JOE DOYLE variations(T206)

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by peterb69

Hi Ted,

I know I can find this answer if I search this forum, but I thought it might as well be put here incase new readers are unaware of the "Doyle Hoard".

I believe I read that Larry Fritsch realized that there was the Natl version out there, so he offered to buy any Doyle card sight unseen hoping to get a few Natl versions sent in. But what I forget is what happened to his hoarded collection of Doyles?

Perhaps you could fill in details to make this thread more complete.

Thanks & good job documanting the T206's.

In the early 1980's, Larry Fritsch realized that he had a Joe Doyle variation with the lettering "Nat'l" in this card's caption. He kept this to himself, and advertised in SCD
that he was buying T206 Doyle cards. He acquired many of them (Joe and Larry Doyle cards). However, none of the Joe Doyle's that he acquired had the "Nat'l" printing
on it. Circa 1986-1987, Bill Huggins finds a Joe Doyle with "Nat'l" printed on it. Fritsch buys this 2nd Joe Doyle variation from Huggins. Subsequently, its my understanding that Fritsch discreetly sold the T206 Doyle cards to select collectors in the hobby. Since, by the late 1980's, FAKE Joe Doyle "Nat'l" cards had surfaced at BB card shows.

An interesting follow-up to this story is that the 1910-11 childhood Tobacco card collection of Senator Richard Russell (which has been on display at the Univ. of Georgia
since the early 1980's) includes a Joe Doyle N. Y. Nat'l card and a Ty Cobb with a Ty Cobb back.

Consider this, if Fritsch had known of this collection back in the early 1980's, would he have stll acquired all those Doyle cards ?


TED Z

[peterb69]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Consider this, if Fritsch had known of this collection back in the early 1980's, would he have still acquired all those Doyle cards ?

I assume he still would have. He was looking for the next Sherry Magie.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Are there really three threads about this going on at the same time here?

[barrysloate]

Stina, who is new to the board, started one and revived two others. It just makes the discussion more confusing.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Stina, who is new to the board, started one and revived two others. It just makes the discussion more confusing.

Not anymore.

Stina- before you bring up anymore old threads please email for permission first. In general, unless there is good reason, we prefer to start new threads. Old threads can certainly be responded to but there is already a new thread going pertaining to your situations. That is the thread you should respond in. PM me if you have any questions and I will help you understand more. Nothing personal but, as Barry said, it makes it confusing when there are multiple threads being responded to pertaining to the same subject matter. Thanks

ps....Stina- I should add that if you would have only brought up one, old pertinent thread, not two, and not started a new one on the same subject, then one old thread would have probably been ok. Three threads at the same time, not so much. Hope you understand. I sounded a bit harsh in my first statement, no harm intended and my apologies for that.

[stina]

Originally Posted by Leon

Not anymore.

Stina- before you bring up anymore old threads please email for permission first. In general, unless there is good reason, we prefer to start new threads. Old threads can certainly be responded to but there is already a new thread going pertaining to your situations. That is the thread you should respond in. PM me if you have any questions and I will help you understand more. Nothing personal but, as Barry said, it makes it confusing when there are multiple threads being responded to pertaining to the same subject matter. Thanks

ps....Stina- I should add that if you would have only brought up one, old pertinent thread, not two, and not started a new one on the same subject, then one old thread would have probably been ok. Three threads at the same time, not so much. Hope you understand. I sounded a bit harsh in my first statement, no harm intended and my apologies for that.

email permision for what? i replyed to someone else's thread, as you did mine. who says that person is reading my thread. i want to make sure he gets his answers. some one mentoned that thread and i answered them.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by stina

email permision for what? i replyed to someone else's thread, as you did mine. who says that person is reading my thread. i want to make sure he gets his answers. some one mentoned that thread and i answered them.

You responded to a thread that was over 1 yr old and another one that was over 2 1/2 yrs old. You also started this thread on the same subject. Do you really think it's necessary to have 3 current threads going, all about the exact same subject? Had you only responded to one of those threads and then not started this one then most likely nothing would have been said. thanks