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

[HobokenJon]

Ted, my view is (1) the 150 backs for these three variation cards exist on the original versions of the cards showing their former teams, and (2) some 150-350 subjects -- i.e., these three -- aren't found with 150 backs, just as the cards from the 150-only series aren't found with 350 backs.

It also is worth nothing that G. Brown (Chicago) is part of the 150-only series, unlike Dahlen (Boston) and Elberfeld portrait (N.Y.).

But as I think we've established, a lot of this is just theory. The cards weren't issued with a checklist or a printing schedule. The mystery and the mystique are part of what makes the Monster so much fun to collect, talk about, and even vigorously debate!

Per Dahlen Brooklyn, it looks like you and Pat might have a disagreement on facts. I previously wasn't aware of either (1) what Pat said above in post #24, or (2) what you said above in post #31 regarding the notation being found on cards across the five series. I'm not in a position yet to draw a conclusion on this question.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Ted, my view is (1) the 150 backs for these three variation cards exist on the original versions of the cards showing their former teams, and (2) some 150-350 subjects -- i.e., these three -- aren't found with 150 backs, just as the cards from the 150-only series aren't found with 350 backs.

It also is worth nothing that G. Brown (Chicago) is part of the 150-only series, unlike Dahlen (Boston) and Elberfeld portrait (N.Y.).

But as I think we've established, a lot of this is just theory. The cards weren't issued with a checklist or a printing schedule. The mystery and the mystique are part of what makes the Monster so much fun to collect, talk about, and even vigorously debate!

Per Dahlen Brooklyn, it looks like you and Pat might have a disagreement on facts. I previously wasn't aware of either (1) what Pat said above in post #24, or (2) what you said above in post #31 regarding the notation being found on cards across the five series. I'm not in a position yet to draw a conclusion on this question.

Jon

Back in 2011, a Net54 member posted Rhoades (right arm extended) SWEET CAP card with the hint of large Factory # on its edge. This card is strictly a 350-only subject.

And, there are more out there. I've been collecting T206's since 1981, and trust me, I have had and have seen over 50,000 of them.

I will see if I can come up with more like the above mentioned one in the 350-only series (or 350/460 series, or the 460-only series).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[HobokenJon]

Ted . . . OK, but you showed in post #27 that Rhoades (arm extended) is part of the 350-460 series and that it has an apple green Sovereign 350 back. For the avoidance of doubt, you think it's actually part of the 350-only series? If that were the case, shouldn't it have a forest green Sovereign 350 back like other 350-only subjects, instead of apple green?

I thought we both agreed that subjects with apple green Sovereign 350 backs are part of the 350-460 series, no?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Ted . . . OK, but you showed in post #27 that Rhoades (arm extended) is part of the 350-460 series and that it has an apple green Sovereign 350 back. For the avoidance of doubt, you think it's actually part of the 350-only series? If that were the case, shouldn't it have a forest green Sovereign 350 back like other 350-only subjects, instead of apple green?

I thought we both agreed that subjects with apple green Sovereign 350 backs are part of the 350-460 series, no?

Jon

American Litho's original design intention appears to have been 66 subjects to be extended from the 350 Series to the 350/460 Series....as illustrated in my simulated sheet:


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








However, three of the subjects' careers ended (bold lettering); therefore, these guys were not continued into the 350/460 Series ......

Joe Doyle........................traded to Cinci.(May 1910); career ends June 25, 1910
Red Kleinow (NY)..............traded to Boston May 1910
Simon Nicholls (bat)..........traded to Clev (spring 1910); career ends May 1910
Bob Rhoades (right arm extended)......career ends Summer of 1909
Frank Smith (white cap).....traded to Boston in the Summer of 1910.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[HobokenJon]

OK. I'm satisfied we can leave it at that, since this discussion seems now to be more about theory and personal preference for how to label a given subject.

