H801-9 Globe Stores

I have always wondered why this set has a different ACC. Designation of H801-9.
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't they just a different back variation of the M101 set

For the most the part, Burdick had a reason for designating sets the way he did. Some times it didn't make sense. Everything with a tobacco back, white border and design like the t206s got that designation, yet everything with a caramel back with a front that looked like e90-1 or e90-2 got separate set designations.

In that era, sets were basically produced blank backed and then you paid to have cards printed with your company name on the back. That's the case with the set you are asking about. Blank back cards are very common and are generally designated as m101-5. Not sure why. I don't have an ACC anymore so I can't tell you Burdick listed a blank back as part of the m101-5. He could have just as easily included it with the set you are talking about.

Jay

It seems Burdick's first concern was organizing cards based on who made them. H is a catch-all catagory. A number of clothing store cards are under the H801-x number, so that makes sense for Globe cards. M is for periodicals, which is used for Sporting News backs (M101-4/5). Meanwhile, the bakery cards use D's (D329 for Weil, D352 for Morehouse). Not sure if Burdick ever called the blank back versions M cards, or if that came about later. W would be more appropriate.

The sub-catagories are more confusing. Why he lumped some issues together (like T206), used xx-1 for some sub-sets (like E90-1), and xx-A for others (like E91-A), who knows???

One of the strangest designations is for the Old Mill cabinets. I forget the exact number but it's H-xxxx.

I still think it would be worthwhile for some people to get together and revamp the ACC. It's not like Burdick never made changes, but some people treat thing like is holy scripture and shouldn't be tampered with. With a revamp of the ACC we could give designations to all the UNC sets and move sets like the Old Mill cabinets to a more appropriate designation.

Jay

Whats strange about this though is half of the m101-4/5 backs are stores like Globe
Block & Kuhl
Burgess-Nash
Everbody's
Gimbel's
Famous & Barr
Herpolsheimer
Ware's Basement
So, I don't know what Burdick's thinking was on the Globe Stores designation

I would guess Burdick hadn't seen the other backs and they never were catalogued. They aren't periodicals, so they aren't M101-4/5s. Probably most of the issues from the list should be called H-Unc. Here's an old type list from David Hornish where Famous & Barr and Herpolsheimer are listed as H-Unc: http://www.oldbaseball.com/refs/typecards.txt

I agree with Jay that the ACC should be updated, the mistakes fixed, and new cards added, but we are in the minority. Most issues are easier to identify by name rather than number. Who says they want an R319 Ruth instead of a '33 Goudey? There are some cards that would benefit from being numbered. Maybe if someone just numbered them and got enough people using that number, it would stick (like the W9316 that Burt Sugar named)...

Odd ACC fact, the N designation actually belongs to foreign issues. !9c issues actually have no letter designation, so sets that are listed as n162, n172, etc are actually incorrectly identified as foreign issues. Their actual ACC designation is 162, 172 etc

OK, Glen, it's becoming plausible what happened.
Burdick already had Globe stores designated with H designation and he had the blank backs and Sporting News backs designated as M101's and since he had not seen the other backs they got lumped into M101 along the way.
Does that make sence

possible, but not plausible. There were so many backs missed by Burdick that it seems he just ignored them. I cannot believe he had never seen any of these--especially Famous & Barr--before his initial catalog, much less its later iterations. Seems many of them Jerry listed (plus Green Joyce) would have fit into the H-800 series, as I thought that such section was for clothing-related cards.

Although his contributions to the hobby are extensive, his work was far from flawless. While I can't seem to locate my copy of the ACC (1953), I believe he missed the date for m101-4/5 as 1915, listed the earlier m101-5 set with a higher number (and may have mis-identified it as a continuation of m101-4), and incorrectly identified m101-5 as being affiliated with The Sporting News (no m101-5s carry that ad back). He also listed the three subsets of Standard Biscuit out of order chronologically, but seems to have done this on purpose for some reason.

