How do you organize your binder sets?

[G1911]

I sort my large sets by team, alphabetical order by city, National Lease first and then American League. Within a team, cards sorted by position order (P, C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, OF, DH), pitchers sorted by innings pitched in the last season, other positions by starter, then the backup. League Leaders, Award Winners, All-Star cards, and others all at the back. Checklists on the top.

I did it this way when I was 7, and just got so used to it that I've never changed this 'fill out the diamond for each team' order.

[GasHouseGang]

I guess I'm not very creative. I've always just sorted them in numerical order and put them in the binders in order.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I guess I'm not very creative. I've always just sorted them in numerical order and put them in the binders in order.

Yep, me too. Always have done it this way. Works for me.

Cheers,

Butch

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

Yep, me too. Always have done it this way. Works for me.

Cheers,

Butch

I have sorted by teams as well as numerically. I ended up deciding to sort numerically as it is easier to tell what card #s I needed to upgraded. I also like that star cards were sorted such that they were at the 100's (i.e. 100, 200, 300...) and the semi-stars were at the 50's (i.e 50, 150, 250....).

It also made it easier when looking at high #'s and figuring out what I needed...which almost always were a struggle. If you buy cards in lots as opposed to individually, it is so much easier to figure out which cards you need and which cards are doubles.....jmho.

Best of luck either way

[mikemb]

For the sets I collected as a kid, 1965 on, I keep in binders by team.

First is a wrapper or wrappers. Then come world series cards, league leaders and then other non-team related cards. Finally, are the checklists.

The teams are in order of my favorites to least favorites. I put one card per slot, not two front to back. The first card is the team card. Second card is manager card. The center spot on each sheet is a favorite player or star. I try to arrange each sheet to have a variety of cards. This way I space out say multiple player cards, head shots of shots of players with no caps, etc.

I like it when I add a variation, so I get to rearrange some cards.

Mike

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

Yep, me too. Always have done it this way. Works for me.

Cheers,

Butch

Me too...all mine are number order. I do love the years that have leaders starting sets. I've often thought of putting leaders up front for the 61, 62, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, (not 74, love the Aarons), 75, and so on up front...just because...but my OCD won't allow me to do it. Just boring numerical order...

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by G1911

I sort my large sets by team, alphabetical order by city, National Lease first and then American League. Within a team, cards sorted by position order (P, C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, OF, DH), pitchers sorted by innings pitched in the last season, other positions by starter, then the backup. League Leaders, Award Winners, All-Star cards, and others all at the back. Checklists on the top.

I did it this way when I was 7, and just got so used to it that I've never changed this 'fill out the diamond for each team' order.

I sort mine similarly for post-war, although I start with AL and put checklists at the back, in front of all the other misc. as a sort of divider. I place the team pic and manager first, then starters as I determined them through closers. Multi-card rookies last, so long as they shared the same team; otherwise they go at the end.

I too started this way at age 7 through about age 17. Then when I got back into collecting sets I started numerically but found it really boring. Why was Joe Zdeb next to Ron Schueler when they seemed to have nothing in common and might not even know each other? Just because Topps said so? It was more rewarding to easily see what a team looked like on the field a particular season. That's why I was quite pleased with the early Fleer issues in the 80's, which also began with the world series teams and pretty much worked their way back to the cellar dwellers.

Finally, I know I'm in the minority but I really like using 8 pocket sheets that allow for easy insertion of soft sleeves or even mylars if I want to pull out a card for closer review. I know this means you page through the album more like a wall calendar than a book, but that is no big deal and is often easier when just basically having the binder on your lap.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I sort mine similarly for post-war, although I start with AL and put checklists at the back, in front of all the other misc. as a sort of divider. I place the team pic and manager first, then starters as I determined them through closers. Multi-card rookies last, so long as they shared the same team; otherwise they go at the end.

I too started this way at age 7 through about age 17. Then when I got back into collecting sets I started numerically but found it really boring. Why was Joe Zdeb next to Ron Schueler when they seemed to have nothing in common and might not even know each other? Just because Topps said so? It was more rewarding to easily see what a team looked like on the field a particular season. That's why I was quite pleased with the early Fleer issues in the 80's, which also began with the world series teams and pretty much worked their way back to the cellar dwellers.

Finally, I know I'm in the minority but I really like using 8 pocket sheets that allow for easy insertion of soft sleeves or even mylars if I want to pull out a card for closer review. I know this means you page through the album more like a wall calendar than a book, but that is no big deal and is often easier when just basically having the binder on your lap.

You are the first I have found who also sorts them this same way. Team card, then manager, then players by position. It made sense to me as a kid, I liked ‘creating’ a full team, as they existed that year. Number order is east for want lists but makes little sense for most issues where the numbering is essentially random to actually look through. I sorted my Football cards alphabetically by last name within a team, but this method was always my go to for baseball sets with enough cards where you could expect a full teams worth of cards for each club. I might be crazy, but at least I’m not the only one!

[commishbob]

Numerical order. I’ve never thought about doing it by team, not sure why. As a kid I kept them in cigar boxes in numerical order as well.

[toppcat]

Numerical for me, with any variations or extras after the last card. This is because I know the lower right corner numbers and can tell if I've screwed up at any point. I certainly get the team approach as I collected that way as a kid too, but it's easy to miss something, at least for me, using anything other than numerical order. Any slabbed mega-cards (usually just Mantle) get a reprint in the binder slot.

[ALR-bishop]

Dave— I use an extra sheet to overlay variations on top and to the side of the common version with a circle sticky to point out or note the variation. I went back and did the latter after having difficulty spotting or remembering some subtle variations when going back through my numerical sets

[Eric72]

Numerical order has always made sense to me; I continue to organize binders this way.

I understand why some people prefer to organize by team and position. I'd probably have considered this; however, the multi-player cards (league leaders and such) made it a non-starter.

Funny, the way we do things as children tend to stay with us our whole lives...

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Dave— I use an extra sheet to overlay variations on top and to the side of the common version with a circle sticky to point out or note the variation. I went back and did the latter after having difficulty spotting or remembering some subtle variations when going back through my numerical sets

Interesting. I don't usually seek them out so I don't have many, but some are more "variant" than others.