New T206 Error - kidding

[Jaybird]

I have a 1 of 1 SILLLIVAN card. ;)

Just kidding. But I wondered where you guys rank these kind of printing mistrikes. I kind of see them as neat but nothing more. Or is it more a question of how bad or how interesting the printing problem is?

Obviously, a printers scrap or something like Leon's multi-backed ghost print is something different than what is happening here. To me this is just a card getting slightly pushed or pulled at the wrong time.

[buymycards]

Jason,
List it on ebay with a $2,000,000 minimum bid. :)

Good luck on your retirement.

Rick

[Jaybird]

That's funny, Rick. I'd trade it for $10 and a cup of coffee :D

It's been a long week.

[Pup6913]

That's funny, Rick. I'd trade it for $10 and a cup of coffee :D

It's been a long week.

please send address and paypal info:D

[steve B]

Maybe no extra value, but I think stuff like this is fascinating.

Is it printed like that? At first I thought a bit of surface from the bottom of the U had gotten scraped and was still there but moved sideways.

If it's printed that way there's only a few ways it could happen. Most likely a damaged negative was used to prepare the stone. Which means there should be more of them out there.


Steve B

[teetwoohsix]

Nice card!! I also like finding different mistakes, errors, color shifts, two names , etc. on T206's .

I recently bought a loupe, and one thing I have been noticing on (especially, but not only) cards with a green background I am seeing a small light blue line,or dot, right in the middle of the top of the picture- where the black line hits the white border. And alot of the times when you see it at the top, you will also see it in the same spot at the bottom of the picture-right in the middle........

It isn't only on the green background cards- also on others.

Sorry-appologize for going off track- beautiful card- if you ever come to Vegas, Starbucks or Coffee Bean for your entire stay ;)

Sincerely, Clayton

[mrvster]

Jason,

thats the "SILLIVAN" error...LOL....:) these name field misprints are cool...this particular one would not carry that much of a premuim, maybe a $30-$40 card or so, but others do, you are correct...
if you could locate a few others, then you might have something, keep searching and collect afew if they are out there.....something obstructed the name field print, or stone might have been damaged....


similiar to the "nodgrass" but clearly depends on the recognition or press....the doulbe struck letters are also cool , i have an anderson with 2 "A"'s in the name field.....also, i have 4 hemphills with half "h" and "e" in the name field, all with different backs......(some collectors already started to recognize the hemphill).....there are also a few others out there, Trae Regan and Jantz can add more about them ...


these t206 anomalies are great:D, usually the more dramatic the error, the more value they carry.....i'll see if i can post some scans later....:)


Peace

Johnny

[mrvster]

btw....

just curious, would it happen to have a pied 150 back????:)

[Jaybird]

Yes. Piedmont 150. I didn't look at it with a loupe yet. I can do that tomorrow and get back to you. I was just looking through some scans and organizing before throwing up for sale and noticed it.

[mrvster]

Jay!!

thanks...there were alot of mistakes that early.....350 pied also:)....lmk if you come across any blank backs or errors:D also, lmk if your ever going to list the sillivan;)

Peace

Johnny

[wolfdogg]

I have a 1 of 1 SILLLIVAN card. ;)

Just kidding. But I wondered where you guys rank these kind of printing mistrikes. I kind of see them as neat but nothing more. Or is it more a question of how bad or how interesting the printing problem is?

Obviously, a printers scrap or something like Leon's multi-backed ghost print is something different than what is happening here. To me this is just a card getting slightly pushed or pulled at the wrong time.

I learned of this "Siilivan" card back in the 90s when someone (a serious T206 collector of which I can't remember who it was) listed it on eBay for like $1500. I didn't think much about it until while looking thru an album of T206s at the '99 National I saw 2 Sullivan cards side-by-side and it popped into my mind so I looked and.....one of 'em was this card. I bought both ($25 each) just to have it. This is only the 4th example I've seen or heard of since. I look on eBay from time to time and at auctions and dealers catalogs and at every show I attend....never found another in. Does that make it "rare" and "valuable"? NO.....but it's neat.....and only the 4th one in the 14 years that I've known of the card and countless T206s looked through....

[GoldenAge50s]

Just cked mine & I have a P150 w/ perfect SULL--no mistake on mine!

[Jaybird]

I checked with a loupe and it's definitely a printing error and not a paper flake.

Interestingly enough, I was searching and found a thread from March of last year regarding Lundgren with similar type of error. I guess this comes up every year or so (or more often).

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=121345&highlight=nodgrass+recognized&page=4

Jim R had an interesting response where I believe he is mentioning the two LLs rather than a U from a bunch of notes back in the 90s. I wonder if that is referring to this card.

Just checked through some notes on the set that are from the mid 90s-identified are around 200 different examples that have a slight change from the original card. Be it a partial S or E or a ' or a , or a ; instead of a , or 2 ll instead of a u or a large , instead of a small , or no O or CREF instead of CREE and the list goes on and on. The Wiltse & Lundgren examples are also identified. Also there are some background changes not just captions...:D

I would think the scene/background differences are more interesting than the caption or letter changes.

Try this-buy 10 to 20 examples of the same card. Lay them out next to each other and see a variation come to life. Also look at Nat'l from every card.

The reason some are valuable and others are not is because the valuable ones were noticed and checklisted by collectors 50 plus years ago. If this Lundgren was noted and checklisted it probably would bring the same coin as Murray, Sharp and Snodgrass. They are really only valuable because collectors are willing to pay for them.

Just last year we noticed the different color green on the Sovereign 350/460 cards. These are not any more valuable than the other Sovereigns but definately a different color. This set is endless-the longer you collect it th emore you will notice.

[Pat R]

I picked up this Sullivan print flaw, first I want to say I don't consider flaws
like this variations I think of them as multi example print flaws. I will pay
a small premium for these because I find them interesting and I think
they are helpful in the research side of the set.

One of the areas I feel they can be helpful in is trying to establish how many verticals of each subject might have been on a sheet. Most research on these
type of flaws put them in the 8%-10% range which is in line with the 9 or possibly higher same subject verticals that the plate scratch sheets indicate.

[pbspelly]

No offense, but unless it's an inverted Jenny, I find most printing mistakes uninteresting, and never really understand why they are touted as more valuable cards. Seems kind of contradictory to me, when other cards are often severely downgraded for being slightly off-center, weak colors, or having some barely noticeable flaw. Sometimes I almost feel that collectors are looking to create a new thing to collect and value, and latch on to printing errors just for that reason. But I recognize that a lot of people don't share my view.

[mybuddyinc]

Cool, got'ta name it, I suggest:

"Silllivan" error :rolleyes: