NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-25-2022, 05:13 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HobokenJon View Post
Excellent! That's great news! I had no idea, and I gladly stand corrected. I started agitating about five years ago. I guess I hadn't checked the Sovereign 350 list on T206 Resource in the last year or so.

Now if only we could get T206 Resource to correct the false positives on the EPDG list (Pastorius, Hunky Shaw and Willett).
https://www.t206resource.com/EPDG%20Checklist.html
It usually takes awhile but it has been requested. The only confirmation I could find on any of them was the Willett and that was a mistake in a 2006 EPDG thread on the old board.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03-26-2022, 06:18 AM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Jon

This topic has been discussed before. And it becomes complicated. You and I could spend hours trying to convince each other.

My answer for you to consider the following Demmitt and O'Hara examples......

The New York versions of Demmitt & O'Hara are 350-only series guys. What series do you say the St. Louis versions are in ?

Most guys will say "350-only" series. Just like your example of Dahlen, in which only the Team in their caption was changed.

However, I say NO ! The St. Louis versions were printed in the 350/460 series. And, why do I say this....well, you know me.
I am a "numbers" guy.
The Population Report data of (200 - 300) of St. Louis cards of Demmitt or O'Hara compares with the
350/460 series subjects with POLAR BEAR backs. The numbers of POLAR BEAR subjects in the 350-only or 460-only series are
considerably less than 200 - 300.




TED Z

T206 Reference
.


Sweet Caporals with factory sheet numbers

Ames (portrait)
Bates
Beaumont
Clarke (portrait)
Clarke JJ
Cobb (bat on)
Dahlen (Brooklyn)
Dooin
Durham
Gilbert
Griffith (portrait)
Hemphill
Herzog
Johnson (portrait)
Jones, Fielder (portrait)
Keeler (with bat)
Killian (pitching)
Mathewson (portrait)
McGraw (portrait no cap)
Merkle (portrait)
Overall (portrait)
Seymour (batting)
Shipke
Spade
Steinfeldt (portrait)
Stovall
Tannehill (L. on front)
Wagner (bat on left shoulder)


Blue Old Mills

Elberfeld (Washington portrait)
Powell
Walsh

100% of these are print group 1 subjects


Have you found the non 150/350 subjects that you say are out there Ted?




As I'm sure you know, the large Factory 30 (or Factory 25) notation simply differentiates which SWEET CAP factory the cards on a given sheet (when cut up) will be shipped to.
Hints of the #25 or #30 notation has been found on cards across the 5 series. I don't see what that notation has to do with anything in this matter.


Jon

Back in 2011, a Net54 member posted Rhoades (right arm extended) SWEET CAP card with the hint of large Factory # on its edge. This card is strictly a 350-only subject.

And, there are more out there. I've been collecting T206's since 1981, and trust me, I have had and have seen over 50,000 of them.

I will see if I can come up with more like the above mentioned one in the 350-only series (or 350/460 series, or the 460-only series).


TED Z

Last edited by Pat R; 03-26-2022 at 06:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03-29-2022, 02:57 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Jim

I like your style of thinking regarding the T206 cards. It goes back to when I first posted my T206 REFERENCE thread 5 years ago (or even before then).

Jefferson Burdick and Bill Heitman many years ago clearly defined the structure of the T206 set by establishing easy to understand terminology regarding
the various series (150-only....150/350....350-only....350/460....460-only....So. Lgr.).

The cryptic term "Print Group #" in T206 Resource somewhat troubles me, because it is not a clearly definable term that instantly clues you in as to which
series a T206 is in. In some cases it blurs them over.


Two guys here are stating that Elberfeld (portrait-Washington) is a "150/350" card. So where is a PIEDMONT 150 or SWEET CAPORAL 150 in PSA's pop
report of this card ? ? Perhaps, they are invisible
And, these two guys say the same for G. Brown (Washington) and Dahlen (Brooklyn). But....PSA's pop report says NO ! and NO !






150/350 ---------------------- 350-only ---------------------- 150/350 -------------------- 350-only

150-only -------------------- 350-only



Furthermore, here are examples of two more SAME image T206's with different team captions and in different Series.

