T205 Graham discussion

[familytoad]

Andrew,
I can clearly remember passing on the first T205 Graham I saw that had the blue signature...I thought it was overwritten or traced by some kid with blue pen. That was probably 17-18 years ago, Albany NY card show. I was very early into the T205 set.
It took me a little while to see another in person (I wasn't on eBay... if it even existed then) and then I noticed it again...and looked closer to determine that it was a non-altered card. I don't have a scan handy, but when I do...I'll post here.
So I have had the Graham a long time, meaning I passed at looking for more of them over the years. In fact I probably don't even have a black-ink version...but maybe.
I do think this is a legitimate variation, and should be in the "master set".

FWIW, I'm less fond of having the Cycle Back Mathewson listed, as that card only exists with one back type (as you point out) and looks like a simple misprint rather than a true unique version. What I mean is...like say, the Collins/Bresnahan/Chase/Wiltse pose variations or the different signature lines (Crandall, Graham, Leifield)

Here's another opportunity to promote my proposed new website
damnyoukaiserwilhelm.com

[Matt]

The difference between this and the 37-1 Matty (and different add backs) is that with the 37-1 Matty, there is clearly a different printing text used for the non-advertising part of the back. It's as if a player had his team listed as Philadelphia on one card and Pittsburgh on another; regardless of if such a variation corresponded to a certain advertising back or not, it is categorically different than something like this Graham printing issue, which could simply because by a different mixing of the inks.

Piedmont Fact. 25 Blue Signature on front link fixed.

This would make for a variation then. There is a Piedmont Fact 25 for both Blue and Black, and would say the Blue Signature on front is of lesser quantity.

[Wite3]

Andrew...now I see that there are two versions for the piedmont and I would consider this a variation. Thanks for fixing the link.

Joshua

[steve B]

Cool! a T205 thread I can contribute to. (I have maybe 20 of them and haven't studied them much. )

My Graham is P25 black sig.

Some color differences can be from the ink mixing, but black was nearly always done with various forms of carbon as the pigment,(For printing inks ca 1911) and it just doesn't fade and didn't need to be mixed.

Steve B

So here is the million dollar question then. Should it be only the Piedmont Fact 25 Blue Signature on front or should each card be labeled as such with the appropriate signature color and the emphasis being that Pied fact. 25 Blue being the hardest. I would think that Graham Blue Signature on front for only the Piedmont Fact 25 would be a good label. Any thoughts?


Even though the Black signature is far less plentiful on the Graham FB combos the Blue Signature Piedmont Fact 25 will be the the rarer of the 2. There can at anytime be 5 to 1 Black to blue Piedmont 25. I have only seen a few over the past few months and think there will be far less now.

BTW if anyone has any to show it would be nice to possibly see what the ratio we as board members may have. I also believe that the sweet caporal reds have the same blue and black signature variation

[dherm360]

I have a Piedmont 25 with Black Sig

Please if any of you have any others not shown especially the Sweet Caporal backs post them. Or what ever you have for that matter for a better count on blue to black Pied 25