T206 group of 350-only Series NO-PRINTS....CB, EPDG, OM, PB

[tedzan]

The 350-only Series cards are essentially defined by the AMERICAN BEAUTY 350 - BROAD LEAF 350 - CYCLE 350 - DRUM connection. This connection includes 190 subjects.

I have identified a group of 37 subjects in this group of 190 subjects which are unique in this Series, in that they share a common pattern. They were NOT PRINTED with the
very popular 350-only backs....CAROLINA BRIGHTS....El PRINCIPE de GALES....OLD MILL....POLAR BEAR.


A - B - C - D connection



I find this quite interesting, in that it tells us that these 37 guys are sort of "exclusive" with respect to the other 153 subjects in the 350-only Series.

I am sharing this information with you guys, who get a "big kick" out of putting together T206 runs. Therefore, you do not have to go off on a wild-
goose chase searching for certain T206's that really do not exist.

Checklist of this "exclusive" group of 37 subjects that are 350-only series NO-PRINTS with respect to CAROLINA BRIGHTS, EPDG, OLD MILL, POLAR BEAR backs......

Arndt
Becker
Butler
Cassidy
Charles
Donovan (throwing)
Doolan (fielding)
Downs
Fletcher
Hall
Hoffman (St Louis)
Howell (portrait)
Huggins (portrait)
Huggins (hands at mouth)
Hunter
Killian (portrait)
Knabe
Lennox
Malarkey
Marquard (portrait)

Marshall
McBride
McElveen
McGinley
McIntyre (Detroit)
Mitchell (Cincinnati)
Mitchell (Toronto)
Moran (Providence)
Myers (batting)
Paskert
Phelan
Poland
Rhoades (hands at chest)
Schmidt (portrait)
Starr
Street (portrait)
Summers


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[mrvster]

Ted ! I love that BL back

[Thromdog]

Where would Cross fit in since his only offback is Tolstoi? 350 only subject that is pretty unique on its own….

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by mrvster

Ted ! I love that BL back

Hey Johnny....I love it, too. It belongs to my favorite T206 Minor Leaguer......Ed Delahanty's youngest brother.

Hey good buddy, it's really great hearing from you.



.



Next time I am at the Jersey shore area, I will call you and we can to get together for lunch. We'll spend hours....Talking T206's


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[HobokenJon]

Originally Posted by Thromdog

Where would Cross fit in since his only offback is Tolstoi? 350 only subject that is pretty unique on its own….

Bobby Byrne, too. Only nonstandard backs are Tolstoi and Sovereign 350.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Bobby Byrne, too. Only nonstandard backs are Tolstoi and Sovereign 350.

Besides Piedmont and Sweet Caporal Rossman is also only on Tolstoi and Sovereign.

[tedzan]

Claude Rossman is an interesting guy. His MLB career was a short one (5 years). And, doing a T206 run of his cards should be easy
since he was printed with only 6 backs. Not so, though, his 1910 COUPON and his TOLSTOI are very tough.
For example....I think there are only 2 known 1910 COUPON cards of him.... mine and Rob McKenzie's (both ungraded). And, as far
as I know only one TOLSTOI is known.

I need only the TOLSTOI to complete this run. The scan of my Rossman from my SWEET CAPORAL Factory #30 set has disappeared.









TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[tedzan]

Rossman is one of 23 subjects in the 350-only Series that were not printed with the group of
AMERICAN BEAUTY 350 - BROAD LEAF 350 - CYCLE 350 - DRUM subjects (190 cards).

Here is the list of these 23 subjects in the 350-only series which are A - B - C - D no-prints....

Barger
G. Brown (Washington)
Byrne
Collins (Minneapolis)
Cross
Dahlen (portrait--Brooklyn)
Demmitt (New York)
Joe Doyle
Elberfeld (portrait--Washington)
Evans
Gray
Groom
Kleinow (catching-New York)
Lundgren (Kansas City)
Mattern
McLean
Mowery
O'Hara (New York)
Puttman
Rhoades (arm extended)
Rossman
Shannon
F. Smith (Chicago--white cap)


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[HobokenJon]

Ted, I’m curious to know . . . What is your theory for why Dahlen (Brooklyn), George Brown (Washington) and Elberfeld (Washington) should be classified as part of the 350-only series?

Each comes with only one nonstandard back — Old Mill. They don’t come with any nonstandard backs that are exclusive to the 350-only series, such as Cycle 350 or American Beauty 350 (w/frame). Each is a variation of a card that appears with a Sovereign 150 back.

My working theory has always been that these three cards are part of the 150-350 series but don’t appear with any 150 backs. Is this theory not equally plausible in your view?

[HobokenJon]

An addendum …. I suppose I should clarify that Cycle 350 backs technically aren’t “exclusive” to the 350-only series, because the red Cobb and other “super prints” also come with Cycle 350 backs. But I’m sure you get what I mean.

[HobokenJon]

An addendum to the addendum . . . and ditto for American Beauty 350 (w/frame) backs.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Ted, I’m curious to know . . . What is your theory for why Dahlen (Brooklyn), George Brown (Washington) and Elberfeld (Washington) should be classified as part of the 350-only series?

Each comes with only one nonstandard back — Old Mill. They don’t come with any nonstandard backs that are exclusive to the 350-only series, such as Cycle 350 or American Beauty 350 (w/frame). Each is a variation of a card that appears with a Sovereign 150 back.

My working theory has always been that these three cards are part of the 150-350 series but don’t appear with any 150 backs. Is this theory not equally plausible in your view?

Jon

This topic has been discussed before. And it becomes complicated. You and I could spend hours trying to convince each other.

My answer for you to consider the following Demmitt and O'Hara examples......

The New York versions of Demmitt & O'Hara are 350-only series guys. What series do you say the St. Louis versions are in ?

Most guys will say "350-only" series. Just like your example of Dahlen, in which only the Team in their caption was changed.

However, I say NO ! The St. Louis versions were printed in the 350/460 series. And, why do I say this....well, you know me.
I am a "numbers" guy. The Population Report data of (200 - 300) of St. Louis cards of Demmitt or O'Hara compares with the
350/460 series subjects with POLAR BEAR backs. The numbers of POLAR BEAR subjects in the 350-only or 460-only series are
considerably less than 200 - 300.






Imperial Tobacco (C46)....Eastern (International) League cards (1912)




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Jon

This topic has been discussed before. And it becomes complicated. You and I could spend hours trying to convince each other.

My answer for you to consider the following Demmitt and O'Hara examples......

The New York versions of Demmitt & O'Hara are 350-only series guys. What series do you say the St. Louis versions are in ?

Most guys will say "350-only" series. Just like your example of Dahlen, in which only the Team in their caption was changed.

However, I say NO ! The St. Louis versions were printed in the 350/460 series. And, why do I say this....well, you know me.
I am a "numbers" guy. The Population Report data of (200 - 300) of St. Louis cards of Demmitt or O'Hara compares with the
350/460 series subjects with POLAR BEAR backs. The numbers of POLAR BEAR subjects in the 350-only or 460-only series are
considerably less than 200 - 300.






Imperial Tobacco (C46)....Eastern (International) League cards (1912)




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Ted you're not looking at the big picture with your numbers, Demmitt and O'hara are probably 10x more likely to be graded than the rest of the Polar Bear commons and more than 10x more likely to be crossed over or cracked out and re-graded.

You yourself have said most of your cards are not graded but both your Demmit and O'hara are, how many of your other Polar Bears are graded?

[G1911]

It would be absolutely shocking if Demmitt and O’Hara were graded at the same % rate as others in their print run. It’s like comparing the POP of a common 52 Topps to a 52 Topps Mays. Of course the big cards are represented in POP reports at a higher rate.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Ted, I’m curious to know . . . What is your theory for why Dahlen (Brooklyn), George Brown (Washington) and Elberfeld (Washington) should be classified as part of the 350-only series?

Each comes with only one nonstandard back — Old Mill. They don’t come with any nonstandard backs that are exclusive to the 350-only series, such as Cycle 350 or American Beauty 350 (w/frame). Each is a variation of a card that appears with a Sovereign 150 back.

My working theory has always been that these three cards are part of the 150-350 series but don’t appear with any 150 backs. Is this theory not equally plausible in your view?

Those three are 150-350 series and four in the list are 350-460 (Doyle, Kleinow, Rhoades and Smith). I bet that list was from something slightly different and was a copy and paste error or something.

This topic is really interesting. We'll probably never know why poses ended up in these little groups, but I sure would like to know!

[RCMcKenzie]

I agree with Ted that Rossman is hard to find for Coupon type 1. There is only 1 card graded by PSA, which I own, SGC pop shows only 1, probably Richard's, and the MET has a raw one from Burdick, and Ted's, so, I think, only 4 copies are known.

I'm not a T206 expert, but O'Hara and Demmitt with Polar Bear backs, are very common, like a 1952 Topps Willie Mays.

[G1911]

They are all fairly common, but over represented in the pop reports because they are $$ cards. People do not grade commons at the same rate. We can see this in every single set.

[RCMcKenzie]

Greg, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that Willie Mays, is a money card, and O'Hara and Demmitt with a Polar Bear back, should not really be money cards. My recollection is that I paid less for this T214, than what a T206 Demmitt with a Polar Bear back goes for, to me it's just a Polar Bear common.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Greg, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that Willie Mays, is a money card, and O'Hara and Demmitt with a Polar Bear back, should not really be money cards. My recollection is that I paid less for this T214, than what a T206 Demmitt with a Polar Bear back goes for, to me it's just a Polar Bear common.

Rob

Your post reminds me of.....

In one of my "Hybrid T206" sets, I chose not to spend the big $$$$ for a Demmitt St Louis, so I filled the space for Demmitt with this T213-2 card of him for only $100





TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Luke]

If one of you guys' Rossman Coupons went to auction, there would be some serious fireworks.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Greg, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that Willie Mays, is a money card, and O'Hara and Demmitt with a Polar Bear back, should not really be money cards. My recollection is that I paid less for this T214, than what a T206 Demmitt with a Polar Bear back goes for, to me it's just a Polar Bear common.

Personally, I agree it shouldn't be a money card. It's just a PB O'Hara. But this opinion I have isn't material to the fact that these are big $$ cards and are much, much more likely to be graded and thus overrepresented in the pop report. It is much more profitable to grade them. Comparing O'Hara's POP to a random common's POP is not even close to an apples to apples comparison, for the exact same reason there are far more #261 Mays graded than #260 Castiglione and #262 Trucks even though we know they all had the same print run on the series 5 sheet. If we use this logic being used for the PB O'Hara and Demmitt, then the Mays must be a quintuple print because it is 500% more common in the POP, which we all know is absurd and false. It's because it's a money card and much more profitable to grade. We can use an example from practically any set. $$ cards are graded more often, comparing a $$ card to a random common in the POP is not a reasonable comparison or a valid data point.

[HobokenJon]

Ted, if you're looking at pop-report data as a guide, I would encourage you to check out the numbers for George Brown (Washington), in particular. PSA shows a total pop of 4 for the Old Mill back. SGC shows a total pop of 2. Those numbers are more consistent with the Old Mill pops for 150-350 cards than for the subsequent series, where Old Mill pops tend to be significiantly higher (except for the Exclusive 12 in 350-460 that you've chronicled extensively).

The same line of thinking that you outlined above would lead me to conclude that George Brown (Washington) was part of the 150-350 series. Its pop-report data is ultra-low, just like so many of the other 150-350 Old Mill backs.

It would be much easier to answer the question at hand if any of these three subjects (Browne-Washington, Dahlen-Brooklyn, or Elberfeld-Washington) came with backs that clearly excluded them from membership in the 150-350 series. That's the case, for instance, with the Lundgren (Kansas City) variation, which comes with a Carolina Brights back. Absent a clear-cut data point such as that, I don't see evidence they're part of the 350-only series. But I'm willing to keep an open mind.

Perchance, has anyone out there ever seen a miscut George Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) or Elberfeld (Washington) with a different player's name printed on top? If such a card existed, that likely would settle the question.

[HobokenJon]

Separately, following up on Luke's comment above about Joy Doyle (N.Y.), Kleinow (catching-New York), Rhoades (arm extended) and Frank Smith (Chicago-white cap) being part of the 350-460 series ....

Ted, are you sure these four subjects should be classified as part of the 350-only series? I'd be curious to know why you include them there. All four of these subjects appear with apple green Sovereign 350 backs, rather than forest green.

Putting aside the six super prints, would you agree that subjects with apple green Sovereign 350 backs are part of the 350-460 series?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Ted, if you're looking at pop-report data as a guide, I would encourage you to check out the numbers for George Brown (Washington), in particular. PSA shows a total pop of 4 for the Old Mill back. SGC shows a total pop of 2. Those numbers are more consistent with the Old Mill pops for 150-350 cards than for the subsequent series, where Old Mill pops tend to be significiantly higher (except for the Exclusive 12 in 350-460 that you've chronicled extensively).

The same line of thinking that you outlined above would lead me to conclude that George Brown (Washington) was part of the 150-350 series. Its pop-report data is ultra-low, just like so many of the other 150-350 Old Mill backs.

It would be much easier to answer the question at hand if any of these three subjects (Browne-Washington, Dahlen-Brooklyn, or Elberfeld-Washington) came with backs that clearly excluded them from membership in the 150-350 series. That's the case, for instance, with the Lundgren (Kansas City) variation, which comes with a Carolina Brights back. Absent a clear-cut data point such as that, I don't see evidence they're part of the 350-only series. But I'm willing to keep an open mind.

Perchance, has anyone out there ever seen a miscut George Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) or Elberfeld (Washington) with a different player's name printed on top? If such a card existed, that likely would settle the question.

There are no two name cards with those three subjects on them that I know of but there are 28 subjects found with the large factory 30's on them and all of them are 150/350 subjects and Dahlen Brooklyn is one of them.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...=160236&page=3

Also the three blue Old Mills are Walsh, Powell and Elberfeld Washington portrait.

[HobokenJon]

Originally Posted by Pat R

There are no two name cards with those three subjects on them that I know of but there are 28 subjects found with the large factory 30's on them and all of them are 150/350 subjects and Dahlen Brooklyn is one of them.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...=160236&page=3

Also the three blue Old Mills are Walsh, Powell and Elberfeld Washington portrait.

Oooooh, that's good stuff!

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Luke

If one of you guys' Rossman Coupons went to auction, there would be some serious fireworks.

I've given that some thought.....I like "fireworks".

As a side-light, note the faint impression of an EPDG back on the front of my Rossman card. I darkened the scan so it's more visible.

Perhaps this EPDG impression may enhance the already high value of this card, or diminishes it....Whatever ?

In any event, Rossman is not going anywhere too soon. I only have 12 cards from this 1910 set, therefore they are keepers for now.







TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Separately, following up on Luke's comment above about Joy Doyle (N.Y.), Kleinow (catching-New York), Rhoades (arm extended) and Frank Smith (Chicago-white cap) being part of the 350-460 series ....

Ted, are you sure these four subjects should be classified as part of the 350-only series? I'd be curious to know why you include them there. All four of these subjects appear with apple green Sovereign 350 backs, rather than forest green.

Putting aside the six super prints, would you agree that subjects with apple green Sovereign 350 backs are part of the 350-460 series?

Jon

I am referring you to my Net54 thread posted in 2009....Sovereign phantom "350/460" series

American Lithographic advertently (or inadvently) introduced the 350/460 series when they printed these 66 subjects with "apple green" SOVEREIGN 350 backs.

