INSIDE T206 ERRATA

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

All,

I have found (or been advised) of the following errors in the manuscript. Please note them, as I would rather not get 100 emails identifying the same errors over and over again. On the other hand, if--more like when--you find other errors, please let me know. Thanks. Scot

Inside T206 Errata

On page 28, first full sentence should read: "Seemingly, the sole 350-only subject who appears WITHOUT the frame is Nichols."

On page 39, in the first full sentence, the two instances of “Demmitt” should read “O'Hara”.

On page 56, the asterisks by Doyle (Throwing) and Ewing that are in the Piedmont 150 column of the checklist should instead be in the Old Mill column.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

On page ii, second sentence should read "For a kid who thought THAT baseball cards only came in wax packs and food boxes ...."

On page 23, Table 2 totals count Cobb (Cobb Back) as a distinct subject but do not count either of Old Mill Southern Overstrike as distinct back types. There is a certain asymmetry to this and it will be corrected if/when the manuscript is republished.

On page 34, the sixth sentence should not mention Brown Old Mill Southern since the 42 South Atlantic, Southern Association and Virginia League subjects are not known to be generally available with that back. Plus, reference is made later in same paragraph to Revelle being available with that back.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Don't have the page handy, but you mentioned that the PSA 8 Honus sold twice for over a million. It has only sold once for over a million, though I am sure it will again the next time it is offered.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Jim,
Your absolutely right. I just looked it up and while the current owner Brian Siegel paid $1.265 with the buyer's premium the previous owner, Michael Gidwitz, paid only $640K. My memory failed me on this count. The error is on p. 40. I will remove reference to "twice" when/if the manuscript is republished. Thanks.
Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

An advanced collector who I respect very much has noted that he has searched in vain for decades for some of the front/back combinations listed in the checklist at the end of the manuscript. This does not surprise me and I expect that more than a few of the listed combinations will never be found. The checklist resulted from findings in a survey that I conducted. Due to a limited survey sample, formulating the checklist required drawing inferences from patterns witnessed in the survey. By drawing such inferences, I was able to categorically rule-out groups of front/back combinations that were included in earlier checklists; however, I was not able to rule-out any individual front/back combinations that do not exist for anomalous reasons. The checklist in the manuscript is therefore likely somewhat overinclusive; however, it should be considerably less overinclusive than prior checklists.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

On page 39, correct to include Sweet Cap 150/30 as a possible back type for Plank in view of the GAI-authenticated Plank currently running on ebay.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

WOW....Eventually EBAY brings out even the Rarest of the Rare.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but this is only the 2nd Plank
ever seen with a 150 Series back.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Dwyer

I can't figure out how to change the errors listed in the pdf. I'm able to copy, but cannot paste or replace the right word. Can someone tell me how to change the errors listed here, or email me a new pdf with the changes already made.

richarddwyer@sbcglobal.net

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Richard,
Sometime next month I plan to release a second edition with the errors mentioned on this thread (as well as a few other minor errors that I have found) corrected. One reader has tentatively offered to host the second edition .pdf on his website for free download--which would be great from my perspective. If you can wait a few weeks maybe this will be a better solution for you than attempted modification of the first edition .pdf.
Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Dwyer

It's just my eyesight going bad. Eaiser to read from print than from a computer screen. I'll have to wait, I guess. Thanks