T206 sov 460 super print question

[mrvster]

Hello All:D

Picked this up the other day off the bay(haven't received yet), and i have been dabbling in combos....was wondering thoughts on :


1) what caused the "pink" border.....factory or not??

2) how rare actually is the Chance yellow port super print???????????????, i 've read the Cobb,Evers, and Mr chance are tuf 460 superprint....


thoughts??:confused:

Peace

[Abravefan11]

It's my opinion that the theory stating the six super prints are tougher than all other Sovereign 460's is not true. There are a group of 460 subjects that were printed in much larger numbers with Sovereign 460 backs than all the rest and you will see them much more often. But the remainder appear to be relative when tracking this back and if you selected a number of subjects from this group and tracked them, you would see that they don't come to market that often either.

[mrvster]

tim

thanks buddy, you or jim would know;)....for some reason the card was calling me! i don't think the ink around the border was from factory ???cause i haven't received it yet to really give it a looksy, hope it is, but i think the probability is low...i have been scooping a few sov 460 beaters here and there, and have heard the chatter of the super print 460 sov being scarcity as lets say, hindu.....well, having tracked these backs as close...:D thanks again for opinion....

peace

johnny

[Abravefan11]

No problem Johnny. It's a pretty complicated issue but the short basic answer is if the six SP subjects were short printed, than other subjects would have been short printed as well, not just those six.

[mrvster]

Tim,

Thanks!!was wondering how just a few cards could be short printed also?? whatever the number, i doubt al put together a seperate sheet with just the super prints....i am just confused about this one:confused:....

anyway, thought maybe i had a rarer than avg sov 460....btw...what do u make of the ink???nail polish?? why just in the borders??:confused:

[Abravefan11]

Don't get me wrong, there are different levels of scarcity within the Sovereign 460 group and the SP's were printed less than some others, but they are part of a group of cards printed less, they don't stand alone.

The ink doesn't just stay on the borders. You can see it on Chances face as well. I don't believe it happened at the factory.

[tedzan]

It's my opinion that the theory stating the six super prints are tougher than all other Sovereign 460's is not true. There are a group of 460 subjects that were printed in much larger numbers with Sovereign 460 backs than all the rest and you will see them much more often. But the remainder appear to be relative when tracking this back and if you selected a number of subjects from this group and tracked them, you would see that they don't come to market that often either.


Tim

You certainly are entitled to your opinion....but, what do you base it on ? Have you put together a complete set of 402 different SOVEREIGN cards ?
And, augmented this sub-set with the SOVEREIGN 460 super-prints ?

I don't think so ! Or, you would never say that the super-prints are no scarcer than the remaining 46 subjects with the SOVEREIGN 460 back. Only,
when you take on the challenge of actually putting together this set, will you appreciate how much tougher it is to find the six super-prints with the
SOVEREIGN 460 backs.

I completed this set in just 11 months (thanks to a SOVEREIGN find of 286 cards that I acquired). It took me almost another year to acquire 5 of the
SOVEREIGN 460 super-prints. And, it took me 2 more years to finally get the Cobb with the SOVEREIGN 460 back.

But, lately you choose to question anything I post regarding T206's and I (and others here) find that quite disconcerting. And, if I tell you that long-
term T206 surveys have confirmed what I am saying here....you will be your usual contrarian self. So, for your own edification, check-out the POP
reports and compare any of the 46 - SOVEREIGN 460 subjects with the 6 super-prints with the 460 back.


TED Z

[mrvster]

thanks tim!!

my monitor sux!!lol....i thought he had rosey cheeks.....ted, i didn't want 2 start a war, just not clear on the whole super print theory....was hoping to have scored a rarer than avg card.....ab 460/hindu level at an affordable price tag;)


peace

i hope:D

[tedzan]

Your SOVEREIGN 460 Chance is a nice get. Submit it for grading with SGC....as, they do not have this card graded in their POP reports.

Also, I posted an interesting thread on the T206 super-prints 4 months ago. Here is the link, check it out......

