The ACC calls (n)167s as "Old Judge" cards.

The baseball portion of this set are type 2s: thin, 1.5 x 2.5" = $0.25

then after race horses, actors and actresses; there is:

(n)172s Baseball Players, small = $0.25 Then:
(n)173 Baseball Players 4.25 x 6.5" cabinet = $1.00 (with Gypsy Queen = $2.00)
174s are Celebreties and Prizefighters, then
(n)175 Baseball Players, Gypsy Queen 2 x 3.5" = $1.00

Im sorry, I neither wrote this stuff, nor did I think it up. I am simply trying to interpret it.
My focus here is the Gypsy Queens. From the above these cards may be identified as:

small (~1.5 x 2.5") = n172 or n167
cabinet (4.25 x 6.5") = n173
medium? (~1.85 x 3.5") = n175

This interpretation would result in Gypsy Queens belonging to three sets. What interpretation do you subscribe to?

n174s can also be found as Gypsy Queens. Most collectors today don't realize that the baseball players were much harder to get than the actresses. In the 1880s, the primary focus of those cards was on the actresses with Sarah Bernhard and one other actress whose name I forget being the prize cards to get. All the hobby vets that I talked to when I first got into the hobby said that when they found large collections of OJs they were mostly actresses in the collections.\

Jay

When you include non-sports into this mix, as Burdick certainly did, it becomes unmanagable very fast.

Interesting points, Gil. So are you suggesting that regular N175's should be classified as OJ's "with Gypsy Queen" similarly to the Browns Champs? or should they be classified as a separate and distinct set as they are currently? Because of the size difference I certainly think the large N175's should be classified separately from other Old Judge sets.

I also wanted to point out that there is no such thing as a N173 w/Gypsy Queen ad at the bottom. There are only two kinds of advertisements on N173's: the regular "Old Judge Cigarettes" as well as the "Dogs Head & Old Judge Cigarettes" ad. So the GQ's only come in two different sizes (including the boxer and actress cards as well)

Ben, I did not edit any of that stuff. It is verbatim from the ACC. So, if you disagree on n173 Gypsy Queens; your disagreement is not with me. I admit that I have never seen one. And the same is true for all of the classifications cited.

One thing to remember about the ACC, even though many collectors consider it "the bible" of the hobby, there are a lot of inaccruacies in it. This is where the myth of the Hustler back t206 comes from.

Jay

In my estimation, to believe that the volume of cards catalogued could be accomplished without error is wishful thinking. Although it is far more likely that most errors are those of omission, rather than citing something as existing, when it does not, it is possible to make both type of mistakes.

Recognizing this, when confronted with an example purported as existing in the ACC, while having none reported by the collecting community, my initial reaction is the assumption that collectors are not as informative as I would like them to be.

In the case of Gypsy Queen n173 cabinets, I find it easiest to believe that they have been removed from the hobby in its early ('70s) days; since they were recognized more than a decade earlier as twice as valuable as other similar cabinets. Of course, this is only my guess. And the "issue" does not appear to me to be of much consequence.