Old Judge question

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Good job Andy. It's always nice to see that someone has actually taken the time to read what we have written.

That book is an invaluable tool for collecting the n172 and all the corresponding sets. It has helped me understand the set a lot better. I just wish the grading companies would buy a book for a reference tool .

[oldjudge]

They have actually bought quite a few copies. I know SGC bought multiple copies and I think PSA did also. Reading the books, however, may be another issue.

[cyseymour]

It is not a knock on the book. I simply don't agree with the numbering system created by the CSGB. There are better ways to go about it, imo. Yes, the CSGB system goes by pose - even people who haven't read the book should realize that. My view is that's not the best approach for the following reasons:

1. Since the CSGB system doesn't factor in year, it has lead the grading companies to apathetically label all the cards "1887 Old Judge". They have been getting away with it because the system is set up so that the cards aren't organized according to year in the CSGB, so the grading companies feel they don't need to distinguish between year. This is really silly because the cards themselves say things like "copyright 1889" on them - and that leads to threads like this one as started by the OP.

2. Since the CSGB doesn't consider subset or year, it means that numbers are given to cards which already have numbers. Since some cards already have numbers, it would be better to go to a system which didn't use numbers. That way it avoids giving cards which already have numbers and second number. There is no precedent I can think of for doing that within the hobby. If you've got a different example of when a card which had a certain number directly on the card was assigned a number which is not on the card, I'd love to see it. Either way, it is counter-intuitive and I find it a flaw in the system.

3. The CSGB system, as it is comprised, creates a single set which is 2500+ cards in size. This is simply too large. Yes, there is one or two collectors who may be attempting to complete it, but 99%+ of collectors would have no chance at all. I mean, no chance of even coming close. Breaking down the set, it would still be quite difficult to complete, but it wouldn't be nearly as difficult, and completing a subset or getting close to completing one is far more attainable than attempting to complete an entire 2500+ set.

4. The CSGB numbering system has very little practical function. If you told a collector you just purchased card number 122-5, he wouldn't understand which card you were talking about anyways. But if you told him that you just acquired a Harry Decker Throwing, he would instantly know which card you were talking about. In that case, what is the point of giving the card a number? There are myriad cards from other sets that are just listed as the player and pose without providing a number. So I see no reason to create new numbers or even think about the numbers unless you are collecting a 1887 numbered subset - for which the numbers already exist anyways.

5. Finally, let me say that, by jumbling all the different subsets together, the CSGB pays short shrift to many of the beautiful and interesting variations within Old Judge cards - year, design, subset, etc. The CSGB system obfuscates them instead of allowing them to shine so that collectors can have different aims and highlight the diversity of cards and years within the set.

For those reasons, I believe the CSGB system to be detrimental to OJ collectiing. You all have a right to disagree, but please make your points based on the cards themselves, instead of accusations that either a) I don't understand the book, or b) that everything which is in the book must be the correct way of doing things. The former is false and the latter is dogma. If you think the CSGB system is fantastic and I am completely mistaken, come and tell me why in your own words. But I feel like I have a right to make my criticisms of that system.

Thanks

[RCMcKenzie]

Everyone collects the set differently. From the way I see it, it is impossible to complete a "full set", as there are simply too many variations. It would be interesting to see all 60-80 scans of Johnz28's player run, to see just how many variations he has between the two poses.

I assume that some people consider these two cards to be the same card. An "0126" or an "285-1". In my mind, these are two completely different Mack Right Hand Held High variations.

The pose number is helpful in communicating with other collectors, because they either know 285-1 is this Mack pose, or they can quickly look it up. Just like people understand what I mean if I say, "Park in the driveway", or "Drive on the parkway".

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I assume that some people consider these two cards to be the same card. An "0126" or an "285-1". In my mind, these are two completely different Mack Right Hand Held High variations.

I completely agree they are not the same card. Which is why I don't think they ought to be treated as such, like they are in the CSGB system.

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

The pose number is helpful in communicating with other collectors, because they either know 285-1 is this Mack pose, or they can quickly look it up.

Hardly anyone would know 285-1 is that Mack pose, so instead of calling it 285-1, why not just call it "Mack Right Hand Held High" in the first place, like you yourself did in the previous paragraph, so that collectors can immediately understand it without having to look it up?

[RCMcKenzie]

The Mack I used as an example is sort of an iconic card that collectors recognize if I say, Mack rhh or Mack right hand neck high.

If I used a Mike Dorgan fielding card as an example it would get really confusing.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

If I used a Mike Dorgan fielding card as an example it would get really confusing.

Even for Dorgan, it is not that hard to differentiate. There are five different fielding poses (some descriptions taken from VCP):

Catch-both hands above head ball at fingers
grounder-squat hands on ground
Bent over to catch ball below knees
Bent over and leaning left
Catch - hands at face level

Another thing is that a lot of those Dorgan poses already have numbers on them. Not all of them were necessarily produced in 1888 or 89... so a lot of those cards can simply be identified by the numbers which already exist on the cards themselves.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I completely agree they are not the same card. Which is why I don't think they ought to be treated as such, like they are in the CSGB system.

You are still missing everything. The CSGB doesn't consider those the same card it would be the same pose but then CSGB would break it down by year and subset within the year. You may be confused because the book only shows one variation of each pose instead of showing every variation of every pose. Yet the detailed CSGB lists every pose and every year and every variation. It is very detailed. I just wish I could get my hands on the list.

This was all covered in another thread. I guess you didn't get the answers you wanted so you hijacked this one.

The numbering system for the poses is for cataloging them. You saying that the cards should just be described could be compared to getting upset that the library uses a Dewey Decimal System in their card catalogs instead of just using the names of the books. Or the fact that the stores use bar code numbers instead of typing in the description of every product.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

You are still missing everything. The CSGB doesn't consider those the same card it would be the same pose but then CSGB would break it down by year and subset within the year. You may be confused because the book only shows one variation of each pose instead of showing every variation of every pose. Yet the detailed CSGB lists every pose and every year and every variation. It is very detailed. I just wish I could get my hands on the list.

I didn't know that - if that's the case, then the information should be transferred over to the OJ book and the set registries. This supports my argument that the OJ set is really 6 or 7 different sets in its entirety. That doesn't mean I agree with the concept giving each pose a number, because I still don't see the purpose of it.

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

This was all covered in another thread. I guess you didn't get the answers you wanted so you hijacked this one.

I was just answering his question...

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

The numbering system for the poses is for cataloging them. You saying that the cards should just be described could be compared to getting upset that the library uses a Dewey Decimal System in their card catalogs instead of just using the names of the books. Or the fact that the stores use bar code numbers instead of typing in the description of every product.

Right, except a library uses a Dewey Decimal system because there are tens of thousands of books - even within that, many books have the same Dewey decimal. With OJ cards, the players are already sorted by last name (the front part of the number is simply synonymous with a last name) and then within the category of the last name, you can find the pose. No different than several different books having the same Dewey decimal.

Stores have bar code numbers because they use an electronic system and if the product doesn't scan the cashier can punch in the bar code. Unless you plan to purchase your OJ's at your local CVS, I don't see how that's relevant to the conversation.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Everyone collects the set differently. From the way I see it, it is impossible to complete a "full set", as there are simply too many variations. It would be interesting to see all 60-80 scans of Johnz28's player run, to see just how many variations he has between the two poses.

I wish I had 60-80! Sorry I don't have a better scan for detail, but yes you can see differences between cards that are the same variation. They have different locations for the Old Judge sign in the picture, different sizes and some don't even have it in the picture. Someday I'll get better individual scans