Would you use a separate trading area?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Ah Leon don't be so sure. Tell you what, you bring those E221s with you and I'll bring a bottle of your favorite distilled/fermented beverage and/or a case of amber-colored friends. I'm certain that after a couple of hours we will have worked out something to our mutual satisfaction.

Hey Todd
These are ugly cards. More of what I collect that is rare with not too much demand. But I do like them, and this purple one is uniquely known, according to Macrae, so it's truly rare. I would have to be quite inebriated to let them go.

Back to subject. I am looking at adding a T206 BST section. I personally don't think it's needed but I am seriously considering it today. The trade only area is already covered in the other areas, respectively.

And Johnny, a scraps area......not sure there is enough supply to make it warranted. How about a double name T206 area? There might be enough of those?

[jimivintage]

Originally Posted by Leon

Back to subject. I am looking at adding a T206 BST section. I personally don't think it's needed but I am seriously considering it today. The trade only area is already covered in the other areas, respectively.

Leon,

I'd still like to see the 1920 - 1949 section and 1950 - 1979 section split differently to divide up prewar and postwar perhaps making it 1920 - 1947 and 1948 - 1979 in order to make those unloading their Bowman cards easier to place in one area rather than two....plus it just seems to make sense to me. Perhaps when adding a t206 section (which I totally agree with!), this can also be taken into consideration.

Great job running this great site as always, my friend!

Jimi

[Leon]

Originally Posted by jimivintage

Leon,

I'd still like to see the 1920 - 1949 section and 1950 - 1979 section split differently to divide up prewar and postwar perhaps making it 1920 - 1947 and 1948 - 1979 in order to make those unloading their Bowman cards easier to place in one area rather than two....plus it just seems to make sense to me. Perhaps when adding a t206 section (which I totally agree with!), this can also be taken into consideration.

Great job running this great site as always, my friend!

Jimi

Thanks for the kind words Jimi. Besides the few polls we have taken to get members thoughts, the main and overriding thing I like at to make the decision to subdivide, is the activity and number of threads in each area. That is what I have looked at from day 1 and is the main thing I take into account. There is no way any other area gets enough activity to be split up, imo, besides the T cards. When I look down the page of each of those BST areas I look for the date on each thread. When I went to the T card section today there were only 2 new days represented from all of the threads. When I look at any other section there are at least 5 days represented (as when a thread was last posted in). I really don't want to make another section because there are so many but I make make an exception for the T206s. I don't see other areas I can do away with as they all get activity. The subdivisions of each area, while not perfect for every instance, are fairly representative of the way we collect. There has been quite a bit of thought given to our BST areas because they are so active. They are the most active part of the board. It's sort of funny when you look back 10 yrs ago and we had A thread on the front page for ALL BST transactions. We could always go back to that >

[jimivintage]

Originally Posted by Leon

Thanks for the kind words Jimi. Besides the few polls we have taken to get members thoughts, the main and overriding thing I like at to make the decision to subdivide, is the activity and number of threads in each area. That is what I have looked at from day 1 and is the main thing I take into account. There is no way any other area gets enough activity to be split up, imo, besides the T cards. When I look down the page of each of those BST areas I look for the date on each thread. When I went to the T card section today there were only 2 new days represented from all of the threads. When I look at any other section there are at least 5 days represented (as when a thread was last posted in). I really don't want to make another section because there are so many but I make make an exception for the T206s. I don't see other areas I can do away with as they all get activity. The subdivisions of each area, while not perfect for every instance, are fairly representative of the way we collect. There has been quite a bit of thought given to our BST areas because they are so active. They are the most active part of the board. It's sort of funny when you look back 10 yrs ago and we had A thread on the front page for ALL BST transactions. We could always go back to that >

Leon,
What I'm suggesting is NOT adding anymore sections. I'm just suggesting changing the dates to say 1920 - 1947 and the other one to say 1948 - 1979, that way it's split correctly between prewar and postwar. If I'm reading your reply correctly, it seems to suggest that you are thinking I might mean to start new sections. That's just not the case.

Jimi

[Leon]

Originally Posted by jimivintage

Leon,
What I'm suggesting is NOT adding anymore sections. I'm just suggesting changing the dates to say 1920 - 1947 and the other one to say 1948 - 1979, that way it's split correctly between prewar and postwar. If I'm reading your reply correctly, it seems to suggest that you are thinking I might mean to start new sections. That's just not the case.

Jimi

Hey Jimi
I was sort of answering a few questions but did not think you were asking for another section, but as you stated, changing what is there. In order for change to be warranted I think the issue needs to be overwhelming in essence. I don't think this issue of a couple years rises to that. If we really wanted to be technically pre-war then it would be 1920-1938 then 1939 to 1945 (war) and 1946- xx for post war. I just don't see enough need to change it. I do appreciate your (and all members) input and am always open to discussions.
The T206 issue I am just tired of hearing about.

[jimivintage]

Originally Posted by Leon

Hey Jimi
I was sort of answering a few questions but did not think you were asking for another section, but as you stated, changing what is there. In order for change to be warranted I think the issue needs to be overwhelming in essence. I don't think this issue of a couple years rises to that. If we really wanted to be technically pre-war then it would be 1920-1938 then 1939 to 1945 (war) and 1946- xx for post war. I just don't see enough need to change it. I do appreciate your (and all members) input and am always open to discussions.
The T206 issue I am just tired of hearing about.

OK, fair enough. And, yes, I realize my years are off on prewar and postwar. LOL Perhaps I should have said something to the effect of what many collectors would consider as the cutoff point for modern versus vintage, but that's a whole other debate.

[frankbmd]

Sometimes we trade for cards and

sometimes we trade for cash.

Sometimes we trade for both.

B/S/T is fine the way it is IMO.