A New T205 Variation.... It's Official Now.

[marcdelpercio]

Originally Posted by Matt

Answer me this question - this was clearly an error that was corrected in between the Cycle run and the other backs. You agree that if it was found in the middle of the Cycle run it should count as an official variation, or if it was found after say the Cycle and Hassan runs it should also be counted - why is the fact that they found and corrected the error after only the Cycle run a reason not to count it?

I have yet to see anybody who claims that the Mathewson and White cards are not variations offer an answer to the above question that Matt posed. I have also not seen an answer to whether they consider the T206 Demmitt and O'Hara cards to be variations. I have ALSO not seen an answer to the question that I posed in the thread I started about the T205 Doc White regarding what cards in the T205 set they DO consider to be variations as the majority of the widely accepted variations in the set DO NOT feature both versions with the same advertising back. It seems to me that somebody who genuinely believes that these cards are not variations should be able to easily answer these questions and offer some logical reasoning for their answers. Anybody?

I also find it interesting that some of the people who claim that these are not variations, in their following posts, lament the fact that they will now have to collect them for their sets.

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

I also find it interesting that some of the people who claim that these are not variations, in their following posts, lament the fact that they will now have to collect them for their sets.

Well if its part of the master set you have to get it to be 100% complete. I do not agree with it but thats how it is. Same way with the White. If it gets recognized then I guess It's another for the collection. From my guess there should be about 3 more variations to arise.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

I find this discussion kind of amazing since we each make a decision as a collector of what we are going to collect and how we are going to collect it. If you collect the T205 set with all the front variations is that not a complete set? I believe that is the desired intent of the producers.

Now if you as a collector think you need to get each card with each variation does that not include all back variations including the advertising?

So to me if you are trying to collect a T205 "master set" you will need a Matty Cycle back whether it has a 37 -11 or a 37 - 1 record.

I owned 3 different Matty Cycles and noticed the 37-1 record with the first one. I brought it up to many will respected hobby people and it was always dismissed because it only came in the Cycle back and no 37-11 was known.

Now all it really takes it a few collectors to decide that they are something special and are willing to pay a premium for them, and be over hyped in an auction. To me all comes down to collectors preferences. We all have our own way of collecting and I don't understand why some people are offended with others collecting habits.

Lee

[Matt]

Lee - it's certainly entirely your call what you want to collect; that said, when we start talking about what should be SCD cataloged (or in this case what should be defined in a registry set) it's a different discussion. You may be of the opinion that if you have all front variations in a set you are complete or if you have all the text the manufacturer intended to issue you are complete, but for the T205 issue neither of those are the already established definition for cataloging or set registry. "the desired intent of the producers" is certainly a valid way of collecting (as is any other method) but it is clearly established that checklists/catalogs/registries list errors/corrected version as variations.

[marcdelpercio]

I haven't gotten the impression (at least in this thread) that anybody is "offended" by the way that anybody else collects. I do think this is a very valid debate however as this is a widely collected set and whether a card is considered an addition to the checklist as opposed to simply a different ad back will affect how a number of people collect.

Obviously a card will only have increased value if there is an increased demand for it. I don't think that this is really a discussion about value so much as it is about set completeness. I have not seen anybody, including myself who originally posted about it, claim that the Doc White variation will have a significantly higher value as it is a common player with the variation appearing on a common back. The Mathewson variation commands a premium because he is a top level HOF player and the variation appears only with a scarcer back.

I think the term "master set" is sometimes misused in this discussion. No true master set will ever exist as that would have to include all Drum, Hindu, Broad Leaf, etc. As I said in the other thread, when somebody says, "I have a complete set of T205's", I don't think anybody would take that to mean that they have every possible front/back combination of every card in the set. What that person means is that they have one of every front/back DESIGN in the set. By definition, this would have to include the Doc White, Matty, and any other such variations.

It seems that the people who do believe that these cards are variations offer identical widely accepted examples from this set and others and present a logical analysis as to why they feel these should be variations. I still have not seen any answers to these points by those who disagree.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

Matt, why then are the different ad backs not considered variations to the set? to me with your reasoning they should be included as a variation. I do not believe there is any so called complete set of T206s that has a back variation because other than the advertising there is no back diferences.

One other question, These cards were not all manufactured at the same time and same place, so the theory about correct a printing after a certain back is produced does not seem like a good arguement to me.

