Proposed Old Judge Reorganization

[bn2cardz]

I recently asked both PSA and SGC if they had any plans to change their information to reflect the years that we now know for each series. They both said there weren't any plans to do this.

I too believe it would be nice to know what cards exist in each year and in each layout within each year. I have been trying to obtain this information but those that know the information haven't been able to give it out.

[barrysloate]

There would certainly be utility to adding the year to the mix, so you might have:

1888-John Smith- 252-5.

That would be helpful, without the need to change the numbering system currently in use.

[bn2cardz]

I still believe that even within the years there would be cause to put which style.

[bcbgcbrcb]

The Old Judge book produced by Jay, Richard & Joe breaks the entire set down by year as you would like to see it done. If all collectors followed that as the Old Judge "Bible" then everything would be fine. Unfortunately, the grading companies are not going to go that route as thousands and thousands of Old Judges have already been holdered under the general 1887-90 or 1887 only for all cards format. The card catalogues like Beckett & SCBC could eventually make the change if pressured enough, I believe. The info is certainly available to support it.

Personally, I would like to know every card that was issued by individual year, especially being a rookie card collector.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

The Old Judge book produced by Jay, Richard & Joe breaks the entire set down by year as you would like to see it done. If all collectors followed that as the Old Judge "Bible" then everything would be fine. Unfortunately, the grading companies are not going to go that route as thousands and thousands of Old Judges have already been holdered under the general 1887-90 or 1887 only for all cards format. The card catalogues like Beckett & SCBC could eventually make the change if pressured enough, I believe. The info is certainly available to support it.

Personally, I would like to know every card that was issued by individual year, especially being a rookie card collector.

I know you say the grading companies won't change, but I think it is only a matter of time just like they had to change when it came to t206 backs to meet the demands of the collectors. If one company starts to show more respect towards the Old Judge set and listing them correctly they may gain those collectors. At this point it is best to be the first to do it than the last.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

There would certainly be utility to adding the year to the mix, so you might have:

1888-John Smith- 252-5.

That would be helpful, without the need to change the numbering system currently in use.

You're right that it would certainly be easier to just add the year, but about the numbering system, I just feel that it's counter-intuitive to give a number to a card that is different than the number written on the card itself. I understand why it was done, but then again, it was the OJ producers who numbered the cards in the first place, just like any other set manufacturer.

[barrysloate]

It's always tough getting people to change a system that has been in use for many years.

[Matthew H]

I like the way you think Cy, but don't forget, the 0-number series includes other athletes and boxers... That numbering system doesn't really help baseball subject collecting IMO. I also don't see a good reason to renumber a 2500+ card set just because a few have a number at the top. And lastly, coming from a struggling collector , trying to break the set down by year makes collecting the set too difficult. I personally like the way it is, it's not hard I figure out what year a card was first produced, and whether or not it was produced other years. (using the OJ bible, of course)

I'll also add that there is a zero-number checklist in the back of the book.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

I like the way you think Cy, but don't forget, the 0-number series includes other athletes and boxers... That numbering system doesn't really help baseball subject collecting IMO. I also don't see a good reason to renumber a 2500+ card set just because a few have a number at the top. And lastly, coming from a struggling collector , trying to break the set down by year makes collecting the set too difficult. I personally like the way it is, it's not hard I figure out what year a card was first produced, and whether or not it was produced other years. (using the OJ bible, of course)

I'll also add that there is a zero-number checklist in the back of the book.

Matt,

Just to respond to a couple of your points... I just looked at the Appendix of the OJ book and see that the checklist is back there... thanks, I hadn't even realized it. Great work from the book authors.

If you look at that list, the boxers are at the beginning of the list, from 0-34. But also there are baseball cards with those same numbers - the King Kelly cards, and also the Browns Champs.

As such, you can see that if you replace the boxers with the King Kelly and Browns Champs, the "checklist" is really for all the 1887 baseball cards. The 1887 set comprises of the entire NL, plus the AA champs of St. Louis, and additionally Brooklyn.

I can only imagine that since Brooklyn was based in New York, the OJ producers felt compelled to include them. They may have later received complaints that the New York Mets were excluded, hence the limited run of the spotted ties. Just a hypothesis.

But either way, you can see that the 1887 OJ's really are their own set with their own numbers, since it seems that every pose was given a number (excluding the rare spotted tie series).

