View Full Version : Blue Old Mill T206 Walsh at Chantilly Show - My Opinion Has Changed
t206blogcom
10-12-2012, 05:29 PM
I know there are a couple of threads about this card, but I wanted to point out that the card is currently at the Huggins & Scott booth at the CSA show in Chantilly, VA this weekend. I went to the show this afternoon and finally got to see the card in person.
I was excited to finally see the card myself after so much hype and discussion. I was at the National, but didn't have time to track it down. Previously, I was on the skeptical side, leaning towards it being doctored, fake or a reprint back with a legit front, and my comments indicated as such. Now that I've seen the card in person, my opinion has changed.
Perhaps it was the lighting of the building, but to me, the 'blue' back didn't seem all that blue. I will admit, I didn't have a black Old Mill next to it to compare, but it was tough to see blue (and for the record, I'm not color blind ;) ). I could see a bluish tint to it when held at an angle, especially along the top horizontal line, so there's definitely a little non-black color, but it wasn't overwhelmingly blue looking to me. It wasn't as if you're looking at a Piedmont or Polar Bear back - not even close.
So my opinion now is as follows. I think the card is a real t206, not a doctored card or half reprint/half real hybrid. I could be wrong and it could be a fantastic looking fake, but I truly don't feel that's the case.
With that said, I do not think the blue tint is a result of a printer forgetting to add a color to the ink. Nor do I think the tint is a result of Polar Bear or Piedmont ink being left on the press for the printing of this card. If we begin to see several others surface, then there's reason to believe it could have been an ink issue on the press or an element in the paper that caused the ink to react differently over time. We'll never know for sure...
My belief is that the blue tint is probably a result of the card being exposed to sunlight or some other reacting agent (NOT saying it was purposely chemically changed). Regardless, it was nice to see it in person and I encourage anyone going to the Chantilly show to check it out.
benchod
10-12-2012, 06:34 PM
So is Huggins and Scott going to be auctioning it?
I thought a member here was putting together a private deal for it?
t206blogcom
10-12-2012, 06:39 PM
Yes, it'll be in the December auction. I think they said the starting bid will be around $15k.
g_vezina_c55
10-12-2012, 06:48 PM
Yes, it'll be in the December auction. I think they said the starting bid will be around $15k.
Impatient to see the result.
prewarsports
10-12-2012, 06:57 PM
A $200-$300 card being worth 100X the value because the black ink may have faded into a bluish color on the back is (in my opinion) the absolute dumbest thing I have seen in 25 years of prewar card collecting.
barrysloate
10-12-2012, 07:04 PM
A $200-$300 card being worth 100X the value because the black ink may have faded into a bluish color on the back is (in my opinion) the absolute dumbest thing I have seen in 25 years of prewar card collecting.
+10!
The nearly universal opinion of many T206 experts and veteran hobbyists who saw the card in person at the National was that it was real, unaltered, and blue (not faded black). To my knowledge Jason was the first person who has actually seen the card in person to suggest otherwise and he mentioned that lighting may have been the cause. One can see from the photos that it is a different color than the black Old Mills. He did not question the authenticity or unaltered status of the card.
JimB
prewarsports
10-12-2012, 08:02 PM
OK
So why are there no differences between front color variances? We know that ALL T206 cards can have color variations where the blue is darker on some cards than others or the red is orange on some cards etc. Why is this considered normal color variations on the card fronts but a slight color variance (so slight that people who see it in person cant even agree) but on the back it is 100X more valuable?
"Lighting" definitely makes a difference on how the color looks. At least it did to me.
OK
So why are there no differences between front color variances? We know that ALL T206 cards can have color variations where the blue is darker on some cards than others or the red is orange on some cards etc. Why is this considered normal color variations on the card fronts but a slight color variance (so slight that people who see it in person cant even agree) but on the back it is 100X more valuable?
This is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it may actually be true... back collectors are, simply put, crazy. They are an entirely different breed. Have you seen some of their collages? They're obsessed with the backs of cards, of all things! :D :cool:
Matthew H
10-12-2012, 08:35 PM
A $200-$300 card being worth 100X the value because the black ink may have faded into a bluish color on the back is (in my opinion) the absolute dumbest thing I have seen in 25 years of prewar card collecting.
