Hobby Convention

Matt · #1 06-10-2010, 03:10 PM

Jay - I don't think that is "hobby convention." Maybe that OJ is an exception, but off the top of my head, both the E97 Young and the Tharps/Harringtons Terry follow the caption, not the player depicted. I'm sure there are many more. That is why the grading companies label as they do; they are in line with the convention. It's how the grading companies do it and how they are cataloged in industry publications.

barrysloate · #2 06-10-2010, 03:25 PM

Matt- I do see a little gray area here. In the case of the E97 Young it's a hand drawn pitching pose, and the face is indistinct. Convention says it's not Cy but there is not enough for anyone to go on by examining the face.

But the N403 is a portrait photograph. And there is no way that's Cap Anson. It kind of hits you a little harder here.

I can let the E97 Young slide but no way this portrait can ever be Cap Anson. So as I said why not have both Anson and Dalrymple on the label, not just one. Does that make sense?

yomass · #3 06-10-2010, 03:47 PM

You got it backwards, Jay. "Hobby convention" is to go by the named player, not the photo. Otherwise I could throw out my 1969 Topps Aurelio Rodriguez cards and still pretend to have a complete set.

The J. Strauss/Struck sounds more like a typical OJ misspelling than anything else. Is there a J. Struck who played at that time?

If every card had to definitively be proven to picture the right player, especially in vintage sets, we would have anarchy! Anarchy I tell you! We just can't allow that.

oldjudge · #4 06-10-2010, 03:50 PM

Barry, I think you may be right on Williamson. I was going off the top of my head, but I was thinking of the composite that makes up Anson in Uniform. The bottom line is, it is certainly not Anson. I think that the reason that some cards that have conflicting images and names end up the way they do is simply dollars. Is a card picturing Mighty Joe Young, but labeled Cy Young, worth more as a Cy or a Mighty Joe? Is the Yum Yum worth more as an Anson or a Williamson? This, however, does not make it right. Those of us working on the Old Judge listings have made sure that these rules are followed closely. It would be nice if other sets were similarily reviewed to make sure the listings are consistent. Or, will dollars get in the way?

oldjudge · #5 06-10-2010, 03:57 PM

Richard--Regardless of hobby convention I would suggest throwing out the 1969 Topps Aurelio Rodriguez cards. Of course there was a player named Struck. I refer you to that seminal work, The Photographic Baseball Cards of Goodwin & Co, page 97. On this page there is a composite cabinet of the 1888 Milwaukee team picturing both Joe Straus and J. Q. A. Struck. If you don't have a copy one can be ordered from Richard...............whoops.

barrysloate · #6 06-10-2010, 04:02 PM

Of course the image counts far more than the caption, and the grading services should consider putting both names on the label for those cards that have been misidentified. It will take time to get them all right so it can simply be a process.

gracecollector · #7 06-10-2010, 04:52 PM

It is Williamson on the Yum Yum. All those mustaches begin to look the same!

Williamson on Old Judge.

Dalrymple

Matt · #8 06-10-2010, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Matt- I do see a little gray area here. In the case of the E97 Young it's a hand drawn pitching pose, and the face is indistinct. Convention says it's not Cy but there is not enough for anyone to go on by examining the face.

But the N403 is a portrait photograph. And there is no way that's Cap Anson. It kind of hits you a little harder here.

I can let the E97 Young slide but no way this portrait can ever be Cap Anson. So as I said why not have both Anson and Dalrymple on the label, not just one. Does that make sense?

Barry - I think you might be confusing two issues. One is a discussion of what the current hobby convention is, and it's clearly to use the intended subject of the card, as dictated by the description, not the image. The E97 Young image is conclusively Irv - it's the same image used for Irv's T206, yet the card purports to be of Cy and is cataloged/slabbed as such, due to the name/team on the card; the same for the Terry I mentioned. The other issue is what should be, and on that, your point of listing both on the flip is reasonable.

Bosox Blair · #9 06-10-2010, 07:12 PM

PSA apparently used Barry's suggested approach with this Tango Eggs Buck Weaver card (which actually shows Joe Tinker):

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...x?itemid=13579

Cheers,
Blair

HRBAKER · #10 06-10-2010, 07:43 PM

Hobby convention certainly is to charge Cy Young prices for Irv Young cards that are captioned Cy Young.

oldjudge · #11 06-10-2010, 07:54 PM

Matt-The problem may be that the catalog is inconsistent, but the convention is certainly not going by the name on the card. I can point out ten examples, at least, in the Old Judge set where the image determines whose card it is. None of these are big names though. The Irv Young card is called Cy Young because it will sell for more as Cy. It is an Irv Young card with improper identification. Do you actually think if the card pictured Cy Young and had the name of Irv Young that it would be sold as an Irv Young card? The same with the Yum Yum. If it pictured Anson and was labeled Williamson do you think it would be sold as a Williamson card? Why do graders use the label on the card for the name on the slab? My guess is because it is easier and in most cases they don't know whose image it is.

Matt · #12 06-10-2010, 08:24 PM

Jay - if all your examples are OJs or pre 1900s examples, then perhaps there is a split in the "convention" and maybe there is no "hobby convention" at all.

rhettyeakley · #13 06-10-2010, 08:25 PM

I think the hobby convention is to actually follw the greater common denominator.

That meaning that if the card names a popular (or HOF) player and depicts a more common player it will always sell for more than the common but probably less than it would had it depicted the popular/HOF player...thus following MORE the value of the popular player than the common. The other way around could also work as well... say, a more common players card actually depicts a popular/HOF player it would also sell for far more than the common and more closely to what the more popular/HOF card would sell for (for example if a Yum Yum "Williamson" card actually depicted Anson--it would sell for far more than if it actually depicted Williamson.)

-Rhett

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A Collector, Mastro, PSA & Our Beloved Hobby	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	85	05-31-2008 02:55 PM
How Would You Change The Hobby	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	54	04-06-2008 03:32 PM
This is the Most Important Topic in the Hobby!	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	11-29-2006 05:35 AM
When It Was A Hobby	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	4	07-06-2005 11:17 AM
Hobby History 101	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	4	09-16-2003 03:59 PM