T206 350/460 series (illustrated) and why certain T-brands are mutually-exclusive

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

T206 350/460 series (illustrated) and why certain T-brands are mutually-exclusive


Hey guys,

Let's stick with the topic of this thread......the 63 subjects in the 350/460 series cards. These cards are clearly illustrated in Group A and Group B.

Regarding these posted cards with SWEET CAPORAL 350-460, Factory #30 backs......

Bergen (catching)
Howell (hand on hip)
Murray (portrait)
Overall (blue sky)

These 4 guys are 460-only series subjects of which the SWEET CAPORAL 350-460, Factory #30 is a normal back.

Injecting these 4 into the conversation in this thread tends to confuse readers who are trying to understand the complexities of the 350/460 series.

The 460-only series cards are for another thread on another day.

Thank you.

TED Z
.

Ted,

If you're concerned about confusing readers you should clear up this discrepancy involving your group A subjects for those that search the archives.

Your group A subjects are all AB460 no-prints but in this thread about the
AB460 subset you put together you have four of the group A subjects listed
in your set. Ames (hands over head), Baker, Elberfeld (Washington-fielding)
and Snodgrass (Catching).
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...page=2&t=91361

[tedzan]

Hey Pat

Don't worry guy, most readers of my threads are not confused. My T206 theory's and the empirical knowledge I've gained from putting together various sets (and sub-sets)
these past 37 years. And, my collecting experience that I have very generously shared with members of this forum speaks for itself.
Anyone here is free to check-out the T206 information posted in the "Consolidated access to the 15 - T206 T-brand (front/back) surveys....UPDATED " thread which
Leon has archived......
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=132611&page=6

And, I am surprised at your remarks regarding my AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 information and the near complete run (70/74) of these cards that I have put together. It has all
been documented in this Net54 thread...... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=124927&page=5
Which you are up to date on, since you have posted on this thread in 2016.


However, you choose to go back 8+ years to a thread that I posted, in which I listed 4 mistakes (out of 70 cards). Three of which (Baker, Elberfeld, and Snodgrass) in which
I discovered later that they actually had to be AB 350 cards. Unfortunately, these 3 cards in my collection had back damage and it wasn't easy to tell whether they were 350
or 460 (Factory #25 or Factory #42, respectively). Furthermore, back then Bill Brown's T206 Super-Set Excel list indicated that these 3 subjects (plus Ames) were confirmed
AB 460 cards. And, I have since then proven that these 4 subjects could not be AB 460 cards.


Anyhow, I'll tell you what really "ticks me off" about your remarks. I heard these EXACT words from some one 8 years ago (who doesn't post on Net54 any more). I sense
that this person has put you up to posting his 8-year old remarks (it's typical of his sick style). So, I dare you to deny that this is why you posted these negative remarks ? ?

I didn't think this was your style !


TED Z
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________
LOOKING for these 4 - T206 guys to complete my AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 sub-set (74 cards)

CAMNITZ (hands over head)....DOYLE (portrait)....McGRAW (portrait-cap)....TINKER (bat off shoulder)
.

[Pat R]

[QUOTE=tedzan;1607413]Hey Pat

Don't worry guy, most readers of my threads are not confused. My T206 theory's and the empirical knowledge I've gained from putting together various sets (and sub-sets)
these past 37 years. And, my collecting experience that I have very generously shared with members of this forum speaks for itself.
Anyone here is free to check-out the T206 information posted in the "Consolidated access to the 15 - T206 T-brand (front/back) surveys....UPDATED " thread which
Leon has archived......
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=132611&page=6

And, I am surprised at your remarks regarding my AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 information and the near complete run (70/74) of these cards that I have put together. It has all
been documented in this Net54 thread...... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=124927&page=5
Which you are up to date on, since you have posted on this thread in 2016.


However, you choose to go back 8+ years to a thread that I posted, in which I listed 4 mistakes (out of 70 cards). Three of which (Baker, Elberfeld, and Snodgrass) in which
I discovered later that they actually had to be AB 350 cards. Unfortunately, these 3 cards in my collection had back damage and it wasn't easy to tell whether they were 350
or 460 (Factory #25 or Factory #42, respectively). Furthermore, back then Bill Brown's T206 Super-Set Excel list indicated that these 3 subjects (plus Ames) were confirmed
AB 460 cards. And, I have since then proven that these 4 subjects could not be AB 460 cards.