Post of the day.
A $200-$300 card being worth 100X the value because the black ink may have faded into a bluish color on the back is (in my opinion) the absolute dumbest thing I have seen in 25 years of prewar card collecting.
Thank you!
+1
Exhibitman
10-12-2012, 09:08 PM
This is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it may actually be true... back collectors are, simply put, crazy. They are an entirely different breed. Have you seen some of their collages? They're obsessed with the backs of cards, of all things! :D :cool:
Good point.
If anyone wants to pay exorbitantly for a print flaw please buy one of mine; I can use the cash
steve B
10-12-2012, 09:57 PM
The typical black ink used in printing is some form of carbon -usually either lampblack or carbonblack - mixed with a hardening oil like linseed oil.
Being carbon IT DOES NOT FADE Not to blue, not to any other color. Not over time- carbon remains black essentially forever unless you've got enough heat and pressure to change it to its diamond form. And even then it may still be black.
It can be printed lightly and appear gray. Only because it does not have 100% coverage of the underlying material.
Steve B
The typical black ink used in printing is some form of carbon -usually either lampblack or carbonblack - mixed with a hardening oil like linseed oil.
Being carbon IT DOES NOT FADE Not to blue, not to any other color. Not over time- carbon remains black essentially forever unless you've got enough heat and pressure to change it to its diamond form. And even then it may still be black.
It can be printed lightly and appear gray. Only because it does not have 100% coverage of the underlying material.
Steve B
Good point.
Also, if it were simply a matter of some type of natural fading or light exposure, we would have seen many of these before fading from black old mill, black lenox, black tolstoi, etc.
JimB
barrysloate
10-13-2012, 04:42 AM
OK
So why are there no differences between front color variances? We know that ALL T206 cards can have color variations where the blue is darker on some cards than others or the red is orange on some cards etc. Why is this considered normal color variations on the card fronts but a slight color variance (so slight that people who see it in person cant even agree) but on the back it is 100X more valuable?
Once again Rhys has nailed it. There are endless front color variations that garner several hundred dollars. But when the ink on the back reveals a slightly bluish tint, why is it worth well into five figures? Many of us are baffled by it.
I've never seen the card in person, but I've never questioned the expertise of those who did. I do believe it is original and unaltered and that the ink is at minimum a bluish black color. But nobody has a clue how it got that way- it's possible it was due to some chemical reaction to the black ink long after printing. And I realize some feel that is impossible but there still are variables that we don't even know about.
I think the card is nothing more than an interesting anomaly. That said, I expect a few guys with a lot of extra cash to run the bidding up into the tens of thousands of dollars. More power to them.
iwantitiwinit
10-13-2012, 05:39 AM
With+10!
ctownboy
10-13-2012, 07:56 AM
"A $200-$300 card being worth 100X the value because the black ink may have faded into a bluish color on the back is (in my opinion) the absolute dumbest thing I have seen in 25 years of prewar card collecting."
I prefer to collect rare cards (Star Player Candy, Curtis Ireland, etc) and things that are off the beaten track BUT after having read so much about this card, if I owned it and someone had offered me $30,000 in cash for it, I wouldn't have been able to get my hand out fast enough to say "done deal".
This card might be real and it might have come from the printer 100 years ago just as it is, however, for 30 large, I would let someone else be on the hook for that gamble and let them worry about it not being real. That way, if for some reason it isn't what it is reported to be, THEY can get the lawyers involved and fight with the TPG over reimbursement.....
David
Rob D.
10-13-2012, 08:51 AM
I guess this means the person who buys it should not post it in a Net54 pickups thread.
calvindog
10-13-2012, 09:03 AM
I'm already planning on reading that the card is undergraded by two full grades and if I want to see it I'll need to send an email for scans.
Pat R
10-13-2012, 09:29 AM
..
glynparson
10-13-2012, 02:03 PM
I love both Jeff and Barry's posts. I agree with Barry's and Jeff's really made me laugh. Not that Jeff's probably isnt correct as well. I love cards always have but I wouldn't pay 15k for the card if I had Bill Gates's money but to each his own.
