Old Judge question

[cyseymour]

Yes, like the grading companies, who are happy to tell you what to think, the book can help you to ignore your direct experience of observing the card. So if you have a card that says Copyright 1889, you can learn from the SGC experts that it is a 1887 Old Judge. And if you've got a card with the number "0137" on it, you can realize that in fact the experts in the OJ book will tell you that it is really numbered "252-2". This way you can learn to value expert opinion over what you see with your own eyes.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Yes, like the grading companies, who are happy to tell you what to think, the book can help you to ignore your direct experience of observing the card. So if you have a card that says Copyright 1889, you can learn from the SGC experts that it is a 1887 Old Judge. And if you've got a card with the number "0137" on it, you can realize that in fact the experts in the OJ book will tell you that it is really numbered "252-2". This way you can learn to value expert opinion over what you see with your own eyes.

You are combining two different things. The first number (0137) is the number in the 0 series of cards and isn't found on every old judge card. The book does list every card in this series (including the non baseball players) by their numbers in the appendix. The second number (252-2) is the pose number as distributed by the Cartophilic Society of Great Britain. Those two numbers are not to replace one another and the book acknowledges both and educates about both, but you would have to read the book to fully appreciate that.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

You are combining two different things. The first number (0137) is the number in the 0 series of cards and isn't found on every old judge card. The book does list every card in this series (including the non baseball players) by their numbers in the appendix. The second number (252-2) is the pose number as distributed by the Cartophilic Society of Great Britain. Those two numbers are not to replace one another and the book acknowledges both and educates about both, but you would have to read the book to fully appreciate that.

I have read the book (and I do appreciate it) but even if it were assigned a certain number by the Cartophilic Society, or whatever other experts there may be, I'll still trust my own eyes over the opinion of whatever expert there is, because my own eyes are my direct personal experience with the card.

So no matter how many experts there are out there who want to call the card 252-2, I am going to use my direct personal experience of viewing the card to know that it is really number 0137. If they happen to put an appendix in the back of their book that shows the card to be 0137, that only further undermines the case for the card being called 252-2.

I do want to say that I actually do enjoy reading the OJ book and it is a fabulous resource in many ways. The OJ authors are on this board and every indication has it that they are very nice guys. But I will still trust my own eyes when making an observation about a card over the opinions of grading companies, cartophilic societies and book authors.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I have read the book (and I do appreciate it) but even if it were assigned a certain number by the Cartophilic Society, or whatever other experts there may be, I'll still trust my own eyes over the opinion of whatever expert there is, because my own eyes are my direct personal experience with the card.

So no matter how many experts there are out there who want to call the card 252-2, I am going to use my direct personal experience of viewing the card to know that it is really number 0137. If they happen to put an appendix in the back of their book that shows the card to be 0137, that only further undermines the case for the card being called 252-2.

I do want to say that I actually do enjoy reading the OJ book and it is a fabulous resource in many ways. The OJ authors are on this board and every indication has it that they are very nice guys. But I will still trust my own eyes when making an observation about a card over the opinions of grading companies, cartophilic societies and book authors.

You really are missing the point the two numbers don't contradict each other. Not every card has a number. The number given by the CSGB is a pose number. It allows you to know what pose would be found in each subset and distinguish each. You can still use the short number or 0 numbers for their corresponding sets, but you can't use those numbers on sets that don't have them. At times the short number and 0 don't even correspond with numbers, and again, they cross over to subjects outside baseball. The CSGB number set is only for baseball poses (they have numbers for the other poses of non baseball players).

For instance tell me what number do your eyes see on the burns in the OP?

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

You really are missing the point the two numbers don't contradict each other. Not every card has a number. The number given by the CSGB is a pose number. It allows you to know what pose would be found in each subset and distinguish each. You can still use the short number or 0 numbers for their corresponding sets, but you can't use those numbers on sets that don't have them. At times the short number and 0 don't even correspond with numbers, and again, they cross over to subjects outside baseball. The CSGB number set is only for baseball poses (they have numbers for the other poses of non baseball players).

For instance tell me what number do your eyes see on the burns in the OP?

