Type Card Collecting

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Some type card catagories can not be completed because one or more sets are represented by unique or nearly unique examples which are not anticipated to become available.

I think this applies to t-cards and n-cards. If this is correct, does it also apply to e-cards? How about others? H, F, D, M, R, W, etc. What type sets can be completed?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

There are several type collectors on the board, myself being one of them. Also, with escalating prices I think type collecting, in some form or fashion, will continue to gain popularity. I made a personal rule to go by the ACC some time ago. This does leave out many rare uncat cards though. As far as I am aware the only real issue will be with the T cards. The T231 would be somewhat impossible . It is the only unique card set I am aware of, with only 1 being known.....Otherwise, I think they all should be able to be finished. Glen V., Eric, and some others know more than I do about this stuff....Also, I think when you collect particular groups it can be considered type cards too. As Hal always says....Collect What You Like...or something like that...regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

Depends on if you stick to ACC #s, include different backs, type 2's, etc.

The near impossible E cards would be the E100-2, E107-2, and all over-print backs. Otherwise most E issues can be found, with the less available being the E271 Darby Chocolates (~45-50 known?). The E's will probably be the most expensive of the T, D, & E issues due to the G&B, Texas Tommy, Darby, AWH, etc.

Likewise, ignoring the T231 Fans, the basic T issues can be found with the T208 Fireside and T4 Obak being the biggest hurdle (I consider the T215 Pirate a back variation). Adding back variations becomes very expensive and next to impossible (5 T207 Red Cross backs?). Non ACC #s adds the tough Derby Cigar and All-Star Baseball (really tough if you don't want the top trimmed off)

The only real tough D's are the Tarzan Bread and Clement Brothers, unless you include the Niagra Baking overprint back.

The H's have 3 years of Boston Garters, Welton Cigars, and Western Playgrounds. Better have lots of money to consider these.

The F's only big challenge is the Lummis Peanut Butter (1949, so you can skip this if you stick to pre-war.) The F-Unc add some tougher issues, but most can be found and don't cost too much.

Of course you don't have to collect every issue to be a type collector. Like Leon said, collect what you want.

.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

What All Star Baseball are you referring to? The Chance I have, without the top or bottom being cut off, was on a candy box, I believe....Scott M. has a whole set of them.....the only complete set known.......btw, I guess I did leave out the backs....it would be almost impossible to complete most of the sets if you include the different backs...as there are many uniquely known....regards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

Oops, I put the All Star Base-Ball under T cards instead of E cards. Yes Leon, the ones you and Scott have. http://www.oldcardboard.com/e/e2/all-star-bb/all-star-bb.asp?cardsetID=779 Was just trying to illustrate some choices - ignore the E-Unc All Star Base-Ball, add it too their list in any condition, or try to find the extremely rare full panel.

.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Don't forget the 1886 Hancock Clothing cards--only three known, all unique.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

The '55 Felin's Franks will be as tough or tougher than the Lumis..which could almost be considered a back variation of the Sealtest.. if i recall correctly...anyways that's post-war and not really to your point.

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

Welcome to my own personal hell when it comes to type cards. Many board members know that I collect Phillies from 1880 to 1980. 15 years ago I started a list of all known (at the time) Phillies cards and have tried to collect one of each. Being a school teacher, this is monetarily impossible. What makes it worse is the research turned up some truly difficult type cards. Lummis and Felins were both mentioned. There was actually a Lummis peanut butter card (Schoolboy Rowe)on ebay less than a month ago in horrible condition and it sold for far less than I thought it would. As far as I remember, I have never seen a Felin Frank for sale on ebay. I remember years ago, Lew Lipset had a handful in an auction. I also think Sports Cards Plus had one a few years back as well. Felins are still so rare that I do not think the checklist is complete. Lummis float around and are rather tough (about 10 times tougher than Sealtest). There are some unique 19th century stuff as well including some G&B and a Kalamazoo bat card. Type collecting is often started but rarely finished. I do know one collector who is going after only e-cards and he is still something like 5 types away from a master set of types after 25 years. Good luck all...

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Mosley

Glen,

First, thank you, because I wouldn't have a complete set of these without the help of yourself and Pete Calderon.

On the scarcity of the full panel All Star Baseball cards, I couldn't agree more.

Other than the ones in my posession and the two known full boxes, the only other full panel cards I've seen are Leons Chance and I believe Dan McKee has a Mack.

Interestingly enough, the only two doubles I had from this set were a full panel Chance and Mack which I basically "threw" in as extras to a small lot that I auctioned through REA in the 1990s.

There could very well be other full panel cards out there but I have never seen them for sale.