350-only ---------------------------- 350/460 ------------------------ 350-only --------------------- 350/460



TED Z

T206 Reference
.
It doesn't "blur them over" it clearly shows that Dahlen Brooklyn and Elberfeld Washington were printed with the 150/350 subjects, That's why Elberfeld Washington is found with a Blue Old Mill and Dahlen Brooklyn is found with a factory sheet number and your claim that factory sheet numbers are found in all 5 series is false. they are only found on print group 1 subjects.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 03-29-2022, 06:51 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default T206 group of 350-only Series NO-PRINTS....CB, EPDG, OM, PB

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Jon

Back in 2011, a Net54 member posted Rhoades (right arm extended) SWEET CAP card with the hint of large Factory # on its edge. This card is strictly a 350-only subject.

And, there are more out there. I've been collecting T206's since 1981, and trust me, I have had and have seen over 50,000 of them.

I will see if I can come up with more like the above mentioned one in the 350-only series (or 350/460 series, or the 460-only series).
.
Pat

Earlier in this thread, I noted that a T206 Rhoades (right arm extended) was discovered with a large Factory # on the edge of it's back. This subject is STRICTLY a 350 series card.

And, you called me a "liar".


Hey, the rest of you guys reading this now, check-out this thread posted in 2011..... https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=129855

Is Pat the one the here who is the "liar", when he tells us that no other T206 (350-only, 350/460, 460-only) series cards exhibit these large SWEET CAPORAL Factory #'s ?

I'm sick and tired of this dude acting as if Net54 is just another "trashy social media" site.


TED Z
.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-29-2022, 08:01 PM
Luke's Avatar
Luke Luke is offline
Luke Lyon
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,047
Default

Ted,

You're misunderstanding what Pat said. Yes, Rhoades arm extended has been found with a mark on the back at the right edge. But that is not what we're talking about here. The mark on Rhoades seems to be unique in that it's the only pose for which the side mark has been discovered.

Pat is referring to the "Big Factory 30" marks found at the bottom of the back on some Print Group 1 poses. There has also been one "Big Factory 25" found (Ames Portrait). Pat, if there are any other 25s, please correct me.

We've been following these for 10 years in this thread:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ht=big+factory

If you found even one card with a large factory # at the bottom from a series other than the 150-350 Series, that would be huge news. I'd be absolutely shocked if there are any. If you do have evidence that a Big Factory 25 or 30 exists for a pose not in Print Group 1, please share it.

I wish you wanted these threads you post to be more collaborative. You post a lot of good information, but whenever someone politely points out an error you made, you always get upset. We should all work together to further the collective knowledge of the group. I've written a lot about the set myself, and people have pointed out a mistake in my work a few times. I've always said "thank you" and fixed it. And if there was a learning opportunity there for me, I would take it.

Pat is a very smart, level-headed guy. He has contributed a ton to the communal knowledge about the set. If he presents a fact, it's because he has evidence to back up that statement. If he puts forward a theory, it's because he has evidence that logically supports his conclusion. If you find yourself arguing with Pat, it's either because you didn't understand what he posted, or you just don't want to work together and learn from anyone else.

What you are perceiving as a personal attack against you is really just a step in the process of building our collective knowledge as T206 historians. If any of us make a post that contains errors, another member should come in and point out the mistakes so we can all learn together.
__________________
ThatT206Life.com
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03-29-2022, 09:19 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default T206 group of 350-only Series NO-PRINTS....CB, EPDG, OM, PB

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke View Post
Ted


I wish you wanted these threads you post to be more collaborative. You post a lot of good information, but whenever someone politely points out an error you made, you always get upset. We should all work together to further the collective knowledge of the group. I've written a lot about the set myself, and people have pointed out a mistake in my work a few times. I've always said "thank you" and fixed it. And if there was a learning opportunity there for me, I would take it.

