T205 Archer Variation

[T205 GB]

I am happy to announce the newest variation to the T205 Master List. I have followed this for about 4 years now and am happy to have finally verified a new variation for the T205 set that I love so much.

The T205 Archer is found with several backs in the set but some are very special. This is the second one I have verified missing the "at" from the last sentence just after Chance's name. The one HLC pictured(see post #2) is the "Missing AT" Variation and was just recently in the Sterling Auction. The other "Missing AT" Variation was on a Pied 25 back in VG/VG-EX condition. Both cards were smugged just like the HLC back. I have provided pics of the HLC from Sterling(Congrats to the winner and see post #2 for pics) and a few normal cards from past auctions(HLC PSA 6.5), and current eBay.

I feel very solid on this Variation and think more eyes looking will help determine scarcity. As of now it looks like the "Missing AT" variation is very scarce.

[T205 GB]

better pic of the HLC

[Leon]

It almost looks like someone tried to erase "at"? Is it rough under magnification? Interesting......though in my personal little quest I doubt I will go for the minutiae cards, but ya' never know.

[T205 GB]

Leon I would write this off as paper loss or damage had I not seen one a few years back on a Pied 25 back that was just like this. The back is smooth and undamaged. Only the print is defective

[sb1]

If you look at the enlarged Sterling scan, the "at" is clearly there, just a bit weaker as is much of the back, probably just underinked as is often found. The diagonal mark thru it might be some foreign matter on the plate, hard to say. Either way it might be a printing anomaly, but certainly not a new "variation". If in fact that several more can be found with the same mark, and weak letters, it is just that a group of cards that had some foreign matter in the road during a brief part of the printing runs.

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by sb1

If you look at the enlarged Sterling scan, the "at" is clearly there, just a bit weaker as is much of the back, probably just underinked as is often found. The diagonal mark thru it might be some foreign matter on the plate, hard to say. Either way it might be a printing anomaly, but certainly not a new "variation". If in fact that several more can be found with the same mark, and weak letters, it is just that a group of cards that had some foreign matter in the road during a brief part of the printing runs.

Would you include the Doc White PB No Quotes in that group also? There are faint quotes on some of them but its recognized as a variation by most. I could probably list several others that are like that also.

There is a Pied 25 in VG/VG-Ex condition that is Raw with this same printing anomaly as mentioned above. I do not have a pic of that unfortunately.

Does anyone have that Pied 25 Archer or another like the one shown?

[kmac32]

I have 8 different T205 Archer cards representing all the different backs and all of mine say “at”. So could be a rare variation or just a printing fluke. Not completed convinced it is a new varient but who knows.

Ken

[Wite3]

I would lean towards printing fluke...not a variation IMHO.

Joshua

PS Will look at my Archers and see what is what with mine.

[gonzo]

I have three Archers and none of them have that mark.

Whether or not one calls it a “variation”, it is neat to learn about repeated printing differences within the T205 set. The powers of observation on this forum are pretty amazing. This seems similar in a way to the Titus print mark reported earlier this year at http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=243236

Thanks for sharing this information!

[Pat R]

The problem with calling these print flaws variations is it creates a false
market especially if they get cataloged as a variation. If you look hard
enough I'm sure there are dozens if not hundreds of these in the T205
set.

I know there are hundreds of cards in the T206 set like this.
The most recent example that is supposed to be cataloged
is a perfect example of creating a false market.

A Marquard (Throwing) armpit 8 that sold in the recent LOTG auction.

Without the "variation" it's a $150-$200 card. I was shocked when it
received the $500 minimum bid and completely shocked when it sold for
$3000.00.

http://loveofthegameauctions.com/Rar...-LOT14309.aspx


The reasons it sold for 10x-15x the true value is PSA put it
on the flip and it will be in their registry and it's supposed to be in the next Standard Catalog.

A much nicer Marquard (Throwing) and portrait sold as a pair in the
same auction for $338.
http://loveofthegameauctions.com/190...-LOT14120.aspx

If they want to start calling all of these flaws variations here are two
more of the same Marquard pose.