So you ask me if....."I would agree" ?

I'm the guy who presented this theory in 2009....having completed a basic 402-card SOVEREIGN set. With all due respect, I do not understand where you are coming from ? ?



v.................................... Six super-prints ....................................v









TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[HobokenJon]

Nothing but love, Ted! As you know, I deeply value our friendship and hugely appreciate your contributions to the hobby and to this board.

Where am I coming from? It's simple. You said in your post above (#8) that Joe Doyle, Kleinow (catching-N.Y.), Rhoades (arm extended) and Frank Smith (Chicago-white cap) are part of the 350-only series. I saw that comment by you and thought to myself ..... no way, that can't be, because aren't those four cards part of the 350-460 series, given that they all appear with apple green Sovereign 350 backs?

So I put the question to you to make sure I had my facts right. In your latest post above (#27), you confirmed what I initially had thought: all four cards are part of the 350-460 series. And I'm glad we agree on this point, because that resolves the matter in my mind.

I'm still interested in understanding the rationale for why G. Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) and Elberfeld (Washington) should be considered part of the 350-only series. I'm not trying to challenge your conclusions or knowledge base so much as I'm trying to test whether I have my own facts right. You're the godfather on this subject matter. That's why I asked you in response to your posts on this thread.

Huge respect, Ted!

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Nothing but love, Ted! As you know, I deeply value our friendship and hugely appreciate your contributions to the hobby and to this board.

Where am I coming from? It's simple. You said in your post above (#8) that Joe Doyle, Kleinow (catching-N.Y.), Rhoades (arm extended) and Frank Smith (Chicago-white cap) are part of the 350-only series. I saw that comment by you and thought to myself ..... no way, that can't be, because aren't those four cards part of the 350-460 series, given that they all appear with apple green Sovereign 350 backs?

So I put the question to you to make sure I had my facts right. In your latest post above (#27), you confirmed what I initially had thought: all four cards are part of the 350-460 series. And I'm glad we agree on this point, because that resolves the matter in my mind.

I'm still interested in understanding the rationale for why G. Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) and Elberfeld (Washington) should be considered part of the 350-only series. I'm not trying to challenge your conclusions or knowledge base so much as I'm trying to test whether I have my own facts right. You're the godfather on this subject matter. That's why I asked you in response to your posts on this thread.

Huge respect, Ted!

OK, let's back to Post #8 here, in which I have identified the 23 subjects in the 350-only series that are A - B - C - D no-prints.
Three of those guys were printed only with an OLD MILL (besides the usual PIEDMONT, SWEET CAP, and SOVEREIGN backs).......

Browne (Washington).....traded to Washington May 21, 1909
Dahlen (Brooklyn).....traded to Brooklyn Oct 27, 1909
Elberfeld (portrait-Washington).....traded to Washington Dec 14, 1909

These 3 subjects were involved in trades during the early printing of the 350-only series. My guess is this "trade factor" timeframe
coincided with American Lithographic printing them, which resulted in them being Short-Printed.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[HobokenJon]

Thank you, Ted. I'm going to take one more try here -- as always, with huge love and respect!

This still doesn't make sense to me. It's widely believed that the 350-only series began its print run in 1910, sometime after the completion of the 150-350 series. (For instance, SGC on the flips of its holders dates 350-only subjects with Cycle 350 or AB 350 backs as "1910.") We don't know which month in 1910 that the 150-350 series ended and which month the 350-only series began -- unless you know something I don't -- but my impression is it's well established that the print run for the 350-only series began and ended sometime in 1910.

Given that these three subjects switched teams in 1909 -- in Dahlen's case, Brooklyn announced in October 1909 that he would be its manager for the 1910 season -- I don't understand why the printing of their cards with their new teams would have been delayed until after the completion of the 150-350 series. It would've made all the sense in the world for the printer to have replaced Dahlen's Boston card with his Brooklyn card, and the G. Brown Chicago card with the G. Brown Washington card, and the Elberfeld N.Y. card with the Elberfeld Washington card -- on the very same sheet, in the very same spot as the originals.

Likewise, it doesn't make sense to me that the new-team variations for these three subjects would have been printed in the same series on the same sheets as 350-only subjects such as Marquard portrait or Bresnahan batting. Especially the G. Brown card. To me that May 1909 trade date for him helps explain why the number of confirmed Old Mill backs for the Washington variation is so low -- consistent with the typical low pops for 150-350 Old Mill backs. (The pops for Old Mill backs in subsequent series tend to be much higher, as you know, except for the 460-only Exclusive 12.) You also said "these three subjects were involved in trades during the early printing of the 350-only series." However, heretofore, I haven't seen anyone else assert that the 350-only series began its print run as early as May 1909.

And then there's the fact (as Pat pointed out in post #24) that there are known copies of Dahlen Brooklyn with the large factory 30.

Mainly what I'd like to be sure of here is that our disagreement is really between competing theories and opinions -- your theory/guess vs. my theory/guess -- as opposed to a disagreement over established facts. I haven't seen any hard facts that definitively establish these three cards were printed as part of the 350-only series.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Thank you, Ted. I'm going to take one more try here -- as always, with huge love and respect!