.
Luke

I do get upset at times and there is a reason for it.....it started about 10 years ago. That's when two guys (who will remain nameless) posted their "T206Resource" site.
As far back as 2005 (when I became a member of Net54), I developed and posted my theories and experiences from my various T206 sets (5) which I put together for
30 - 40 years.
I was very generous in sharing them with everyone who chose to read my threads on Net54. Well, the T206Resource dudes never gave me any acknowledgement for my
information (checklists, etc.) that they posted in their site. Simply stated, they plagiarized a lot of my ideas and information. How do we know this to be true. Checklists
they took from me had errors....identical errors that I inadvertently made when I posted them years prior to T206Resource.
For example: my SOVEREIGN No-Print checklist of 67 subjects had 2 mistakes. Sure enough, T206Resource's checklist had the EXACT two errors in it. The probability of
having 1 identical error is somewhere around 10,000 to 1. Having 2 identical errors, the probability approaches 1 Million to 1. Yet they denied such things when this was
discovered, and brought to their attention. So they would not give me any credit for this data.

So you ask, why do I get so upset with these people ?

To quote Billy Joel...."I didn't start this fire".

It's only just a handfull of Net54 people that bug me. The vast majority are great. And, you would be very surprised to see how many Net54er's visit me at the National
Show and the three Philly Shows every year. We have a great time Talking BB and BB cards.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-29-2022, 10:04 PM
Luke's Avatar
Luke Luke is offline
Luke Lyon
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,047
Default

That wouldn't surprise me at all. I know many people in the hobby who like you a lot. All I wanted to say is I wish we could all work together and get along a little better.

I've never seen Pat post something that he couldn't prove, so if he points out something, that shouldn't be cause for an argument. If you post a checklist that has say 35 poses on it, and Pat points out that one pose is on the list in error, that's a good thing. The whole point of making one of your posts on net54 is you are giving collectors a reference they can learn from. If you go to all the trouble of making the post and putting together the list and then Pat points one error out and now the list is perfect, that's a great result isn't it? That thread will be a great help to collectors in the future.
__________________
ThatT206Life.com
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-30-2022, 04:20 AM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Luke

I do get upset at times and there is a reason for it.....it started about 10 years ago. That's when two guys (who will remain nameless) posted their "T206Resource" site.
As far back as 2005 (when I became a member of Net54), I developed and posted my theories and experiences from my various T206 sets (5) which I put together for
30 - 40 years.
I was very generous in sharing them with everyone who chose to read my threads on Net54. Well, the T206Resource dudes never gave me any acknowledgement for my
information (checklists, etc.) that they posted in their site. Simply stated, they plagiarized a lot of my ideas and information. How do we know this to be true. Checklists
they took from me had errors....identical errors that I inadvertently made when I posted them years prior to T206Resource.
For example: my SOVEREIGN No-Print checklist of 67 subjects had 2 mistakes. Sure enough, T206Resource's checklist had the EXACT two errors in it. The probability of
having 1 identical error is somewhere around 10,000 to 1. Having 2 identical errors, the probability approaches 1 Million to 1. Yet they denied such things when this was
discovered, and brought to their attention. So they would not give me any credit for this data.

So you ask, why do I get so upset with these people ?

To quote Billy Joel...."I didn't start this fire".

It's only just a handfull of Net54 people that bug me. The vast majority are great. And, you would be very surprised to see how many Net54er's visit me at the National
Show and the three Philly Shows every year. We have a great time Talking BB and BB cards.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Ted,
I have talked with you at a few shows and I've purchased a couple of cards from you but that doesn't mean I'm not going to say something if I think something you post or start a thread on is incorrect.

If you really care about the research of the T206 set the print groups and the original ATC journal should be in your reference thread and your hatred towards t206resource and me shouldn't be a factor in omitting them.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-30-2022, 08:18 AM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default T206 group of 350-only Series NO-PRINTS....CB, EPDG, OM, PB

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke View Post
That wouldn't surprise me at all. I know many people in the hobby who like you a lot. All I wanted to say is I wish we could all work together and get along a little better.

I've never seen Pat post something that he couldn't prove, so if he points out something, that shouldn't be cause for an argument. If you post a checklist that has say 35 poses on it, and Pat points out that one pose is on the list in error, that's a good thing. The whole point of making one of your posts on net54 is you are giving collectors a reference they can learn from. If you go to all the trouble of making the post and putting together the list and then Pat points one error out and now the list is perfect, that's a great result isn't it? That thread will be a great help to collectors in the future.

Luke

Look at the title of this thread....I posted this information for the benefit of avid T206 collectors, in order to make it easier for any one of them working on their T206 runs.
Yet, not much conversation has been devoted to it's importance.