I do believe this discussion underscores the usefulness of the "print group" framework, so as to create a common language among Monster collectors and avoid confusion. Except for the super prints, I would refer to all of the cards with apple green Sovereign 350 backs as either Print Group 3 or series 350-460. I wouldn't refer to any apple green Sovereign 350 as part of Print Group 2 or the 350-only series. But hey, if you want to call them that, who am I to stop you? ... But I may have a few questions so I can understand where you're coming from.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

OK. I'm satisfied we can leave it at that, since this discussion seems now to be more about theory and personal preference for how to label a given subject.

I do believe this discussion underscores the usefulness of the "print group" framework, so as to create a common language among Monster collectors and avoid confusion. Except for the super prints, I would refer to all of the cards with apple green Sovereign 350 backs as either Print Group 3 or series 350-460. I wouldn't refer to any apple green Sovereign 350 as part of Print Group 2 or the 350-only series. But hey, if you want to call them that, who am I to stop you? ... But I may have a few questions so I can understand where you're coming from.

"Theory and personal preference"....back in 2006 - 2007, there was confusion regarding the make-up of the T206 SOVEREIGN set on Net54. And, this was one of the factors
which motivated me to put this set together. In my one year adventure of arriving at a complete basic 402-subject set, I developed certain THEORIES of how American Litho
produced these cards (series by series). Especially, in figuring out which subjects were NOT PRINTED. Yes that result was just one of my theories. But, you know what guys ?
All my theories have withstood the test of time (15 years).
I attribute this partially as to how I arrange my T206's. Four of my 5 sets of T206's are arranged according to the 6 series in the set (150-only, 150/350, 350-only, 350/460,
460-only, and the Southern Leaguers.
The so-called "print group" framework is at best a confusing system, which does not allow you to clearly understand the complexity of The Monster.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[parkerj33]

T-Rex Teddy,

Just to clarify my understanding, I *think* you are saying that the Rhoades is "effectively" a 350-only subject just like Nichols and Doyle, but was intended to be a 350/460 subject. Hence, all three have apple green sovereign backs and NOT forest-green backs.

So they are accidental exceptions to the rule that apple green is only on 350/460 series, because AmerLith made an audible to cancel them early.

I hope this makes sense and doesn't make things worse!

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Jon

Back in 2011, a Net54 member posted Rhoades (right arm extended) SWEET CAP card with the hint of large Factory # on its edge. This card is strictly a 350-only subject.

And, there are more out there. I've been collecting T206's since 1981, and trust me, I have had and have seen over 50,000 of them.

I will see if I can come up with more like the above mentioned one in the 350-only series (or 350/460 series, or the 460-only series).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

First of all the Rhoades mark is on the side of the card Ted and second it's not a factory number it's some other print defect that so far has only been found on Rhoades.

It's different than the factory numbers even if it was there should be part of the second number showing.

01b.jpg

01b - Copy.jpg

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Jon

Back in 2011, a Net54 member posted Rhoades (right arm extended) SWEET CAP card with the hint of large Factory # on its edge. This card is strictly a 350-only subject.

And, there are more out there. I've been collecting T206's since 1981, and trust me, I have had and have seen over 50,000 of them.

I will see if I can come up with more like the above mentioned one in the 350-only series (or 350/460 series, or the 460-only series).
.

Pat

Earlier in this thread, I noted that a T206 Rhoades (right arm extended) was discovered with a large Factory # on the edge of it's back. This subject is STRICTLY a 350 series card.

And, you called me a "liar".


Hey, the rest of you guys reading this now, check-out this thread posted in 2011..... https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=129855

Is Pat the one the here who is the "liar", when he tells us that no other T206 (350-only, 350/460, 460-only) series cards exhibit these large SWEET CAPORAL Factory #'s ?

I'm sick and tired of this dude acting as if Net54 is just another "trashy social media" site.


TED Z
.

[Luke]

Ted,

You're misunderstanding what Pat said. Yes, Rhoades arm extended has been found with a mark on the back at the right edge. But that is not what we're talking about here. The mark on Rhoades seems to be unique in that it's the only pose for which the side mark has been discovered.

