How do you organize your binder sets?

[JollyElm]

245. Club Orthoboxy
Keeping your cards sorted by teams and not in numerical order.

[Bigdaddy]

All my binders are in numerical order. But yeah, I agree that the stars get lost and the order makes no sense.

As a kid, I kept teams together with a rubber band. Team card on front, then manager, then pitchers, then position players (1B, 2B, 3B, SS, C, OF) and then any multiplayer RCs. They were all in shoeboxes, so no order of the teams themselves.

If I was to put a set in a binder by team, I'd arrange the teams by League and Division (AL East, Central, West, etc.) and in the order of their finish the year of the cards.

Within a team - Team card, manager, and then alphabetical order for players, RCs last. Then finish with league leaders, and other multi-team cards grouped together.

I'm working on a second 1980T set now and still have it in a box. Maybe I'll try doing this with it when I'm done.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Admittedly my '50 Bowman partial isn't in a binder, but I am enjoying this discussion nonetheless. I display many of my cards, so some of my '50 Bowmans (Jackie, Ted, Yogi, and Duke) are in Pro Mold one screw holders in my card room. The rest reside in Card Saver 2s or their Ultra Pro equivalent in a box. I like having them in these because I can take them out of the box and see them individually and rearrange them on a whim. For instance, I've had them in numerical order since I started buying them a while back, but last night I sorted them all out by team. It's hard to explain, but the process was a blast and it made me see the cards in a whole new light! It was neat seeing the 16 teams represented in the two 8 team leagues as they once were. It was interesting seeing how many Tigers I have for example and the construction of that team for that year. It was also very telling to see how Bowman opted to depict certain teams that year. I haven't gone back and counted, but it felt like some teams had more posed action shots than others, home vs road uniforms, etc. I know, I'm a nerd. After reading the comments in this thread, I may go back and organize each team further by position and later I might switch up by alphabetical order. I like this process so much that I think I'm going to rearrange my '52 Bowman and '53 Topps sets as well.

I know this may sound crazy, but it's so easy to get into a rut no matter how much you like the cards. I find myself on the hunt constantly for more instead of simply enjoying and treasuring what I already have. This thread has nudged me back in that direction. That's especially important right now considering that prices have risen for many cards. I had made up my mind I didn't want to set build anymore but as I said this thread is making me see the cards in a fresh way again. I think I may go on ahead in the future and try to finish '50 Bowman (including the copyright/no copyright variations). It makes more sense to my brain to add new cards to their team. I can still track my overall progress with my checklist just as I was. Thanks for this thread, guys.

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

last night I sorted them all out by team. It's hard to explain, but the process was a blast and it made me see the cards in a whole new light! It was neat seeing the 16 teams represented in the two 8 team leagues as they once were. It was interesting seeing how many Tigers I have for example and the construction of that team for that year. It was also very telling to see how Bowman opted to depict certain teams that year. I haven't gone back and counted, but it felt like some teams had more posed action shots than others, home vs road uniforms, etc. I know, I'm a nerd. After reading the comments in this thread, I may go back and organize each team further by position and later I might switch up by alphabetical order. I like this process so much that I think I'm going to rearrange my '52 Bowman and '53 Topps sets as well.

I also have a much greater appreciation for the teams and the set as a whole after having done my '79 set this way. You do start to see patterns and differences with the teams in ways that you'd never realize when sorting numerically.

I decided to do mine this way:

- Leader/Record/WS cards

- Teams, each organized by team/manager card, starting pitchers, then 2-9 position starters in order, then relief pitchers, then utility players, and then multi-player RCs. Baseball Reference makes all this information super easy to find.

- Teams start with WS winner from the previous year, followed by the league runner up (championship series loser), and then the rest of the teams from that league, in order of win %.

- Checklists in the middle to separate AL from NL (or vice-versa).

- WS runner-up, followed by the league runner up, and then the rest of the teams from that league, in order of win %.

It takes a lot more effort than numerical order, but it's a fun project. For those who haven't organized by team before, here's what it ends up looking like. I'm halfway through putting the '79s into binders, so here's everything through the checklists. I put them in 18-slot pages with a black insert so they really pop.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by Bliggity

I also have a much greater appreciation for the teams and the set as a whole after having done my '79 set this way. You do start to see patterns and differences with the teams in ways that you'd never realize when sorting numerically.

I decided to do mine this way:

- Leader/Record/WS cards

- Teams, each organized by team/manager card, starting pitchers, then 2-9 position starters in order, then relief pitchers, then utility players, and then multi-player RCs. Baseball Reference makes all this information super easy to find.

- Teams start with WS winner from the previous year, followed by the league runner up (championship series loser), and then the rest of the teams from that league, in order of win %.

- Checklists in the middle to separate AL from NL (or vice-versa).

- WS runner-up, followed by the league runner up, and then the rest of the teams from that league, in order of win %.

It takes a lot more effort than numerical order, but it's a fun project. For those who haven't organized by team before, here's what it ends up looking like. I'm halfway through putting the '79s into binders, so here's everything through the checklists. I put them in 18-slot pages with a black insert so they really pop.

That sounds like a lot of fun, Dan. And I understand what you mean by how it makes you notice things about the sets you wouldn't otherwise have noticed. I don't have the data in front of me, but I was doing this with my '53 Topps set this weekend. Some teams had an inordinate number of pitchers represented and few infielders and outfielders. Some had like three catchers pictured and fewer pitchers. Maybe the Topps/Bowman contract battle played into that. Maybe some guys just wouldn't sign, and maybe the companies felt some players just weren't worth the effort. Some teams were represented by coaches/managers, while others weren't. Like you said, it's more work, but I'm always looking for an excuse to play with my cards. Most of my cards are 50s, but I do have some 70s and 80s sets that I might take out and rearrange as you're describing. I like that a lot. You know how it goes when you're working on a set, it can get mundane and if you don't watch it, it's easy to fall into a rut of just checking off commons. Organizing them by team almost makes it feel like a subset or something. It provides a little more meaning and fun for me. To be honest, I was done with set building, but this thread got me to looking at commons and lesser stars I had left for dead. I feel energized again, and I'm excited about what's to come!

[Bigdaddy]

One thing that sticks out when organizing by team is the photography. In the 1979 example, some teams have 10+ action photos while other teams have none. I'm assuming many of the posed photos were taken in spring training and the action photos were taken during the season (or previous season). And probably most of a team's photos were taken by the same photographer; you can pick up on the photographer's choices of poses or action photos.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

One thing that sticks out when organizing by team is the photography. In the 1979 example, some teams have 10+ action photos while other teams have none. I'm assuming many of the posed photos were taken in spring training and the action photos were taken during the season (or previous season). And probably most of a team's photos were taken by the same photographer; you can pick up on the photographer's choices of poses or action photos.

I'm going to have to get my '79 set out soon.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk