Possible variation T205 Nee Printers mark on card vs No printers mark

I just won this and was wanting the opinion of the great elders as to wether or not this was a printers mark. Since this is a T205 I am sure it adds NO value to the card. All sarcasm aside I was just looking for some opinions from the gys here as to what they think.

Does this Add any value?

Is it a Printers mark?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=STRK:MEWNX:IT

[iggyman]

Andrew,

Glad to see you back in the game! Hopefully, it is permanent, your enthusiasm for T205's were missed around here. To answer your question, I have yet to reach the status of elder, but that definitely looks like a printers mark to me. Neat card and the mark does add a little value to the card. At least, if I would have seen it; I would have added a slight premium to my snipe.

Lovely Day...

[ChiefBenderForever]

Great pose, awesome sky background on this card haven't seen this one before very cool.

Glad to be back. Was having some serious withdraws there. Hope to keep chuggin along

[irishdenny]

i agree! Most humbly.... This iS a Printers Proof Card, I've had many of them, mostly sold now though. i would Love to see a scan of the Back.(Please, if possible?)
This is what i would do if the card were mine, i would Not fear a regrade at all(i mention this because of the older PSA slab, ie rounded frame). Sending it to SGC for their Slabbed oinion is the Real Deal Ticket to authenication.

just my 2 pennies worth

Oh yeah, also, you might want to magnify the the Proof line to see what if any other colors can be seen(sometimes not with the naked eye).

"Sweet Card!!!"

[ullmandds]

printer's proof card? nothing personal...but u guys are whacked! this is merely a printers mark used to line up the plates...this is not a proof!

You guys can fight over what premium this card should carry...in my opinion...none...it's just a nice t205...definitely NOT a proof of any kind?!

Originally Posted by ullmandds

printer's proof card? nothing personal...but u guys are whacked! this is merely a printers mark used to line up the plates...this is not a proof!

You guys can fight over what premium this card should carry...in my opinion...none...it's just a nice t205...definitely NOT a proof of any kind?!

Thanks Peter I knew someone would have to burst my bubble. Like I said its not a T206 so I figured it was not anything good.

So let me ask you guys this. Why is it every time someone finds a small dot or mistake on a T206 it's the newest and hottest variation and they get slaps on the back. I remember finding a T205 Latham with the W missing but remnence of it and the period on there and it was disregarded as just the A Latham variation. I will post pics later.


The fact that the mark is visible should be a major issue. It unlike the "Beloved" T206's, T205's have a solid gold covered border. That would make the possibility of getting a printers mark on one nearly impossible unless the border ink was never applied. Well love to hear the feedback on this

[iggyman]

Peter,

Can you tell us how you really feel? Please, don't hold back .

Yes, it is not a proof card, that much is obvious. A printers mark(?), yeah, high probability. What premium should the printer mark carry, I'm thinking 5 to 10 bucks. In other words, the price of a happy meal or two. Of course, the good thing about a snipe is the ability to change it on a whim. Talk to me tomorrow and I might feel differently.

Lovely Day...

[tedzan]

Here's a scan of my Nee and Merritt cards. There is a hint of a printer's mark on both of these two cards. I looked at the 12 - T206 Minor League
cards in my set and some have this mark, while others do not. I would say that these marks are not anything unusual.


......................................\/.................................................. ..............................\/





TED Z

[ullmandds]

I don't think because it's not a t206 it is any more or less than what it is! Yes...people are ridiculous about analyzing t206's for any stray marks or insignificant print variations looking to strike gold...but many cards exhibit such stray printing marks...like almost every e90-1 cy young(boston) I've seen.

It's a beautiful card...with a little evidence it was created by a human being...enjoy it.

Sorry guys...but I'm still a little on edge from the twins/yanks game last night. Many twins fans are obnoxious idiots!

Originally Posted by tedzan

Here's a scan of my Nee and Merritt cards. There is a hint of a printer's mark on both of these two cards. I looked at the 12 - T206 Minor League
cards in my set and some have this mark, while others do not. I would say that these marks are not anything unusual.


......................................\/.................................................. ..............................\/



TED Z

Ted would this not qualify the Minor league cards as a variation? Since we have both cards with and without marks. I cant see the Nee mark but looks like the Merrit come in on the ornate bat. Now since we have some with and some without and can be found with both with the mark being the lesser of them this qualifys them to be a new variation right?????????? I mean thats the rule for 206's. Not trying to bust anyones nutz here but rules that are good for one seem to be bad for others.

[ullmandds]

I don't know, pup...with logic like that any off centeredness or registration issues would constitute a variation too...wouldn't it?

I understand where your debate is stemming from...and I sympathize. I don't consider these things variations in any way...and some T206 hunters are just looking for a payday...nothing more!

[steve B]

Exactly, interesting printers mark, but not a variation. It will be there on every sheet. A sheet cut a bit off center the other way will show the mark on the card below. The mark is more of a cutting guideline, and will be cut in half on a perfectly centered card.

What's interesting is that the card below wasn't Nee. The yellow line below the mark would be the border that's under the gold of most other t205s.

Now, find a t205 that has that mark, and a white strip at the top (or bottom, the cards could have been aid out bottom to bottom. ) And you've got part of the sheet layout for that sheet. And that would be very cool.

Steve B

[tedzan]

Andrew

Here are my Batch and Dunn....no hint of printer's marks.

Regarding Nee....most of his cards have the same printer's mark. But, here is one currently on ebay that does not......
http://cgi.ebay.com/1911-T205-Hassan...-/160360451936







I agree with Peter....in the bigger picture of T205's, with or without these printer's alignment marks, it's no big deal.

Incidently Peter, as a long-time Yankees fan, I sympathize with you. But, it's tough to beat Pettitte in October. He has an impressive post-season
record. Anyhow, I'm rooting for the Phillies this year. Or the Rangers, since I'm a fan of Cliff Lee.



TED Z

[T206Collector]

While I can appreciate why T205 fans are envious of all the T206 attention, I have to say that even if that mark showed up on a T206 border it would not be worth much either. Nor would it be considered a "variation." There are all sorts of mysterious lines in the borders, front and back, of plenty of T206 cards.

[canjond]

Ted, et al. This might not be the correct thread to bring this up in, but since we are talking about printing in terms of T205s, it's somewhat appropriate. I know the board has hashed out in the past the possible sheet arrangements for T205s and T206s. However, the theories never discuss the possibility that cards were printed both horizontally and vertically on the same sheet. We know for a fact that both Obaks, and T207s were arranged both horrizontally and vertically on a single sheet. Why can't the same be true for T205s and T206s?

[asoriano]

These "printer's marks" are actually pretty common in regards to the minor leaguers. This, in no way, is a printer's proof.

[canjond]

To illustrate my points...

Obak uncut sheet which clearly shows horizontal and vertical cards:



T207 card clearly showing the upper frame of two cards on the left, hence proving that T207s were printed both horizontally and vertically on the same sheet:



Disclaimer - I do not own either item.

[steve B]

The one on Ebay might have the mark, but it may be scuffed removing the mark. I see a bit of the right end of the mark, the rest is tough to tell from the scan.

The Ebay one does have a couple other interesting things besides maybe not having the mark. The line in the sky is one, may be a print streak, may be a plate scratch. In the left border there's a light line roughly along the line between cards. The tiny bit of the card showing at the left is also a Newark frame.

Steve B

[tedzan]

I don't think we can compare Schmidt Lithography Co. of San Francisco, who produced the OBAK series, with American Lithographic Co. of NYC.

Schmidt Lithography (as is evident by your scan) employed a 33-inch wide press track, while American Litho. (ALC) used a much narrower press
track. My research indicates that (ALC) used a 19-inch press track.

