T206 Paper Stock

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

I ask because in my experiences I have found that there seems to be T206s that have firmer paper stock and some that seem to have a bit smoother finish than other that have been fine.

Lee

[jingram058]

I find that there are differences in every set ever made. Some of it is how the cards were produced, and some of it is how the cards were kept over the years/decades. It just is what it is. It used to bug me, not anymore. I just accept it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I find that there are differences in every set ever made. Some of it is how the cards were produced, and some of it is how the cards were kept over the years/decades. It just is what it is. It used to bug me, not anymore. I just accept it.

There is a colossal difference between the former, how the cards were produced and if they were made on multiple stocks creating actual variations, and the latter, how they were stored and wear/aging/toning that is damage and not a variation.

There are absolutely not legitimate differences in “every set ever made”.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by G1911

There is a colossal difference between the former, how the cards were produced and if they were made on multiple stocks creating actual variations, and the latter, how they were stored and wear/aging/toning that is damage and not a variation.

There are absolutely not legitimate differences in “every set ever made”.

Every set I have EVER come across going back to when I was 9 years old, 55 years, have had legitimate differences in gloss, no gloss, printing issues, back differences, thickness differences, you name it. It's disposable cardboard. Trying to go all anal retentive over these things is silly geek nonsense. There absolutely ARE legitimate differences.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Every set I have EVER come across going back to when I was 9 years old, 55 years, have had legitimate differences in gloss, no gloss, printing issues, back differences, thickness differences, you name it. It's disposable cardboard. Trying to go all anal retentive over these things is silly geek nonsense. There absolutely ARE legitimate differences.

Yes, some cards lose gloss over time. Yes some cards have printing issues. I do not see how we could reasonably say that damage and variations are the same thing. They are different. There are not legitimate stock differences in every set ever made. This is obviously and plainly false.

It may well be that variation collectors, which is most people in the hobby (anyone want to trade me a Drum back for the same card with a Piedmont back? No?), are anal retentive silly geeks. It’s an awfully silly, stupid and hypocritical insult to make from one collector to another though… we’re all silly geeks paying good money for pictures of dead dudes.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, some cards lose gloss over time. Yes some cards have printing issues. I do not see how we could reasonably say that damage and variations are the same thing. They are different. There are not legitimate stock differences in every set ever made. This is obviously and plainly false.

It may well be that variation collectors, which is most people in the hobby (anyone want to trade me a Drum back for the same card with a Piedmont back? No?), are anal retentive silly geeks. It’s an awfully silly, stupid and hypocritical insult to make from one collector to another though… we’re all silly geeks paying good money for pictures of dead dudes.

Printing differences are variations, not damage. Insults aside. I have OJs and the like from the 1800s, all kinds of tobacco cards, all kinds of pre-war and post-war cards. All of them have differences in stock thickness, coloration due to printing differences (not damage), some are even slightly different in size (and not from being trimmed, they were made that way). The most glaring differences in stock (both thickness and color) from my personal collection are 1933 and 34 Goudey, 1953 Bowman Color (there are clearly 2 different stocks, maybe more), 1952 and 54 Topps, 1960 and 61 Topps (all over the place, thickness and color) and 1965 Topps (the blue backs can be 2 different colors of blue). I have looked at other peoples cards in person and seen the same differences, so it's not just me. All of my t205, t206 and t207 cards are among my best cards with virtually no issues with stock thickness or anything else.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Printing differences are variations, not damage. Insults aside. I have OJs and the like from the 1800s, all kinds of tobacco cards, all kinds of pre-war and post-war cards. All of them have differences in stock thickness, coloration due to printing differences (not damage), some are even slightly different in size (and not from being trimmed, they were made that way). The most glaring differences in stock (both thickness and color) from my personal collection are 1933 and 34 Goudey, 1953 Bowman Color (there are clearly 2 different stocks, maybe more), 1952 and 54 Topps, 1960 and 61 Topps (all over the place, thickness and color) and 1965 Topps (the blue backs can be 2 different colors of blue). I have looked at other peoples cards in person and seen the same differences, so it's not just me. All of my t205, t206 and t207 cards are among my best cards with virtually no issues with stock thickness or anything else.

It depends on the difference. A stock variation, printed on two distinctly different types, is a variation. A card that has 'printing issues' is generally considered damage. OC, MC, PD etc., they are held against the grade. A card that is miscut is not a variation by any standard I have ever heard.

Again, a difference does not a variation make. Age-related toning, as you grouped in with actual stock variations in post 12, is not a variation. It simply is not.

I am well aware that many sets were printed on multiple stocks; I post regularly on the post-war board about many of the 'unrecognized' ones. 53 Bowman Color definitely has 2 stocks, 52/54/60 all have long recognized blatant stock differences. I would need to see any actual evidence that 1961 Topps has a thicker stock type variant to believe the claim (as should always be the case to believe any claim about anything).

Your claim wasn't that some sets have stock variations, a claim everyone would agree with as the evidence is clear that this is so. Your claim you chose to make was that every single set ever made has stock variations. This is an absurd claim that is blatantly false. It's an easier narrative, but it is untrue.