Zach Wheat
11-03-2009, 08:41 AM
The T201 set is interesting for a variety of reasons. The set is not widely followed with no known rarities – making it an easy set to complete for set collectors. I have always wondered why set collectors have had differences of opinion about which cards were the most difficult to obtain – even though the Dougherty/Lord card was only printed with a Factory 649 back and presumably more scarce than other cards.
According to limited population data, about 70% of the T201 set were printed with a Factory 649, 1st district back and approximately 30% with a Factory 30, 2nd District back. Dougherty/Lord has been found with only a Factory 649 back - where most of the T201 cards were printed. This might explain why the Dougherty/Lord card is “more rare” than average, but still readily available. I believe there are other contributing factors which resulted in the perception that any number of cards might be less common than others.
The set was obviously meant for wide distribution and appeal among base ball fans. The set was printed some time after 1910 (since the set included stats from the 1910 season) and along with T205 was one of the first sets to include stats. Player selection is noteworthy, since the set consists of at least 2 cards from every major league team with 11 cards dedicated to two minor league teams (5 cards of American Association players and 6 cards of Eastern League players). In addition, the set has a relatively high number of star players, with 40% of the cards consisting of at least one HOF’er. Conversely, selection of other players is puzzling – which included such players as the speed merchant John Thoney (Boston – who didn’t play in 1910 and retired in 1912), ME Simon (a utility player for Pittsburgh who had 18 AB’s in 1909) and Lew McCarty (Newark) who didn’t play in the majors until 1913.
I believe it is these very reasons that ATC – producers of other notable T sets – attempted to create a set with wide geographic appeal, while making it easier to obtain cards of the stars. I believe that ATC single printed certain cards while other popular players were double or triple printed.
Population estimates of cards at the various grading companies might be helpful as to how many cards were double or triple printed. However, population data would be skewed in favor of HOF’ers making this data less useful. Fortunately, other data can be used to infer which cards were double or triple printed.
T201’s were notoriously miscut from side to side (see pic of Tris Speaker below). I believe the designer of the cards knew cutting the edges would be problematic and designed cards that were largely symmetrical around a vertical axis. In every card, the left & right edge of the card is symmetrical with the same sky, grass or building pattern on the opposite edge. Miscuts, when they occur, are almost always miscut so the right edge of the card is miscut to include the left edge of the adjacent card. Through close inspection and cataloguing miscuts a number of interesting tendencies are readily apparent.
Here is an example of a Grant/McClean card next to a Crawford/Cobb showing the edge differences. This miscut edges seem to suggest that the Grant/McClean card was printed adjacent to the Crawford/Cobb card. The tendencies of the printer miscutting cards is helpful in not only determining print order on a sheet, but also the frequency of each card relative to the adjacent card.
For instance it appears in the example to the left, that a Cobb miscut is usually found with another Cobb edge. This suggests that numerous Cobb cards were printed next to each other. In fact, a Cobb card has only been found with two right edge miscuts: either another Cobb edge miscut or less frequently (perhaps a third to a quarter of the time) with a Cicotte edge miscut. This seems to suggest that Cobbs were triple or quadruple printed, relative to the Cicotte card.
In addition, a Grant miscut is always found with a Cobb edge and similarly a Kling miscut is usually found with a Grant miscut edge. This seems to suggest that if you were to view a completely uncut printed sheet of T201’s, the likely print order (going from left to right) would have been Kling, Grant, Cobb, Cobb, Cobb, Cicotte.
Likewise, a Breshannan miscut card is usually found with another Breshannan edge next to it. The same can be said for Speaker, Bender, Lajoie and Johnson. In fact, almost every card depicting a HOF’er has been determined to be double printed and possibly triple printed. Further, of the 11 minor league cards, data seems to indicate that only a handful were double printed. When data is compiled on the entire set, it seems that perhaps as many as a dozen cards were single printed with most of the remainder double or triple printed.
Certainly there isn’t enough data to draw definitive foolproof conclusions. However, data seems to support that HOF’ers were printed in greater quantity than other lesser known players. This seems to be consistent with ATC’s desire to produce a set with wide geographical representation while maintaining the probability of getting a card of a popular player.
A few questions come to mind:
• Can anyone provide information on the likely size of a print sheet? Narrowing down the size might lead to assumptions on how many cards were printed on a sheet – and therefore how many cards were double & triple printed.
• Can anyone verify a “Mathewson” Factory 649 back? This seems odd that I have not been able to locate one (my sample size was small). The same can be said for Chance/Evers Factory 649 back. I suspect my sample size is too small and both of these cards exist with both backs.
• Dougherty/Lord card appears to be an edge card (i.e. the miscut shows a blank space) suggesting it was single printed. If they were printed at Factory 649 where approx. 70% of the production came from (and not Factory 30), this could explain why they are more scarce than other cards, but not overly difficult to find.
