T206 Paper Stock
 

Was there more than one kind of paper stock used for T206s?

I have never heard of any on thin paper stock. The T213-1s are on thin stock but they aren't T206, as some incorrectly label them.
.

All the ATC sets seem to use a unified stock.

Moreso American Litho.

T212s have slightly different stock. The lacquer on the front doesn't crack as easily, it more readily wrinkles. If I knew where T207s and T210s were printed, I'd say something about the alligator-ing on the front.

I’ll change it to “the majority of ATC sets, supposed to or actually printed by American Lithography and Brett Lithography” if you prefer. Though no ATC set I can think of really has a stock variant. T212’s are all on the same stock. T210’s are all on the same stock. It’s not like Topps where they switched stock types mid print run with frequency. ATC sets were done on one single stock type.

No need to make me happy, but I'm cool with looking at all the old boxing stuff, though. Keep 'em coming. (And my experience on the lack of within-set variation matches yours.)

I gotta ask...why do you ask? If you found something unusual, would you care to share any details?

+1 .... especially an auction house asking this!

I have owned a few one-off "thin" paper cards from other series, but have never heard about one for T206.
.
One I used to own...

Are the HR Kisses generally the same stock as Zee-Nuts and/or anything else that Collins McCarthy distributed?

I ask because in my experiences I have found that there seems to be T206s that have firmer paper stock and some that seem to have a bit smoother finish than other that have been fine.

Lee

I find that there are differences in every set ever made. Some of it is how the cards were produced, and some of it is how the cards were kept over the years/decades. It just is what it is. It used to bug me, not anymore. I just accept it.

There is a colossal difference between the former, how the cards were produced and if they were made on multiple stocks creating actual variations, and the latter, how they were stored and wear/aging/toning that is damage and not a variation.

There are absolutely not legitimate differences in “every set ever made”.

Every set I have EVER come across going back to when I was 9 years old, 55 years, have had legitimate differences in gloss, no gloss, printing issues, back differences, thickness differences, you name it. It's disposable cardboard. Trying to go all anal retentive over these things is silly geek nonsense. There absolutely ARE legitimate differences.

Yes, some cards lose gloss over time. Yes some cards have printing issues. I do not see how we could reasonably say that damage and variations are the same thing. They are different. There are not legitimate stock differences in every set ever made. This is obviously and plainly false.

It may well be that variation collectors, which is most people in the hobby (anyone want to trade me a Drum back for the same card with a Piedmont back? No?), are anal retentive silly geeks. It’s an awfully silly, stupid and hypocritical insult to make from one collector to another though… we’re all silly geeks paying good money for pictures of dead dudes.

Printing differences are variations, not damage. Insults aside. I have OJs and the like from the 1800s, all kinds of tobacco cards, all kinds of pre-war and post-war cards. All of them have differences in stock thickness, coloration due to printing differences (not damage), some are even slightly different in size (and not from being trimmed, they were made that way). The most glaring differences in stock (both thickness and color) from my personal collection are 1933 and 34 Goudey, 1953 Bowman Color (there are clearly 2 different stocks, maybe more), 1952 and 54 Topps, 1960 and 61 Topps (all over the place, thickness and color) and 1965 Topps (the blue backs can be 2 different colors of blue). I have looked at other peoples cards in person and seen the same differences, so it's not just me. All of my t205, t206 and t207 cards are among my best cards with virtually no issues with stock thickness or anything else.

It depends on the difference. A stock variation, printed on two distinctly different types, is a variation. A card that has 'printing issues' is generally considered damage. OC, MC, PD etc., they are held against the grade. A card that is miscut is not a variation by any standard I have ever heard.

Again, a difference does not a variation make. Age-related toning, as you grouped in with actual stock variations in post 12, is not a variation. It simply is not.

I am well aware that many sets were printed on multiple stocks; I post regularly on the post-war board about many of the 'unrecognized' ones. 53 Bowman Color definitely has 2 stocks, 52/54/60 all have long recognized blatant stock differences. I would need to see any actual evidence that 1961 Topps has a thicker stock type variant to believe the claim (as should always be the case to believe any claim about anything).

Your claim wasn't that some sets have stock variations, a claim everyone would agree with as the evidence is clear that this is so. Your claim you chose to make was that every single set ever made has stock variations. This is an absurd claim that is blatantly false. It's an easier narrative, but it is untrue.

Even if there are slight diff stocks in t206s and some might rarer than the other, no one would really care since majority of t206s are in holders and no one would bother to crack them open to check.