They could call this one the Marquard "Blue zero on shoulder".
Marquard Blue 0.jpg

and this one the "Red slash on sleeve"
they are both as rare as the "armpit 8"
Marquard slash.jpg

[T205 GB]

I will not disagree with what anyone has said. I completely agree that the T206 set is bazaar in the way a print anomaly can be turned into big money and yet other sets it is looked at as a scarlet letter.

Like I said before, I have been looking for another Archer for about 4 years with the same print defect. The odds I would see it in a HLC back when the other was on a Pied 25 are astronomical. Two anomalies on two different backs makes it more than debris on a plate or a random smudge.

I think these little defects are priceless for us collectors. Look at the plate scratches on the T206. It has ebnabled us to determine what an actual sheet may have looked like and helps us understand so much more. Just this Archer defect alone shows that there was a single plate used on multiple backs and corrected at some point. Reminds me of the Wilhelm missing r, Moran stray line, Mathewson 1 loss, The Beck variations, Latham Variations and so on.

[Pat R]

Andrew, I enjoy the variations/print flaws and I appreciate when collectors
like you are willing to share the info when you think you've discovered a new
one. I disagree with the way they pick and choose the ones that get
cataloged and I'm surprised PSA recognized the Marquard before it
is cataloged.

I bought a box of 2002 Fleer Tradition cards and in one of the packs
there were three cards that had the wrong name on the back.
Several years ago I took the Koskie/Jeter card to a show with some other cards to submit
with PSA on a free grading voucher I had. I asked them about the error
card and the woman told me they couldn't grade it because it wasn't
cataloged and they won't grade cards that aren't. I asked to speak to
someone else and I told him I understand why they won't grade certain
variations but why won't you grade a card like this, it's a 2002 Fleer Tradition
with Corey Koskie on the front, his card # 205 on the back, but Jeters name
so it's an obvious error. He agreed but said they still wouldn't grade it. So
I said fine I brought the card to fill my free submission I'll just submit it
to be graded as the Koskie card but then he said I couldn't do that because
it has the wrong back on it so they couldn't grade it that way either

I was so annoyed I took it to the SGC booth right across from them
and the guy said no problem and told me what to put on the form.
img067.jpg
img069.jpg
Jeter Error.jpg

[Misunderestimated]

I've never been entirely clear about where the line is between legitimate variations (which are a big deal for hardcore set collectors like me) and stray printing errors (which are kinda interesting but that's about it)*....
Of course once any error gets catalogued as a legitimate "variation" all bets are off and -- Presto! -- its a big deal to set collectors, like it or not... **

I guess the classic variation is one where there are simply two versions of something (the T205 Eddie Collins and Roger Bresnahan cards), or the manufacturer corrects or changes something -- the team name because of: a trade (T202 Devlin or T206 Dahlen); a failed team relocation (74 McCovey); a retouch to obscure an obscenity (89 Fleer Billy Ripken) or some other error (89 UD Dale Murphy Rev Neg).

For instance in the T205 set:
The three different Wallace and Chase cards fall on the variations side, along with Harmon and Gray cards
The more recent T205 "discoveries" -- Mathewson (l loss --Cycle) and especially Kaiser Wilhelm ("Suffered") seem to more like printing errors (they ran out of ink or something on some of the cards maybe)

For me, this one (Archer) seems to come down pretty clearly on the printing error side.(Sorry)
-------
Notes:
*The Frank Thomas Topps RC has the "No Name on Front" printing error that commands big $$ -- I'm not sure what set collectors make of it -- I'm not really sure what a 1990 Topps set collector really thinks like... just buy the whole thing and be done with it?? It is listed as an option on the PSA Registry but no one is over 10% completion (think of the grading costs for 792 cards that are mostly worth nothing and one very pricey "No Name on Front" version!)
** Just imagine how much money would change hands if you could somehow have 15-20 nice, hard to find, specimens of a card that suddenly became a recognized "Variation" in one of the more popular pricey sets -- T206s, 33 Goudeys, 52 Topps etc.... Of course many people thought of this.