"PIEDMONT 1st" Theory - Magie, Doyle Errors, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

In the ongoing Thread (EPDG....) by Barry Arnold we have observed patterns regarding
the backs of certain T206 cards. And, from this analysis I have put forth a Theory that
the PIEDMONT Tobacco brand must have been the very 1st to be issued of all the var-
ious ones, as each Series (150, 350, 460) was produced. Barry Arnold (he's the professor)
very aptly referred to my theory.....the "Piedmont Primacy".

I initially came up with this theory based on the 2 major "error" cards in the T206 set.
1st the MAGIE error card....all the few cards of Magie exist only with a Piedmont 150
back. This tells us the very 1st T206 cards must have been issued with the Piedmont
brand and the T206 designers (or Quality Control) quickly caught this mis-spelling of
MAGEE and this error was not continued with any subsequent 150-Series Tobacco
brands (HINDU, Sweet Cap., Sov., etc.).

Incidently, there was a Magie playing in the Minors when Sherry Magee came up to the
Majors; so, perhaps therein lies the mistake (and not just a simple spelling error).

The 2nd factor that supports my "Piedmont 1st" theory is the very scarce Joe Doyle error card.
The handful of Joe Doyle error cards that have surfaced are only Piedmont 350. When, the 350
Series cards were first introduced (circa 1910), "Slow Joe" Doyle of the NY Highlanders was in-
cluded. Also, in this series was Larry Doyle (batting) of the NY Giants.

My theory is that the T206 designers somehow initially confused the 2 Doyle's and captioned
both cards in this series with "N.Y. NAT'L". And, just as in the Magie case......Quality Control
caught their mistake even faster this time. But, by then a few Joe Doyle (N.Y. NAT'L) cards
were printed only on Piedmont backs....and, a handful (or two) "escaped" into circulation.
They did eliminate the "N.Y. NAT"L" on the Joe Doyle card; but, in doing so, forgot to then
add "AMER." next to his team (N.Y.).

I fully appreciate that my speculation regarding the Joe Doyle "error" differs from previous
thinking; but, I feel it is consistent with the Piedmont patterns we have observed in the 500+
cards that we have surveyed in the "EPDG" Thread.

Not the real "error" cards but their corrected versions with their above noted Piedmont backs.


This thread is not intended to divert the ongoing survey of Barry Arnold's EPDG thread.
All subsequent T206 T-Brand inputs regarding the cards of interest should continue to
be posted on that Thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

It is good to finally hear a report from the Consortium of Back Cranks. It was a bit gruesome bringing pizza and beer to the door and only geting a waft of smoke and muttering in return. How many more nights do we need to put you up? And someday I may understand the significance of this "finding" regarding Piedmont Piracy, but not today. Do you have an English translation of your post?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

GIL.....Ole Buddy....well, I am not sure what your response is all about....is it
written in "greek" ?

And mind you.....I can translate Greek, perfectly; but, I do not undertand your
comments ?

T-Rex Ted

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

There is a lot of that going around, Ted. I must endeavor to make myself clearer. My take on your post is that the EPDG thread has generated the following new insight: Based on two examples, it is concluded that the Piedmont brand was always printed first, independent of series. And further, if true, this revelation is noteworthy.

If this conclusion is solely drawn on the basis of the two examples which you cited, this could leave a skeptic feeling like the fact is unproven. And further, if this conclusion is of merit, it is unclear to me what its potential impact on t206 collecting strategy could be.

Rest assured that I am currently the proud owner of less than a dozen t206s. And although I do plan to obtain more, in no way do my plans include exceeding ownership of 12 t206s. So, I really know next to nothing about this set. And it all seems so confusing right now.

What particularly befuddles me is that some persons feel that more sets should be included within the t206 designation, while others feel that t206 should be broken up into several sets.

So, no Ted, please do not translate your post into Greek. This subject is already too foggy to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Ted,

I have been thinking about your theory and agree that Magie and Doyle (N.Y. Nat'l) are supportive. But I would be interested to hear your thoughts on Demmitt (St. Louis) and O'Hara (St. Louis). As you know, those subjects are Polar Bear only. I wonder why those two weren't issued with Piedmont 350.

Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

The EPDG thread and this thread are interesting to T206 collectors (i.e., those who would like to collect more than a dozen or so examples) for purposes of determining relative scarcity as well as general information about the production process behind such a popular card set. The "Piedmont Primacy" theory satisfies collector curiousity in both of these ways. First, it means that some Piedmont 350 cards were not printed with other 350 backs -- making some Piedmont 350 backed cards rarer than others. Second, it means that Piedmont was the primary creator of T206 cards, and that the others fell in line behind them.

When one tries to compile a VG set of T206 cards, it helps to have a sophisticated understanding of relative scarcity and therefore appropriate pricing between issues. The rest of it is just historical context.

[Archive]

Posted By: barry arnold

Great to see this new thread and to see your elucidation of the makings of a remarkable discovery, Ted.
The Magie,Doyle contentions along with the illuminative
data from the EPDG thread are corroborative.
Piecing together elements of an unknown era, unknown process, or the like is certainly one of the most difficult things to do as it requires meticulous attention
to any details, consequent mental incubations of the myriad of possible meanings of the details, followed by the measured contentions now being offered. I think this fine board has done very well with these three movements toward the delineation of this Piedmont Primacy Theory.
Today, i am consumed with the second movement---incubating possible meanings of the details offered thus far.
again, great work Ted et al

best,

barry

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Scot R.