Then what do you call it when the stocks are obviously different? I'm getting really sick of your know it all, smug "absurd" and "blatantly false" statements. You simply do not know what you are talking about. Good luck with your search for whatever you are trying to accomplish here, which would appear to be to somehow make rocket science out of cheap, disposable cardboard. I am done trying to get through to you.

G1911, please cease and desist in any further replies that include me, or any further discussion with anything I have stated. I am done with this thread.

Well ok, one day I had my digital calipers out so I randomly checked maybe 20 T206s.
What I found was that they were remarkably consistent. Which is a little unusual for paper produced around 1909-1911. especially with samples made two -three years apart.

I haven't checked stiffness, for a couple reasons. First it's a little bit risky. Second, so many of my T206s are beaters that will obviously not be as stiff.

That stiffness is related to fiber length and what and how much sizing was used in making the cardstock.

I have noticed gloss differences, some related to the inks themselves, others probably related to the cardstock being coated or not (actually more likely not coated much) The less coated stock will absorb the ink better giving a matte appearance and usually more muted colors. A coated stock forces the ink to sit on the surface and since the colors are semi transparent they appaear brighter.

I think I know what Lee is talking about especially regarding the firmer paper stock. I've had a few lower condition T206's that feel firmer. I purchased one a couple of months ago that as soon as I removed it from the card saver I noticed that it felt firmer/stiffer than most T206's in the same condition (sometimes cards that have been soaked in the past feel similar but not quite the same).

I also have a Beckley that I purchased recently that at first I thought someone had applied some kind of clear substance to make it shine but
when I examined it closer it didn't look or feel like it was something that was done post production and maybe it's what you're referring to about the gloss differences.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ale/img781.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ale/img779.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ale/img780.jpg[/IMG]

I can't remember the recent firmer T206 but I'll see if I can find it in my recent purchases.

Ted Z., can you please check in on this? Probably no one in the hobby has handled more T206s than you.

I would have to think how a card was stored over 100 years could affect the finish and stiffness factoring in moisture among other things.

Yes, that's glossy ink on coated stock. My Konetchy is similar but hard to show since it's slabbed.

I have a feeling that the glossiness somewhat follows brands and series. But the only ones I have that are consistent are tougher backs and I only have a couple cards so not much of a sample size.

I was convinced for a while that Sweet Cap 350's are lighter (weight) than other cards. If you really pay attention, you can identify them with your eyes closed. Obviously a subtle difference, but if you had 100 raw, unaltered, mixed back cards and you had to pick the 3 lightest with your eyes closed...you would pick sweet cap 350 backs. I always wondered if anyone else thought the same or if the craziness was mine alone.

I have occasionally encountered a white border card that I'm fairly sure was soaked. And some that I'm certain have not been soaked, at least not soaked any time in the past few years.

Why do I think this? Among white border cards that I acquired in the past couple of months was one that had a few tiny dirt (maybe tobacco) spots on there, and a bit of staining in places on the back. I soaked it for an afternoon, the front specks fell to the bottom of the glass, thew stains were water soluble and dissolved away. A (slightly) better looking card was the result. Same thing with a recent white border card that had remnants of flower paste on the back, that in places slightly obscured the Sweet Caporal design. All of that paste dissolved and the card looks better.

On cards that I'm quite sure someone else soaked, I sometimes notice they seem a bit thinner. And over the past few years of seeing that I've decided that some guys who soak cards feel compelled to physically press the card with great force to mash the water out. I'm serious in saying that those cards feel slightly thinner. I think sometimes the 'thinner' feel is due to that, soaking then over-blotting / mashing. I think enough force is necessary to have the card drying flat... but I think the goal is to have the card dry flat, not for it to be mashed flat. I haven't done this in a few years, but I recall soaking a few cards that seemed previously soaked and smashed, so that I could let them dry in a less smashed condition, and the results were successful.

So, for some of these thin cards, look at them and consider that someone super-pressed them after they soaked them.

Update
 

Just wanted to give an update on the card I questioned.

I received the graded back from SGC and it was a 3. The card definitely had a smoother shinier stock than most T206. When the card was raw and in hand I had seen no indication that the card was not real.

Here is the card if any one is interested: Click Here

Thanks for the replies,

Lee

And aside from possibly being soaked, could the card at one time have been kept in a screw down holder and compressed that way as well? Could possibly account for the thinner feel, and change in stiffness also.

I had no reason to believe the card was ever soaked. As far as the thickness, I had no reason to believe that the thickness of the stock was an issue. I was referring to other T206 I have handled.

Lee