Old Judge question

[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.