The ACC is outdated and needs to be updated

This is reposted from another thread so we don't hijack the t206 thread.

I have a great amount of respect for the work that Burdick did. What he
did was absolutely amazaing, especially when you consider when he did
it and he wasn't just looking for baseball cards.
Unlike some people, while Burdick's work was groundbreaking, it is by
no means definitive and there is no reason why others couldn't improve
upon what he started. To say that Burdick's work is the quivelent of a
holy text and shouldn't be tampered with is just plain silly and short
sighted.

For the most part, ACC designations have become dated and antiquated.

A thought just occured to me, why are Mellow Mints classified seperate
from e101 and e102s? They use the same pictures and cards. They could
easily grouped with e92s as they use the same pictures, but
Meillo-Mints state a card set, which most likely why they didn't get
grouped with e92s. Each of the different backs for e92s should be a
seperate as it's obvious that each back does not have the same
checklist of cards.

Jay

We have been down this road aways Jay, probably more than several years ago.

At that time it became apparent that if one was to change those attributions and designations in the ACC which are incorrect, add catagorization of "newly" discovered sets in their proper grouping, and recombine sets which appear to be inappropriately seperated as well as seperate those which do not appear to have been justifiably combined; what would result is an updated reference material which the hobby would resist.

The source of this resistence is
- most collectors prefer no change
- most of the remainder prefer no alterations, solely additions (updates) to the ACC

If a task of solely updating those sets which were omitted in the last issue of the ACC was undertaken, one would have to determine the new designations which have come to be accepted (such as Western Playground) from a variety of sources, as the initial step. I threw a sizable chunk of manhours into this effort at that time and estimate that the updating job likely will require an effort of over 100 manhours if the starting point is a complete verified tabulation of all identified x-unc. sets. But I am not certain where a tabulation of that quality can be drawn from. And therefore, I conclude that a level of effort of about 250 manhours is likely needed to produce the documentation. I have no idea how to get anyone to accept the documentation.

I think something like that would have to be discuss at a gathering at the Nationals or that other new thing they put together for vintage collectors.

Lee

With the advent of eBay, price guides are essentially useless. The marketplace is too fluid for them to be usefull. What needs to be done is another comprehensive guide like what Lipset tried to do, but it needs to have all the new updated information.

Jay

Lee, certainly NOT "that other new thing" you are referring to! That "clique" was formed by Mastro to "change" the Hobby, while leaving out some of the most respected and honest persons - most notably Rob Lifson! I would hate to see such a farce have an impact on the Hobby big enough to change card designations!

Funny thing is that Jim Crandell tried this same thing last year and was stoned for it on Net 54 (putting together a group to oversee the Hobby and alterations). Then, all of a sudden Mastro STEALS Jim's idea and acts like they created something special (when they have admitted on Net 54 to altering cards themselves). We certainly do NOT need the fox guarding the hen house in this Hobby!

I think the way to go about making a new ACC is for some collectors to get together and actually do it. Then publish it online. Maybe it will take hold, but probably not. Still, that really is the only chance for it to get going.