Proposed Old Judge Reorganization

[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.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by 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.

Good point, Matt. It would at least be theoretically easier, though still insanely difficult. Another thing that I've been thinking is that the 1887 set would really have to be broken up into type A and B since those designs are different.

Maybe the OJ set is a hodge podge and I am just a purist. I don't know. I like the idea of collecting a series, or a subset with a series, like Joe did with the 1887 Fa cards. Another problem I've noticed is that I think there were Fb poses that weren't in Fa.

It really would be cool to have a set where the numbers on the card matched the checklist. I'm not still against the idea of breaking the set up into different years, but upon further review I can see that there are certain obstacles that I hadn't before considered.

[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.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

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.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Anyways, it seems this thread has about run its course... doesn't look like change is imminent, but nevertheless it was an interesting conversation and I thank both Joe and Jay, as well as everyone else, for their contributions. Maybe one day the set really will be re-examined, but for now it seems that there are enough collectors who are content with the current structure to make a re-org superfluous. Either way, I very much enjoyed our conversation and learning more about the set, so thanks again to everyone who participated.