[oldjudge]

It's always great to talk about the Old Judge set. You are right that the Old Judge set is really many sets. Some of these are entirely baseball sets, and others are sets where baseball players are joined by boxers, actresses, other athletes, and political figures. The first photographic Goodwin & Co set including baseball players was issued in 1886, not 1887. It is the script series, and it is also made up of boxers. Next came the Short Number set, and then the "0" Number set. If I understand what you are proposing it is to use the "0" numbers as pose numbers. You can do this for the "0" number cards but you have now classified about 550 poses of the more an 2500 poses now known in the set. Also, in the short number set number 102 is a Jim McCormick pose. In the "0" number set number 0102 is a Jim Fogarty pose.
I think if one wanted to treat the Old Judge set like we treat current baseball sets we would subdivide the Old Judge set into the following subclasses:

Script Cards--baseball players and boxers
Short Number set-baseball players, actors and actresses, other athletes, politicians
"0" Number set--baseball players, boxers, other athletes
1888 Fa set
1888 Fb set
1889 set
1890 set
Old Judge cabinets

You can collect the cards like this. However, I collect poses and I want all the poses of a particular player aggregated together. I can use the Cartophilic Society listing to disaggregate the pose listing into year, and/or set, if I chose to. If you get the Cartophilic Listing you can do the same.

Phil--if you are interested in what year a particular player had his first card issued you can also use the Cartophilic Listing or, for HOFers, you can ask me (there aren't that many).

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

If you get the Cartophilic Listing you can do the same.

Phil--if you are interested in what year a particular player had his first card issued you can also use the Cartophilic Listing or, for HOFers, you can ask me (there aren't that many).

This is my problem, I can't seem to get this list. I have even contacted the CSGB and haven't been able to get this list tracked down. I have been told it is being updated, but I still can't get any list.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

If I understand what you are proposing it is to use the "0" numbers as pose numbers. You can do this for the "0" number cards but you have now classified about 550 poses of the more an 2500 poses now known in the set. Also, in the short number set number 102 is a Jim McCormick pose. In the "0" number set number 0102 is a Jim Fogarty pose.

I think if one wanted to treat the Old Judge set like we treat current baseball sets we would subdivide the Old Judge set into the following subclasses:

Script Cards--baseball players and boxers
Short Number set-baseball players, actors and actresses, other athletes, politicians
"0" Number set--baseball players, boxers, other athletes
1888 Fa set
1888 Fb set
1889 set
1890 set
Old Judge cabinets

You can collect the cards like this. However, I collect poses and I want all the poses of a particular player aggregated together. I can use the Cartophilic Society listing to disaggregate the pose listing into year, and/or set, if I chose to. If you get the Cartophilic Listing you can do the same.

Phil--if you are interested in what year a particular player had his first card issued you can also use the Cartophilic Listing or, for HOFers, you can ask me (there aren't that many).

Okay, thanks Jay, I see now that you have catalogued both the short numbers and zero numbers. There is a conflict with card 102, but that may not be an insurmountable difference. There is certainly enough overlap to see that the OJ producers intention was to number the cards in an orderly manner.

Definitely, there are some advanced collectors out there that have collected by pose irrespective of year produced, including yourself. I have a tremendous amount of respect for your efforts, as well as the efforts of others. It doesn't mean that someone couldn't collect the set in that way if they were to choose, as a sort of master OJ set.

[cyseymour]

Just a quick note that I wonder if the zero series was produced after the season was over and the short numbers produced the previous spring in 1887. The reason being that McCormick retired at the end of the season. Perhaps they then replaced his card with the Fogarty "sexy pose" since maybe they felt it no longer made sense to produce McCormick cards with him having been retired?

edited to add: The zero may have been placed in front to signify when it was printed without disrupting their numbering system.

[Joe_G.]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I think if one wanted to treat the Old Judge set like we treat current baseball sets we would subdivide the Old Judge set into the following subclasses:

Script Cards--baseball players and boxers
Short Number set-baseball players, actors and actresses, other athletes, politicians
"0" Number set--baseball players, boxers, other athletes
1888 Fa set
1888 Fb set
1889 set
1890 set

Well stated Jay, this has been discussed many times. Truth be told, there are also Fb actress cards and so on.

For those not familiar with Old Judge cards, even when subdividing N172s to this extent, there are subsets within the proposed sets such as Spotted Ties (within Script), Browns Champs (within short number), Brooklyn minis (within "0" number), and California League (within 1889). The California League subset is a good example of how very different the rarity can be within the proposed subdivided list above. So many, many ways to slice the N172 set; the best baseball card issue of all time