Old Judge question

[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.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by 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.

Matt, I just have a different way of viewing the cards, is all. I didn't have much interest in reopening the conversation, but when the OP posted ridiculing the SGC flip, things just went in that direction with Andy, mainly because the whole reason behind the grading companies putting 1887 on everything is that they see no incentive to get the year correct since it doesn't conflict with the system of identifying each card by pose and neglecting year and type.

[cyseymour]

Let me just say one more thing before I wrap this up, as I'm flying out tomorrow and will be occupied with other stuff like actually looking at baseball cards:

Mike Dorgan is numbered 132 by CSGB. No cards that aren't Dorgan are numbered 132. No Dorgan cards are numbered anything other than 132. If that's the case, what's the purpose of the number 132? Why not just call it "Dorgan"?

Can you see how those numbers are completely useless? The only reason why you're thinking of them is because they are already there... but they have no practical application.

[cyseymour]

Andy, give it a rest. You are acting like you are this all-knowing being who is trying to educate me. Come at me like an equal and stop with this condescending nonsense. Per hijacking the thread, as I explained earlier, it is on the topic of why the flips are wrong (that being the failed system in place), and quite frankly, you have played just as much a role in this with your own responses as I have.

Just saying that I don't know what I'm talking about doesn't cut it - you have to make counter-points based on the arguments at hand. As far as I can tell, much of what you have written has failed to hold water. No, I didn't know that the CSGB separated the cards by year and type as well, but that only supports my arguments. And at least I'm secure enough to say when I don't know something. It doesn't mean I'm wrong in my arguments just because I didn't know some tidbit about the CSGB (a tidbit which supports my argument, btw).

Goodnight everyone.

[RCMcKenzie]

John, thanks for that scan. I think your collection illustrates why this set is so difficult to categorize. It's not like the caramel set of 30, (which I think is also a cool set), where you can collect all 30, and move on to another set.

If there is an existing CSGB that has information that they are withholding, that seems preposterous to me. The collecting community of these cards is relatively small. If my bid gets blown out of the water on ebay or at an auction house, there's a good chance it's by one of the folks that chime in on these threads. If you see a lot 2 OJ in a major auction, one of those guys probably consigned it.