Proposed Old Judge Reorganization

[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.

[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).

[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.