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=140364&highlight=super+prints

Regards,

TED Z

[Abravefan11]

So, for your own edification, check-out the POP
reports and compare any of the 46 - SOVEREIGN 460 subjects with the 6 super-prints with the 460 back.

TED Z

Using the pop reports to determine scarcity is difficult because much of the information is incomplete. PSA does not differentiate between series so it’s impossible to tell how many of the cards on their report have 350 or 460 series backs. This renders PSA’s pop reports with regard to the super prints useless. SGC does differentiate between backs but for many years they did not separate poses but instead counted them all into one nondescript listing. For example in the Hal Chase report it lists the following for Sovereign 460:

Nondescript = 19
Trophy = 4
Blue Port = 2
Black Cap = 1

How many of the 19 were Trophy, Blue Port or Black Cap poses? We can't know.

Fortunately there are three super print subjects that are only possible with one pose with a 460 Series back so we know the nondescript are the same as the identified pose. For example Evers:

Nondescript = 6
w/ Bat = 1
Total Evers w/ Bat = 7

The total SGC pop numbers for the three super prints we can determine the total for are:

Cobb = 3
Evers = 7
Mathewson = 5

For a comparison these are the pop numbers for some other 460 Only subjects.

Abbaticchio = 5
Ball = 7
Bergen = 7
Bescher = 7
Devore = 5
Herzog = 6
Howell = 6
Meyers = 7
Oldering = 6
Overall = 6
Schaeffer = 7
Stovall = 7

All of these subjects on the pop report are equal to or between Evers and Mathewson. So if we’re going to use the pop report to determine scarcity I believe the only conclusion would be that the twelve common cards I listed would be equal in scarcity to the super prints of Evers and Mathewson.

Cobb only has a pop report of 3 but Murray also has a pop report of 3. Given the number of entries it’s expected for some subjects to fall just below or just above the median.

Now as I stated before there is a group that I believe were printed much more than the others and the pop report is a good indicator of that. Some of them are the following:

Crandall = 18
Duffy = 20
Ford = 30
Gandil = 21
Geyer = 16
Sheckard = 16
Tannehill = 32
Wheat = 15

In conclusion some cards within the Sovereign 460 back set do appear to have been printed more than the super prints but I have not seen any evidence to show that the super prints were printed less than all the other cards in the group.

[tedzan]

Tim

The SGC pop report data I have is as follows......

Super-Print .... SOV 460 .... SOV 350

Chance .............. 0 .............. 5

Chase (port) ....... 2 .............. 6

Chase (dk cap) .... 1 .............. 2

Cobb ................. 1 ............... 8

Evers ................. 1 .............. 2

Mathewson ......... 0 .............. 4

460-Only cards range from 4 - 40 examples


I got this data off the SGC website today. Where are you getting your numbers from, they don't jive ?

Furthermore, as we know pop reports can be misleading. That is why I have more confidence in a long-term T206 survey of 15,000 cards,
which I constantly refer to in my research.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Tim

The SGC pop report data I have is as follows......

Super-Print .... SOV 460 .... SOV 350

Cobb ................. 1 ............... 8

Evers ................. 1 .............. 2

Mathewson ......... 0 .............. 4

I got this data off the SGC website today. Where are you getting your numbers from, they don't jive ?

TED Z

These are fresh screen shots from SGC's pop reports just taken for Evers, Cobb and Mathewson. The other three can not be accurately totaled.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-c7jusJrhx8g/TtRCeKgkj5I/AAAAAAAAFgY/j-3Aipt-GSo/s912/Recently%252520Updated187.jpg

[tedzan]

The row without the exact pose identified is not a valid pop report for a SOVEREIGN 460 card.

The bottom rows of the Cobb and Evers are the accurate pop report data. And, these agree with the data I gleaned from SGC's website.

And, the Matty data is unknown.....it does not pertain to a SOVEREIGN 460 Matty.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

The 1911 in each row is how SGC identifies the 460 Series.

No other Evers, Mathewson or Cobb pose is possible with a Sovereign 460 series back, so all of the unidentified Sovereign have to be the super prints.

[tedzan]

The 1911 in each row is how SGC identifies the 460 Series.