Pat (more or less) "hi-jacks" this thread with his comments in post #13. He does this often, even with his petty remarks. A perfect example of this is when I posted a very
interesting and popular thread regarding the "Brothers Delahanty". Pat interjects that I spelled their name incorrectly. He said it should be "Delehanty". Well Pat was WRONG.
And, that kind of petty interruption side-tracked the import of that thread. I could provide you with many more such examples, but I'll leave it at that.

You have NOT responded to the 2011 thread which clearly reports the discovery of a Rhoades (a 350 series) card with a large Factory # on its back.

Can we talk about this Rhoades card ? Also, the probability of other such cards in the subsequent series following the 150/350 series ? ?

SWEET CAPORAL cards with Factory #s 25 and 30 were also printed in the 350-only....350/460....460-only Series; therefore, there is no logical reason for the sheets of those
cards NOT having Factory #s 25 or 30 identification on them.

TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-30-2022, 10:32 AM
t206hound's Avatar
t206hound t206hound is offline
€r!©k §µmmær$
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Luke
You have NOT responded to the 2011 thread which clearly reports the discovery of a Rhoades (a 350 series) card with a large Factory # on its back.

Can we talk about this Rhoades card ? Also, the probability of other such cards in the subsequent series following the 150/350 series ? ?

TED Z

.
Luke did respond about the Rhoades card:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke View Post
Ted,

You're misunderstanding what Pat said. Yes, Rhoades arm extended has been found with a mark on the back at the right edge. But that is not what we're talking about here. The mark on Rhoades seems to be unique in that it's the only pose for which the side mark has been discovered.

Pat is referring to the "Big Factory 30" marks found at the bottom of the back on some Print Group 1 poses. There has also been one "Big Factory 25" found (Ames Portrait). Pat, if there are any other 25s, please correct me.
The marking (on the right side of the back of the) Rhoades can in no way be mistaken for the "big" factory number markings at the bottom of the cards referenced in that thread. Please see these scans... a Rhoades, an Ames and then the two together with the Rhoades marking rotated 90 degrees. These aren't the same markings.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg rhodes_back.jpg (174.3 KB, 110 views)
File Type: jpg Ames Back.jpg (77.7 KB, 113 views)
File Type: jpg Ames Back - Copy.jpg (8.5 KB, 111 views)
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 03-30-2022, 10:40 AM
HobokenJon HobokenJon is offline
Jonathan Weil
Jon.than We.il
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 192
Default Rhoades

Here's a link to scans of the Rhoades front and back, posted by Chris Browne in 2013.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...6&postcount=51
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 03-30-2022, 10:58 AM
HobokenJon HobokenJon is offline
Jonathan Weil
Jon.than We.il
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 192
Default Rhoades, follow-up

For what it's worth, it looks like the Rhoades card posted by Chris in 2013 is a different copy than the one posted above by Erick. I find it interesting that we know of at least two examples of this print mark -- or whatever the mark is -- on Rhoades (arm extended).

On Erick's copy the print mark sits between the lines "The Standard" and "for Years," and off to the side. On Chris's copy, the print mark sits directly to the side of "The Standard" line.

Erick, perchance, do you have a front scan of that Rhoades (or a link to it) that you can post?

I would've pasted the scans of Chris's copy directly into this message, except I'm a fuddy-duddy and can't figure out how to do it. Maybe one of you can teach me someday.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 03-30-2022, 11:07 AM
t206hound's Avatar
t206hound t206hound is offline
€r!©k §µmmær$
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HobokenJon View Post
Erick, perchance, do you have a front scan of that Rhoades (or a link to it) that you can post?
Here are the two different posts that I found images:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...&postcount=120

https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...&postcount=148



Last edited by t206hound; 03-30-2022 at 11:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 03-30-2022, 11:21 AM
HobokenJon HobokenJon is offline
Jonathan Weil
Jon.than We.il
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 192
Default Rhoades

Sweet. Thanks, Erick. Do we know for sure that the print mark on those two Rhoades cards is part of a factory number?

On the Print Group 1 (150-350) cards, I can clearly make out that the marks are from the top of a number "30."

