It works perfectly...although I have found anything larger than 400 card sets should probably be split into two waves, because it makes your arms tired. Just a single set won't, but when you spend 14 hours in a day doing it, trust me, your arms will be tired.
This set (1990 Maxx, NASCAR) only has 200 cards so it required only two rows. Normally I can't stand to turn a vertical card sideways, but my table is not wide enough, so I had to do it. I would have only been able to get 7 rows otherwise.
After the cards are sorted into 10s, I simply do each stack in order from highest to lowest, so they are stacked nicely face up in numerical order. (190s, 180s, 170s, etc, down to 1-9) I generally do this by hand, not setting the cards down until they are sorted...however, some sets, especially during my heyday, that made it impossible. (For instance, I once counted that I had more than 80 copies of one card). For a set where I have that many duplicates, I have even broken it down into a stack for each number in the unit. It's been a long time since I've done that, long before digital cameras.
This can also be done with years. Instead of 1-9 on the left, it would be 1990. 1991 next to it, 1980 above it, 2000 below it, etc. In this sort, I didn't have any cards from the 70s so that spot is left blank.
I've never timed how long it takes to sort this way. Not very long, but I also don't rush through it. I probably spend more time reading backs of the cards than I do actually sorting. I enjoy the process so, when I start, I go very slow. When I'm nearing the end of a major sorting session, which used to last for weeks and that was 80 thousand cards ago, I usually want it to be done and move onto something else, so I go much quicker.
When I finish scanning everything, get my cards sorted back together by set, and get my sets sorted back into order for the first time since 2004 for the NBA, 2009 for NASCAR and ever for NHL- the whole sort will probably take me months. I HOPE it takes me months.
Interestingly enough, these cards are actually duplicates, and all but 6 of them in this picture are being mailed off to Canada in a trade.
That's pretty much how I sort my non-sports cards.
ReplyDeleteBut for baseball and football, I sort by league then teams. If it's a complete mixed bag, the first pass is one stack per year. Then, within a year: NL (Astros to Reds), AL (Angels to Yankees), then non-team-based cards like checklists, leaders, post-season, all-stars, multi-team rookie stars cards that you see in the 7th series. Within each team, it's the team card, manager, P, C, 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, INF, OF, rookie stars.
For football, I sort my teams by NFC (East, Central, West) and AFC (East Central, West). The order of teams within a division varies from year-to-year. Within a team, it's QB, RB, WR, TE, C, G, T, K, DE, DT, LB, CB, S, P.
I don't think I have ever sorted my physical cards by team before...part of the reason that was the first thing I did when I created the Cardboard History Gallery.
DeleteI'll try that, too, but I can already see that it takes up way more space than the other two methods I've used. The new method I've been experimenting with in particular is very good at limiting the space needed. It's also not that complicated once you see it done once.
ReplyDeleteThe space is only an issue when I do a full collection sort, which is rare. Last was in 2003 or 2004.
DeleteLike Jim from Downington, I also sort my cards by position/team/division/league. Been doing like that ever since I first started collecting cards. It just makes more sense to me, especially when seen in binders. In fact, I sort my baseball cards in the exact same field position order as Jim. But unlike Jim, I do put the (non-team) checklists, postseason, leaders and All-Stars before the teams.
ReplyDeleteI had no idea until very recently that so many people didn't store sets in numerical order!
DeleteI actually put them before the teams in my binders. I don't know why I mentioned them as after.
DeleteI always sort my sets in numerical order- first by hundreds, then I divide each stack of hundreds into 1-50 and 51-99, then (if I need to) I sort those stacks into tens. The sets I collect are almost never alphabetical by team anymore, and if I'm sorting a set I don't plan to finish I still want the cards in numerical order because it's easier to catalog & pull them for TCDB trades.
ReplyDeleteI've done it that way when the only space I had was the top of my scanner lid...I don't care for it, and it's much more work, too. You end up sorting the same cards three times instead of two.
DeleteSorting is so relaxing! Ready to have some downtime to sort this weekend!
ReplyDeleteIf I had longer arms and more table space, I'd definitely give this method a shot, since I like how you can deal with several hundred numbers at one shot.
ReplyDeleteIt does make your arms tired if you do it all day, that's for sure!
Delete