Todd, I tend to agree
Now that I think about it, I don't think theres anyway he missed all the different backs.
Like you say he probally ignored them or never got around to sorting them out.

It was probably easy for him to just put anything that looked like a t206 into that set since they all have tobacco ad backs. M101-4/5s would have posed a problem in that there were all sorts of businesses that issued these cards cover at least M, H and D groups. Since he wasn't really a baseball card collector, he probably didn't devote that much time to the problem since there were so many other non-sport sets for him to catalogue and deal with.

Jay

Jay, Good point about Non-Sports
Isn't there an on going debate about whether t213-1 coupons should have been in the Mix of T206 backs.

TheBig6 wrote:Isn't there an on going debate about whether t213-1 coupons should have been in the Mix of T206 backs.

I'm one of those in the camp that thinks they should be classified as a t206. When you look at the front, they are dead on for a t206. This is another one of those oddities in the ACC. It would be nice if one of Burdick's friends was still alive that could tell us about his thought process as to why he did certain things.

It's also odd that he would have listed the Cobb back as a t206 because when viewed from the front, at least to me, it's pretty obvious that it's not a t206.

Jay

Since he wasn't really a baseball card collector, he probably didn't
devote that much time to the problem since there were so many other
non-sport sets for him to catalogue and deal with.

Maybe so, but I can't completely agree with the premise. Burdick was a prolific baseball card collector, and while his card collecting interests ran the gamut of other subjects, he was no slouch with the horsehiders. He took the time to catalog three of the four bakery sets that follow m101-4 (Weil, Standard Biscuit and Morehouse) missing only the very obscure Holmes to Homes (m101-5) set, and he listed Globe, so how hard would it have been to at least acknowledge the others, if not give them separate numbers? Clearly he ignored them, and I guess his time was a finite resource that had to be allocated, but it's still a little mysterious to me. Then again, I think he failed to identify most the E121 backs also--Clark's Bread, Lou Gertenrich, Gassler's, Haffner's, Witmor, etc., so perhaps listing different backs for their own sake was not a priority item as you say.

TheBig6 wrote:Whats strange about this though is half of the m101-4/5 backs are stores like Globe
Block & Kuhl
Burgess-Nash
Everbody's
Gimbel's
Famous & Barr
Herpolsheimer
Ware's Basement
So, I don't know what Burdick's thinking was on the Globe Stores designation

Burdick's designation m101-4 refers to blank backed premium cards issued about 1915. He specifically states that Weil (D329) and Globe are contained in this subset. Also H801-9, as you state.

His m101-5 is also a b&w blank backed premium, but for this card group, he indicates an issuance date of 1916. Standard Biscuit D350 and Morehouse D352 are indicated as examples of distributors of these cards.

glenv wrote:

... I agree with Jay that the ACC should be updated, the mistakes fixed, and new cards added, but we are in the minority. Most issues are easier to identify by name rather than number.

Now we are 3 -

If all you had to do was catalog baseball cards, such a task could easily have been done more simply and efficiently. But baseball cards was not the scope of the project which Burdick undertook. Actually, he went beyond the totality of sports cards, he attempted to catalog all US cards, and many foreign issues and non-cards: including paper dolls, tokens of affection, greeting cards (which I guess are "cards"), Rewards of Merit, Silks, pins, buttons, and way more.

Certainly the ACC should be updated. Otherwise we will begin to lose meaning with more w-unc, e-unc. etc. designations; and the oversights and errors inherent in a job the size of the one done by Burdick, should be corrected.

I am sure that we are all in agreement that he accomplished an awesome benchmark upon whose foundation our hobby, and others are based. And any enhancement to his foundation should be implemented in a fashion which preserves the integrity of the original. But updating this 50+ year old work is needed now.

I started on that effort more than several years ago and met with support from Jay, and Leon; disinterest from most other quarters, and open hostility from some. Through my initial foray into this endeavor, I have a feel for the enormity of the outstanding level of effort. It is a project which I can not undertake at this time, and I probably never will be able to offer any more than some assistance to the main or subordinate researchers.