Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew H
Cy, I understand your point about team collecting... If I was collecting a specific team I'd probably want to buy every example that came up.
Proposing to break up the set by year is not going to make anything easier. 1889 OJs probably pop up the most frequent, but cal leagues OJs are 1889,,,, so it's impossible to complete an 1889 set without an incredible find.
Most of the other extremely rare cards are 1888 so good luck with that.
You'll need a Hahm card to complete an 1887 set, as well as full pose runs of some pretty tough cards.
People already collect the 1886 "dotted ties" subset. Everyone knows they're scarce.
I have the "hodge podge" of years you describe. I can't imaging taking what I've acquired so far and breaking it up into 7 sets, honestly it seems silly to me. I'm really happy it's catalogued the way it is.
|
Good point, Matt. It would at least be theoretically easier, though still insanely difficult. Another thing that I've been thinking is that the 1887 set would really have to be broken up into type A and B since those designs are different.
Maybe the OJ set is a hodge podge and I am just a purist. I don't know. I like the idea of collecting a series, or a subset with a series, like Joe did with the 1887 Fa cards. Another problem I've noticed is that I think there were Fb poses that weren't in Fa.
It really would be cool to have a set where the numbers on the card matched the checklist. I'm not still against the idea of breaking the set up into different years, but upon further review I can see that there are certain obstacles that I hadn't before considered.