Proposed Old Judge Reorganization

[Joe_G.]

Personally, I would support breaking the set into the following:

N172-1 = 1886-1887 Script
N172-2 = 1887 Short Number
N172-3A & 3B = 1887 "0" Number (A & B referring to the type)
N172-4 = 1888 Fa
N172-5 = 1888 Fb
N172-6 = 1889
N172-7 = 1890

In each case, I would order the cards in alphabetical order. I do collect the 28 sequential "0" numbers from 0481 to 0508 as these represent the Detroit Wolverines. One might expect me to like the idea of ordering them as Goodwin did; but not the case. I would like to see the cards in alphabetical order for consistency.

So my beloved NL Detroit Wolverines would all fall under N172-3A and N172-5 (with a small number of re-issues showing up as N172-4)

An alternate naming convention could be as follows (non-conventional naming, but easier for those of us who have studied the set for many years):

N172 Script
N172 Short Number
N172 "0" Number
N172 Fa
N172 Fb
N172 Fc
N172 Fc NL/PL

I'm also OK leaving it as just N172

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Personally, I would support breaking the set into the following:

N172-1 = 1886-1887 Script
N172-2 = 1887 Short Number
N172-3A & 3B = 1887 "0" Number (A & B referring to the type)
N172-4 = 1888 Fa
N172-5 = 1888 Fb
N172-6 = 1889
N172-7 = 1890

In each case, I would order the cards in alphabetical order. I do collect the 28 sequential "0" numbers from 0481 to 0508 as these represent the Detroit Wolverines. One might expect me to like the idea of ordering them as Goodwin did; but not the case. I would like to see the cards in alphabetical order for consistency.

So my beloved NL Detroit Wolverines would all fall under N172-3A and N172-5 (with a small number of re-issues showing up as N172-4)

An alternate naming convention could be as follows (non-conventional naming, but easier for those of us who have studied the set for many years):

N172 Script
N172 Short Number
N172 "0" Number
N172 Fa
N172 Fb
N172 Fc
N172 Fc NL/PL

I'm also OK leaving it as just N172

Joe, thank you for your response. I'm hearing what you're saying about the complexity of the set and the many different sub-types. First question is: theoretically, if you chose to break the 1887 into Short and "0" Number subsets, would you recategorize the boxers, celebrities, actors and actresses as n172's? Because they are currently n171's and n174's. And what would be the harm in combining the "O" and Short Series into an umbrella 1887 baseball set? Isn't that why most series are called "series" and not "sets", because the series is contained within the set?

I hear what you're saying about alphabetical order being more consistent, but then there is the problem that because they are alphabetical, the grading companies fail to distinguish between poses, while if they were categorized by numbers, the poses would be automatically recorded as the pop report would report the number of the card.

Another problem with alphabetical, remember, is then you have to create an entirely new numbering system apart from what is already on the card, and the convenience of knowing the number by looking at the card is lost. So I'm not sure whether making it alphabetical and creating a new numbering system really makes things more simple as opposed to more confusing?

Also, what you're suggesting is a rather either/or scenario between the two extremes of categorizing everything according to the smallest detail, or lumping everything together under the moniker of "n172". Either way, it makes it almost impossible to get a set together, because getting every n172 card is basically impossible, but also breaking everything down by subset makes collecting each subset a near impossibility (for instance, 1888 Fa and Fb). Why not just combine things like Fa and Fb into an umbrella "1888" so collectors can include both of them in an 1888 set and therefore make it more attainable?

Thanks

J

[Joe_G.]

Many different options. I can see the benefit of listing by year, throwing all the various types from that year together, perhaps as follows:

1886-87 Script
1887 Numbered (includes short number & both type A & B long /"0" numbered)
1888 (both Fa & Fb)
1889 (Fc)
1890 (Fc NL/PL)

Maybe even just call the Script 1886 to avoid overlapping with the numbered cards even though some script cards absolutely date to 1887.

No strong opinion on the N171 and N174 issues. They deserve to be split up just like the baseball cards above, but I don't much like the idea of trying to list all the Fb actress cards to join the baseball cards. By 1888, I believe Goodwin primarily issued baseball cards during the baseball season and actress cards during the winter (at least in the US). They really could and should be considered separate issues. Its a tougher call during 1887 when the cards were likely issued together.

To recap, you could separate the set out by year as shown above. Five sets in total. But I'd still prefer to separate out the short from long /"0" numbered. The reason for cataloging in the various ways I've suggested is to bring clarity to each individual type of Old Judge card. Each type of issue (short vs "0" number, Fa vs Fb) is different and easily identified if you know what to look for.

Despite all this conjecture, I'll restate that I'm also OK with just leaving them all lumped together as 1886-1890 N172s. There are more collectors who go after players, teams, poses they find interesting, or subsets within a given year than those who focus on just a particular year. The best solution for the complex set may be what we have today, an exhaustive listing of everything rolled into one alphabetic list.

If the OJ set were catalogued by year, would it change the way you collect the set?

[oldjudge]

What is your purpose for wanting to combine the Short Number and "0" Number series? It obviously isn't to aid in your own collecting--all the numbers are provided in the book so you have an effective checklist. Are you planning in trying to complete either of these series--my guess is no.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

What is your purpose for wanting to combine the Short Number and "0" Number series? It obviously isn't to aid in your own collecting--all the numbers are provided in the book so you have an effective checklist. Are you planning in trying to complete either of these series--my guess is no.

I have very little skin in the game. I'm just interested in the set, to be honest. My purpose for combining the Short and "O" series is that it would make it so that there could be the following sets:

1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
N173's
GQ's

This might be more efficient in the sense that it's generally the case in the hobby that sets are listed by year, and of course, the "0" and Short series have the same design, so it seems reasonable they ought to be included in the same set. It also eliminates the n171's and n174's which many don't want to collect since it is not baseball.

Those are my reasons for combining them, as for my reasons for having the conversation, I find it intellectually stimulating to think about things - and sometimes think differently. It could help the values of the cards, yes, but also I think it would enhance the enjoyment of the set since it would be easier to collect and complete the sets, as well as enjoy the use the original numbering system.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Many different options. I can see the benefit of listing by year, throwing all the various types from that year together, perhaps as follows:

1886-87 Script
1887 Numbered (includes short number & both type A & B long /"0" numbered)
1888 (both Fa & Fb)
1889 (Fc)
1890 (Fc NL/PL)

Maybe even just call the Script 1886 to avoid overlapping with the numbered cards even though some script cards absolutely date to 1887.

No strong opinion on the N171 and N174 issues. They deserve to be split up just like the baseball cards above, but I don't much like the idea of trying to list all the Fb actress cards to join the baseball cards. By 1888, I believe Goodwin primarily issued baseball cards during the baseball season and actress cards during the winter (at least in the US). They really could and should be considered separate issues. Its a tougher call during 1887 when the cards were likely issued together.

To recap, you could separate the set out by year as shown above. Five sets in total. But I'd still prefer to separate out the short from long /"0" numbered. The reason for cataloging in the various ways I've suggested is to bring clarity to each individual type of Old Judge card. Each type of issue (short vs "0" number, Fa vs Fb) is different and easily identified if you know what to look for.

Despite all this conjecture, I'll restate that I'm also OK with just leaving them all lumped together as 1886-1890 N172s. There are more collectors who go after players, teams, poses they find interesting, or subsets within a given year than those who focus on just a particular year. The best solution for the complex set may be what we have today, an exhaustive listing of everything rolled into one alphabetic list.

If the OJ set were catalogued by year, would it change the way you collect the set?

Joe, I completely agree with pretty much everything you're writing here, thanks for making such a great synopsis. To answer your question, the way that I collect is already evolving, but really for me is more for the greater interest of the cards and the hobby.

That said, there are infinite amounts of ways to view a particular set. Someone could choose to color code a set, seeing that there are millions of colors, or use binary computer code (imagine describing my Connie Mack as "0111011010101"!!!!). There is no right or wrong... it's just that some systems or organizations might have certain benefits which I describe above.

So it's really not about judging people or how they've done things, just thinking outside the box to help advance the hobby, and maybe organize things in a way that could be perceived as more collector-friendly; but even that is subject to debate, as it should be.

Cheers

J

[RCMcKenzie]

Jaime,

Thanks for starting this thread. I have learned a lot from reading it. I collect by year, by player, and by team, but mostly I collect by "I'm going to try and win that card" (See Dell Darling port ebay last week(underbidder), or Mack in 1st post(underbidder). I try to buy when I can and usually lose. There are so many cards, and so many ways to collect, I like the current player system.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Jaime,

Thanks for starting this thread. I have learned a lot from reading it. I collect by year, by player, and by team, but mostly I collect by "I'm going to try and win that card" (See Dell Darling port ebay last week(underbidder), or Mack in 1st post(underbidder). I try to buy when I can and usually lose. There are so many cards, and so many ways to collect, I like the current player system.

Rob,

Sorry about the bad ebay luck. I was also an underbidder on the Dell Darling card (my snipe was a little low and never registered). Someone got a terrific card. Better luck in the future.

J

[Matthew H]

Cy, the system you're proposing isn't going to make collecting the set easier, it'll make it much harder. Right now, a player collector could get a player from any availible year, '86-'90, and be done with him. Trying to find a specific year for a pose makes things wayyy to complicated for most.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Cy, the system you're proposing isn't going to make collecting the set easier, it'll make it much harder. Right now, a player collector could get a player from any availible year, '86-'90, and be done with him. Trying to find a specific year for a pose makes things wayyy to complicated for most.

Matt, it would make it easier to collect an entire set since other it is more or less impossible to get every n172 due to the California OJ's and other extreme rarities. As for people collecting subsets, such as a specific team, position, HOFer, etc, they are more than welcome to make their own rules about crossing over between year since they are the ones deciding the terms of their own subset. It seems that Joe chose not to for his Detroit run but many other have chosen to (including myself).

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Cy, the system you're proposing isn't going to make collecting the set easier, it'll make it much harder. Right now, a player collector could get a player from any availible year, '86-'90, and be done with him. Trying to find a specific year for a pose makes things wayyy to complicated for most.

Originally Posted by cyseymour

As for people collecting subsets, such as a specific team, position, HOFer, etc, they are more than welcome to make their own rules about crossing over between year since they are the ones deciding the terms of their own subset.

People already make their own rules for collecting. Some people add Coupon cards in with their T206. People combine '14 and '15 cracker jacks. Organizing into the proper sets should be done to educate people on what they are collecting and what the possibilities are, it isn't meant to restrict someone into collecting something they don't want.