Indeed, Schmidt Litho. (circa 1910) was one of the best in the Lithographic industry.


TED Z

[tedzan]

The T80 Military series (50 cards) were printed in the Spring of 1911. Actual records from American Litho. dates these cards. Judging from their style
of their artwork, it's a fair guess that the T205 Minor Leaguer's (ML) were drawn and printed about the same time. These cards were American Litho's
initial venture into their Gold-bordered series. Visible on the T80 card of the U.S. Captain is a hint of similar printer's mark that's seen on the T205 ML
cards (it is not visible on the Turkish Commander).


...............................................\/





TED Z

Oh believe me guys I don't think this card is worth any more than the $125 I paid for it. I was more interested in hearing the opinions of what you guys thought. As far as printers marks on card for cutting reasons is valid but what about some of thos gold less T205's that had none and not all of them have marks. I think it was Leon that had scans of them before. Even the off cut T205's that have tops or bottoms of cards showing don't have them.

Peter I definitely am not envious of the T206's I am glad my 205's fly under the radar. Makes it easier to get for cheaper and they hold value better IMO. Any givin day I could buy 60% of a t206 set. Try getting 30% in a week on T205's. It took me 8 months to hit 50% and I was buying alot. Granit they need to be 4's+ but they are just not as many.

I enjoy dragging up this because it seems the only way to break the monotony and actually learn more about the cards. They are not discussed very much and not a whole lot is known. Maybe there is, but I enjoy learning what I can about the hobby.

[Bridwell]

Jon,
Thanks for that scan of the T207 Adams. Very interesting that the sheet would be printed like that!

Andrew (and all),
I enjoy that collectors can find interesting subsets to collect. T206 has many of them, but T205 does also. I never thought anyone would be collecting cards with printers marks. I wouldn't ever call these 'proofs'. It's an unusal variation to be interested in. But that's what makes this hobby so much fun. I never thought anybody would collect miscut T206's, but look how popular those are getting!

Ron

[teetwoohsix]

Have there ever been any T205 proofs found? If so, does anyone have a scan of one? Thanks-

Clayton

Clayton I think Leon and Josh have a few. Maybe they will be kind enough to post them

[ullmandds]

T205 proofs? not sure I've ever seen one of those...Leone and many others have T206 Proofs.

[teetwoohsix]

Yes, I believe Leon has the T206 Matty proof. I did read in the archives about some blank back T205's but I don't think they were regarded as proofs.

Clayton

[tbob]

Jon- thanks so much for the scan of the T207 Adams. All these years collecting them and I never even thought a row might have been printed horizontally instead of all vertically. Interesting!
As far as a T205 proof goes, years ago I had a card in my collection which was a blank backed T205 which I thought might have been a proof. It did not have any printer's marks on it though so I assumed maybe it was just printer's scrap. I wish I could post a scan but I sold it on ebay 10 years ago. That's the closest I've seen to a card which I thought might be a proof.
On the subject of "proofs"- I do have an M116 Sporting Life which may be a proof and I'll get around to posting a scan of it when I go through the safes. It is a Mitchell and is black and white and printed on thinner paper than the normal M116. Some collectors have spotted color M116s with no printing on the backs and have jumped to the conclusion they are proofs but they appear to be (usually) hand cut off advertising posters, etc. This is the first (and only) black and white M116 I have seen and is reminiscent of the black and white E97s.
tbob

[canjond]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I don't think we can compare Schmidt Lithography Co. of San Francisco, who produced the OBAK series, with American Lithographic Co. of NYC.

Schmidt Lithography (as is evident by your scan) employed a 33-inch wide press track, while American Litho. (ALC) used a much narrower press
track. My research indicates that (ALC) used a 19-inch press track.

Indeed, Schmidt Litho. (circa 1910) was one of the best in the Lithographic industry.