This still doesn't make sense to me. It's widely believed that the 350-only series began its print run in 1910, sometime after the completion of the 150-350 series. (For instance, SGC on the flips of its holders dates 350-only subjects with Cycle 350 or AB 350 backs as "1910.") We don't know which month in 1910 that the 150-350 series ended and which month the 350-only series began -- unless you know something I don't -- but my impression is it's well established that the print run for the 350-only series began and ended sometime in 1910.

Given that these three subjects switched teams in 1909 -- in Dahlen's case, Brooklyn announced in October 1909 that he would be its manager for the 1910 season -- I don't understand why the printing of their cards with their new teams would have been delayed until after the completion of the 150-350 series. It would've made all the sense in the world for the printer to have replaced Dahlen's Boston card with his Brooklyn card, and the G. Brown Chicago card with the G. Brown Washington card, and the Elberfeld N.Y. card with the Elberfeld Washington card -- on the very same sheet, in the very same spot as the originals.

Likewise, it doesn't make sense to me that the new-team variations for these three subjects would have been printed in the same series on the same sheets as 350-only subjects such as Marquard portrait or Bresnahan batting. Especially the G. Brown card. To me that May 1909 trade date for him helps explain why the number of confirmed Old Mill backs for the Washington variation is so low -- consistent with the typical low pops for 150-350 Old Mill backs. (The pops for Old Mill backs in subsequent series tend to be much higher, as you know, except for the 460-only Exclusive 12.) You also said "these three subjects were involved in trades during the early printing of the 350-only series." However, heretofore, I haven't seen anyone else assert that the 350-only series began its print run as early as May 1909.

And then there's the fact (as Pat pointed out in post #24) that there are known copies of Dahlen Brooklyn with the large factory 30.

Mainly what I'd like to be sure of here is that our disagreement is really between competing theories and opinions -- your theory/guess vs. my theory/guess -- as opposed to a disagreement over established facts. I haven't seen any hard facts that definitively establish these three cards were printed as part of the 350-only series.

Jon

As I'm sure you know, the large Factory 30 (or Factory 25) notation simply differentiates which SWEET CAP factory the cards on a given sheet (when cut up) will be shipped to.
Hints of the #25 or #30 notation has been found on cards across the 5 series. I don't see what that notation has to do with anything in this matter.

Call me a "traditionalist" (as that best describes my personality regarding many aspects of life), I consider these 3 subjects (especially Dahlen and Elberfeld) as 350-only guys.

Pardon my superfluousness.....but, where are their PIEDMONT 150....or SOVEREIGN 150....or SWEET CAPORAL 150 cards ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Jon

As I'm sure you know, the large Factory 30 (or Factory 25) notation simply differentiates which SWEET CAP factory the cards on a given sheet (when cut up) will be shipped to.
Hints of the #25 or #30 notation has been found on cards across the 5 series. I don't see what that notation has to do with anything in this matter.

Call me a "traditionalist" (as that best describes my personality regarding many aspects of life), I consider these 3 subjects (especially Dahlen and Elberfeld) as 350-only guys.

Pardon my superfluousness.....but, where are their PIEDMONT 150....or SOVEREIGN 150....or SWEET CAPORAL 150 cards ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

No the have not they've only been found on Sweet Caporal 350/30 150/350 subjects and a couple of Sweet Caporal 350/25 150/350 subjects.

I have been tracking and collecting these for 8 years and currently have 17 of the 28 subjects.

[IMG][/IMG]

Here's the Dahlen
Dahlen Fact #30.jpg

George Brown Wahington, Dahlen Brooklyn and Elberfeld (portrait) Washington were printed with the 150/350 subjects
and that's one of the reasons understanding the print groups is essential in T206 research.

[HobokenJon]

Ted, my view is (1) the 150 backs for these three variation cards exist on the original versions of the cards showing their former teams, and (2) some 150-350 subjects -- i.e., these three -- aren't found with 150 backs, just as the cards from the 150-only series aren't found with 350 backs.

It also is worth nothing that G. Brown (Chicago) is part of the 150-only series, unlike Dahlen (Boston) and Elberfeld portrait (N.Y.).

But as I think we've established, a lot of this is just theory. The cards weren't issued with a checklist or a printing schedule. The mystery and the mystique are part of what makes the Monster so much fun to collect, talk about, and even vigorously debate!

Per Dahlen Brooklyn, it looks like you and Pat might have a disagreement on facts. I previously wasn't aware of either (1) what Pat said above in post #24, or (2) what you said above in post #31 regarding the notation being found on cards across the five series. I'm not in a position yet to draw a conclusion on this question.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Thank you, Ted. I'm going to take one more try here -- as always, with huge love and respect!

This still doesn't make sense to me. It's widely believed that the 350-only series began its print run in 1910, sometime after the completion of the 150-350 series. (For instance, SGC on the flips of its holders dates 350-only subjects with Cycle 350 or AB 350 backs as "1910.") We don't know which month in 1910 that the 150-350 series ended and which month the 350-only series began -- unless you know something I don't -- but my impression is it's well established that the print run for the 350-only series began and ended sometime in 1910.