If you give any card two separate numbers, and on of those numbers is found on the card itself, and the other number isn't, then which number is really the number of the card? I'll tell you that it is the number found on the card. The CSGB can give it whatever number they wish, but so could anyone, and in that perspective the Mack could have an infinite amount of numbers associated with it... but you are missing something quite obvious... despite the potentially infinite amount of numbers a card could have, there is an actually number printed on the card itself that it does have.

The CSGB, they can use whatever methods they wish, but that doesn't mean the card is really number 252-2. Same for SGC. They could say that a Burns card is "1887 Old Judge" although it is says "Copyright 1889" on it, they have a right to call it whatever they want. If they wanted to call it a 625 B.C. Old Judge, they could call it that, but that wouldn't make it any more produced in 625 B.C. than in was in 1887. No matter what their methods, both of those numbers are equally wrong because it was really produced in 1889.

So by your standards, anything could be called anything if some grading company or cartophilic society said so. If they decided to call a "hat" a "shoe", and vice versa, you'd be putting shoes on your head and walking down to the drugstore in your new pair of hats. Now, they might have their reasons for doing it, but that is their business - I know what a hat and I know what a shoe is, and I've never walked to the drugstore in my new pair of hats or worn shoes on my head. Not sure if you can say the same.

[cyseymour]

Here is an amazing T206 Wagner PSA 8... despite appearances of trimming, the card is obviously untrimmed, because otherwise it would not have received a numerical grade:

[oldjudge]

Jamie--the two numbers denote two different things. The number in the book is the pose number, which may refer to cards in multiple series with the same image. The "0" number you are referring to is the number of the card in the zero number series. One does not replace the other, they compliment each other, each providing different information.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

If you give any card two separate numbers, and on of those numbers is found on the card itself, and the other number isn't, then which number is really the number of the card? I'll tell you that it is the number found on the card. The CSGB can give it whatever number they wish, but so could anyone, and in that perspective the Mack could have an infinite amount of numbers associated with it... but you are missing something quite obvious... despite the potentially infinite amount of numbers a card could have, there is an actually number printed on the card itself that it does have.

The CSGB, they can use whatever methods they wish, but that doesn't mean the card is really number 252-2. Same for SGC. They could say that a Burns card is "1887 Old Judge" although it is says "Copyright 1889" on it, they have a right to call it whatever they want. If they wanted to call it a 625 B.C. Old Judge, they could call it that, but that wouldn't make it any more produced in 625 B.C. than in was in 1887. No matter what their methods, both of those numbers are equally wrong because it was really produced in 1889.

So by your standards, anything could be called anything if some grading company or cartophilic society said so. If they decided to call a "hat" a "shoe", and vice versa, you'd be putting shoes on your head and walking down to the drugstore in your new pair of hats. Now, they might have their reasons for doing it, but that is their business - I know what a hat and I know what a shoe is, and I've never walked to the drugstore in my new pair of hats or worn shoes on my head. Not sure if you can say the same.

Wow, I don't know what is so hard for you to understand about this. The two numbers are not associated nor are they replacements. Also I was the one that pointed out that there are several years of cards that the TPGs don't acknowledge. Read through the posts again.

The CSGB numbers are for the poses themselves. They help to oragnize what pose can be found in each subset of Old Judges they do not diminish the numbers on the short number of "0" series cards. You can still use the short number's number on the card to build a set for just that set, but if you want to build across all the years and layouts it is good to know what pose can be found across each set. Not every sub set of N172 has a number on it and the two that do have contradicting numbers. THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO BE INTERCHANGEABLE.

Number on the card is the number in the set
Number from CSGB is the number used for the pose
Not every pose is found in the short number or 0 Series cards so there are many cars without an original number given to them, then to top it off some of those cards that do have numbers contradict numbers in the next set.

So instead of thinking they are replacing the number think of it like this: No one is saying card 0137 is actually 252-2. They are saying card 0137 has pose 252-2 on it. I don't know how I could make this anymore clear to you.

The classification by pose allows people to collect by pose rather than by subset if wanted.

[bn2cardz]

I have to add, I know all this information because I read the book.