I'm not sure I can make that same leap just by looking at the print marks on the side of the Rhoades cards.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 03-30-2022, 12:13 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

I've seen several of the Rhoades with the mark there was one with a sliver of the mark in a recent REA auction they are definitely not factory numbers.

I don't know why the factory numbers are only found on print group 1 subjects but the T206's were printed for close to two years so I'm sure there were changes and maybe
they came up with a different method of identifying the factory's on the sheets if that's what the numbers were for.

here's the one that was in REA, I bid on it but I wasn't willing to pay a premium for it because of how little of the mark was present.

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=96739

Last edited by Pat R; 03-30-2022 at 12:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 03-30-2022, 12:36 PM
HobokenJon HobokenJon is offline
Jonathan Weil
Jon.than We.il
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post
I've seen several of the Rhoades with the mark there was one with a sliver of the mark in a recent REA auction they are definitely not factory numbers.

I don't know why the factory numbers are only found on print group 1 subjects but the T206's were printed for close to two years so I'm sure there were changes and maybe
they came up with a different method of identifying the factory's on the sheets if that's what the numbers were for.

here's the one that was in REA, I bid on it but I wasn't willing to pay a premium for it because of how little of the mark was present.

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=96739
I agree with you that the mark on the Rhoades cards isn't a factory number. There certatinly is no conclusive evidence that it's a factory number.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 03-30-2022, 12:45 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Luke

Look at the title of this thread....I posted this information for the benefit of avid T206 collectors, in order to make it easier for any one of them working on their T206 runs.
Yet, not much conversation has been devoted to it's importance.

Pat (more or less) "hi-jacks" this thread with his comments in post #13. He does this often, even with his petty remarks. A perfect example of this is when I posted a very
interesting and popular thread regarding the "Brothers Delahanty". Pat interjects that I spelled their name incorrectly. He said it should be "Delehanty". Well Pat was WRONG.

And, that kind of petty interruption side-tracked the import of that thread. I could provide you with many more such examples, but I'll leave it at that.

You have NOT responded to the 2011 thread which clearly reports the discovery of a Rhoades (a 350 series) card with a large Factory # on its back.

Can we talk about this Rhoades card ? Also, the probability of other such cards in the subsequent series following the 150/350 series ? ?

SWEET CAPORAL cards with Factory #s 25 and 30 were also printed in the 350-only....350/460....460-only Series; therefore, there is no logical reason for the sheets of those
cards NOT having Factory #s 25 or 30 identification on them.

TED Z

T206 Reference
.
See Ted you're making things up again to make me look bad first of all it was Brian's thread and second I didn't say you were wrong.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ight=Delehanty

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
PSA says DELEHANTY.....and, I say DELAHANTY. I am right, they are wrong !





TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post
It's spelled wrong on the t206 and a lot of the newspapers from when he played spelled it Delehanty too.
You have three Delahanty threads and this is the only thing I posted in any of them.

Poted 2-10-22

I can't read what Brendan posted either is it similar to this? starting on page 311

https://books.google.com/books?id=B-...0books&f=false

Last edited by Pat R; 03-30-2022 at 01:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 03-30-2022, 01:46 PM
HobokenJon HobokenJon is offline
Jonathan Weil
Jon.than We.il
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 192
Default But back to the original question (which no one answered)...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thromdog View Post
Where would Cross fit in since his only offback is Tolstoi? 350 only subject that is pretty unique on its own….
Where does Cross fit in all of this? What about Bobby Byrne?

(Only offback for Cross is Tolstoi. Only offbacks for Byrne are Tolstoi and Sov 350 forest green.)
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 03-30-2022, 01:55 PM
Luke's Avatar
Luke Luke is offline
Luke Lyon
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,047
Default

Not sure there's a clear answer to that question Jon.

In addition to Byrne, Mowrey and Rossman also have Sov350/Tolstoi/Coupon Type 1 as their only non Pied/SC backs.

Cross doesn't have a Sov350 or Coupon, so he's firmly in his own category.
__________________
ThatT206Life.com
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 03-30-2022, 01:55 PM
HobokenJon HobokenJon is offline
Jonathan Weil
Jon.than We.il
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 192
Default Cross, Byrne

My working assumption is that no one has any earthly idea why Cross's only offback is Tolstoi, and Byrne's only offbacks are Tolstoi and Sovereign 350 forest green.