On the set as a whole, 8 of the cards (including the Cobb and Wagner) were not catalogued until I brought them to the attention of Bob Lemke so they are definitely rare in whatever form you can find them.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh Adams

I have a rather silly question. Why are these issues called "type card?" Is it becaue there are different variations, or 'types?' I was always curious about this, and would love to know, for my own education.

Thanks guys,

happy turkey day.

Go Go White Sox
2005 World Series Champions!

[Archive]

Posted By: dstudeba

murcerfan,

Actually the Felins Franks were never distributed and therefore at best can be considered marketing proofs, and at worst outright frauds. They have no place in any collection.

Sincerely yours,
Bitter underbidder on the last Felins card that came up for public sale.

[Archive]

Posted By: zach

Can't forget my new favorite, Voskamps. Prooduced in 1913, regional to Pittsburg, and they are yet to get an ACC number....anyone know why ? Is it because they dont fit in with any of the other letters ? Maybe they should create a C for coffee card even though theres only one more set issued with coffee, Leon posted a scan of it not too long ago.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

The general food category is "F", I believe. If Mr.Burdick didn't know about it then it didn't get an ACC number.....hence all of the cards we sometimes consider "uncat"....We do need to make a distinction whether something is uncat in the ACC or in Mr.Lemke's SCD though. For completing a type collection I personally am using the ACC....as if I were to use the SCD Big Book it would be impossible... regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

Josh - if a type collector gets a card from the T206 set, they have one card/example/"type" from the T206 set. That card is a T206 to everyone else, but a "type" to them. Now some sets are next to impossible to complete, and tend to be sold as type cards, since buyers are probably type collectors just looking for one card/player/team from that issue. Hope I answered your question.

Zach - The ACC #s were given years ago. Many people don't like the ACC #s and/or don't want to see updates. The ACC #s work great for W cards and a few other issues, but otherwise have limited use. What's an R319? Most collectors will just say '33 Goudey.

Type collectors tend to care because it breaks up card issues into catagories which can be used for realistic goals. Its easy for me to find all my caramel cards, just sort the spreadsheet by types and look at the E's. To limit a type collection, one can just go after ACC #s. To make it harder, add non-ACC cards: F-Unc Voskamps, E-Unc All Star Base-Ball, N-Unc Just So.

.

[Archive]

Posted By: zach

Gotcha Glenn, so as somewhat of a type collector I should refer to my voskamps as F-unc ? F standing for food ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

Another Oops. There is a letter for coffee. Forgot about the Arbuckle trade card, which is a K-7 or K-9 (arf, arf). Anyways, that would make the Voskamps a K-Unc.

OBC has a great web-page for type collectors: http://www.oldbaseball.com/refs/typecards.html
It lists all the ACC catagories. Also, it has a spreadsheet of card issues that can be downloaded. In excel, it's easy to sort on different columns and set it up by year, ACC type, set name, whatever.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

First, as a Phillies collector, are you familiar with Bob
Schmierer's...."100 Years of Phillies Memorabilia", pub-
lished in 1983. Bob, who is the promoter of the Philly
Show (1975-2005), has identified every Phillies' card
from 1887 to 1983 in his book.

He has listed 24 cards of the possible 30 in the 1955
Felin's Franks set.

This book is out of print. If you don't have it and are
interested I might still have a copy somewhere in my
inventory.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric

Hey guys,

Firstly, thanks for the props Leon. : )

Glen has done an excellent job explaining type cards, but there are a couple of other factors to consider. One is, the original ACC cataloged many card issues much differently than the letter/number combo's that we use today. The most obvious of these are "N" designated cards, which Burdick originally assigned to Central/South American Tobacco cards. As most of you know, "N" is the designation used for 19th century cards these days. For instance, a Burdick N561 refers to a 1943 baseball card set produced in Venezuela called Bigott Tobacco.
Many folks throughout the years have also assessed their own ACC designations to uncataloged issues. Some have stuck, some..well..didn't. A classic example of one that stuck was the W9316 strip card set. Not found in the original ACC book, this set was given it's designation from an eccentric collector who tried to modify many ACC designations, several years ago. As I understand it, his efforts were widely unaccepted, but interestingly enough..the W9316 label remained.

It's a little strange that Burdick didn't identify the Voskamps issue in his book, but I'm sure he just never saw the issue. As rare as they are, it's completely understandable. Had he seen them, they could have been placed into one of two different catagories, "F" for food inserted cards, or "K" (as Glen mentioned) for coffee. I like the "K" designation personally..but without a number after it..it's pretty pointless.

One piece of advice that I'd give type cards collectors (which I am not), is to understand which designations are truly correct. The best way to do this is by purchasing a copy of the ACC book (original copy or reprint will do). After studying it, I came up with my own complete ACC listing (according to Burdick, then by modernly accepted designations).