Pat is referring to the "Big Factory 30" marks found at the bottom of the back on some Print Group 1 poses. There has also been one "Big Factory 25" found (Ames Portrait). Pat, if there are any other 25s, please correct me.

We've been following these for 10 years in this thread:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ht=big+factory

If you found even one card with a large factory # at the bottom from a series other than the 150-350 Series, that would be huge news. I'd be absolutely shocked if there are any. If you do have evidence that a Big Factory 25 or 30 exists for a pose not in Print Group 1, please share it.

I wish you wanted these threads you post to be more collaborative. You post a lot of good information, but whenever someone politely points out an error you made, you always get upset. We should all work together to further the collective knowledge of the group. I've written a lot about the set myself, and people have pointed out a mistake in my work a few times. I've always said "thank you" and fixed it. And if there was a learning opportunity there for me, I would take it.

Pat is a very smart, level-headed guy. He has contributed a ton to the communal knowledge about the set. If he presents a fact, it's because he has evidence to back up that statement. If he puts forward a theory, it's because he has evidence that logically supports his conclusion. If you find yourself arguing with Pat, it's either because you didn't understand what he posted, or you just don't want to work together and learn from anyone else.

What you are perceiving as a personal attack against you is really just a step in the process of building our collective knowledge as T206 historians. If any of us make a post that contains errors, another member should come in and point out the mistakes so we can all learn together.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Luke

Ted


I wish you wanted these threads you post to be more collaborative. You post a lot of good information, but whenever someone politely points out an error you made, you always get upset. We should all work together to further the collective knowledge of the group. I've written a lot about the set myself, and people have pointed out a mistake in my work a few times. I've always said "thank you" and fixed it. And if there was a learning opportunity there for me, I would take it.

.

Luke

I do get upset at times and there is a reason for it.....it started about 10 years ago. That's when two guys (who will remain nameless) posted their "T206Resource" site.
As far back as 2005 (when I became a member of Net54), I developed and posted my theories and experiences from my various T206 sets (5) which I put together for
30 - 40 years.
I was very generous in sharing them with everyone who chose to read my threads on Net54. Well, the T206Resource dudes never gave me any acknowledgement for my
information (checklists, etc.) that they posted in their site. Simply stated, they plagiarized a lot of my ideas and information. How do we know this to be true. Checklists
they took from me had errors....identical errors that I inadvertently made when I posted them years prior to T206Resource.
For example: my SOVEREIGN No-Print checklist of 67 subjects had 2 mistakes. Sure enough, T206Resource's checklist had the EXACT two errors in it. The probability of
having 1 identical error is somewhere around 10,000 to 1. Having 2 identical errors, the probability approaches 1 Million to 1. Yet they denied such things when this was
discovered, and brought to their attention. So they would not give me any credit for this data.

So you ask, why do I get so upset with these people ?

To quote Billy Joel...."I didn't start this fire".

It's only just a handfull of Net54 people that bug me. The vast majority are great. And, you would be very surprised to see how many Net54er's visit me at the National
Show and the three Philly Shows every year. We have a great time Talking BB and BB cards.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Luke]

That wouldn't surprise me at all. I know many people in the hobby who like you a lot. All I wanted to say is I wish we could all work together and get along a little better.

I've never seen Pat post something that he couldn't prove, so if he points out something, that shouldn't be cause for an argument. If you post a checklist that has say 35 poses on it, and Pat points out that one pose is on the list in error, that's a good thing. The whole point of making one of your posts on net54 is you are giving collectors a reference they can learn from. If you go to all the trouble of making the post and putting together the list and then Pat points one error out and now the list is perfect, that's a great result isn't it? That thread will be a great help to collectors in the future.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Luke

That wouldn't surprise me at all. I know many people in the hobby who like you a lot. All I wanted to say is I wish we could all work together and get along a little better.