Given that these three subjects switched teams in 1909 -- in Dahlen's case, Brooklyn announced in October 1909 that he would be its manager for the 1910 season -- I don't understand why the printing of their cards with their new teams would have been delayed until after the completion of the 150-350 series. It would've made all the sense in the world for the printer to have replaced Dahlen's Boston card with his Brooklyn card, and the G. Brown Chicago card with the G. Brown Washington card, and the Elberfeld N.Y. card with the Elberfeld Washington card -- on the very same sheet, in the very same spot as the originals.

Likewise, it doesn't make sense to me that the new-team variations for these three subjects would have been printed in the same series on the same sheets as 350-only subjects such as Marquard portrait or Bresnahan batting. Especially the G. Brown card. To me that May 1909 trade date for him helps explain why the number of confirmed Old Mill backs for the Washington variation is so low -- consistent with the typical low pops for 150-350 Old Mill backs. (The pops for Old Mill backs in subsequent series tend to be much higher, as you know, except for the 460-only Exclusive 12.) You also said "these three subjects were involved in trades during the early printing of the 350-only series." However, heretofore, I haven't seen anyone else assert that the 350-only series began its print run as early as May 1909.

And then there's the fact (as Pat pointed out in post #24) that there are known copies of Dahlen Brooklyn with the large factory 30.

Mainly what I'd like to be sure of here is that our disagreement is really between competing theories and opinions -- your theory/guess vs. my theory/guess -- as opposed to a disagreement over established facts. I haven't seen any hard facts that definitively establish these three cards were printed as part of the 350-only series.

We know from the ledger pages that the packing and shipping of the 350 only subjects was in June/July 1910.

ATC American Beauty Ledger page - Copy.jpg

ATC Cycle Ledger page - Copy.jpg

[HobokenJon]

That's beautiful, Pat. I'm curious about your interpretation of those date stamps.

Do they pinpoint the exact month in 1910 when the 350-only series began?

Or do they tell us only that the 350-only series had begun by June 1910 at the very latest (per the first ledger page with the AB 350 Willett and the June date), but possibly before?

And perhaps some 350-only backs began before or after others (per the second ledger page with the Cycle 350 Dygert and the July date)?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Ted, my view is (1) the 150 backs for these three variation cards exist on the original versions of the cards showing their former teams, and (2) some 150-350 subjects -- i.e., these three -- aren't found with 150 backs, just as the cards from the 150-only series aren't found with 350 backs.

It also is worth nothing that G. Brown (Chicago) is part of the 150-only series, unlike Dahlen (Boston) and Elberfeld portrait (N.Y.).

But as I think we've established, a lot of this is just theory. The cards weren't issued with a checklist or a printing schedule. The mystery and the mystique are part of what makes the Monster so much fun to collect, talk about, and even vigorously debate!

Per Dahlen Brooklyn, it looks like you and Pat might have a disagreement on facts. I previously wasn't aware of either (1) what Pat said above in post #24, or (2) what you said above in post #31 regarding the notation being found on cards across the five series. I'm not in a position yet to draw a conclusion on this question.

Jon

Back in 2011, a Net54 member posted Rhoades (right arm extended) SWEET CAP card with the hint of large Factory # on its edge. This card is strictly a 350-only subject.

And, there are more out there. I've been collecting T206's since 1981, and trust me, I have had and have seen over 50,000 of them.

I will see if I can come up with more like the above mentioned one in the 350-only series (or 350/460 series, or the 460-only series).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[HobokenJon]

Ted . . . OK, but you showed in post #27 that Rhoades (arm extended) is part of the 350-460 series and that it has an apple green Sovereign 350 back. For the avoidance of doubt, you think it's actually part of the 350-only series? If that were the case, shouldn't it have a forest green Sovereign 350 back like other 350-only subjects, instead of apple green?

I thought we both agreed that subjects with apple green Sovereign 350 backs are part of the 350-460 series, no?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Jon

Back in 2011, a Net54 member posted Rhoades (right arm extended) SWEET CAP card with the hint of large Factory # on its edge. This card is strictly a 350-only subject.

And, there are more out there. I've been collecting T206's since 1981, and trust me, I have had and have seen over 50,000 of them.

I will see if I can come up with more like the above mentioned one in the 350-only series (or 350/460 series, or the 460-only series).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

First of all the Rhoades mark is on the side of the card Ted and second it's not a factory number it's some other print defect that so far has only been found on Rhoades.

It's different than the factory numbers even if it was there should be part of the second number showing.

01b.jpg

01b - Copy.jpg

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Ted . . . OK, but you showed in post #27 that Rhoades (arm extended) is part of the 350-460 series and that it has an apple green Sovereign 350 back. For the avoidance of doubt, you think it's actually part of the 350-only series? If that were the case, shouldn't it have a forest green Sovereign 350 back like other 350-only subjects, instead of apple green?

I thought we both agreed that subjects with apple green Sovereign 350 backs are part of the 350-460 series, no?

Jon

American Litho's original design intention appears to have been 66 subjects to be extended from the 350 Series to the 350/460 Series....as illustrated in my simulated sheet:


v.................................... Six super-prints ....................................v








However, three of the subjects' careers ended (bold lettering); therefore, these guys were not continued into the 350/460 Series ......