No other Evers, Mathewson or Cobb pose is possible with a Sovereign 460 series back, so all of the unidentified Sovereign have to be the super prints.

Tim

This is not so, the unidentified Sovereign data can be anything ? ?

It is my understanding (from the SGC guys), that if you do NOT type in the EXACT pose information, you cannot expect to get the EXACT POP REPORT data
that you are looking for.

Therefore, your data on "1911 Sovereign"....WITHOUT TYPING IN THE EXACT POSE does not necessarily provide you the accurate pop report that you desire.
Your graphic shows two contradictory rows of data.

I don't trust the data you have posted on the Cobb, Evers & Matty that does not provide the pose identification in the DESCRIPTION box.....notwithstanding,
that you took the short-cut by only typing in "1911".


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Ted - I'm confident that the numbers I presented are accurate and not misleading. Your inability and unwillingness to understand them do not make them any less factual but it does preclude this discussion from moving forward.

[cfc1909]

There is only one pose for Cobb Evers and Matty in the 1911 460 it has to be Sovereign 460-It could not be anything else.

If they were 350 apple green they would be listed as 1910.

Tim is willing to give you all this information respectfully-its time to try and undersand because even a novice can see this

[tedzan]

No kidding, Jim......

Most would say I wrote the book on the T206 SOVEREIGN cards with all the research I have done on them these past 5 years.
And, name any one else who has completed this set and has identified all the No-Prints in it ?

Tim

The "UNIDENTIFIED" 1911 SOVEREIGN cards (all brands for that matter) were graded when SGC initially started up. After about
10 months, in SGC's first year in the business, they started IDENTIFYING the various poses on the flip. Therefore, an educated
T206 collector could compare the YEAR with the POSE and be certain of the accuracy.

So, I am sorry, but I cannot trust the identification accuracy of those first run UNIDENTIFIED cards that SGC graded. We have
seen enough mis-labelling on the early flips (both SGC and PSA) that should make anyone very cautious.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Ted - If the pop reports aren't to be trusted why would you suggest I go there for my own edification?

If we can't trust the pop reports for super print information, then we can't trust it for common cards either. One can't pick and chose the data that best supports their position and cast off the information that conflicts with it. That's called confirmation bias and ends up with distorted or altogether wrong conclusions.

There were no short cuts taken in my look at the SGC pop reports or any other work on the Sovereign 460 or T206 set. If you knew me you would know that's not my nature.

[Runscott]

Ted and Tim,

Great stuff. Regardless of who's right or wrong (or somewhere in-between), the discussions and dissent gets everyone thinking and is very useful and interesting. Based on this thread, I spent all afternoon reading posts on T206's after years of not caring less what back was on any of them. I still don't care enough to collect backs, but very interesting ongoing research on both of your parts nonetheless. Thanks.

[cfc1909]

"Most would say I wrote the book on the T206 SOVEREIGN cards with all the research I have done on them these past 5 years."

For those of you new to Net54, this book by Ted -- like all of the Zanidakis classics -- can be found in the fiction section of Amazon.com.:)

In your own words -you found the other 5 superprints in 11 months-I would say that is rather quick-1 card about every 60 days.

The group shared accurate lists with you around 2004 or 5 and you started posting them on 54 and getting some new confirmations and all was going good-it was a positive effort forward. At some point you decided all the research was done by you and claimed all the work as your own and you had been doing it since the early 80s. Just funny how all the collector/dealers from the time remember you as the Bowman guy.

That wasn't so bad until you started claiming you completed all these sets and subsets that have cards in them that do not exist. The main one being Nicholls in the Sweet Caporal 649 34 card subset. You insisted the set was 35 cards and you completed the set. When you were called on it, you had sold the set and faked a scan of Nicholls to prove its existance.

The same situation happened with the American Beauty 460 75 card set. When you were called on it you had 35 cards and just happened to sell 40 cards including the Cobb for 4k just before I got to the Philly show to see them.

I would caution Bill Browns super set entries by TZ.

We still respectfully share concrete information with you and you refuse to see it and continue to tell us how many cards you collected and how much you know.

