T206 group of 350-only Series NO-PRINTS....CB, EPDG, OM, PB

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

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.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

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

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

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.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by tedzan

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
.

[Luke]

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.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Luke

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
.

[Luke]

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.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

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.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Luke

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
.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by tedzan

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:

Originally Posted by Luke

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.

[HobokenJon]

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

[HobokenJon]

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.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

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

[HobokenJon]

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.

[Pat R]

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

[HobokenJon]

Originally Posted by Pat R

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.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

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

Originally Posted by tedzan

PSA says DELEHANTY.....and, I say DELAHANTY. I am right, they are wrong !





TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Originally Posted by Pat R

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

[HobokenJon]

Originally Posted by Thromdog

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.)

[Luke]

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.

[HobokenJon]

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.

[HobokenJon]

Originally Posted by Luke

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.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

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.

Originally Posted by Pat R

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

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by G1911

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!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by t206hound

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!:

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

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.