Joe Doyle........................traded to Cinci.(May 1910); career ends June 25, 1910
Red Kleinow (NY)..............traded to Boston May 1910
Simon Nicholls (bat)..........traded to Clev (spring 1910); career ends May 1910
Bob Rhoades (right arm extended)......career ends Summer of 1909
Frank Smith (white cap).....traded to Boston in the Summer of 1910.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[HobokenJon]

OK. I'm satisfied we can leave it at that, since this discussion seems now to be more about theory and personal preference for how to label a given subject.

I do believe this discussion underscores the usefulness of the "print group" framework, so as to create a common language among Monster collectors and avoid confusion. Except for the super prints, I would refer to all of the cards with apple green Sovereign 350 backs as either Print Group 3 or series 350-460. I wouldn't refer to any apple green Sovereign 350 as part of Print Group 2 or the 350-only series. But hey, if you want to call them that, who am I to stop you? ... But I may have a few questions so I can understand where you're coming from.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

OK. I'm satisfied we can leave it at that, since this discussion seems now to be more about theory and personal preference for how to label a given subject.

I do believe this discussion underscores the usefulness of the "print group" framework, so as to create a common language among Monster collectors and avoid confusion. Except for the super prints, I would refer to all of the cards with apple green Sovereign 350 backs as either Print Group 3 or series 350-460. I wouldn't refer to any apple green Sovereign 350 as part of Print Group 2 or the 350-only series. But hey, if you want to call them that, who am I to stop you? ... But I may have a few questions so I can understand where you're coming from.

"Theory and personal preference"....back in 2006 - 2007, there was confusion regarding the make-up of the T206 SOVEREIGN set on Net54. And, this was one of the factors
which motivated me to put this set together. In my one year adventure of arriving at a complete basic 402-subject set, I developed certain THEORIES of how American Litho
produced these cards (series by series). Especially, in figuring out which subjects were NOT PRINTED. Yes that result was just one of my theories. But, you know what guys ?
All my theories have withstood the test of time (15 years).
I attribute this partially as to how I arrange my T206's. Four of my 5 sets of T206's are arranged according to the 6 series in the set (150-only, 150/350, 350-only, 350/460,
460-only, and the Southern Leaguers.
The so-called "print group" framework is at best a confusing system, which does not allow you to clearly understand the complexity of The Monster.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[parkerj33]

T-Rex Teddy,

Just to clarify my understanding, I *think* you are saying that the Rhoades is "effectively" a 350-only subject just like Nichols and Doyle, but was intended to be a 350/460 subject. Hence, all three have apple green sovereign backs and NOT forest-green backs.

So they are accidental exceptions to the rule that apple green is only on 350/460 series, because AmerLith made an audible to cancel them early.

I hope this makes sense and doesn't make things worse!

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by parkerj33

T-Rex Teddy,

Just to clarify my understanding, I *think* you are saying that the Rhoades is "effectively" a 350-only subject just like Nichols and Doyle, but was intended to be a 350/460 subject. Hence, all three have apple green sovereign backs and NOT forest-green backs.

So they are accidental exceptions to the rule that apple green is only on 350/460 series, because AmerLith made an audible to cancel them early.

I hope this makes sense and doesn't make things worse!

Jim

You always make good sense my friend. And, I love your use of the NFL term (an audible). Jim....you made my day

Rhoades (right arm extended) is absolutely a 350-only subject.

What I don't understand is....why American Lithographic even considered extending Rhoades into the 350/460 Series ?
Rhoades had ended his MLB career back in the Summer of 1909.

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Pat R]

The confusion about if a card is a 350 only or not is one of the reasons I bumped the print group thread it explains the cards being discussed in this thread.



https://www.t206resource.com/Print%20Group%201.html

https://www.t206resource.com/Print%20Group%202.html

https://www.t206resource.com/Print%20Group%203.html

https://www.t206resource.com/Print%2...Checklist.html

https://www.t206resource.com/Print%2...Checklist.html

Once you understand them you can see why Dahlen Brooklyn is one of the 28 subjects found with a factory 30 sheet number, he's in the same print group as the other 27 subjects.
img706.jpg

[parkerj33]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Jim

You always make good sense my friend. And, I love your use of the NFL term (an audible). Jim....you made my day

Rhoades (right arm extended) is absolutely a 350-only subject.

What I don't understand is....why American Lithographic even considered extending Rhoades into the 350/460 Series ?
Rhoades had ended his MLB career back in the Summer of 1909.

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Thanks Ted. I am also surmising that what Pat is saying is that the print group concept helps to explain how a card might be effectively a 350-only, but was printed alongside other cards that were part of 350/460 series.

I think this is where there is a difference of theories, but they are still compatible.......you would say that all 350 only's were printed together, whereas pat would suggest that a few of the 350 only's were really printed alongside other 350/460 subjects...and they just got audibled out of existence in the backs that would have made them 350/460s.

I use the term "effectively" to account for the concept that it was supposed to be a 350/460 in the planning, but got changed at the last minute. So in reality (aka "in effect") it only exists as a 350 subject, but was printed (initially) by "intention" as if it was going to be a 350/460 subject. The semantics/wording here is critical.

Regardless, it remains curious why AL would even consider him for 350/460...maybe they just wanted to round out their sheets and blindly continued him on, and then someone smarter figured out this guy doesn't even play anymore! Hanlon's razor: Never assign to malice that which can be explained by ignorance!