• I do not have enough data to determine all the single prints; however it seems that there are less than a dozen. For those that collect this set, please send me edge/edge combinations if you have any.
According to limited population data, about 70% of the T201 set were printed with a Factory 649, 1st district back and approximately 30% with a Factory 30, 2nd District back. Dougherty/Lord has been found with only a Factory 649 back - where most of the T201 cards were printed. This might explain why the Dougherty/Lord card is “more rare” than average, but still readily available. I believe there are other contributing factors which resulted in the perception that any number of cards might be less common than others.
The set was obviously meant for wide distribution and appeal among base ball fans. The set was printed some time after 1910 (since the set included stats from the 1910 season) and along with T205 was one of the first sets to include stats. Player selection is noteworthy, since the set consists of at least 2 cards from every major league team with 11 cards dedicated to two minor league teams (5 cards of American Association players and 6 cards of Eastern League players). In addition, the set has a relatively high number of star players, with 40% of the cards consisting of at least one HOF’er. Conversely, selection of other players is puzzling – which included such players as the speed merchant John Thoney (Boston – who didn’t play in 1910 and retired in 1912), ME Simon (a utility player for Pittsburgh who had 18 AB’s in 1909) and Lew McCarty (Newark) who didn’t play in the majors until 1913.
I believe it is these very reasons that ATC – producers of other notable T sets – attempted to create a set with wide geographic appeal, while making it easier to obtain cards of the stars. I believe that ATC single printed certain cards while other popular players were double or triple printed.
Population estimates of cards at the various grading companies might be helpful as to how many cards were double or triple printed. However, population data would be skewed in favor of HOF’ers making this data less useful. Fortunately, other data can be used to infer which cards were double or triple printed.
T201’s were notoriously miscut from side to side (see pic of Tris Speaker below). I believe the designer of the cards knew cutting the edges would be problematic and designed cards that were largely symmetrical around a vertical axis. In every card, the left & right edge of the card is symmetrical with the same sky, grass or building pattern on the opposite edge. Miscuts, when they occur, are almost always miscut so the right edge of the card is miscut to include the left edge of the adjacent card. Through close inspection and cataloguing miscuts a number of interesting tendencies are readily apparent.
Here is an example of a Grant/McClean card next to a Crawford/Cobb showing the edge differences. This miscut edges seem to suggest that the Grant/McClean card was printed adjacent to the Crawford/Cobb card. The tendencies of the printer miscutting cards is helpful in not only determining print order on a sheet, but also the frequency of each card relative to the adjacent card.
For instance it appears in the example to the left, that a Cobb miscut is usually found with another Cobb edge. This suggests that numerous Cobb cards were printed next to each other. In fact, a Cobb card has only been found with two right edge miscuts: either another Cobb edge miscut or less frequently (perhaps a third to a quarter of the time) with a Cicotte edge miscut. This seems to suggest that Cobbs were triple or quadruple printed, relative to the Cicotte card.
In addition, a Grant miscut is always found with a Cobb edge and similarly a Kling miscut is usually found with a Grant miscut edge. This seems to suggest that if you were to view a completely uncut printed sheet of T201’s, the likely print order (going from left to right) would have been Kling, Grant, Cobb, Cobb, Cobb, Cicotte.
Likewise, a Breshannan miscut card is usually found with another Breshannan edge next to it. The same can be said for Speaker, Bender, Lajoie and Johnson. In fact, almost every card depicting a HOF’er has been determined to be double printed and possibly triple printed. Further, of the 11 minor league cards, data seems to indicate that only a handful were double printed. When data is compiled on the entire set, it seems that perhaps as many as a dozen cards were single printed with most of the remainder double or triple printed.
Certainly there isn’t enough data to draw definitive foolproof conclusions. However, data seems to support that HOF’ers were printed in greater quantity than other lesser known players. This seems to be consistent with ATC’s desire to produce a set with wide geographical representation while maintaining the probability of getting a card of a popular player.
A few questions come to mind:
• Can anyone provide information on the likely size of a print sheet? Narrowing down the size might lead to assumptions on how many cards were printed on a sheet – and therefore how many cards were double & triple printed.
• Can anyone verify a “Mathewson” Factory 649 back? This seems odd that I have not been able to locate one (my sample size was small). The same can be said for Chance/Evers Factory 649 back. I suspect my sample size is too small and both of these cards exist with both backs.
• Dougherty/Lord card appears to be an edge card (i.e. the miscut shows a blank space) suggesting it was single printed. If they were printed at Factory 649 where approx. 70% of the production came from (and not Factory 30), this could explain why they are more scarce than other cards, but not overly difficult to find.
• I do not have enough data to determine all the single prints; however it seems that there are less than a dozen. For those that collect this set, please send me edge/edge combinations if you have any.