...

...

[obcmac]

I think focusing on the backs while ignoring total population numbers, is a flawed approach. There are clear sps that are shown in both populations and known historically. I think the printing arrangement is complex though.

If you look at the total populations, I agree there are 12 short prints who were replaced by ml'ers. Exactly 12. Then there is another class of tougher commons printed in the same quantities as the ml'ers, suggesting the were introduced with them. I think the front variations and alternate poses (all one ear varieties etc) were introduced at the 65% mark as t202 design and production were ramping up. Double prints on the short printed series confuses everything though. I speculate the pose variations were double printed along with some other cards including the rare variations at the end of the print run.

Obviously the best approach matches populations with back theories.

Discussion welcome...I'm just putting ideas out there.

...

[Wite3]

The moveable type might have been easy to switch but the front part, most likely not. Someone with more experience on printing than I would know better.

I do not think he was just talking about pop reports or grading companies. But even if we were...flaws and all, more Millers have been graded than Grants...do you really think that people hoarding them would not have them graded to maximize their "investment"?

The traditional SPs in the set are there because the numbers bear out the rarities of these cards. You essentially ignored my points about collections, hobby publications, historical sales, auctions, etc.

And, if you really want to belabor the point...I have 13 Doyles I will sell you at Suggs prices right now.

Joshua

..

[Wite3]

Now I am really confused...super prints? Never really heard of that with T205s...If you want to use SP, most of use think of that as single print=rare.

Suggs is tough. You cannot just go by pop reports.

I also think you just managed to insult many collectors. I consider myself a smart collector and often make my collection public. Leon, Pat, Bill, and many many others who have historically had top tier and rare collections often make them available for others to see. I know there are some that have held them back (Keith!) but for the most part, over the past few decades, most of us are pretty up front.

Your posts are confusing...granted, I might be sick and just not understanding but from the two or three emails and PMs I have gotten in the last hour I am not alone in my confusion.

I still maintain that it is impossible to know print runs and to determine scarcity on advertising backs is nearly impossible. Determining the matrix of the cards on the sheets is just as tough. I am not trying to be difficult, I just want to understand.

Joshua

..

[Wite3]

I am feeling a bit better so here goes...

Still confused as to how you know they have less PB backs printed. Did you find records of print runs? Also, It makes more sense that they would not switch in the middle of a print run. It would be more cost effective to switch out the cards when they switch to different advertising.

The twelve I selected are the few that are missing both PB and Hassan 649 backs and are the few in the set that are missing both. There are a few of the odder variations that are missing them but those are things like the Hobby no stats, etc.

I will tell you that the cards you listed are more likely to have appeared on the sheets with the minor league cards AND the SPs that I listed as they are some of the most common cards in the set. Miller, Doyle, Titus, Mattern, and Oakes are in my top 5 easiest T205s to acquire. Only Wallace no cap is SP in your list and I believe that is like the Hobby no stats mentioned above.

I know there are others who have looked at this set...maybe we are both wrong...but I really feel that when it comes to the minor leaguers in the set. I think I have it close to being correct.

One other thing...while I feel that most of the set was produced in 1911, I know the minor leaguers were printed later (early to mid-1911). One reason for this is Hick Cady card. It speaks of his being traded (sold) to the Red Sox. This transaction happened in January of 1912 (mentions as such on the back of his t205).

Joshua