N" was designated as Nineteenth Century tobacco after Burdick finished his last revision, which was around 1960. To remind folks- Burdick only used a number for his 19th Century tobacco, and no "n" before it.
My copy will be in the mail to you Tuesday...slow down...
regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Id rather consider N to be all 19th century baseball(independent of whether it is tobacco related) of course with the exception of e223.

This accomodation will facilitate the inclusion of many cabinets in an understandable existing catagory, and minimize the motivation to give cabinets their own designation.

Which I do not wish to do. Designations by manufacturer type or era are existing, designation by card type are not.

Edited to add: Ooops, mouthed off again without thinking!
Postcard designation is by card type, so the precedent is set. There appears supporting sentiment for seperate classification of Cabinets, Minor League Sets and other catagories. Although Id rather not muddle up our focus here, it may be worthwhile considering for potential future efforts.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

Already have numbers:
H891 Tobin Lithographs
N88 Duke Talk of the Diamond (small)
N136 Duke Talk of the Diamond (large)

Wouldn't Hancock Clothing be an "H" issue?

Number 7 Cigars are N526. Wouldn't Diamond S be the same set, maybe an N526-2?

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

So Leon, that gringo, Burdick, has already pillaged pictures of Latin bugs, plants, mollusks, and the like from countries including Cuba, Mexico, Peru, and others. But not pictures of their wimmen, or their players of beisbol. And so far, no shots have been fired over the steenken ACC. Very interesting, I will take that under advisement.

Pablo.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Glen V: I will include both Tobins in the H891 designation, if no one objects.

Your mention of the Duke Talk of the Diamond was because you would like the Terrors of America included in that designation? Or what?

I particularly am pleased that the Early Candy and Gum issues have reached into the 19th century to claim G&B as theirs, I certainly have no objection to the H designation staking a similarly justified claim on the Syracuse Stars.

Regarding the similarity between No.7 and Diamond S Cigar issues: these sets appear to differ only on their backs. Id like to use the same designation for both, and incorporate that philosophy in other catagories where the main difference is on the card's back.

I do note that the choices become tricky when the same fronts are used among different manufacturer types (D & E, for example).

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

Sorry, I typed Talk of the Diamond instead of Terrors of America. Anyway, I think all of them have numbers associated with them. Some Duke issues:

N86 Duke Perilous Occupations
N88 Duke Terrors of America (small)
N120 Duke Miniature Novelties
N135 Duke Talk of the Diamond
N136 Duke Terrors of America (large)
N154 Duke Presidential Baseball

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Thanks for the input. Where's Eric and Dan M?, I think they are our only other culprits that are going to be interested in this stuff? Not sure what more you are referring too with the Terror cards? We already know that those, along with several hundred more "n" cards have numbers. Burdick didn't put an "N" before them though....And I was wondering who first started that? kind regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

Gil-
Don't forget the Warren 1872 Boston cabinets (vs. CDV) and do the Newsboys already have a designation?

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Thank you, Glen and Richard. I have taken the Terrors out and put the '72 Warren Studios, Boston Cabinets in.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

No objection to stopping at 1945. Even I couldn't tell you what the ACC designations for Goudey's are. The modern stuff is all known by it's name. No need to confuse them. They stiff haven't figured out that shiney stuff is worthless and pointless.

I don't think we should be making designations as to before Burdick and after Burdick. Or may the can be designated BB and AB

I'd agree that cabinets need their own catagory like postcards.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

The Newsboys are N566.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

The only way to keep what Burdick did, sacred, is to have some delineation of the before and after. I am opposed to adding to, or changing anything he did. But we'll see how it goes. I would agree to an R, or some letter, before every new letter/number to show the "revised" issue being spoken of....So maybe Orange Borders would be RE2, or something like that...but again, there could be a million ways to do it....I don't think I could ever be for changing, modifying, or adding to the original work....but who knows I have chnaged my mind before...

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The ACC was an ongoing work for Burdick. Just because he isn't around anymore doesn't mean that the work shouldn't continue. There is really no need to denote what Burdick did or didn't contribute. When this project is done, it will still be 90% or more Burdickk's work.

Some of his orignal work needs to be update. The e92s need to be sperated into sperate sets, as does the m101-4/5s among other sets. Old Mill cabinets and other sets that are in the wrong catagory need to be moved.

The ACC is rpetty useless if it's not updated. Burdick put a lot of time and effort into it, but it needs to be updated and corrections made if it is to remain a viable reference for vintage collectors.

This board is as a good a place as any to get a project like this rolling. We seen the power of this board before and there are plenty of influential poeple that read this board and participate. If we do all the leg work and get it published, even only on the web, there is no reason for the major price guides to ignore the effort. It will only make their job that much easier and their boks that much easier to find the sets you are looking for.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

We may like prewar cards, but we are in the minority, by quite a margin. Due to that, our collective financial impact on a price guide may not be significant.

So really, it does not matter how well thought out and implemented this effort is, the bottom line will be: why should they bother modifying a section of their guide, when there is only the potential for a miniscule amount of additional revenues. (you know - whats in it for me?).

I hope that this is not the way it goes down, because the net result would not be favorable. Just a note: by only naming the sets which have no ACC designation now, we are talking about over 200 sets uncataloged.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

We can agree to disagree on this subject. I agree Burdick's ACC was an evolving science but I think it shouldn't be changed whatsoever....only added to as I have previously mentioned...with some * for the updates....again, only my opinion.....maybe we'll have to take a vote...and all 5 of us interested in this can be the rule makers.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Could you imagine trying to catalog all of the CRAP since just 1983? Hell it would take a catalog in itself to list all the insert sets from the 90s alone. All the shiney inserts and all the 1 of 3's, etc. What a nightmare.

I do believe that someone mentioned a logical ending point. Just where do people figure the "modern era" started?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The release of Leaf and Bowman cards is generally considered the start of the modern era. 1945 is a safe cut off as there is almost nothing issued during WW2.

Leon, I'm of the opinion that we would being doing more of a disservice to Burdick's work by trying to denote which were his and which are new designation. The designation nation would not be as "neat and clean" if you start adding letters or whatever to denote new additions.

Your idea runs into trouble with sets like e92 if we decide to split them up into e92-1, ets? Under your proposal, how would you handle that? Adding a letter because it's new designation would just confuse things even more and would make harder to sell that designation to collectors familiar with the issue. Making Dockman's e92-1, Crofts Candy e92-2, etc, is a much easier sell to collects than re92-1, re92-2, etc. Collectors will look at those designation and go "huh?".

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I politely disagree. I think it would confuse matters to try to change what has been known for 70'ish years. ("N" not withstanding).... I wouldn't try to do anything with what has already been catalogued. If anyone wants to change what Burdick did then they will be doing it without my support....which is ok too. I am open for discussion but I would be surprised if I could be persuaded to "approve" of rewriting the ACC. I don't see how I could ever support that.....

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Since the hobby still uses the ACC, it needs to be updated. In many ways I am purist about most things. There comes a time though when things need to be updated. Especially something that has not been updated since around 1960. To say the ACC is outdated and antiquated is an understatement. Updating it and correcting it will be of more of a service to the hobby than leaving things the way they are. Changing the ACC for the better will not diminish the contributions that Burdick made to the hobby. It might also serve to bring his name back to the public again for a time.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Ok Jay: you've got that ball.

Figure out what should be changed, and how to do it.

The -unc tabulation is nearly complete. I just have to make a run through F. Ward's site to pick up whatever I may have missed, then submit it to our in house experts for mutilation, correction, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

Some parts of the ACC have already been expanded, for example the ACC#'s for baseball related trade cards (sets) only goes to H804-9.

But Frank Keetz's "Baseball Advertising Trade Cards" book expands that list on up to at least H804-40 for trade cards that are part of baseball related sets (he has completely separate lists for single cards with titles and single cards without titles)

Within the Baseball Trade Card circles the (H891) Tobin cards are (also) well known as...

H804-21 Major League Players Series (the common multicolor cards)
H804-22 Major League Players Series (scarce B&W version)
H804-23 Tobin "149" series (very rare, redrawn Tobin cards, B&W with different captions)

So some of the work is done.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

I can see fixing the Old Mill Cabinet designation (which can't affect many people), but question other changes to the ACC. Does E92 really need subtypes? Then what about all the other issues with multiple backs. T206s are really three sets, should that be spelled out? If the existing ACC does get changed, might as well make the R302 M.P. & Co. a "W" card too.

What about tickets, blotters, coasters, and generic baseball scenes? Eric has quite an assortment on his website: http://www.freewebs.com/goudeyhunter/uncatalogedcards.htm

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The reason I would want to see the e92s broken into seperate sets and not t206s is because each of the diffferent e92s backs is recognized as seperate sets and the Nadjas are quite different from all the others. The t206 set on the other hand is considered one set. No one collects it as just one back. Personally, I think that each back is a seperate set, but it would never fly with collectors and would cause way too many problems. Breaking the e92 and m101-4/5s into their different backs would not create much of a problem. E90s and e104s were broken into seperate sets, so why not e92s?

MP&co will get redesignated, as will other sets that are in the wrong catagory.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.