Net 54 Vintage Baseball Card Forum
Hello to all visitors! Please visit the NEW Net54 board at www.Net54baseball.com You can directly contact the moderator here if you have any questions or comments. Enjoy!
 


  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Top of page | Bottom of page | Main Index  

Should the ACC be re-written?

December 23 2008 at 5:59 PM
judson hamlin  (Login juddhamlin)

 
Not to be an apostate, but since it comes up in threads, let me put it out there: Should the ACC be overhauled? There is no doubt that Burdick, working when he did, with the information at his disposal, did a terrific job. But as we learn more about new sets, corrections to issue dates and other issues, is it time to re-evaluate the work? And, if so, who could/should be involved? Who, in the board's opinion(s) has the expertise (and the time) to do this?

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply

boxingcardman
(Login boxingcardman)

yes

December 23 2008, 6:01 PM 

I can do it if someone wants to foot the bill at my normal billing rate. happy.gif

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

 
 

Rob D.
(Login wolfie51sb)

Re: Should the ACC be re-written?

December 23 2008, 6:13 PM 

There have been previous attempts (Stirling's catalog in the 1970s comes to mind) that have not caught on.

I think there is one thing that is overlooked when present-day collectors clamor to re-designate certain sets and edit Burdick's work. Unless I'm mistaken -- and I very well could be, so if I am, I apologize -- but Burdick didn't provide documentation or notes that explain why he desgintated certain or all sets the way he did. So while today's collectors assume they know all that Burdick did -- and more -- is that a certainty?

For example, whenever the debate about Coupons/T206/T213-1 heats up -- and aren't we all the better for it when it does? -- assumptions are made that everything that Burdick knew also is known by the present-day contrarian. Again, if in Burdick's memoirs or notes he explains why he did what he did, then my point is moot. Otherwise, is it safe to assume that he didn't have knowledge that today's collector doesn't?

 
 
judson hamlin
(Login juddhamlin)

Re: Should the ACC be re-written?

December 23 2008, 6:34 PM 

Rob - Good point. I'm not aware of whether Burdick kept notes and, if he did, whether they survive. They would invaluable. I think it is clear that there are a number of "-UNC" sets that should be folded in and numbered; likewise, issue dates (e.g. Fan Craze) are incorrect. I think that in and of itself provides a starting point for a re-examination of at least portions of the ACC.

 
 

Dave Hornish
(Login dsh46)

Re: Should the ACC be re-written?

December 23 2008, 7:13 PM 

I think it should be updated, a la the efforts in the 60's with the ACC updates. It would be too confusing to change the actual guide.

 
 
Frank Wakefield
(Login Greatwake)
Registered Users

Re: Should the ACC be re-written?

December 23 2008, 7:34 PM 

Answer, Yes.


But... some folks don't care for a few of Mr. Burdick's sortings, and some aren't enamored with the additions to the system set out in The Sports Collectors Bible and other works. So when someone does propose a drastic updating, there will be a bunch of disgruntled complainers out there (here) [us/we].


I've thought about trying it, only for baseball cards. An obstacle for most of us here is that we're clueless about the 21st century sets and subsets. I am.

 
 
Erick Lewin
(Login yanksfan09)

Re: Should the ACC be re-written?

December 23 2008, 8:39 PM 

I wouldn't even atempt classifying and sorting through all the new 21st. century junk. It would take up 90% of the pages and be a complete waste in my opinion. If you ever look through a new Beckett monthly price guide, the years 1948-80's are confined to like one or two pages. Then there's a few more pages for cards up to roughly 1999ish. Then, there's like 50 (exagerating maybe) pages for cards made only in the past few years. Each main manufacturer comes out with an obscene amount of sets each year and each of those have a ridiculous amount of subsets/parralells.



It would be much better to pick a cutoff date for designations. Maybe around 1980, 1985, or early 90's before it started getting really out of hand. just my opinion.



P.S. Just got the new 09 standard cat (great book), yet i wish 3/4 of the book wasn't included. The 1980-present section.

E. Lewin


    
This message has been edited by yanksfan09 on Dec 23, 2008 8:48 PM


 
 

Dave Hornish
(Login dsh46)

Re: Should the ACC be re-written?

December 23 2008, 8:45 PM 

I always thought 1980 was a logical cutoff due to the fact it's both the last year of the 70's (I speak the truth) and the final year before Fleer and Donruss changed everything; it's truly the end of an era. While a scheme is needed post 1980 (which I could care less about at this point), to me it would look far different than the ACC and its updates going back from that date. There's just so many parallel issues now, you almost need a whole new nomenclature. And the amount of issues post '80 is daunting, as pointed out earlier.

 
 
Frank Wakefield
(Login Greatwake)
Registered Users

Re: Should the ACC be re-written?

December 24 2008, 12:17 AM 

You guys have convinced me, an update through 1980...


Now would it be only baseball cards, or all sports?? Or all cards, sports and non-sports??? I'd love to get the truth about National Chicle Sky Birds widely disseminated. Or at least get it out to folks that might collect Sky Birds.

 
 

peter ullman
(Login ullmandds)

Re: Should the ACC be re-written?

December 24 2008, 7:33 AM 

yes...it should be updated for accuracy.

 
 

leon
(Premier Login leonl)
Network 54 Moderator

ACC rewritten?

December 24 2008, 12:18 PM 

In short my answer is "no", the ACC, itself, shouldn't be rewritten. I do believe it should be updated in some form or fashion though.

"A catalog is dependable only in relation to the knowledge, resources, and integrity if those who compose it. Over the years, the publishers of the American Card Catalog have had the valued cooperation of hundreds of collectors and dealers and it is thus possible to produce a work that represents a real consensus of opinion and fact that is generally acceptable to the hobby as a whole.

It is never possible to adopt all of the ideas and suggestions that are made for a new Catalog as many are diametrically opposed to each other. All, though, are much appreciated and have been given every consideration. It is felt that a catalog of this type should confine itself largely to a listing of what exists and it's value, and that most of the historical backgrounds and details of complete checklists should be left to the realm of reference books and magazine articles. Much of this has already appeared and other topics are in preperation by reference writers." Jefferson Burdick

I think Burdick knew his catalog was a work in progress so I do think we should update it, somehow. Even he acknowledged there won't be a unanimous consensus on how it should be done...Personally, I would like to see a supplement to the Sports cards section with rewritten information. WE could start each of those listings with some kind of symbol showing it's an updated list.....



    
This message has been edited by leonl on Dec 24, 2008 12:21 PM


 
 
 
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Top of page | Bottom of page | Main Index  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement