[Joe_G.]

Many different options. I can see the benefit of listing by year, throwing all the various types from that year together, perhaps as follows:

1886-87 Script
1887 Numbered (includes short number & both type A & B long /"0" numbered)
1888 (both Fa & Fb)
1889 (Fc)
1890 (Fc NL/PL)

Maybe even just call the Script 1886 to avoid overlapping with the numbered cards even though some script cards absolutely date to 1887.

No strong opinion on the N171 and N174 issues. They deserve to be split up just like the baseball cards above, but I don't much like the idea of trying to list all the Fb actress cards to join the baseball cards. By 1888, I believe Goodwin primarily issued baseball cards during the baseball season and actress cards during the winter (at least in the US). They really could and should be considered separate issues. Its a tougher call during 1887 when the cards were likely issued together.

To recap, you could separate the set out by year as shown above. Five sets in total. But I'd still prefer to separate out the short from long /"0" numbered. The reason for cataloging in the various ways I've suggested is to bring clarity to each individual type of Old Judge card. Each type of issue (short vs "0" number, Fa vs Fb) is different and easily identified if you know what to look for.

Despite all this conjecture, I'll restate that I'm also OK with just leaving them all lumped together as 1886-1890 N172s. There are more collectors who go after players, teams, poses they find interesting, or subsets within a given year than those who focus on just a particular year. The best solution for the complex set may be what we have today, an exhaustive listing of everything rolled into one alphabetic list.

If the OJ set were catalogued by year, would it change the way you collect the set?