Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_G.
Personally, I would support breaking the set into the following:
N172-1 = 1886-1887 Script
N172-2 = 1887 Short Number
N172-3A & 3B = 1887 "0" Number (A & B referring to the type)
N172-4 = 1888 Fa
N172-5 = 1888 Fb
N172-6 = 1889
N172-7 = 1890
In each case, I would order the cards in alphabetical order. I do collect the 28 sequential "0" numbers from 0481 to 0508 as these represent the Detroit Wolverines. One might expect me to like the idea of ordering them as Goodwin did; but not the case. I would like to see the cards in alphabetical order for consistency.
So my beloved NL Detroit Wolverines would all fall under N172-3A and N172-5 (with a small number of re-issues showing up as N172-4)
An alternate naming convention could be as follows (non-conventional naming, but easier for those of us who have studied the set for many years):
N172 Script
N172 Short Number
N172 "0" Number
N172 Fa
N172 Fb
N172 Fc
N172 Fc NL/PL
I'm also OK leaving it as just N172  |
Joe, thank you for your response. I'm hearing what you're saying about the complexity of the set and the many different sub-types. First question is: theoretically, if you chose to break the 1887 into Short and "0" Number subsets, would you recategorize the boxers, celebrities, actors and actresses as n172's? Because they are currently n171's and n174's. And what would be the harm in combining the "O" and Short Series into an umbrella 1887 baseball set? Isn't that why most series are called "series" and not "sets", because the series is contained within the set?
I hear what you're saying about alphabetical order being more consistent, but then there is the problem that because they are alphabetical, the grading companies fail to distinguish between poses, while if they were categorized by numbers, the poses would be automatically recorded as the pop report would report the number of the card.
Another problem with alphabetical, remember, is then you have to create an entirely new numbering system apart from what is already on the card, and the convenience of knowing the number by looking at the card is lost. So I'm not sure whether making it alphabetical and creating a new numbering system really makes things more simple as opposed to more confusing?
Also, what you're suggesting is a rather either/or scenario between the two extremes of categorizing everything according to the smallest detail, or lumping everything together under the moniker of "n172". Either way, it makes it almost impossible to get a set together, because getting every n172 card is basically impossible, but also breaking everything down by subset makes collecting each subset a near impossibility (for instance, 1888 Fa and Fb). Why not just combine things like Fa and Fb into an umbrella "1888" so collectors can include both of them in an 1888 set and therefore make it more attainable?
Thanks
J