|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: jay behrens
Has anyone given thought to updating the ACC, at least on the baseball side. Or has it become so archaic that it isn't a worthwhile project? There are so many new X-unc sets, that it seems a shame that they don't have proper designations. Or is it only old school collectors that still think in terms of ACC designations? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: Glen V
With the majority of collectors buying newer cards, most people don't care about ACC #s. Even with vintage collectors, the majority stick with the more common issues, like T206, Goudeys, and Crackerjacks. Most will never care that a Crackerjack is an E card, and some might even think T206 is the name of a card set (which it has sort of become). And most issues, catalogued or not, are easier to refer to by name than some obscure number. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: identify7
It would potentially make set identification clearer, if accepted by the guide publishers. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: leon
It would be fun but as Glen pointed out it would be difficult to get a consensus on many issues (pun intended). If there could be a collaboration of grading companies, SCD< and a collectors committee, it might work. I would love to see many of our issues get out of the "unc" categories. If I am not mistaking there was an attempt by something like the "Collectors Bible" in 1980 that attempted an update. I am probably mistaking on the name but the date and premise are close. It is where the H998 designation for the Western Playgrounds came from so whatever that was, is what I am speaking of..I'm open to helping......best regards |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: identify7
So we are going to need a high energy organization guy. One who can contact grading cos, publishers, collectors, others and pull it all together. Then package it sell it and implement it. All the while putting up with complaints, criticisms, knuckleballs and knuckleheads. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: fkw
There would need to be room in the categories. For example "T" cards is full all the way to the Red Man issues of the 1950s (T232-T235). Besides T224, the next open number is T236. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: Richard
I second the nomination for 'Hurricane Relief Guy', but from what I understand, we may have to wait a few weeks for him to resurface once the auctions (etc) are done, so that he can catch up on some sleep. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: Anonymous
. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: William Heitman
Ted, my friend, the ACC was updated throughout the '60's and '70's by way of Charles Bray's Monthly Card Update. And Burt Sugar's Sports Collector's Bible tried to do the same. To even just slightly scrap the old system (and I don't know if that's the right word) would be a boon to the grading services. And it wouldn't do much for the hobby. I don't know about you, but I just couldn't care less what catalog number we call 1993 Upper Deck. I would have loved to see T206 broken down into its very obvious subsets and the like, but it's 45 years too late. Jeff Burdick is long gone now and Shoeless Joe is never going into the Hall of Fame (even though I would argue that he is already there). Like so much in card collecting, the American Card Catalog was just a beginning--an early attempt to assemble so much into something that made a little sense. It worked. But it was not the word of God and it certainly wasn't the last word on cards. It has been a useful tool. By the way, the ACC did not list 19th Century Tobacco cards as N something. They were merely the number. Old Judge Baseball was catalog # 172, not N172. It's surprising to me how few have actually looked at the book itself. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: leon
I agree. Anyone thinking about anything like this should learn the in's and out's of the ACC first. For what it's worth the n cards not only didn't have letters, they were grouped by mfg, not year....best regards |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: Anonymous
. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: Anonymous
. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: leon
Reprints can be had fairly cheaply. I got mine from Frisch for about $25 but they can be had for less...I just didn't look very hard. I am sure original versions are around but I wasn't interested in an original... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: Richard
Being one of the many who've never seen/read the ACC, I'd be very interested in buying a copy. However, I've never seen one for sale, and I'm pretty sure those that do have copies are holding on to them pretty tightly. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: Anonymous
. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: Glen V
A good starting point and the best chance to have new numbers stick would be uncatalogued cards with no distinct name. Here’s a few, with pictures and potential questions: |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: zach
Don't forget 1913 Voskamps, those guys need a name to call their own |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: William Heitman
I still have my original hardbound ACC. In the ACC, N cards were "Central and South American Tobacco Cards." I see a difference between a Catalog and a book of checklists. I always thought the purpose of the ACC was to provide a shorthand way to talk to others about cards. When it came out, most dealings in the hobby were done through the mail. Without the ACC, those letters would have been awfully long. The section that we incorrectly call N1 etc. was the section on "19th Century U.S. Tobacco Insert Cards" and, yes, it was grouped almost entirely by manufacturers, which was a logical way to look at them. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: identify7
Hey, don't get me wrong! I am totally in favor of curing all of the ills in the world. But the original suggestion by Jay, if I understand it correctly, solely asked about providing a designation for the -unc sets which have been identified. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: jay behrens
Gil is correct, my proposal is to simply give a more specific designation to the x-unc sets. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: Eric
I've had extensive conversations with Glen on this topic, and I think we've both reasoned that newly assigned ACC numbers would be beneficial to the hobby. The word "additions" is key here. A couple of people here have suggested revamping the entire ACC. This is a Utopian idea..and simply won't work. Although the ACC has a great deal of flaws that we as collectors would love to see fixed, it's just not that simple. Collecting vintage baseball cards is a deeply rooted hobby, thus the ACC book, which was created almost 50 years ago. Although flawed in many aspects, the ACC is a cornerstone to the hobby, and that of legitimizing card issues. In my opinion it would be a great mistake to alter any existing ACC designations in any way. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: BlackSoxFan
. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
ACC update
Posted By: Glen V
A few more Uncat. cards to add. BF-Unc, W-Unc, E-Unc |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Should the ACC be re-written? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 10 | 12-24-2008 09:18 AM |
The ACC and Burdick | Archive | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 15 | 05-13-2007 02:46 AM |
ACC designations | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 73 | 09-27-2006 06:50 PM |
If you don't have it, buy an ACC | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 06-25-2005 08:22 AM |
ACC Question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 05-01-2002 11:11 AM |