Old Judge question

[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.

[oldjudge]

Jamie--maybe this will help a little. The attached image is the Cartophilic Society listing for Dan Brouthers. Please excuse the marks; at one time this was a checklist for me. The Brouthers cards are first subdivided by pose, then by the way the name plate is presented, and finally as to which subset the card is in. BTW, it is no less correct to say the Old Judge "set" is really many sets, issued over several years, some of which were solely baseball sets, others which were multiple topic sets.

[cyseymour]

Jay, thanks for sharing. It is good to see that they were meticulous. As you know, I have my criticisms of certain organizational decisions that they made (and how some of those decisions have played out among grading companies, collectors, etc.) If you read what I wrote above in post #22 among other posts you'll see that I am among those who believe the OJ set is really multiple different sets. I may not agree with how the CSGB laid things out but it is very interesting to see their work and still wish it were accessible to every collector (maybe even published in the revised OJ book?). Thanks again for sharing...

[Joe_G.]

FWIW, the Old Judge book does provide an example of a full Carto listing on page 126. There you will find all the variations of one pose for Medoc Wise.