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

Ted,
I got the book about 8 months into my research and it was a tremendous help although woefully incomplete and wrong on some articles. It was a great help and I actually now own two copies of the book, one I wrote all over and one I have in nice condition. Thanks though...btw, my original Phillies list was 33 pages long with a 10 font. After 15 years of actively seeking Phillies, my wantlist is now 16 pages long with a 11 font. Progress was made.

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

From the T215 Pirate thread: Dan: "I think a type collection needs a TUnc. Pirate Cigarettes card, along with both T215-1 and T215-2 Red Crosses.", "Is there any basis in substance or fact for calling these cards T215s?"

As to ACC #s, there are plenty of errors. Why do both Texas Tommy sets have the same number when they are completely different? How did a cabinet with "Old Mill Cigarettes" printed on the back not end up as a T card? Why aren't T206s divided into subtypes for the different years/series? When it comes down to it, most people don't care about ACC #s, except for W issues and a few tobacco ones. Even as a type collector, I don't care about most ACC #s, except to give me some list to limit a type collection.

Dan, yes a true type set should have every issue, including the T215 Pirate. However, finding every type would be impossible. Most collectors may never even see, find for sale, or afford a Pirate, T231 Fans, Hancock Clothing, Alpha Photo Engraving, or a number of other issues. A T206 collector might accept that they'll probably never get a Plank or a Wagner and work on the set less the big 4. Likewise,a type collector needs a realistic goal. It might be collecting all the ACC #ed T cards (yes Leon, less the T231). Even that can be extremely difficult and expensive, but at least possible. Now a purist would want all the back variations and type IIs. But just completing a basic set of the 18 T cards from T200 to T217 is quite a challenge, due to the Fireside, Victory, and Mono. Throw in the T3,4,5,222,227,330,& 332 & I'd agree that they've completed the T cards (ok Leon, almost completed them). If they don't want to collect backs, subtypes, uncat. cards (like the Plow Boy or Derby), or college stuff (like T6 & T51 Murad), that's their choice. Make your own rules and collect what you want!

.

[Archive]

Posted By: Millerhouse

GlenV,

You've missed my point, I think. And, truly, as far as type card collecting goes, every collector should set his own goal and more power to him should he complete it.

My only point is that the American Card Catalog never designated Pirate Cigarette cards as T215s; T215 was assigned to the two Red Cross varieties. Somewhere along the way someone lumped the Pirate cards in with the Red Cross cards. Who did it, when and why? From where I sit, I can see no earthly reason whatsoever for connecting Pirates and Red Crosses. They share T206 designs with brown captions, but so do T206s and T213-1s. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of something that, to me, makes no sense.

Also, I suspect that SCD's checklist of Pirates is a fantasy. It lists 92 different, and I doubt that more than 92 total have been found. Again, I suspect that it was originally cadged from a T215-1 checklist, but my thesis is that there is absolutely no reason for making this connection.

Dan Gantt

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

What are "ACC" numbers?
Thanks!

[Archive]

Posted By: Keith O'Leary

The "A"merican "C"ard "C"atalog numbers are the designations Burdick assigned to the card sets.

Ex

N28.....N stands for 19th century tobacco, 28th set in the "N" group.

T206, 206th set in the 20th century tobacco card group. No, they aren't alphabetic .

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

And they aren't all baseball cards, but contain sets of fish, flowers, historical figures, automobiles, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Millerhouse

Keith,

Check out Burdick's original ACC catalogs. Nineteenth Century tobacco listings were given numbers only: #28, #29, #167, #172, etc. "N" listings were for South American sets or something equally unusual.

I'm not sure which resource first started applying "N"s to 19th Century tobacco, but it didn't occur until the 1970s, as I recall. Unfortunately, as I write this at work, I don't have my old reference works at hand to check where it first appeared. If I had to guess, I'd guess Bert Randolph Sugar did so in his old Sports Collectors Bibles.

Regards,

Dan Gantt

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I think you are correct. I believe many of our numbers today came from the Sports Collector Bibles, as you mentioned. I know the H998 of Western Playground did too. If you look closely at the ACC (and I know you have) there are many sets where the numbers today don't jive with ACC numbers. "WG" series of game cards is another. I am sure there are many more also. It does make it a little confusing as I continue my quest. For the most part I go back to the ACC for my numbers...but some are so out of date, and not used, that I would be the lone stranger if I categorized them all that way...So I tend to use what is common practice first and then in case of "what the heck do I do with this one?" I go back to the ACC....It's clear as mud.....best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Keith O'Leary

I'm embarassed . I can't believe I didn't realize that as I typed it, I guess I've been jaded as well . That did need clarified, thanks Dan.

 

I think Forbes & Mitchell added a couple of sets too.