eBay: T206 Marquard Throwing "New York & Boston"

[tonyo]

And all this time I just thought some kid back in '10 or '11 thought it would be a good idea to scribble an 8 on Rube's armpit.....

[usernamealreadytaken]

I see Joe Jackson in the background!!!

[cfc1909]

nice comparison Tim-its not the Boston B

looks like the sheets were in the same place before the ads were printed on the backs.

Pete-I don't see where your card is for sale-can you guide me to the listing?

[shaunsteig]

Had seen that listing on Ebay earlier today before reading this thread, and assumed that the seller was falsely (or mistakenly) hyping a marked card. It looks like a purple stamp of an "8" to me. Am fascinated to discover that there are other cards with the same printing in the exact same position - lends credence to SGC for assigning a numerical grade to the card rather than going with an Auth designation for it being marked on the front.

But if it's a printing defect, like a wet transfer as mentioned earlier, then two questions:

• how come there's no other evidence of wet transfer on the card (eg ghost image, another color, etc. -- ie why is the red B the only element transferred)

• and the misprint doesn't look like a "B".

[ChiefBenderForever]

For it to go under the radar there must not be a whole lot of them I would guess ?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHarmonica

For it to go under the radar there must not be a whole lot of them I would guess ?

Nah - it just means nobody noticed.

[ChiefBenderForever]

Originally Posted by Matt

Nah - it just means nobody noticed.

So this isn't the missing link ?

[T206.org]

@JimR - I don't think there was a public listing aside from the mention in this thread. It's already been sold though.

@Shaun - Totally agree! My first impression was marker or pen. Hopefully we can somehow get to the bottom of the mystery.

[steve B]

I've been trying to figure out exactly what would cause this sort of misprint. It's not a typical fisheye caused by debris on the plate or offset blanket. Those are color inside unprinted rings.

I believe it's from dents on the plate, or stone. Ink would pool in the dent or chip, but wouldn't print in the center if the defect was deep enough. So it would only come from one spot on the sheet, and probably only from part of the overall press run.

Having different backs should prove that groups of fronts were printed first and then backs were printed as needed.


Steve B

[Matt]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHarmonica

So this isn't the missing link ?

Sorry.

[T206.org]

Here is a high-res zoomed scan of the "8" - still no clue what it is.

[Bridwell]

Here's another example of the odd Marquard variation with the Red 8. It looks more like an "8" than a "B".

This one has a Sweet Caporal 350-460 back Factory 25 back. It sure seems like this card is an uncatalogued T206 variation since it is a front variation and was printed with several different backs.

[Phillies*phan]

So what has to happen for this card to be "recognized"? I think it should at least have some kind of nickname. Mine is a Piedmont 350~460.

[Ronnie73]

I tried picking one up last week on ebay. The opening bid was $100 and I bid $175 and a day later the auction was ended early within its first day listed. The seller then relisted it and sold it for $225. I probably would have paid more than that but his loss and mine too. I think the card should be call the "Demo Marquard" because it kinda looks like a demolition derby figure eight or call it the "Infinity Marquard" because its similar to the infinity sign.

This is F'-ing ridiculous. As soon as a few marks are found on a 206 its instantly a variation but if its another less collected set the obvious variations are swept under the rug and disregarded. The Graham 205 Blue writing vs Black writing on front. No way to say its not a deliberate change in ink thus making it a variation but will probably never be recognized as such. The PB white is another. There was also a card I wanted to buy from Turner at nationals that was a reverse image. That was a strip card found with 2 different fronts yet it is disregarded as a variation. So WTF makes a variation. Just Because its a 206 is my vote and nothing less.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Pup6913

This is F'-ing ridiculous. As soon as a few marks are found on a 206 its instantly a variation but if its another less collected set the obvious variations are swept under the rug and disregarded. The Graham 205 Blue writing vs Black writing on front. No way to say its not a deliberate change in ink thus making it a variation but will probably never be recognized as such. The PB white is another. There was also a card I wanted to buy from Turner at nationals that was a reverse image. That was a strip card found with 2 different fronts yet it is disregarded as a variation. So WTF makes a variation. Just Because its a 206 is my vote and nothing less.

Andrew, to me it's interesting because it's an oddity that hasn't yet been explained, and it's found with different backs. It's weird - that's all. Not in the same league as the Graham you describe. The T206 is more popular than the T205, so people are more interested in discussing these strange things.