I clearly enjoy trying to make sense of this stuff...

[tedzan]

Jim

I like your style of thinking regarding the T206 cards. It goes back to when I first posted my T206 REFERENCE thread 5 years ago (or even before then).

Jefferson Burdick and Bill Heitman many years ago clearly defined the structure of the T206 set by establishing easy to understand terminology regarding
the various series (150-only....150/350....350-only....350/460....460-only....So. Lgr.).

The cryptic term "Print Group #" in T206 Resource somewhat troubles me, because it is not a clearly definable term that instantly clues you in as to which
series a T206 is in. In some cases it blurs them over.


Two guys here are stating that Elberfeld (portrait-Washington) is a "150/350" card. So where is a PIEDMONT 150 or SWEET CAPORAL 150 in PSA's pop
report of this card ? ? Perhaps, they are invisible
And, these two guys say the same for G. Brown (Washington) and Dahlen (Brooklyn). But....PSA's pop report says NO ! and NO !






150/350 ---------------------- 350-only ---------------------- 150/350 -------------------- 350-only

150-only -------------------- 350-only



Furthermore, here are examples of two more SAME image T206's with different team captions and in different Series.

350-only ---------------------------- 350/460 ------------------------ 350-only --------------------- 350/460



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Luke]

I think we are getting too hung up on looking at the backs of the cards. Elberfeld, Dahlen and Browne are all in the 150-350 Series or Print Group 1 because they were all in the first group. Dahlen Boston was just replaced with Dahlen Brooklyn on the sheets as the 150-350 Series played out.

The term "350 Only Series", or "Print Group 2" means something very specific. It refers to this group of poses:

https://t206resource.com/Print%20Gro...Checklist.html

That's all it means.

-Cobb red background was printed with a Piedmont 350 back, but it's a not a part of Print Group 2. It's in Print Group 5.

-Dahlen Brooklyn was printed with a Piedmont 350 back but it's not a part of Print Group 2. It's a Part of Print Group 1.

-Rhoades Arm Extended was printed with a Piedmont 350 back but it is not a part of Print Group 2. It's in Print Group 3.

The last bunch of posts are people looking at the same data and making up their own terms to describe what we're talking about. We don't need to make up new ways to describe this stuff. The Print Group framework is already established and available for anyone to refer to. Its simple and elegant and perfectly explains the timelines of the various series. Understanding the Print Groups is the key to a deep understanding of the patterns within the set.

Here are the checklists:

https://t206resource.com/Checklist%20Main.html

[HobokenJon]

Originally Posted by Luke

I think we are getting too hung up on looking at the backs of the cards. Elberfeld, Dahlen and Browne are all in the 150-350 Series or Print Group 1 because they were all in the first group. Dahlen Boston was just replaced with Dahlen Brooklyn on the sheets as the 150-350 Series played out.

The term "350 Only Series", or "Print Group 2" means something very specific. It refers to this group of poses:

https://t206resource.com/Print%20Gro...Checklist.html

That's all it means.

-Cobb red background was printed with a Piedmont 350 back, but it's a not a part of Print Group 2. It's in Print Group 5.

-Dahlen Brooklyn was printed with a Piedmont 350 back but it's not a part of Print Group 2. It's a Part of Print Group 1.

-Rhoades Arm Extended was printed with a Piedmont 350 back but it is not a part of Print Group 2. It's in Print Group 3.

The last bunch of posts are people looking at the same data and making up their own terms to describe what we're talking about. We don't need to make up new ways to describe this stuff. The Print Group framework is already established and available for anyone to refer to. Its simple and elegant and perfectly explains the timelines of the various series. Understanding the Print Groups is the key to a deep understanding of the patterns within the set.

Here are the checklists:

https://t206resource.com/Checklist%20Main.html

Hear! Hear!

Now if we could just get T206 Resource to correct all the false positives in its Sovereign and EPDG checklists.
See related article here:
http://www.thatt206life.com/2017/03/...gn-350-a-hoax/

For more on the six poses that were pulled early from the 350-460 series (a.k.a. Print Group 3), see here, also by Luke: http://www.thatt206life.com/2018/07/...50-460-series/

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Hear! Hear!

Now if we could just get T206 Resource to correct all the false positives in its Sovereign and EPDG checklists.
See related article here:
http://www.thatt206life.com/2017/03/...gn-350-a-hoax/

For more on the six poses that were pulled early from the 350-460 series (a.k.a. Print Group 3), see here, also by Luke: http://www.thatt206life.com/2018/07/...50-460-series/

The Sovereign list was corrected over a year ago Jon.

https://www.t206resource.com/Soverei...Checklist.html

[HobokenJon]

Originally Posted by Pat R

The Sovereign list was corrected over a year ago Jon.

https://www.t206resource.com/Soverei...Checklist.html

Excellent! That's great news! I had no idea, and I gladly stand corrected. I started agitating about five years ago. I guess I hadn't checked the Sovereign 350 list on T206 Resource in the last year or so.

Now if only we could get T206 Resource to correct the false positives on the EPDG list (Pastorius, Hunky Shaw and Willett).
https://www.t206resource.com/EPDG%20Checklist.html