Before I try to give you a direct answer to your query regarding these two
"mischievious" cards, I have to relate to you how surprised I was when I
started putting together the Imperial Tobacco set (C46) and noticed that
both Demmitt and O'Hara where in it. In 1911 both these players were back
in the International League. Demmitt was with Montreal and I forget which
team O'Hara was with. These "silly" T206 cards cost us a bundle to acquire
and for all practical purposes their Major League careers were over.

As I'm sure you know, both players were in over 100 games in 1909 with their
NY teams and then were traded. Each of them played only 10 games with their
respective teams in St. Louis in 1910; and, I can only assume they were sent
down to the Minors.

So, my guess is this occured at a narrow window of time when a batch of Polar
Bear cards were being produced. And, as you have followed closely in your analysis
how "up to the moment" the T206 designers were diligent in updating player trades,
retirements, etc. Therefore, there was no need to further depict these two with any
other brands as they were gone out of the Major league stage. And, recall that their
NY versions had been printed on most of the Tobacco brands associated with the
350 Series.

One could counter that there are 134 Minor Leaguers in the T206 set; however,
correct me if I am wrong. But, according to your timeline all the Minor Lge. cards
were already in the marketplace by the time both of these guys were relegated
to the Minors..

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Paul

These two Threads are not just an "academic" exercise; but, enable a serious
collector(s) trying to complete this set (or even a Team or Type collector) to really
understand the various levels of difficulty in acquiring certain cards. And therefore,
when it comes down to the "bottom line" what you can reasonably expect to pay
for some of these tougher cards.

T-Rex Ted

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

GIL

Now you are talking "Joisey" talk, and that I can certainly understand.

And, it appears to me that you well understand the gist of my premise regarding
the significance of Piedmont Tobacco brand in the T206 set.

And....NO....I am not relying just on the Magie and Doyle error cards to bring
about my point. These two cards have only served as the "spark" that ignited
this Theory which I have been "mulling" over for many years; after going thru
at least 6000 - T206 cards these past 25 years.

And, recently it all came together in my mind after reading Scot Reader's really
well-researched document on the T206 set; and, further reinforced by the results of
the empirical data from the survey we ran in Barry Arnold's tremendous "EPDG" Thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Ted,
Your not the only one that's been mulling it over the last 15 years......
I can name a few more. I'll be back if my Tarheels win.... If not I'll need several Beers, and can't be around cards, even slabbed.

Be well Brian


PS Ted, Post all of your Ritchey's, Please.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koochin

Not a big supporter of the Piedmont first theory, but I feel
skepticism (cautiousness) has its place in the investigation process.

1.What about Honus Wagner? Predominantly a Sweet Cap issue with 2 Piedmonts
(both possibly not issued in packs )

2.If Lindaman appears on a Sweet Cap 350 (as I have written you about), it
also does not appear on Piedmont first in the 350 series.

And I've maintained all along that EPDG is a late 1909 print (almost a
precursor to Piedmont 350 series), possibly out before the Piedmont 350 run.
I'm still seeing EPDG as primarily a 350 series issue btw.

As far as I recall Lipset's work , some 150 series cards were issued in 350 series in very small numbers, and from data you collected, this (to me) seems to support his earlier findings rather than suggesting something new.

To me suggesting Piedmont is (almost) first in 150 series is not groundbreaking news, and that its first in 350 series is unlikely (and
difficult to prove).

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Dan K

Do you have the Lindaman (SC350) in your possesion ? We are not tabulating
either "hear-say" cards or cards depicted on Ebay, as there have been instances
where the seller has displayed a different back than is on the card. I thought
you understood this....this has been noted to you by Scot Reader and by me in
the EPDG Thread.

We have received over 50 actual inputs on Lindaman; 36 of which are 150 backs,
and 10 are HINDU, and 6 are EPDG. Your contention...."that if there is an EPDG,
there must be a 350 back"....may well be be valid (and possibly a P350 Lindaman
will surface). But, an actual one has not been reported, yet. And. the same goes
for Ewing; however, a Jones (St Louis) with a P350 back very recently showed up.

I do not have proof of Piedmont 350 backs being produced 1st in the 350 Series.....
But, I have offered a theory to explain the Joe Doyle error that in effect gives us some
insight that suggests a high probability that this "Piedmont 1st" theory is valid. And,
virtually, every time we have discounted a potential 150-only card in this survey, it
has been because a P350 has been reported (not a Sweet Cap 350 or a Sov 350).

It is encouraging to me that Bill Heitman, Scot Reader, Brian Weisner, and others
appear to be supportive of my premise.


T-Rex Ted

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Dan K

Our email server is down again.....so I cannot reply to your lengthy email of yesterday.
So, I will here.....and, I want to thank you for the link to your website.....I was very
impressed with your site.....I really appreciate you sharing it with me.

It appears that both of us started collecting T206's at the same time (1979); so, we've
seen many, many 1000's of these neat cards. Therefore, I appreciate your skepticism
regarding the Joe Doyle "error" card. It has always bothered me that hobby greats like
Jeff Burdick, Lionel Carter, Frank Nagy, Bill Heitman, and many more never came across
this card in all those early years.

Then, suddenly in the mid-'80s three of these cards surface, that has always been hard
for me to "digest". Well....."if you can't beat them, then join them"......that Dan, is my
current thinking regarding this Joe Doyle card. And, indeed in my above stated theory,
I do rationalize how this error occured and why so few cards have been found. And,
this has served to erase my skepticism.

T-Rex Ted