Proposed Old Judge Reorganization

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Cy--please read the book and familiarize yourself with the series before you hypothesize. The Short Number series starts with card 1, Ike Weir a boxer, and goes to at least card 130, Cus Cuerrero, a pedestrian. The "0" Number series starts with card 01, Arthur Chambers a boxer, and goes to at least card 0575, Bill Phillips a baseball player. The numbering of the "0" Number set wasn't a continuation of the the Short Number set, it is a new set. And if you want to be really picky, the "0" Number set is really two sets, Type A and the shorter Type B. There is also probably a transition set between the Script cards and the Short Number series (Script cards with an Ax rather than an Ay company line).

Thanks Jay, I hadn't thought about that. I did read the book but my conclusions aren't always accurate, as you know. But regardless of the differences in the Short and Zero Series, they were both made in 1887 and there is no overlap, with the exception of one card so they could combined still be considered the same set. For instance, 50's Topps cards have high numbers series, different color backs, and so forth.

Not much more to say about it, except to each his own, and however a set is made, categorized or collected is open to interpretation.

[oldjudge]

You are not listening--there are a lot of overlaps, as in about 130(Short Number set 1-130, "0" Number set 01-0575). Most are not baseball player vs baseball player, but quite a few are.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

You are not listening--there are a lot of overlaps, as in about 130(Short Number set 1-130, "0" Number set 01-0575). Most are not baseball player vs baseball player, but quite a few are.

I went through the list, and all I can see as baseball vs. baseball overlaps are the ten Jim McCormick cards and Mascot Willie Hahm. But they could be catalogued with the overlap, i.e., just have two cards #'d 94... or have a 94a and 94b.

Another possibility would be to renumber in the cataloguing the ten McCormick cards using the #'s 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 28, 29, 30, and 31... those ten numbers are available since the overlap is non-baseball vs. non-baseball in those cases.

Not that it's perfect, but there are workarounds, and it is arguably superior to ignoring the numbers for every single card, and it allows for collectors to collect whichever set they wish such as 1887, 88, 89, etc.

P.S. They must have had quite a fascination with the "Belfast Spider" if they stuck him before King Kelly in the numbering!

[oldjudge]

No need to ignore anything--just consider each series as a separate entity.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

No need to ignore anything--just consider each series as a separate entity.

That would certainly be possible for those who wish to collect the pugilist/non-sports cards as well as the baseball. For those who wish to collect solely the baseball cards, it would be a way of condensing the two series into one 1887 OJ set.

[jcmtiger]

Seymore I was confused about Old Judge cards. Mainly about the Detroit Players. After many emails with Joe G. he set me free, he has the knowledge to help. Helped me with the 1887 Detroit players, the Fa, FB Detroit players and the international players.

email joe g he can help

Joe

[cyseymour]

Joe,

Any insight into why 1887 was divided into the Short Number set and the Zero set?

Also, do you think that, seeing that "n172" is only supposed to encompass baseball, 1887 OJ's could be broken into a baseball set since there are 575 baseball poses (excluding Willie Hahm) and the Zero set goes to 575? I am detecting some symmetry there...

Thanks