TED Z

Ted - T207s, I thought, were printed at ALC? If this is, indeed, the case, the card pictured above seems to clearly indicate that certain cards on the sheet were oriented differently, does it not? On the left side of the T207 I pictured above, you can clearly see two distinct top borders of other cards. This has to mean that while most cards were oriented vertically across the sheet, there was at least 1 row oriented horizontally on the same sheet.

This may illustrate it better:

[steve B]

I had a look at some other Newark cards on Ebay earlier today. Lee has a similar mark, or is without a mark. The two with and without mark also show a difference of the gold at the lower left corner.

Just like on the Obak sheet from a different printer, the cutting marks wouldn't have been on every card.

Steve B

Originally Posted by Pup6913

Oh believe me guys I don't think this card is worth any more than the $125 I paid for it. I was more interested in hearing the opinions of what you guys thought. As far as printers marks on card for cutting reasons is valid but what about some of thos gold less T205's that had none and not all of them have marks. I think it was Leon that had scans of them before. Even the off cut T205's that have tops or bottoms of cards showing don't have them.

Peter I definitely am not envious of the T206's I am glad my 205's fly under the radar. Makes it easier to get for cheaper and they hold value better IMO. Any givin day I could buy 60% of a t206 set. Try getting 30% in a week on T205's. It took me 8 months to hit 50% and I was buying alot. Granit they need to be 4's+ but they are just not as many.

I enjoy dragging up this because it seems the only way to break the monotony and actually learn more about the cards. They are not discussed very much and not a whole lot is known. Maybe there is, but I enjoy learning what I can about the hobby.

[sb1]

You will not find a T205 with printer alignment marks on the gold border, they will only be found in the white area of the Minor league cards or on cards where the gold was never applied, as the marks were printed on the sheets before the gold was applied. I have a Frick with a large crosshair on the bottom border.

[tedzan]

Regarding your question......
" Ted - T207s, I thought, were printed at ALC? "

It's my guess that these two 1912 sets, T207 & Canadian Tobacco set (C46), were produced by a different printer contracted out by ATC.
A printer that had barrels of Brown ink

So, it's my opinion, that the T207's were not produced by American Litho. Both of these sets do not fit the American Litho. style or format.
The T207 lacks the major Stars that were in the T206 & T205 sets. Furthermore, the T207 is made up of many obscure players not found in
those preceding sets. Factors such as these (and some others) have led me to this conclusion.

But. I'm sure others may differ.

Regards,

TED Z

[jimonym]

Jon,

Here's a point to consider. I've seen thousands and thousands of T206s (as has anyone who's been interested and connected to the Internet for any amount of time). I've seen + owned, probably, several dozen that were "diamond" cut. In every case the sides of the card were cut true and it was the top and bottom which were cut at a parallel angle other than a true perpendicular to the sides. Could that tell us anything about the order of the cuts when the sheet was put through the cutting machine?

If T206s had a row, or more, or horizontally-positioned cards, I cannot see how the horizontal cut could not be first and the vertical cut second.

In other words, if someone could posit an explanation for "diamond" cuts always affecting the tops and bottoms of T206s and not the sides, perhaps that would tell us whether a horizontally-positioned row was possible, or can be ruled out.

[teetwoohsix]

I've often wondered about these diamond cut T206's.......the way they are cut would make me think that maybe at least a couple of the cards at whichever end of the sheet would've had part of the picture (beyond the white border) chopped off. Does that make sense?

Edit to add: I apologize- didn't mean to derail this thread.

Clayton

[steve B]

The diamond cuts do tell us the order of cuts.

for the typical diamond cut to happen, the sheet would first be cut into strips along the tall sides. Then the strips would have either been put aside, or moved to another cutter that was set for cutting the vertical dimension.
The cutters have an adjustable backsyop that a stack gets pushed against, and usually a side plate that the cards also get pushed against. But a longish strip of cards in a stack of probably about 200 or so is a bit unweildy.