Lee

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bowlingshoegiverouterguy

Matt, why then are the different ad backs not considered variations to the set? to me with your reasoning they should be included as a variation. I do not believe there is any so called complete set of T206s that has a back variation because other than the advertising there is no back diferences.

You actually answered your own question; just as for the majority of those collecting a T206 set, different advertising backs aren't considered variations needed for a set, so it is with the T205 set. And just like with the T206 set textual variations pertaining to the specific player on the card are considered variations, so too it has been with T205. Those are the established criterion for the checklists. You said you only count frontal text variations in your checklist, which is certainly your call, but Wilhelm, Latham, etc. have long established that textual variations that pertain to specific players count as variations, even if on the back.

I did not understand your second point above.

Originally Posted by bowlingshoegiverouterguy

I do not believe there is any so called complete set of T206s that has a back variation because other than the advertising there is no back diferences.

Ab framed and not framed, Sweet Caporal overprints, AB apple colored, Sovereign apple colored, Old mill brown ink, OLD MILL BLACK BAR OVERPRINT(LOL. Sorry couldn't resist that one).

There are more I am sure but these are off the top of my head and I don't mess with the Monster to much. Farmore variations to collect than the T205's thank god but none the less most of these are sought after by back collectors and not set builders.

[Wite3]

Hi all,
The Matty is a variation to me. Not so much because the the stats are off but because it is a Cycle back. All my research points to these cards being printed by the same company in the same location. Several different print runs were produced within 1911 with several different backs.

Maybe we could call them parallels instead since that seems to be a more accurate description to me.

Also, the correction you think was made may never have happened. As others and I have discussed these were most likely printed with movable types and the other "1" in 11 could have been there to begin with and then broken. In fact, it could have broken on the first printing and there may be only one T205 Matty with the correct stats! Wouldn't that be something. I do think that it was a missed number and corrected in later printings but you never know.

Should there be a premium on this card. Absolutely!! The premium should be the same as for any other Cycle card in the set. Nothing more, nothing less. There seem to be as many Cycle Mattys as any other Cycle card and he was not short printed. No extra premium should be attached.

As many have also said...collect what you enjoy.

Joshua

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

I haven't gotten the impression (at least in this thread) that anybody is "offended" by the way that anybody else collects. I do think this is a very valid debate however as this is a widely collected set and whether a card is considered an addition to the checklist as opposed to simply a different ad back will affect how a number of people collect.

Obviously a card will only have increased value if there is an increased demand for it. I don't think that this is really a discussion about value so much as it is about set completeness. I have not seen anybody, including myself who originally posted about it, claim that the Doc White variation will have a significantly higher value as it is a common player with the variation appearing on a common back. The Mathewson variation commands a premium because he is a top level HOF player and the variation appears only with a scarcer back.

I think the term "master set" is sometimes misused in this discussion. No true master set will ever exist as that would have to include all Drum, Hindu, Broad Leaf, etc. As I said in the other thread, when somebody says, "I have a complete set of T205's", I don't think anybody would take that to mean that they have every possible front/back combination of every card in the set. What that person means is that they have one of every front/back DESIGN in the set. By definition, this would have to include the Doc White, Matty, and any other such variations.

It seems that the people who do believe that these cards are variations offer identical widely accepted examples from this set and others and present a logical analysis as to why they feel these should be variations. I still have not seen any answers to these points by those who disagree.

I have to agree with marc. I know for a fact that i own 3-4 cards with certain backs that I will never sell. These cards are the only ones graded with those backs and every one I see I buy just for that reason. It is impossible to complete a master set with all front and back variations. But it is not impossible to complete a master set with print variations.

Now with that being said all we need to do is stop staring at the damn cards so long to find these variations and just buy them. I was nearing the 1/2 way point after about 1 yr on this set. I still have most the big guys to go but it is easier to fall a tree sometimes when you start with smaller wacks and then swing away at the end.

Just some FYI. I think certain back companies may have chose to print certain cards the way they did. Like the Piedmont Blackburne in Bold letters Why is it that way? The WA lathams in Sweet Cap only(soon to have HLC included) Doc white Polar bear quotes and no quotes, The Germany Shaffer Quotes no quotes. I mean come on how nit picky does it have to be.

BTW there was an explanation to the T206 Polar bear backed Demmitt and Ohara's in the thread Marc started about the White "Variation".