Posted By:
Scott ElkinsI, like many of you have mentioned, was always told and read that T206's could be found with Hustler backs - back in the earlier days of collecting. I even remember the old price guides that listed Coupons, Red Cross, Pirate, etc. as T206 backs - they always had Hustler listed as a possible back as well. Now, we classify a lot of these "other" T206 backs as seperate sets of course. To date, the only back listed back then as a T206 back that I have NOT seen is a HUSTLER back (like I said others are now listed as their own sets and not considered T206's of course).
Here is my opinion about Hustler being a legit back in the T206 set. I believe it is very possible. I know the early "checklisters" were deligent in proving cards existed before they listed them in the early checklists. I sincerely believe there was at least one example documented by these early checklisters for it to be mentioned in the first place! It was always listed as one of the "toughest" T206 backs. It could be a completely different set like the T215's, or it could be a legit. T206 back variation. However, I sincerely believe at least one example has been seen over the years and was verified. So, it would be a possibility for others to surface. The good thing is that it is relatively easy to spot rebacked cards. Plus, I am no expert, as I have never owned a non-baseball player Hustler - but, aren't those a different size than a T206?
Another theory I have on these is that a "find" was made years ago. The person let these early checklisters view a card from the find of Hustlers to verify it, then held onto ever how many they found. The collection is probably hidden away somewhere now by their heirs - maybe not even knowing what they have - waiting to be found again! I just hope that if this is the case, the cards were not destroyed in a fire, flood, etc. over the years and will one day be brought to light.