Anyhow, I'll tell you what really "ticks me off" about your remarks. I heard these EXACT words from some one 8 years ago (who doesn't post on Net54 any more). I sense
that this person has put you up to posting his 8-year old remarks (it's typical of his sick style). So, I dare you to deny that this is why you posted these negative remarks ? ?

I didn't think this was your style !


TED Z


No Ted nobody put me up to posting this. I have noticed discrepancy's
in several of your posts. I refrained from posting about them but I have had
enough of your condescending remarks like uninformed, ignorant, naïve, ect...

There is no doubt that you have done a lot of research on this set but for
me it is negated by the fact that you can't admit when you make a "mistake".

By the way Snodgrass (catching) wasn't printed with any of the American
Beauty backs so your back damage excuse doesn't cut it with me.

[tedzan]

[QUOTE=Pat R;1607544]

No Ted nobody put me up to posting this.

There is no doubt that you have done a lot of research on this set but for
me it is negated by the fact that you can't admit when you make a "mistake".

Hey folks....if some one posts critical comments about you today that are identical to what you've heard from some one else 8 years ago, what is the probability
of this occurrence being just coincidental ? The probability is some where between 100,000 - Million to 1.

So....knowing you have a connection to that other party....you are not being truthful.

OK, you want to talk about mistakes....I admitted 8 years ago that I made on some of those T206 front/back cards. We were all still learning about The Monster.

And, what is more important is that my subsequent research resulted in significant information that is presented in this thread to Net54 members who appreciate
all this "nitty-gritty" stuff regarding T206's.

So, let's discuss your mistakes starting with this thread......in posts #45 and #47 you posted images of 460-only series subjects (Howell, Bergen, Overall, Murray)
that DO NOT pertain to the 350/460 series cards that this thread is devoted to. It is a distraction in the subject matter being discussed here.

If you want to talk 460-only series cards, why not simply start another thread.


TED Z
.

[Pat R]

[QUOTE=tedzan;1607576]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Hey folks....if some one posts critical comments about you today that are identical to what you've heard from some one else 8 years ago, what is the probability
of this occurrence being just coincidental ? The probability is some where between 100,000 - Million to 1.

So....knowing you have a connection to that other party....you are not being truthful.
OK, you want to talk about mistakes....I admitted 8 years ago that I made on some of those T206 front/back cards. We were all still learning about The Monster.

And, what is more important is that my subsequent research resulted in significant information that is presented in this thread to Net54 members who appreciate
all this "nitty-gritty" stuff regarding T206's.

So, let's discuss your mistakes starting with this thread......in posts #45 and #47 you posted images of 460-only series subjects (Howell, Bergen, Overall, Murray)
that DO NOT pertain to the 350/460 series cards that this thread is devoted to. It is a distraction in the subject matter being discussed here.

If you want to talk 460-only series cards, why not simply start another thread.


TED Z
.

Well this statement is ironic Ted. I have been truthful, no one influenced what
I have said and frankly I don't care if you believe me . I'm sure
it's similar to what a few other members have posted in the past because it's
based on facts, you have said you owned cards that are no prints and when
confronted about them you continue to lie about it.

Now how about being truthful about the Snodgrass.

[tedzan]

[QUOTE=Pat R;1607608]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Well this statement is ironic Ted. I have been truthful, no one influenced what
I have said and frankly I don't care if you believe me . I'm sure
it's similar to what a few other members have posted in the past because it's
based on facts, you have said you owned cards that are no prints and when
confronted about them you continue to lie about it.

Now how about being truthful about the Snodgrass.

Hey Pat

1st....I had Street (catching) mistakenly identified as Snodgrass (catching).

OK, I made an honest mistake....give me a break !

And, I don't believe you, Pat. You heard that "B-S" from your buddy, and you know it.

Can we now get back to Dec 2016....instead of harping on some thing in Nov 2008. This "B-S" of your's is insane (it's sick). ! !


TED
.

[Gradedcardman]

Ted,

I would love to see a scan of the 460's you have put together. I am going after the no frames now as well. Needed a new conquest after almost being done with the PD 42's (lacking 1 based on my calculations).