We are just showing the facts how these Sovereign 460 superprints are no more difficult than a good portion of the other Sovereign 460s. It is not true that they are more difficult than the other 460s as once thought.

[tedzan]

"Most would say I wrote the book on the T206 SOVEREIGN cards with all the research I have done on them these past 5 years."

For those of you new to Net54, this book by Ted -- like all of the Zanidakis classics -- can be found in the fiction section of Amazon.com.:)

In your own words -you found the other 5 superprints in 11 months-I would say that is rather quick-1 card about every 60 days.

The group shared accurate lists with you around 2004 or 5 and you started posting them on 54 and getting some new confirmations and all was going good-it was a positive effort forward. At some point you decided all the research was done by you and claimed all the work as your own and you had been doing it since the early 80s. Just funny how all the collector/dealers from the time remember you as the Bowman guy.

That wasn't so bad until you started claiming you completed all these sets and subsets that have cards in them that do not exist. The main one being Nicholls in the Sweet Caporal 649 34 card subset. You insisted the set was 35 cards and you completed the set. When you were called on it, you had sold the set and faked a scan of Nicholls to prove its existance.

The same situation happened with the American Beauty 460 75 card set. When you were called on it you had 35 cards and just happened to sell 40 cards including the Cobb for 4k just before I got to the Philly show to see them.

I would caution Bill Browns super set entries by TZ.

We still respectfully share concrete information with you and you refuse to see it and continue to tell us how many cards you collected and how much you know.

We are just showing the facts how these Sovereign 460 superprints are no more difficult than a good portion of the other Sovereign 460s. It is not true that they are more difficult than the other 460s as once thought.



Where do I start here......I'll try starting with this statement of Jim's:

1st.....Jim says " In your own words -you found the other 5 superprints in 11 months-I would say that is rather quick-1 card about every 60 days. "

You are contradicting yourself. You just told the world here that these SOV 460 super-prints are not as rare as I am contending, yet you are surprised that I
acquired 5 of them in less than a year. So, what is it....Jim, get a grip ? ?

FYI....Scot Reader clued me in about the Chance and the Matty being available, so I acquired them within a month of completing my 402-card SOVEREIGN set.


<img src="http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/asov460chancematty25x.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

In the months to follow I won these SOVEREIGN 460 Hal Chase cards and Evers from ebay.

<img src="http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/absov3x4bluechasedkcap.jpg" alt="[linked image]"><img src="http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/everssov460.jpg" alt="[linked image]">
<img src="http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/babsov3x4bluechasedkcap.jpg" alt="[linked image]">


2nd.....Jim says " The group shared accurate lists with you around 2004 or 5 and you started posting them on 54 and getting some new confirmations and all
was going good-it was a positive effort forward. At some point you decided all the research was done by you and claimed all the work as your own and you
had been doing it since the early 80s "

OK people....now this claim about me not giving credit to other Net54er's (Barry Arnold, Art Martineau, Frank Wakefield, Brian Weisner, etc., etc.) is sheer "B-S".
And, I can produce many, many threads to prove this. I am tempted to bump up these threads to show what kind of a fool Jim is making of himself. However,
flooding pages of Net54 with my old threads would drive every one here "bananas".

Furthermore, Jim claims that I didn't collect T206's in the early 1980's. Well, there is a Net54 member, Barry Sloate, who can vouch for the fact that I was col-
lecting T206's in the 1980's. I met Barry in 1983. He sold me some of my rare back T206's back then. In 1997, I sold Barry my near complete (1st) T206 set of
521 cards (with MAGIE).
You see guys, Jim DID NOT know me back in the 1980's, so where is he getting this fictional crap that he is spewing ? Is he living in "LA-LA" land ? Actually, I
have a darn good idea who fed him this crap, but that's for another day.

So much for Jim's continuing "B-S". I hate to say this, but lately, Jim has become an "angry man". I met Jim several years ago at the Ft Washington show. Jim
was a friendly guy back then and I sold him T206 AMERICAN BEAUTY's, BROAD LEAF's, CYCLE's, EPDG's, HINDU's, etc. at some really fair prices. In fact, I'd save
these cards for him since he usually arrived at the show on Saturdays. Furthermore, I would share with him my T206 expertise, which he appeared to appreciate.

In recent years the Philly Show moved to Valley Forge and the booth fees doubled in price. To continue this pricey show, I decide to share the booth with
another dealer. I gave Jim first crack at it. And, he was excited that I considered him. For a number of reasons both of us did not do that well at this new Philly
show. But, so didn't the other vintage card dealers. However, Jim and I stuck it out for 4 shows. Then we parted ways.


Hey guys, I could continue this for a lot longer, but I will spare you the "gory" details.....of how Jim has been on a vendetta to diminish my reputation on this
forum by contacting many Net54 friends that I have made on this forum and demeaning me.
And, it deeply bothers me that Jim, in his obsessive vendetta, has alienated me from some of my good friends on Net54. When Jim started bashing me, I wish
some of these good friends would have contacted me to get my side of this story.

Jim (and Tim), I was keeping this to myself....but, here goes....at the Chicago National this past summer many Net54er's visited with me (as they usually do).
And, quite a few wanted to know what was going on with the two of you in your constant bashing of me this past year ?

I took the "high road" and just changed the subject of conversation. However, I will tell you, Jim & Tim, that the further you persist in diminishing me, the more
you are diminishing yourselves....in the opinion of these fellow Net54er's. They don't tune in to this forum to read your constant negativity. It's time that the
both of you realize that your recurring criticisms of me and your snide remarks are back-firing on you.

Have a good night.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Ted - I have been extremely cordial to you in spite of your opinions of me. My greatest fault is in taking a different opinion to yours. I don't, nor do I care, to make any discussion personal, but simply share factual information to the best of my ability concerning the T206 set. While you may view my inputs as a personal attack on you they're simply a matter of trying to put out the best factual information about the set that I can. When someone posts a topic, be it you or anyone else, I present what I know to be the best of my knowledge with a factual response. If that is in contradiction to you it is by coincidence and not personal. Because you have a propensity for posting more incorrect information and wild speculation than anyone else on the board it may seem like I have it out for you, but nothing could be further from the truth. My only objective is to present the best information to those that collect the set and read the board. I don't believe anything in my above posts in this thread can be taken as a personal attack on you but rather an expression of my opinion on the subject put forth by another board member backed up by factual information.

If anyone that met you at the National has an issue with me, they simple don't know me. I'm very comfortable with who I am, the information I present and the collection I own. I feel those that do know me in the hobby would have a different opinion than the possible one's that don't.

[Runscott]

Wow. I say something nice about BOTH of you, and rather than let yourself be side-tracked for just a measly second, you ignore the compliment and go right back after each other again.

I guess this is more serious than I thought.

Scott <=== backing off and popping some corn

[Abravefan11]

Scott - I genuinely appreciate the compliment. I just want to discuss the set and I do this regularly on and off the board with the best guys in the hobby without altercation. I would prefer for things not to get derailed but sometimes it's impossible to ignore. I shouldn't get sucked into the vortex but admit sometimes it becomes to much not to. I'll continue to try sticking to just the information and topic at hand.

[Runscott]

Scott - I genuinely appreciate the compliment. I just want to discuss the set and I do this regularly on and off the board with the best guys in the hobby without altercation. I would prefer for things not to get derailed but sometimes it's impossible to ignore. I shouldn't get sucked into the vortex but admit sometimes it becomes to much not to. I'll continue to try sticking to just the information and topic at hand.

That's cool - if you know me, you know I spend a lot of time in the vortex.

If it weren't for you two getting me interested in T206 backs again, I wouldn't have spent $777 tonight for a card I couldn't afford.

[cfc1909]

Ted

I believe you collected 206s in the 80s-I never said I didn't. I don't believe you collected the backs and kept track of what existed and what didn't. You had a mix of backs in your set just like everyone else did because no one paid much attention to the backs except the Barnings. I am sure some others did but you were not one of them. If you did collect them then, you would not be claiming you completed so many subsets now in the middle and later 2000s.

You remember things differently than they happened about us setting up to gether at shows and that is fine.

What is not fine is when you put out bad information and bogus claims of completeing sets. Each time you are given factual information that shows your information is not accurate you say something like you need an edification or someone is reinventing the wheel.

I get tired of hearing how many sets you completed and how much of an expert you are. Each time I have asked you to show the sets you claim to own, you do not have them to show. I don't have a vandetta I just stated what happened when you are called on showing what you claim to own.

I didn't contact anyone about you either, I typed what I had to say right here. I came to your table and talked to you face to face about the AB 460s and the Nicholls. You can't create chase cards that no one will ever find.

I can come to the Philly show Saturday if you will show me the 151 Sovereign 150s that you claim to own.

[tedzan]

Ted and Tim,

Great stuff. Regardless of who's right or wrong (or somewhere in-between), the discussions and dissent gets everyone thinking and is very useful and interesting. Based on this thread, I spent all afternoon reading posts on T206's after years of not caring less what back was on any of them. I still don't care enough to collect backs, but very interesting ongoing research on both of your parts nonetheless. Thanks.


I appreciate your kind words; but, there is a concern here as to......"who's right or wrong". For this past year both Jim and Tim have posted on this forum (and
have behind the scenes) stated lies about me in order to demean my character.....for whatever diabolical reasons that they harbor towards me.

You and I have a mutual friend, Mark Macrae. I met Mark at the Willow Grove show back in 1981. We have been very good friends for 30 years now, ever since
then. If you want an independent opinion of me, just ask Mark.


Thanks and best regards,

TED Z

[Abravefan11]

For this past year both Jim and Tim have posted on this forum (and have behind the scenes) stated lies about me in order to demean my character.....for whatever diabolical reasons that they harbor towards me.

TED Z

That's absolutely false. You believe because I take a different opinion than you that I have something against you but that is not the case and I certainly don't spend my time attempting to demean anyone's character.

Regarding the Nichols scan you did say you owned it, added it to a checklist, faked a scan of it, couldn't produce it and ultimately admitted you were mistaken in saying you owned it. Nothing about that is a lie and I wasn't a party to any of the personal attacks in that thread. Anyone can go back and read that for themselves.

Stick to the topics at hand like this Sovereign 460 discussion and I will do the same. If you have a different opinion than mine than just say so but understand I have the right to disagree with you. When I do you are free to ask me how I arrived at my opinion and I will gladly share with you the facts and information that allowed me to get from point A to B and any information that I believe contradicts your opinion. When someone brings up a topic like this Sovereign 460 discussion I'm allowed to present my opinion for others to consider. Neither them nor you have to agree with me, nor do I have to agree with you.

[mrvster]

Scott,
btw...u won the ab johnson???;)i think u caught the bug;)

...cause i have been chasing ab 350 no frames lately:D


I too was collecting t206 for a while and not caring too much about the backs either:eek:...i was into the rare errors/scraps( btw-which i still am- and mac's marquard on the bay is sweet, printer laid down red instead of blue, gave marquard a tan and an orange background!!!) and let rare backs slip by like all of us for $20 a card .......



ironically can't find too many scraps around the last few years:mad:...so, loving the set, i turned my focus to the rarer backs myself(and Hank L. i used to say who cares about the backs to you)...this is where the monster got even more interesting....


the rarirties are really not plank...magie...wag(relatively speaking, and don't get me wrong would love one if i could afford it:o)....try a brown old mill, some ghosted chance back, bender over print fronts, broadleaf 460, cassidy missing color scrap blank back, brown lenox, where only one or 2 known examples exist for each pose or player, brown lenox, they are fun and expensive;), the bottom line undisputed RARE , TRULY DEFINITION OF RARE......

something fun was finding the rarer back combo to fronts....chasing pristine cards to me just gets way too expensive:o( gem common for 10 k when i could score a brown om???)......so collecting tougher sub sets and seeing if certain cards exists becomes fun and very challenging to the most advanced what i call t206 "experts"......the info is priceless and knowledge just sheds even more light on to this very interesting and complex set....we discover new info everyday and learn more and more every single day, and never know every secret...


info needs to be shared and correct to be relevant, it will help all of us understand this set, and corney enough, sometimes each other...


Tim and Jim have been studying these backs/set for many years like other hobby veterans....Art m. John M.(wonka), Craig W, Brian W., Dan m, Jantz, Mike H., Johnny D ....i hate even starting to mention any names cause there really are just so so many true veterans/experts on this set i really wouldn't want to leave anyone out.......


In all due respect T-rex, you really sound like a great guy, an intelligent guy, i actually read your info and bought mr chance cause of the rarity of the super print...i love that pic of u w/ Wonks.....we need your knowledge and intel on this set like anyone else....you prob know more than me about the set me im sure, you had a set before i even thought about collecting it, but guys like tim and jim are true experts(we don't need resumes).....listen to weisner or art if you ever want to get schooled on the set, or dan and wonks also.....they are prob the top 6 guys on this set...imo......they just have the time and cards to back it up, trust me on this one....but no one really is out to get you....
i am not going to verbally beat you up, i like you
ted, jim gets upset, thats all.....tits up a stand up guy i would put my rep on the line for jim r, he is a tru friend to me and not only a collector....i don't know tim, but his absolute knowledge supercedes any exchanging conversation i have never had w him....

we need one thing of you....

an open mind.....
(i'm not accussing you of any of this btw)

alleged:

if you were wrong about a card or two in the set, who cares anymore..

if the nicholls didn't exist, just fess up and blame it on the monster, look what chan did, your no where close to being that messed up, but the set does strange things to collectors:eek: i forgive you ....give us some of your wisdom

if you embelished and said u had a set together ab 460 which i love you could teach me a thing or two about it, then sold it....who cares anymore...i forgive you, ps would've liked a few cards myself;)

i am no where an expert on this set(except for the freaks i am self proclaimingLOL because i am one), just a lover of the t206 cards and people/collectors in general....

keep the faith y'all.....because i need all of y'alls knowledge when it comes to this set...we just want to advance the set

i want to thank all the collectors who i spend countless hours boring them on the horn who have given me a wealth of knowledge on this set:)



PHEW!!!!

glad i got that off my chest


Peace


Respectfully
John Vanderbeck

[tedzan]

Ted

I believe you collected 206s in the 80s-I never said I didn't. I don't believe you collected the backs and kept track of what existed and what didn't. You had a mix of backs in your set just like everyone else did because no one paid much attention to the backs except the Barnings. I am sure some others did but you were not one of them. If you did collect them then, you would not be claiming you completed so many subsets now in the middle and later 2000s.
You remember things differently than they happened about us setting up to gether at shows and that is fine.

What is not fine is when you put out bad information and bogus claims of completeing sets. Each time you are given factual information that shows your information is not accurate you say something like you need an edification or someone is reinventing the wheel.

I get tired of hearing how many sets you completed and how much of an expert you are. Each time I have asked you to show the sets you claim to own, you do not have them to show. I don't have a vandetta I just stated what happened when you are called on showing what you claim to own.

I didn't contact anyone about you either, I typed what I had to say right here. I came to your table and talked to you face to face about the AB 460s and the Nicholls. You can't create chase cards that no one will ever find.

I can come to the Philly show Saturday if you will show me the 151 Sovereign 150s that you claim to own.


1st.....YOU DID NOT KNOW ME IN THE 1980's. Or, for that matter most of the 1990's. So, what in the hell gives you the right to publicly state such blatant lies
here as to what I collected and what I did not collect in those two decades ?

Can you RESPOND to that simple question.....right here and now ? ?


2nd.....Regarding your " I get tired of hearing how many sets you completed and how much of an expert you are. Each time I have asked you to show the sets
you claim to own, you do not have them to show "

Well Jim, at the last Valley Forge show you and I set up in, I brought my complete SOVEREIGN set for you to see. You flipped a page (or two) of my set's album
and that was the extent of your interest in this very unique T206 set. I just guess that you are an "uptight" guy, who does bother to spend 5 - 10 minutes to go
thru pages of my album. But, that's you, others have completely viewed my SOVEREIGN set (including Hank & Scott Levy, Jerry Totino, and John Wonkaticket).

Furthermore, you never saw my 75-card AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 sub-set, so how can you say I didn't complete it ? Yes, I sold 28 cards from it at the Oaks show.
They were "beaters" that were inconsistent with the 47 cards in my set that range from Vg to Ex. Since then, I have recovered 6 of the 28 that I sold. And, this
time I am being more selective; therefore, it may take me 2 - 4 years to complete it.

3rd.....Regarding your " I can come to the Philly show Saturday if you will show me the 151 Sovereign 150s that you claim to own. "

You question my numbers, then why didn't you pay more attention to my set when you had the opportunity and count the 151 - SOVEREIGN cards in the 1st series
of my set ?
I am sure you will recall that I arrange my T206's in my albums according to their 3 series (150-350-460). So, it would have been very, very easy for you to do the
count.

Anyhow, I will not be attending this weekend's Valley Forge show, as we are having friends visiting us for the weekend. Otherwise, I'd be willing to meet you there.
Jim....a little bit of simple math wiill provide the answer to your concern regarding the SOVEREIGN 150 series composition. There are 156 subjects that comprise the
150 series. American Litho. did not print the follwing subjects with the SOVEREIGN 150 backs......

Jennings (portrait)
Lundgren (Cubs)
Magie
Plank
Wagner

Therefore...... 156 - 5 = 151

And, indeed there are 151 cards in my SOVEREIGN set with the "SOVEREIGN 150 Subjects" printed on their backs


TED Z

[Runscott]

Scott,
btw...u won the ab johnson???;)i think u caught the bug;)

...cause i have been chasing ab 350 no frames lately:D




Yes, John. I have always loved the AB backs. My snipe was $777.77 (I was feeling creative) and someone else sniped $777.00. I got milked for almost every cent possible! :)

Thanks for the interesting post. Don't get me wrong - I used to have two very nice BL 460's, and some other very nice scraps and other 1-of-a kind t206 items. All gone now, but examined, documented, written about. I still love that stuff, but I still find the lithos on the front to be the main attraction.

[Runscott]

I appreciate your kind words; but, there is a concern here as to......"who's right or wrong". For this past year both Jim and Tim have posted on this forum (and
have behind the scenes) stated lies about me in order to demean my character.....for whatever diabolical reasons that they harbor towards me.

You and I have a mutual friend, Mark Macrae. I met Mark at the Willow Grove show back in 1981. We have been very good friends for 30 years now, ever since
then. If you want an independent opinion of me, just ask Mark.


Thanks and best regards,

TED Z

I completely understand - I just wanted you two to realize that, as an outside observer, you are BOTH appreciated. My opinion of everyone is positive unless I get an unwarranted attack, and even then I forget about it as quickly as possible - I have found that most people I have fought with have something important to share that far outweighs any pleasure I might get from 'winning' a discussion with them. This is fun stuff.

[danmckee]

Awesome card! I did hear that Chance used blush before games so maybe the Sovereign company decided to portray a more realistic Frank Chance?

Ted, Tim, and Jim R. Great info going back and forth.

Tim, stop posting like a robot and get some personal feelings in there instead of just facts!

Ted, That slice of pizza I gave you at the Oaks show was NOT purchased by Jim R. so no need to hold back for that reason.

Jim R., I am still very interested in the T206 Dunn CB trade for your dump truck - let's talk

Wonka, oh that's right, he isn't here!

Runscott, Hello Scott! Long time for us, glad to see you back!

Dan

[Runscott]

Awesome card! I did hear that Chance used blush before games so maybe the Sovereign company decided to portray a more realistic Frank Chance?

Ted, Tim, and Jim R. Great info going back and forth.

Tim, stop posting like a robot and get some personal feelings in there instead of just facts!

Ted, That slice of pizza I gave you at the Oaks show was NOT purchased by Jim R. so no need to hold back for that reason.

Jim R., I am still very interested in the T206 Dunn CB trade for your dump truck - let's talk

Wonka, oh that's right, he isn't here!

Runscott, Hello Scott! Long time for us, glad to see you back!

Dan

Thanks Dan - it's also great to see you posting so much. You must be having a good time despite your card-slabbing debacle!