Old Judge question

[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.

[cyseymour]

Here's how I would break it down (and consider each "subset" its own set):

1886 Script
1887 Type A
1887 Type B
1888
1889
1890 P.L.
Gypsy Queen

I wouldn't split 1888 into Type A and B subsets because they are so similar in appearance that the difference is negligible.

For 1887 you have the zero-numbered cards and regular numbered cards, plus some type A's without a number. But they are all produced in pretty much the same type, so they ought to be combined into one set (excluding the non-baseball cards, or perhaps having a master 1887 Type A set with all the non-baseball type A's included in addition the basic 1887 Type A baseball set).

The California League cards are all 1889 so that makes it the toughest one to complete, but still easier to collect most of the 1889 set than having to tackle all 2500+ cards in the current system.

The above approach would create much more symmetric, aesthetically pleasing collections than the current mish-mash of different types and subsets which comprise of most collections.

[Joe_G.]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Here's how I would break it down (and consider each "subset" its own set):

1886 Script
1887 Type A
1887 Type B
1888
1889
1890 P.L.
Gypsy Queen

I wouldn't split 1888 into Type A and B subsets because they are so similar in appearance that the difference is negligible.

For 1887 you have the zero-numbered cards and regular numbered cards, plus some type A's without a number. But they are all produced in pretty much the same type, so they ought to be combined into one set (excluding the non-baseball cards, or perhaps having a master 1887 Type A set with all the non-baseball type A's included in addition the basic 1887 Type A baseball set).

The California League cards are all 1889 so that makes it the toughest one to complete, but still easier to collect most of the 1889 set than having to tackle all 2500+ cards in the current system.

The above approach would create much more symmetric, aesthetically pleasing collections than the current mish-mash of different types and subsets which comprise of most collections.

I agree with most of the subsets you listed, but differ as follows. Short number should be separated from the long or leading "0" number cards since there is so much overlap. 100 is McCormick, 0100 is Fogarty. A further complication arises when you consider that many of the numbered cards can be found with or without a number (true for both short and "0" numbered cards). There are also some errors where the same pose can be found with two different numbers or two different poses share the same number.

I would certainly separate Fa from Fb, they do not look nearly identical in my eyes and cover very different groupings of cards with a little overlap. All Chicago Maroons for example are Fb.

1890 deserves to be separate but should be labeled as both NL & PL.

Furthermore, I'd separate the small Gypsy Queens from the large.

[CaramelMan]

thank you to the OJ experts for explaining and showing....

I understand..does ANDY?

[RCMcKenzie]

To me, it's easier to say, " I have Dorgan, 132-9", than to say, "I have a Dorgan fielding, you know the one where his knees are bent, and his right leg is further back than his left leg, and both his hands are cupped, and he is looking down. You know? That one."

I don't think we have compiled enough information on the set to start excluding previous information. I think more people should collect and write articles and start threads and write books about n172 and n173. It's an interesting set to collect and discuss.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

To me, it's easier to say, " I have Dorgan, 132-9", than to say, "I have a Dorgan fielding, you know the one where his knees are bent, and his right leg is further back than his left leg, and both his hands are cupped, and he is looking down. You know? That one."

I don't think we have compiled enough information on the set to start excluding previous information. I think more people should collect and write articles and start threads and write books about n172 and n173. It's an interesting set to collect and discuss.

Wouldn't you just say, "I have Dorgan, 0327", which is the actual number on the card? And when would you even be saying all these numbers anyways, when virtually everything is communicated via scans on internet auction websites? Has ever an auction occurred where a bidder didn't know what a card was because the auctioneer neglected to put the CSGB catalog number in the description?

[Matthew H]

Cy, why do you argue this point so often? If you want to collect a specific year then just do so. Why do you care how other people collect? From my perspective, the absolute best way to collect is by the player. I don't really care what the border looks like, though I do like the look of the 1888 fb cards.

[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.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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.

It is about time you admit you don't know what you are talking about. Also, I am not an author, but from what I understand through communications with one author is that they don't have the rights to distribute the information gathered by the CSGB.

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I was just answering his question...

Your first post did, your second post is where you decided to hijack this thread to rehash your thoughts already expressed in a previous thread.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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.

I am already having a tough time trying to educate you on the cataloging of this particular thing, but I will try to explain the correlation of the UPC and the n172 cataloging. The UPCs first six digits are the manufacturer and the next 5 are the item number. So yes the UPS is good for entering into a machine, but there is a method to it that allows the stuff to be cataloged using numbers. The numbers are for people that use data bases and need to catalog the cards. For someone that just picks up one or two wouldn't care about cataloging, but when the CSGB (or other researchers) are trying to track EVERY pose it makes it easier.

[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