Site Forum

I also agree with grouping by suits (no sort preference) and using Ace as the low card. The jokers can be difficult though. The 1993 U.S. Playing Card Cincinnati Reds set has a Joker depicting Riverfront Stadium and a Wild card depicting Tony Perez. I just browsed a few other sets and found the "extra" cards listed as Joker, Wild and sometimes both.

A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 J Q K repeated 4 times for each suit. JOK for joker.

Aside from the obvious (playing cards are not trading cards and don't belong here, but that's not the point of the conversation), I would say Ace after King.  Ace is almost universally the high card, so in my mind, the high number.

Never bothered to read everything as I have THE answer, Admin and me have discussed and decided that the best system is that of the baseball sets, Admin has changed the hockey sets to match.

Since the cards don't have traditional numbering and we have to make up a numbering system to fit our scheme, it's the kind of situation where there is no correct answer. 2ofC looked fine at the time and if you would have sent in 2C, that would have looked fine too. At this stage, though, for the sake of consistency, it looks like the 2C format is the one that has permeated the site more, so let's go with that. If you send in inaccuracy reports from the ones that are listed in the 2ofC format, I can easily fix them on this end.

Absolutley A is ALWAYS high card. Try and beat a pair of aces with a pair of twos .............. good luck! LOL

Seriously though since he said to follow the most common way (baseball sets was used at one point) and Admin fixed the 95-96 hockey sets as to their specs I would say that trumps all the discussion. Yes?

switzr1 wrote:

Aside from the obvious (playing cards are not trading cards and don't belong here, but that's not the point of the conversation), I would say Ace after King.  Ace is almost universally the high card, so in my mind, the high number.

Thanks, ranfordfan. So, the graphic I posted is what Admin wants. Correct?

I'm hiding in my oiler suit tonight (it's me ..... RANFORDFAN!) Yes C2C your chart is correct. Didn't want to step on any toes but I thought it best to jump in as fast as possible. Gladly Admin was clear and said whoever was that came up with the baseball numbering method did a good job and it was simpler to change the few hockey sets than to change all the baseball ones.

Here are two examples from the Racing world. There were 2 versions - a blue-back card and a red-back card. I like the way the Red version's CL is listed better than the blue version. I would be okay with the blue version if the order near the end was 10, J, Q, K, A instead of A, J, K, Q, 10. I like the red version with each suit listed in ABC order though. It just looks cleaner that way.

http://www.tradingcarddb.com/Subsets.cfm/sid/56456/2009-Wheels-Main-Event---Playing-Cards-Blue

http://www.tradingcarddb.com/Subsets.cfm/sid/56457/2009-Wheels-Main-Event---Playing-Cards-Red

Red is correct, blue is SO awkward!!

I agree. Red version is the way to go. Easier to find what you are looking for.