Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan
Matt
I wasn't specifically addressing you. There were several skeptics....in particular, a Net54 reader who continually emailed me.
My argument with you on this subject is over.....give it up. Wonkaticket's experience is a very valid proof of my contention.
However, in your manner of thinking, I expect that you will consider it an anecdotal "find" that doesn't prove anything.
Well, you don't realize how wrong you are. I've acquired several original T206 collections these past 29 years that I've been
putting together 5 complete sets (- the big 3) and 5 (T-brand) sub-sets. The size of these "finds" have ranged from 200 to
440 cards....and, I have seen certain unmistakable patterns in these T206 finds.
If you were better informed of the 4 successive series that comprise the T206 set, you would not be arguing this point at all.
You see, the 350/460 series subjects are the most prolifically printed T206's with respect to their various T-brand backs. The
61 cards in this series far outnumber the cards of the other three series with respect to their numerous backs. American Litho.
printed these 61 subjects with as many as 24 different tobacco advertising backs.
This fact alone, totally contradicts your suggestion that the St. Louis variations of Demmitt and O'Hara are 350/460 subjects.
Use some common sense, man....they only exist with the POLAR BEAR back.
I suggest you thoroughly read Scot Reader's very informative T206 book. And, if you have read it....then read it again.
Your entire approach to this subject is blurred by your narrow minded zeal to strictly statistically analyze everything. Take it
from a retired Bell Labs EE, who applied statistical analysis many times to design very sophisticated electronic circuitry, there
are more meaningful methods to unraveling the mysteries of the the "T206 Monster".
And, one of those methods is the empirical knowledge gleaned from having looked at 100's of thousands of T206's in one's life-
time.
Regards,
TED Z
|
Ted,
First, let me start by saying that I have the highest respect for the research you have done, and the knowledge you have accumulated and shared, in regards to T206 (and other sets.) However, your last couple of posts are far out of line, especially toward Matt.
The tone of your responses ("If you were better informed...", "Your entire approach to this subject is blurred by your narrow minded zeal...", "I suggest you thoroughly read Scot Reader's very informative T206 book. And, if you have read it....then read it again.") is demeaning, at best.
Have your opinion. Share it with others, if you're so inclined. Listen to their opinions and thoughts, and rebut them if necessary.
But calling out to the "naysayers" isn't necessary. And ridiculing them when they reply is totally uncalled for.
But this thread, and the silly one on Dunn, are asking questions about a baseball card set issued 100 years ago. Seeing the cards, touching the cards and studying the cards, answers some questions but leaves many others open to discussion.
Don't attack those who attempt to have that discussion.