T206 group of 350-only Series NO-PRINTS....CB, EPDG, OM, PB

[RCMcKenzie]

Greg, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that Willie Mays, is a money card, and O'Hara and Demmitt with a Polar Bear back, should not really be money cards. My recollection is that I paid less for this T214, than what a T206 Demmitt with a Polar Bear back goes for, to me it's just a Polar Bear common.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Greg, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that Willie Mays, is a money card, and O'Hara and Demmitt with a Polar Bear back, should not really be money cards. My recollection is that I paid less for this T214, than what a T206 Demmitt with a Polar Bear back goes for, to me it's just a Polar Bear common.

Rob

Your post reminds me of.....

In one of my "Hybrid T206" sets, I chose not to spend the big $$$$ for a Demmitt St Louis, so I filled the space for Demmitt with this T213-2 card of him for only $100





TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Luke]

If one of you guys' Rossman Coupons went to auction, there would be some serious fireworks.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Greg, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that Willie Mays, is a money card, and O'Hara and Demmitt with a Polar Bear back, should not really be money cards. My recollection is that I paid less for this T214, than what a T206 Demmitt with a Polar Bear back goes for, to me it's just a Polar Bear common.

Personally, I agree it shouldn't be a money card. It's just a PB O'Hara. But this opinion I have isn't material to the fact that these are big $$ cards and are much, much more likely to be graded and thus overrepresented in the pop report. It is much more profitable to grade them. Comparing O'Hara's POP to a random common's POP is not even close to an apples to apples comparison, for the exact same reason there are far more #261 Mays graded than #260 Castiglione and #262 Trucks even though we know they all had the same print run on the series 5 sheet. If we use this logic being used for the PB O'Hara and Demmitt, then the Mays must be a quintuple print because it is 500% more common in the POP, which we all know is absurd and false. It's because it's a money card and much more profitable to grade. We can use an example from practically any set. $$ cards are graded more often, comparing a $$ card to a random common in the POP is not a reasonable comparison or a valid data point.

[HobokenJon]

Ted, if you're looking at pop-report data as a guide, I would encourage you to check out the numbers for George Brown (Washington), in particular. PSA shows a total pop of 4 for the Old Mill back. SGC shows a total pop of 2. Those numbers are more consistent with the Old Mill pops for 150-350 cards than for the subsequent series, where Old Mill pops tend to be significiantly higher (except for the Exclusive 12 in 350-460 that you've chronicled extensively).

The same line of thinking that you outlined above would lead me to conclude that George Brown (Washington) was part of the 150-350 series. Its pop-report data is ultra-low, just like so many of the other 150-350 Old Mill backs.

It would be much easier to answer the question at hand if any of these three subjects (Browne-Washington, Dahlen-Brooklyn, or Elberfeld-Washington) came with backs that clearly excluded them from membership in the 150-350 series. That's the case, for instance, with the Lundgren (Kansas City) variation, which comes with a Carolina Brights back. Absent a clear-cut data point such as that, I don't see evidence they're part of the 350-only series. But I'm willing to keep an open mind.

Perchance, has anyone out there ever seen a miscut George Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) or Elberfeld (Washington) with a different player's name printed on top? If such a card existed, that likely would settle the question.

[HobokenJon]

Separately, following up on Luke's comment above about Joy Doyle (N.Y.), Kleinow (catching-New York), Rhoades (arm extended) and Frank Smith (Chicago-white cap) being part of the 350-460 series ....

Ted, are you sure these four subjects should be classified as part of the 350-only series? I'd be curious to know why you include them there. All four of these subjects appear with apple green Sovereign 350 backs, rather than forest green.

Putting aside the six super prints, would you agree that subjects with apple green Sovereign 350 backs are part of the 350-460 series?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Separately, following up on Luke's comment above about Joy Doyle (N.Y.), Kleinow (catching-New York), Rhoades (arm extended) and Frank Smith (Chicago-white cap) being part of the 350-460 series ....

Ted, are you sure these four subjects should be classified as part of the 350-only series? I'd be curious to know why you include them there. All four of these subjects appear with apple green Sovereign 350 backs, rather than forest green.

Putting aside the six super prints, would you agree that subjects with apple green Sovereign 350 backs are part of the 350-460 series?

Jon

I am referring you to my Net54 thread posted in 2009....Sovereign phantom "350/460" series

American Lithographic advertently (or inadvently) introduced the 350/460 series when they printed these 66 subjects with "apple green" SOVEREIGN 350 backs.

So you ask me if....."I would agree" ?

I'm the guy who presented this theory in 2009....having completed a basic 402-card SOVEREIGN set. With all due respect, I do not understand where you are coming from ? ?



v.................................... Six super-prints ....................................v









TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[HobokenJon]

Nothing but love, Ted! As you know, I deeply value our friendship and hugely appreciate your contributions to the hobby and to this board.

Where am I coming from? It's simple. You said in your post above (#8) that Joe Doyle, Kleinow (catching-N.Y.), Rhoades (arm extended) and Frank Smith (Chicago-white cap) are part of the 350-only series. I saw that comment by you and thought to myself ..... no way, that can't be, because aren't those four cards part of the 350-460 series, given that they all appear with apple green Sovereign 350 backs?

So I put the question to you to make sure I had my facts right. In your latest post above (#27), you confirmed what I initially had thought: all four cards are part of the 350-460 series. And I'm glad we agree on this point, because that resolves the matter in my mind.

I'm still interested in understanding the rationale for why G. Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) and Elberfeld (Washington) should be considered part of the 350-only series. I'm not trying to challenge your conclusions or knowledge base so much as I'm trying to test whether I have my own facts right. You're the godfather on this subject matter. That's why I asked you in response to your posts on this thread.

Huge respect, Ted!

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Nothing but love, Ted! As you know, I deeply value our friendship and hugely appreciate your contributions to the hobby and to this board.

Where am I coming from? It's simple. You said in your post above (#8) that Joe Doyle, Kleinow (catching-N.Y.), Rhoades (arm extended) and Frank Smith (Chicago-white cap) are part of the 350-only series. I saw that comment by you and thought to myself ..... no way, that can't be, because aren't those four cards part of the 350-460 series, given that they all appear with apple green Sovereign 350 backs?

So I put the question to you to make sure I had my facts right. In your latest post above (#27), you confirmed what I initially had thought: all four cards are part of the 350-460 series. And I'm glad we agree on this point, because that resolves the matter in my mind.

I'm still interested in understanding the rationale for why G. Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) and Elberfeld (Washington) should be considered part of the 350-only series. I'm not trying to challenge your conclusions or knowledge base so much as I'm trying to test whether I have my own facts right. You're the godfather on this subject matter. That's why I asked you in response to your posts on this thread.

Huge respect, Ted!

OK, let's back to Post #8 here, in which I have identified the 23 subjects in the 350-only series that are A - B - C - D no-prints.
Three of those guys were printed only with an OLD MILL (besides the usual PIEDMONT, SWEET CAP, and SOVEREIGN backs).......

Browne (Washington).....traded to Washington May 21, 1909
Dahlen (Brooklyn).....traded to Brooklyn Oct 27, 1909
Elberfeld (portrait-Washington).....traded to Washington Dec 14, 1909

These 3 subjects were involved in trades during the early printing of the 350-only series. My guess is this "trade factor" timeframe
coincided with American Lithographic printing them, which resulted in them being Short-Printed.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Ted, if you're looking at pop-report data as a guide, I would encourage you to check out the numbers for George Brown (Washington), in particular. PSA shows a total pop of 4 for the Old Mill back. SGC shows a total pop of 2. Those numbers are more consistent with the Old Mill pops for 150-350 cards than for the subsequent series, where Old Mill pops tend to be significiantly higher (except for the Exclusive 12 in 350-460 that you've chronicled extensively).

The same line of thinking that you outlined above would lead me to conclude that George Brown (Washington) was part of the 150-350 series. Its pop-report data is ultra-low, just like so many of the other 150-350 Old Mill backs.

It would be much easier to answer the question at hand if any of these three subjects (Browne-Washington, Dahlen-Brooklyn, or Elberfeld-Washington) came with backs that clearly excluded them from membership in the 150-350 series. That's the case, for instance, with the Lundgren (Kansas City) variation, which comes with a Carolina Brights back. Absent a clear-cut data point such as that, I don't see evidence they're part of the 350-only series. But I'm willing to keep an open mind.

Perchance, has anyone out there ever seen a miscut George Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) or Elberfeld (Washington) with a different player's name printed on top? If such a card existed, that likely would settle the question.

There are no two name cards with those three subjects on them that I know of but there are 28 subjects found with the large factory 30's on them and all of them are 150/350 subjects and Dahlen Brooklyn is one of them.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...=160236&page=3

Also the three blue Old Mills are Walsh, Powell and Elberfeld Washington portrait.

[HobokenJon]

Originally Posted by Pat R

There are no two name cards with those three subjects on them that I know of but there are 28 subjects found with the large factory 30's on them and all of them are 150/350 subjects and Dahlen Brooklyn is one of them.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...=160236&page=3

Also the three blue Old Mills are Walsh, Powell and Elberfeld Washington portrait.

Oooooh, that's good stuff!

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Luke

If one of you guys' Rossman Coupons went to auction, there would be some serious fireworks.

I've given that some thought.....I like "fireworks".

As a side-light, note the faint impression of an EPDG back on the front of my Rossman card. I darkened the scan so it's more visible.

Perhaps this EPDG impression may enhance the already high value of this card, or diminishes it....Whatever ?

In any event, Rossman is not going anywhere too soon. I only have 12 cards from this 1910 set, therefore they are keepers for now.







TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by G1911

for the exact same reason there are far more #261 Mays graded than #260 Castiglione and #262 Trucks even though we know they all had the same print run on the series 5 sheet.

Don’t know how I missed my Uncle Pete being referenced in this thread!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by t206hound

Don’t know how I missed my Uncle Pete being referenced in this thread!

I don't have the Willie Mays or factory stamped T206's.... But I got your uncle!: