Modifications to Vintage Baseball Card Sets' Year(s) of Issue

[Jim VB]

I would always side with accuracy over tradition when it comes to dating a set.

Use the US Caramel set as an example. It has long been listed as a 1932 issue, but it can be shown to be a 1933 issue. I realize that changing the accepted date on the set will make an awful lot of slabs inaccurate. But if new information comes to light, the "facts" as we all thought we knew them should change also.

The subsequent data bases should also be changed, and if that means double listing, I'm OK with that.

What about the old slabs? I don't care.

[barrysloate]

The only time it might get tricky is when a date is changed, and a card assumed to be a player's rookie card loses that status. Who would want to pay a big premium for a rookie only to discover it was actually the player's third card?

[Jim VB]

But, in this case, the truth is, it already is the players third card. Nothing has really changed. If it's been classified wrong and it isn't changed, then we're acknowledging that we catalog them only for financial purposes, not historical.

[barrysloate]

True indeed. If the Standard Catalog were to change the date of a rookie card, so be it. But if a grading service changed it on the label, they might expect one or more irate phone calls down the road. But I agree, it is what it is.

[Brian-Chidester]

I'd personally like to see the T213-1 and T215-1 series' changed to T206 back variants. Don't know if that is a popular opinion or not, but it's certainly one that I consider a valid change.

[ChiefBenderForever]

Originally Posted by Brian-Chidester

I'd personally like to see the T213-1 and T215-1 series' changed to T206 back variants. Don't know if that is a popular opinion or not, but it's certainly one that I consider a valid change.

I think a major problem would be years issued, if they were issued in same years I could see it.

[Brian-Chidester]

The first series' in the T213 and T215 were issued from 1910-1912.