But if anybody does have any good ideas about how it came to be this way, I'm all ears.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 03-30-2022, 01:57 PM
HobokenJon HobokenJon is offline
Jonathan Weil
Jon.than We.il
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke View Post
Not sure there's a clear answer to that question Jon.

In addition to Byrne, Mowrey and Rossman also have Sov350/Tolstoi/Coupon Type 1 as their only non Pied/SC backs.

Cross doesn't have a Sov350 or Coupon, so he's firmly in his own category.
Ah, we must've hit the "submit reply" button within seconds of each other.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 03-30-2022, 02:24 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HobokenJon View Post
My working assumption is that no one has any earthly idea why Cross's only offback is Tolstoi, and Byrne's only offbacks are Tolstoi and Sovereign 350 forest green.

But if anybody does have any good ideas about how it came to be this way, I'm all ears.
I don't think we will ever know for sure. I posted one thought I had about it back in 2017.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post
I'm not sure if this is what you're asking and some of this has probably been discussed before.

Lundgren might be the most interesting print related subject in the set.
His Chicago variation was added late to print group 1 and the K.C.
variation was pulled early from print group 2.

With some of the information we have it looks like there were a few different stages
that the Piedmonts and SC350/30 and possibly SC350/25 were printed in.

There is a group of 16 (18 if you count Demmitt and O'Hara ST. Louis) subjects
that are the only no prints from print group 2 with AB frame, BL 350 and
cycle 350 backs.

Looking at this group it looks like Carolina Brights and EPDG could be part of
the earlier printing for print group 2. It looks like Bobby Byrne might have
replaced Lundgren Kansas City, Rossman might have replaced Demmitt New York
and Cross or Mowrey could have replaced O'Hara New York.

Attachment 291699
Here's the chart I made that didn't attach to the link. The chart was made before I confirmed the Rossman Tolstoi which changes the possible Rossman Demmitt NY conection.
img571.jpg

Last edited by Pat R; 03-31-2022 at 10:38 AM. Reason: added info
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 03-30-2022, 09:04 PM
t206hound's Avatar
t206hound t206hound is offline
€r!©k §µmmær$
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
for the exact same reason there are far more #261 Mays graded than #260 Castiglione and #262 Trucks even though we know they all had the same print run on the series 5 sheet.
Don’t know how I missed my Uncle Pete being referenced in this thread!
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 03-31-2022, 11:27 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by t206hound View Post
Don’t know how I missed my Uncle Pete being referenced in this thread!
I don't have the Willie Mays or factory stamped T206's.... But I got your uncle!:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_1029.jpg (195.8 KB, 74 views)
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 03-31-2022, 01:38 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Pat

Earlier in this thread, I noted that a T206 Rhoades (right arm extended) was discovered with a large Factory # on the edge of it's back. This subject is STRICTLY a 350 series card.

And, you called me a "liar".


Hey, the rest of you guys reading this now, check-out this thread posted in 2011..... https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=129855

Is Pat the one the here who is the "liar", when he tells us that no other T206 (350-only, 350/460, 460-only) series cards exhibit these large SWEET CAPORAL Factory #'s ?

I'm sick and tired of this dude acting as if Net54 is just another "trashy social media" site.


TED Z
.

This is quite an ironic statement Ted when in this thread alone you have called me a liar, made fictitious claims backed up by inaccurate information and when proven wrong you don't acknowledge it or apologize.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Know the No-Prints of the EPDG cards in the 150 Series of the T206 set...... tedzan Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 25 03-18-2022 07:04 AM
Interesting NO-PRINT group of T206 Carolina Brights - EPDG - Old Mill - Polar Bear tedzan Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 11 01-23-2019 06:41 PM
T206....PIEDMONT vs EPDG cards in 350 series and 460 series tedzan Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 11 10-07-2017 10:38 PM
FS: group of 6 EPDG commons trobba T206 cards B/S/T 0 10-22-2014 10:00 AM
T206 Brown OLD MILL's....Prints vs No-Prints tedzan Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 26 05-27-2010 09:39 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:12 PM.


ebay GSB