HRBAKER
10-13-2012, 02:08 PM
I'm already planning on reading that the card is undergraded by two full grades and if I want to see it I'll need to send an email for scans.
Don't forget, "Listening to Offers!"
Everybody here pays stupid money for old cardboard. It is all relative. Why do some feel the need to ridicule others for collecting what appeals to them?
In the interest of disclosure, I will *not* be bidding on this card, but I do think it is an incredibly cool card.
JimB
packs
10-13-2012, 04:26 PM
Very true. Some people will gladly pay four figures for an Art Whitney card because theres a dog on it.
prewarsports
10-13-2012, 04:34 PM
I just bought the book "50 Shades of Grey" thinking it was a guidebook on T206 backs being either blue or black. It was not much help on cards but I did learn some stuff! :)
g_vezina_c55
10-13-2012, 04:55 PM
Everybody here pays stupid money for old cardboard. It is all relative. Why do some feel the need to ridicule others for collecting what appeals to them?
In the interest of disclosure, I will *not* be bidding on this card, but I do think it is an incredibly cool card.
JimB
X2
Jaybird
10-13-2012, 05:13 PM
Everybody here pays stupid money for old cardboard. It is all relative. Why do some feel the need to ridicule others for collecting what appeals to them?
In the interest of disclosure, I will *not* be bidding on this card, but I do think it is an incredibly cool card.
JimB
I agree with this sentiment as well. The only thing that this behavior promotes is silence. Why would someone share after being told they paid too much, too little, good buy, bad buy, etc.? Some people are quick to judge and yet never post their own pickups. It's very easy to sit in judgment while on the sidelines.
All my non-collecting friends worry a lot about what I pay for things. Normally, my collecting friends aren't interested in the money but instead are curious about the history or other interesting aspects of the cards.
Matthew H
10-13-2012, 06:13 PM
Very true. Some people will gladly pay four figures for an Art Whitney card because theres a dog on it.
I'm that kind of stupid.
Wite3
10-13-2012, 06:15 PM
I'm that kind of stupid.
Glad I only paid $250 for my Whitney with Dog...of course that was over a decade ago!
Matthew H
10-13-2012, 08:04 PM
Glad I only paid $250 for my Whitney with Dog...of course that was over a decade ago!
Nice buy!
Rob D.
10-13-2012, 08:07 PM
Very true. Some people will gladly pay four figures for an Art Whitney card because theres a dog on it.
Guilty. Gosh, I hope no one says that's one of the dumbest things they've ever seen, or else I'll have to sell it out of shame.
If everyone on the board could email me their "This is what's OK to collect" lists -- along with acceptable prices to pay -- it will be much appreciated. I've already got an idea what's OK and not OK to post in the pickup threads.
Thanks.
http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2012images/Item_21695_1.jpg
Matthew H
10-13-2012, 08:15 PM
That's a great example Rob.
HRBAKER
10-13-2012, 08:43 PM
That's a great example Rob.
Yep, that dog'll hunt!
egbeachley
10-13-2012, 09:17 PM
Gotta admit this thread has confused the heck outta me. Black backs can't possibly turn to blue but if they do, it has only happened once. Back color changes worth $30K, front color changes are normal variations. OJs with a dog are cool and worth a ton. OJ dog cards, eh, about $20.
packs
10-14-2012, 01:21 PM
I'm not saying its dumb to pay for the Whitney card. I like the card too. But it is a fact that the only reason it sells for what it does is because there's a dog on it. So you are essentially paying four figures for a photo of a dog. Life is cruel.
I'm not saying its dumb to pay for the Whitney card. But it is a fact that the only reason it sells for what it does is because there's a dog on it. So you are essential paying four figures for a photo of a dog. Life is cruel.
I would rather have a picture of a dog than most humans, But I like (vintage) baseball. That card is a great combo.
packs
10-14-2012, 01:25 PM
Its a classic card. But its the dog that makes it what it is. Not Art Whitney.
