T206 Paper Stock

[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.

[chriskim]

Even if there are slight diff stocks in t206s and some might rarer than the other, no one would really care since majority of t206s are in holders and no one would bother to crack them open to check.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Then what do you call it when the stocks are obviously different? I'm getting really sick of your know it all, smug "absurd" and "blatantly false" statements. You simply do not know what you are talking about. Good luck with your search for whatever you are trying to accomplish here, which would appear to be to somehow make rocket science out of cheap, disposable cardboard. I am done trying to get through to you.

[jingram058]

G1911, please cease and desist in any further replies that include me, or any further discussion with anything I have stated. I am done with this thread.

[steve B]

Well ok, one day I had my digital calipers out so I randomly checked maybe 20 T206s.
What I found was that they were remarkably consistent. Which is a little unusual for paper produced around 1909-1911. especially with samples made two -three years apart.

I haven't checked stiffness, for a couple reasons. First it's a little bit risky. Second, so many of my T206s are beaters that will obviously not be as stiff.

That stiffness is related to fiber length and what and how much sizing was used in making the cardstock.

I have noticed gloss differences, some related to the inks themselves, others probably related to the cardstock being coated or not (actually more likely not coated much) The less coated stock will absorb the ink better giving a matte appearance and usually more muted colors. A coated stock forces the ink to sit on the surface and since the colors are semi transparent they appaear brighter.