I've never seen Pat post something that he couldn't prove, so if he points out something, that shouldn't be cause for an argument. If you post a checklist that has say 35 poses on it, and Pat points out that one pose is on the list in error, that's a good thing. The whole point of making one of your posts on net54 is you are giving collectors a reference they can learn from. If you go to all the trouble of making the post and putting together the list and then Pat points one error out and now the list is perfect, that's a great result isn't it? That thread will be a great help to collectors in the future.

Luke

Look at the title of this thread....I posted this information for the benefit of avid T206 collectors, in order to make it easier for any one of them working on their T206 runs.
Yet, not much conversation has been devoted to it's importance.

Pat (more or less) "hi-jacks" this thread with his comments in post #13. He does this often, even with his petty remarks. A perfect example of this is when I posted a very
interesting and popular thread regarding the "Brothers Delahanty". Pat interjects that I spelled their name incorrectly. He said it should be "Delehanty". Well Pat was WRONG.
And, that kind of petty interruption side-tracked the import of that thread. I could provide you with many more such examples, but I'll leave it at that.

You have NOT responded to the 2011 thread which clearly reports the discovery of a Rhoades (a 350 series) card with a large Factory # on its back.

Can we talk about this Rhoades card ? Also, the probability of other such cards in the subsequent series following the 150/350 series ? ?

SWEET CAPORAL cards with Factory #s 25 and 30 were also printed in the 350-only....350/460....460-only Series; therefore, there is no logical reason for the sheets of those
cards NOT having Factory #s 25 or 30 identification on them.

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Luke

I do get upset at times and there is a reason for it.....it started about 10 years ago. That's when two guys (who will remain nameless) posted their "T206Resource" site.
As far back as 2005 (when I became a member of Net54), I developed and posted my theories and experiences from my various T206 sets (5) which I put together for
30 - 40 years.
I was very generous in sharing them with everyone who chose to read my threads on Net54. Well, the T206Resource dudes never gave me any acknowledgement for my
information (checklists, etc.) that they posted in their site. Simply stated, they plagiarized a lot of my ideas and information. How do we know this to be true. Checklists
they took from me had errors....identical errors that I inadvertently made when I posted them years prior to T206Resource.
For example: my SOVEREIGN No-Print checklist of 67 subjects had 2 mistakes. Sure enough, T206Resource's checklist had the EXACT two errors in it. The probability of
having 1 identical error is somewhere around 10,000 to 1. Having 2 identical errors, the probability approaches 1 Million to 1. Yet they denied such things when this was
discovered, and brought to their attention. So they would not give me any credit for this data.

So you ask, why do I get so upset with these people ?

To quote Billy Joel...."I didn't start this fire".

It's only just a handfull of Net54 people that bug me. The vast majority are great. And, you would be very surprised to see how many Net54er's visit me at the National
Show and the three Philly Shows every year. We have a great time Talking BB and BB cards.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Ted,
I have talked with you at a few shows and I've purchased a couple of cards from you but that doesn't mean I'm not going to say something if I think something you post or start a thread on is incorrect.

If you really care about the research of the T206 set the print groups and the original ATC journal should be in your reference thread and your hatred towards t206resource and me shouldn't be a factor in omitting them.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Pat

Earlier in this thread, I noted that a T206 Rhoades (right arm extended) was discovered with a large Factory # on the edge of it's back. This subject is STRICTLY a 350 series card.

And, you called me a "liar".


Hey, the rest of you guys reading this now, check-out this thread posted in 2011..... https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=129855

Is Pat the one the here who is the "liar", when he tells us that no other T206 (350-only, 350/460, 460-only) series cards exhibit these large SWEET CAPORAL Factory #'s ?

I'm sick and tired of this dude acting as if Net54 is just another "trashy social media" site.


TED Z
.

This is quite an ironic statement Ted when in this thread alone you have called me a liar, made fictitious claims backed up by inaccurate information and when proven wrong you don't acknowledge it or apologize.