Old Judge question

[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.