On a modern cutter this is handled by having the back plate be movable. So a sheet or strip (Always in a stack, it wouldn't be done as just one sheet)
is aligned, the waste from one end is cut off, then the plate is moved forward and a stack of cards gets cut off. A good operator will often put in multiple strips if the alignment isn't critical and if there's a big rush to get a batch done.

So for the diamond cuts, either a less adjustable machine was used, or the strip wasn't aligned straight. More likely the latter since the diamond cuts are usually paralell.

There's other interesting stuff that happens to the cuts, One of my cards was rejected as miscut top and bottom edge. When I looked closely, I noticed the cut had a very pronounced lip with a good bit of chipping on the back. It's likely that card was from the bottom of the stack and either the blade or the blade stop strip was worn.

Steve B

[t206wagner]

I am not saying that these are printer marks, but has anyone ever noticed marks like these on their cards? I didn't notice them until I scanned the card but there appear to be small lines on the center of each side of the card, as well as a few of the corners around the frame.

[Leon]

Here is a card in our auction that is a nice card by itself. It clearly shows printer's lines. I like the happy meal premium association....

First thing. The T205 Nee printers mark Ted pointed out is part of the ink process and thus can be found on every Nee card made. There are definitly Nee with printers mark and Nee without and both show a varying difference in ink process on the borders. There is a full band of yellow ink below my card making me believe that it was the bottom of the sheet and may have actually been the center card. If you look close just above Nee's head there is a small + sign in the background. Of the 10+ viewed with printers marks none have had this on them. Under a loupe it is a solid+ sign.

Also the card is devoid of any gold on the bottom section. The other printers marked cards are exhibiting the same issue. All without have the gold in the bottom by the name. Here is a great example of another Nee without printers mark showing the yellow ink at bottom. Best example to show compared to mine. Same condition and characters just no printers mark.

This SGC card is not mine.

I say there is a Nee "printers mark variation" and a Nee "without mark".

All the qualifications are there right???

[Matt]

Andrew - isn't it just the prodduct of some being printed at the bottom of a sheet and some in the middle of the sheet? That's very different then, say, the Wilhelm suffered variations where the printing plate was changed to correct a problem with the type.

Originally Posted by Matt

Andrew - isn't it just the prodduct of some being printed at the bottom of a sheet and some in the middle of the sheet? That's very different then, say, the Wilhelm suffered variations where the printing plate was changed to correct a problem with the type.

No sir. I guess the anomaly of missing gold ink is not credible enough. It does not take a plate change to make a variation. Cycle Mathewson, the crazy doyle NY thing that was just being discussed a few days ago over a silly period and part of a letter not being printed. Wasn't that 2 more T206 variations found??

Can anyone prove to me that what I have found is inaccurate

[Matt]

Cycle Mathewson is a plate change - there was an error on the ones printed with the Cycle back that had his record at 37-1 that was fixed for the other back printings.

Okay so now there needs to be a plate change to count as a variation.

[barrysloate]

When we have these discussions there seems to be some confusion regarding exactly what a variation is. As Matt stated, there needs to be a change in the printing plate for it to be considered a true variation. The correction of "Magie", and of "Doyle, N.Y. Nat'l" are real variations. The printer caught his mistake early in the print run and made the necessary correction.

However, cards such as "Nodgrass", "Murr'y", and "Shappe" are not variations, but mere printing glitches. At some point in the print run a tiny foreign substance, perhaps a smudge of dirt or grease, got lodged in the printing plate and blocked some of the ink from adhering to the paper. That is not a true variation, although the hobby currently considers them so. Collectors pay huge premiums for these, but the jury is still out for me whether those premiums are merited.

Originally Posted by barrysloate

When we have these discussions there seems to be some confusion regarding exactly what a variation is. As Matt stated, there needs to be a change in the printing plate for it to be considered a true variation. The correction of "Magie", and of "Doyle, N.Y. Nat'l" are real variations. The printer caught his mistake early in the print run and made the necessary correction.