As you know, it's difficult to get the T205 collectors on this board to talk about anything related to the set, so you know they aren't going to want to make people aware of the truly scarce items that aren't public knowledge. If I find a T205 with anything the least bit unusual about it, or even a well-known variation, I tuck it away for later discussion. I think the only way you are going to get really in-depth discussions on T205s, is to set up your own discussion forum specifically for that purpose, and invite all the T205 collectors - if you build it they will come.

edited to add: I have gotten GREAT response to my T205 questions via PM and email, so I know 'they' want to talk about the set. (thanks)

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by Pup6913

This is F'-ing ridiculous. As soon as a few marks are found on a 206 its instantly a variation but if its another less collected set the obvious variations are swept under the rug and disregarded. The Graham 205 Blue writing vs Black writing on front. No way to say its not a deliberate change in ink thus making it a variation but will probably never be recognized as such. The PB white is another. There was also a card I wanted to buy from Turner at nationals that was a reverse image. That was a strip card found with 2 different fronts yet it is disregarded as a variation. So WTF makes a variation. Just Because its a 206 is my vote and nothing less.

Funny, I remember being surprised back in aught-10 (when the thread started) that it didn't get more discussion.

It went over a whole year with nary a peep (unless I missed it). I wouldn't call that "instantly".

Not defending t206 over t205 per se' just commenting on the interesting view from different perspectives.

[T206.org]

Originally Posted by Phillies*phan

So what has to happen for this card to be "recognized"? I think it should at least have some kind of nickname. Mine is a Piedmont 350~460.

Unfortunately when Bob's work was "ignored" in the 2012 Standard Catalog, the chances of this card being officially recognized went down the crapper I think.

Even despite this: http://boblemke.blogspot.com/2011/05...th-errors.html

I wrote PSA, SGC, and at Bob's suggestion even Beckett Almanac, referencing Bob's blog post(s in this case), and PSA & SGC both said if it's not cataloged, then they wouldn't recognize it, and Beckett Almanac gave this oddball response: "For now, that is all we got for that checklist. We will just save your email to keep you posted for the updates/additions.", which in more words means "NO.", I guess.

I think all of the options have been exhausted for now, but I'm open to anyone else's idea(s).

[Phillies*phan]

Would PSA or SGC put a notation on the flip? They do it for "missing red ink" and I doubt that is in the catalog.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Phillies*phan

Would PSA or SGC put a notation on the flip? They do it for "missing red ink" and I doubt that is in the catalog.

What would the flip say? (I would call it the 'Marquard Infinity', which I think would be appropriate since if you are going to give this card a special flip, you will be doing it for infinity with all other such 'error' cards.)

[Phillies*phan]

Maybe we should start another thread and include a poll for everyone to vote for the name.

[Marslife]

Mine has a stick figure on it (factory misprint?)

IMG_0013.jpg

IMG_0014.jpg

[Oscar_Stanage]

I am looking through all the cards I need for the 520. Is this considered part of the 520? If so, that would mean there are 4 Marquards, not 3.

[Rhotchkiss]

No. The Marquard with red 8 on armpit is not one of the 520 needed to complete the set. As you probably know, a complete set is 524, and includes the Wagner, Plank, Magie error and Doyle NY Nat’l. However, these 4 are considered so rare and/or expensive that the hobby deems a set of 520 (without the big 4) as complete. See the PSA registry options. I am not sure why the Magie and Doyle are part of the 524, but the Marquard, as well as other oddities, is not part of a “complete set”. But nevertheless it is not. Very cool card though and worth owning in my opinion - I need one!

[Oscar_Stanage]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

No. The Marquard with red 8 on armpit is not one of the 520 needed to complete the set. As you probably know, a complete set is 524, and includes the Wagner, Plank, Magie error and Doyle NY Nat’l. However, these 4 are considered so rare and/or expensive that the hobby deems a set of 520 (without the big 4) as complete. See the PSA registry options. I am not sure why the Magie and Doyle are part of the 524, but the Marquard, as well as other oddities, is not part of a “complete set”. But nevertheless it is not. Very cool card though and worth owning in my opinion - I need one!

Thank you... this is good to hear as it is one less higher price card I need to find!

[Pat R]

This Marquard print flaw variation is an example of it's not what you know but who you know that counts. PSA's stance has always been that they won't grade a specific card if it isn't cataloged yet they started grading these despite the fact that they weren't cataloged (and still haven't been that I'm aware of).