Proposed Old Judge Reorganization

[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?

[oldjudge]

What is your purpose for wanting to combine the Short Number and "0" Number series? It obviously isn't to aid in your own collecting--all the numbers are provided in the book so you have an effective checklist. Are you planning in trying to complete either of these series--my guess is no.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

What is your purpose for wanting to combine the Short Number and "0" Number series? It obviously isn't to aid in your own collecting--all the numbers are provided in the book so you have an effective checklist. Are you planning in trying to complete either of these series--my guess is no.

I have very little skin in the game. I'm just interested in the set, to be honest. My purpose for combining the Short and "O" series is that it would make it so that there could be the following sets:

1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
N173's
GQ's

This might be more efficient in the sense that it's generally the case in the hobby that sets are listed by year, and of course, the "0" and Short series have the same design, so it seems reasonable they ought to be included in the same set. It also eliminates the n171's and n174's which many don't want to collect since it is not baseball.

Those are my reasons for combining them, as for my reasons for having the conversation, I find it intellectually stimulating to think about things - and sometimes think differently. It could help the values of the cards, yes, but also I think it would enhance the enjoyment of the set since it would be easier to collect and complete the sets, as well as enjoy the use the original numbering system.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by 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?

Joe, I completely agree with pretty much everything you're writing here, thanks for making such a great synopsis. To answer your question, the way that I collect is already evolving, but really for me is more for the greater interest of the cards and the hobby.

That said, there are infinite amounts of ways to view a particular set. Someone could choose to color code a set, seeing that there are millions of colors, or use binary computer code (imagine describing my Connie Mack as "0111011010101"!!!!). There is no right or wrong... it's just that some systems or organizations might have certain benefits which I describe above.

So it's really not about judging people or how they've done things, just thinking outside the box to help advance the hobby, and maybe organize things in a way that could be perceived as more collector-friendly; but even that is subject to debate, as it should be.

Cheers

J

[RCMcKenzie]

Jaime,

Thanks for starting this thread. I have learned a lot from reading it. I collect by year, by player, and by team, but mostly I collect by "I'm going to try and win that card" (See Dell Darling port ebay last week(underbidder), or Mack in 1st post(underbidder). I try to buy when I can and usually lose. There are so many cards, and so many ways to collect, I like the current player system.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Jaime,

Thanks for starting this thread. I have learned a lot from reading it. I collect by year, by player, and by team, but mostly I collect by "I'm going to try and win that card" (See Dell Darling port ebay last week(underbidder), or Mack in 1st post(underbidder). I try to buy when I can and usually lose. There are so many cards, and so many ways to collect, I like the current player system.

Rob,

Sorry about the bad ebay luck. I was also an underbidder on the Dell Darling card (my snipe was a little low and never registered). Someone got a terrific card. Better luck in the future.

J

[Matthew H]

Cy, the system you're proposing isn't going to make collecting the set easier, it'll make it much harder. Right now, a player collector could get a player from any availible year, '86-'90, and be done with him. Trying to find a specific year for a pose makes things wayyy to complicated for most.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Cy, the system you're proposing isn't going to make collecting the set easier, it'll make it much harder. Right now, a player collector could get a player from any availible year, '86-'90, and be done with him. Trying to find a specific year for a pose makes things wayyy to complicated for most.

Matt, it would make it easier to collect an entire set since other it is more or less impossible to get every n172 due to the California OJ's and other extreme rarities. As for people collecting subsets, such as a specific team, position, HOFer, etc, they are more than welcome to make their own rules about crossing over between year since they are the ones deciding the terms of their own subset. It seems that Joe chose not to for his Detroit run but many other have chosen to (including myself).

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Cy, the system you're proposing isn't going to make collecting the set easier, it'll make it much harder. Right now, a player collector could get a player from any availible year, '86-'90, and be done with him. Trying to find a specific year for a pose makes things wayyy to complicated for most.

Originally Posted by cyseymour

As for people collecting subsets, such as a specific team, position, HOFer, etc, they are more than welcome to make their own rules about crossing over between year since they are the ones deciding the terms of their own subset.

People already make their own rules for collecting. Some people add Coupon cards in with their T206. People combine '14 and '15 cracker jacks. Organizing into the proper sets should be done to educate people on what they are collecting and what the possibilities are, it isn't meant to restrict someone into collecting something they don't want.

[cyseymour]

I do want to point out one other thing - while Joe G. does opine that he would rather view the cards alphabetically, his actual collection of Detroit players is very much aligned with how I propose to categorize OJ's. So while everyone else generally has a hodge-podge of different years and series, Joe himself is generally following the same guidelines that I propose in this thread.

This is not to say that he is doing so with any sort of malicious intent, just to note that in this particular instances, his opinions are incongruous with own actions with regards to how he is choosing to collect the set. I'm sure it wasn't his intent to mislead anyone, but, as they say, "actions speak louder than words."

[Matthew H]

Cy, I understand your point about team collecting... If I was collecting a specific team I'd probably want to buy every example that came up.

Proposing to break up the set by year is not going to make anything easier. 1889 OJs probably pop up the most frequent, but cal leagues OJs are 1889,,,, so it's impossible to complete an 1889 set without an incredible find.

Most of the other extremely rare cards are 1888 so good luck with that.

You'll need a Hahm card to complete an 1887 set, as well as full pose runs of some pretty tough cards.

People already collect the 1886 "dotted ties" subset. Everyone knows they're scarce.

I have the "hodge podge" of years you describe. I can't imaging taking what I've acquired so far and breaking it up into 7 sets, honestly it seems silly to me. I'm really happy it's catalogued the way it is.

[Joe_G.]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I do want to point out one other thing - while Joe G. does opine that he would rather view the cards alphabetically, his actual collection of Detroit players is very much aligned with how I propose to categorize OJ's. So while everyone else generally has a hodge-podge of different years and series, Joe himself is generally following the same guidelines that I propose in this thread.

This is not to say that he is doing so with any sort of malicious intent, just to note that in this particular instances, his opinions are incongruous with own actions with regards to how he is choosing to collect the set. I'm sure it wasn't his intent to mislead anyone, but, as they say, "actions speak louder than words."

Truth is, I collect absolutely any and all Detroit cards, all variations. It just so happens that the 1887 "0" numbered cards are easiest and they were the first subset I completed. The fact that Detroit won the World Championship in 1887 makes that subset a little extra special. All the 1887 Detroit players would be re-issued cards in 1888 as either Fa or Fb (in the case of Wiedman, a team change card showing him with the NY Giants). Additionally, new Detroit players were introduced (all the new players are Fb). Finally, in 1889, with the Detroit NL team dis-banded, a new Detroit team was formed to compete in the International Association. Goodwin & Co. did Detroit proud by issuing a number of 1889 cards for these minor league players (all team change cards themselves). I collect them all but do sort them by subset in my personal collection. I also collect the GQs and cabinets. Any photographic Goodwin & Co. card or cabinet featuring a Detroit player is of interest to me. I will collect them this way regardless of how the set or sets are catalogued.