However, cards such as "Nodgrass", "Murr'y", and "Shappe" are not variations, but mere printing glitches. At some point in the print run a tiny foreign substance, perhaps a smudge of dirt or grease, got lodged in the printing plate and blocked some of the ink from adhering to the paper. That is not a true variation, although the hobby currently considers them so. Collectors pay huge premiums for these, but the jury is still out for me whether those premiums are merited.

Barry I can whole heartedly agree with what you said. What I want to know is wethere or not there is proof enough to distinguish that there are 2 types of Nee's printed. I have given all the info and proof I have and no one has come forward to prove this wrong othere than saying its not a "true variation." I guess the collectors have to ultimately determine wether or not its a variation.

I remember that about 3-4 yrs ago when I got back into collecting. I was buying some beater T205-T206 lot. I noticed then that there was a difference in the Doc White PB backed card. I remember calling The SCD and talking to a guy about this. He said unless the hobby accecpted it that it would never be a real variation. Well 3yrs later on this board it came out. Yes its a variation. It was printed with PB backs only and was corrected later on. I was not the first person to ever see it and question it I'm sure?


Matt are you sure there were more cards printed after the Cycle print run w/Mathewson?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Pup6913

Matt are you sure there were more cards printed after the Cycle print run w/Mathewson?

Not sure I understand the question. There was an error on the print run with the Cycle backs and it was fixed for the runs with the other backs.

[barrysloate]

Andrew- it's a tough call. The only cards that could possibly have those marks are ones printed around the periphery of a sheet. If every Nee card appeared along the edge in the same position, they would all have that mark. Would that then be considered a variation? Probably not.

However, you've determined that some examples of Nee do not have the mark. Is it possible it was double printed on the sheet, with the second example occupying an interior position? Therefore, it would not have that mark and we would in fact have two variations- with and without the marks. Does that make it a true variation? Well, there are differences between the two but neither one can be considered a corrected error. So now we need a strict definition of what constitutes a variation. And we don't have one at this time- that's an area of the hobby that is still a little vague.

My opinion is if the only difference between the two cards is the tiny printing mark, then it is not a true variation. There are so many of these cards known with printing marks- do collectors now need to go after all of them to complete a master set? I don't think so.

[steve B]

It really depends on how the hobby decides to recognize varieties and variations. So far there's no consistent defenition. Some recognized variations aren't from different plates. (the 81 topps missing the top frame lines) And some stuff from different printings/plates isn't recognized or cataloged. (91 topps that have light or dark logos on the backs - or odder still 1991 topps that have back ink that luminesces under a uv light or that doesn't react)

And each collector should decide what level of craziness they want to participate in. I do think that the official lists for registries or the big book should only cover the more major differences.

But there should also be some published lists of the fine details of each set.
Stuff like the tiny Doyle differences, and m'rray and nodgrass. I think the Doyles are erasures done directly on the plate, and the others are from worn plates or plates that had dirt during the plate making process. Obstructed prints where dirt etc gets in the way are far less common, and usually turn up as fisheyes.

Steve B

Matt I guess what I am asking. Could the Cycles have been the last of the print run causng the messup? A rush job. Isn't there a Cycle backed Wilhelm missing the "R" or was that the corrected one?

Barry the ones with the mark seem to be missing the gold from the name area. But like the card shown in post #38 has it and no mark and gold ink. The seller was kind enough to remove the card though from auction.
Maybe due to placement on the sheet Nee got lucky enough to have marks. Maybe there was mark accross the whole sheet vert. and hor. for alignment reasons?

Does anyone know about this area of T205's

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Pup6913

Matt I guess what I am asking. Could the Cycles have been the last of the print run causng the messup? A rush job.

It would seem odd that they would take a perfectly good plate and remove a 1 from his record causing the error, no? Much more likely the Cycle Matty's were printed first, and between the Cycles and the other brands, someone spotted the error and fixed the plate by adding the 1.