Should the ACC be re-written?

Should the ACC be re-written?

Joined: August 31st, 2006, 12:39 am

December 23rd, 2008, 10:59 pm #1

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?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 11th, 2004, 4:37 pm

December 23rd, 2008, 11:01 pm #2

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

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 14th, 2007, 8:51 pm

December 23rd, 2008, 11:13 pm #3

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?
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?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 31st, 2006, 12:39 am

December 23rd, 2008, 11:34 pm #4

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?
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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 12:23 am

December 24th, 2008, 12:13 am #5

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?
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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 12th, 2005, 6:14 pm

December 24th, 2008, 12:34 am #6

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?
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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 2nd, 2004, 5:56 am

December 24th, 2008, 1:39 am #7

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?
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
Last edited by yanksfan09 on December 24th, 2008, 1:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 12:23 am

December 24th, 2008, 1:45 am #8

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?
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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 12th, 2005, 6:14 pm

December 24th, 2008, 5:17 am #9

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?
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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 24th, 2004, 10:21 pm

December 24th, 2008, 12:33 pm #10

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?
yes...it should be updated for accuracy.
Quote
Like
Share