HRBAKER
10-14-2012, 01:28 PM
I don't have a dog in this fight.
glynparson
10-14-2012, 02:14 PM
Nothing wrong with questioning the hype or overhype of this card and what it should be worth. I do think it's absurd I don't really care if that bothers someone or not it's my opinion.
wonkaticket
10-14-2012, 02:27 PM
Yes, it'll be in the December auction. I think they said the starting bid will be around $15k.
I wish the seller the best and I hope he gets what he’s looking for. I will say that I’m a bit surprised how much the card has fallen off. I think the hype surrounding and the timing was the perfect storm for the seller to maximize.
Actually I was one of the fools that you guys speak of. I know it has been hinted a few times that somebody made a solid offer of 30-35k on the card at the national. In fact I was the person who offered Dave that for the card. In a way I’m glad he didn’t take it because I do think a bit of national fever had me caught up and valuing the card about twice what I would pay today. Even 15k I think is a bit generous given that there are no other known examples. Which in the end hurts this card IMO.
As for the card itself it looked blue to me. There were some odd things going on via the front but nothing major. Part of the deal was Dave to except my offer was that I got to crack the card in the presence of SGC and look it over raw myself. Had that happened I could say 100% yay or nay for what that’s worth. However in the holder it looked ok for me to gamble.
Also I’m not sure who is really left out there to buy on this type of anomaly. I know Dave ran this up the ladders of the usual suspects of which all passed. I know I made a solid offer and now it’s in Huggins & Scott. Hopefully Huggins can get new bidders to the table and get the card across the finish line of what Dave is looking for.
For transparency I will not be bidding either I will wait till a second example pops up.
Cheers,
John
mrvster
10-14-2012, 07:26 PM
I think you made a great decision in all due respect to seller:)
freakhappy
10-14-2012, 08:32 PM
I think you made a great decision in all due respect to seller:)
Kinda confused...what great decision are you talking about?
Jlighter
10-14-2012, 08:37 PM
Kinda confused...what great decision are you talking about?
I believe he is referring to John's decision on not buying the card.
atx840
10-14-2012, 08:43 PM
To pass on it during the moment of the initial hype....and also until a second example shows up.
The brown OMs are $$$ because there are a handful and all from the same subset, confirming the variation to be a change of ink at the factory. There are also examples of double strike black & brown on the same card, as well as Leon's Young ghost multi strike.
I think at this point it was a smart move John.
freakhappy
10-14-2012, 09:05 PM
I believe he is referring to John's decision on not buying the card.
If I'm reading it correctly, John offered 30k+ for the card and the guy didn't take it? That would take the decision out of John's hand and into the seller...that's where the confusion is.
John stated that he was glad the guy didn't take his offer because he got kinda caught up into the moment.
Unless everyone is saying he IS making a great decision on the sale of the card now...in that case, it is a great decision!
mrvster
10-14-2012, 09:42 PM
Jake and Chris nailed it exactly.....if Wonks wanted this card, he would have got it,.....its a matter how "comfy" he feels...... seller imo was getting a tad greedy in all due respect, of course seller wants to maximize the cards value....but getting , imo , "insane" prices on a "non" scrap.....the ball was all in John's court(and usually is;)) .......john came to his senses and decided not to buy for possibly 3 or 4 x the "actual" market perception........the probability of more surfacing is slim imo....this examplemight be a lone anomaly.....if that is the case than holds the value lower....much lower imho....exactly as the other collectors stated;)...
if this card was "hand cut" like authentic scrap, id say you d have something really insane:D....
i hate to be the negative nelly, but the blue variant doesnt excite me.:o...it just "lacks" the x factor
my humble opinion....i'm a little fish and can not afford cards like this:o(maybe one day).....so im not trying to skew opinion either way....i have not held the card, so its really not fair to give it a fair shake...
one thing i am truly certain....t206 mystique will never die...
the set continues to intrigue us and amaze us....100 +_ years later....gotta love the sxxt:)
i beleive t206 rarities are the future of collecting this set for the truly advanced collector...(i'm just nuts maybe:confused:)(lol)
peace
johnny
freakhappy
10-14-2012, 09:53 PM
Johnny, that makes sense...but John did try to get it and the seller declined.
He could pick it up now and maybe cheaper than his original offer, but it seems he is going to sit this one out :)
Matt, Leon, Rob and others...I just found this great collection you may be interested in. Dogs galore...go get 'em! http://strejc-collection.com/
Jlighter
10-14-2012, 10:20 PM
Johnny, that makes sense...but John did try to get it and the seller declined.
He could pick it up now and maybe cheaper than his original offer, but it seems he is going to sit this one out :)
Matt, Leon, Rob and others...I just found this great collection you may be interested in. Dogs galore...go get 'em! http://strejc-collection.com/
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=157734
barrysloate
10-15-2012, 04:19 AM
There is virtually nothing known about this card- no history, no track record, no other examples found, no idea how only a single blue example got into circulation. For most collectors, it's a huge leap of faith to write a check for 30K or 40K armed with so little information. More research needs to be done for it to be accepted by serious T206 collectors at that level.
Of course, that doesn't mean it won't happen anyway. Bidders do get caught up in the moment.
wonkaticket
10-15-2012, 09:53 AM
Barry has hit the nail on the head. The offer I made was exactly that it was a “leap of faith”. It was the breaking point price wise or line in the sand I was willing to gamble with no history on this card.
The seller is a good guy I’m sure we could have come to a deal. However as I stated before I’m glad he valued it much higher than I. Having had time to think on it the value or line in the sand from the national has changed dramatically for me in regards to this card.
For the sellers sake I hope the auction eclipses my offer and it sells for huge amounts of money. I wish him nothing but the best with his sale.
Cheers,
John
mrvster
10-15-2012, 11:05 AM
until there is more known.....:confused:
ethicsprof
10-15-2012, 11:06 AM
absolutely beautiful card! Congratulations!
all the best,
barry
T206Collector
10-15-2012, 11:35 AM
i don't have a dog in this fight.
1+1/2
seablaster
10-15-2012, 11:49 AM
Barry has hit the nail on the head. The offer I made was exactly that it was a “leap of faith”. It was the breaking point price wise or line in the sand I was willing to gamble with no history on this card.
That's one hell of a line in the sand. :eek:
I'm glad you didn't become a victim of buyer's remorse.
canjond
10-15-2012, 11:59 AM
I'm not saying its dumb to pay for the Whitney card. I like the card too. But it is a fact that the only reason it sells for what it does is because there's a dog on it. So you are essentially paying four figures for a photo of a dog. Life is cruel.
Can someone confirm whether this photo may depict the "Whitney dog"?!
http://image0-rubylane.s3.amazonaws.com/shops/antiquepooch/2513.1L.jpg
Can someone confirm whether this photo may depict the "Whitney dog"?!
The distance between his eyes and his nose is too long. It's not a match. It could be his brother, maybe even from the same litter, but it's not him.
wonkaticket
10-15-2012, 12:21 PM
The distance between his eyes and his nose is too long. It's not a match. It could be his brother, maybe even from the same litter, but it's not him.
That looks a lot like Joe Jackson's dog to me does anybody else see it? :)
canjond
10-15-2012, 12:51 PM
Thanks guys. Figures. The back had a pencil notation that it was, indeed, the correct dog.
JSteele
10-15-2012, 06:08 PM
Johnny, that makes sense...but John did try to
Matt, Leon, Rob and others...I just found this great collection you may be interested in. Dogs galore...go get 'em! http://strejc-collection.com/
I'm taking that as a compliment. Oh, indeed... we've got plenty of dogs, including some actual dogs: http://intheros.com/strejc/?page_id=78
T96 Prize Dog Series, they appear to be portraits of actual dogs as listed in the 1909 AKC Stud Book! You guys are fighting over Ty Cobb portraits, when you can get "Dick Turpin III" for a real steal! :-)
freakhappy
10-15-2012, 11:12 PM
I'm taking that as a compliment. Oh, indeed... we've got plenty of dogs, including some actual dogs: http://intheros.com/strejc/?page_id=78
T96 Prize Dog Series, they appear to be portraits of actual dogs as listed in the 1909 AKC Stud Book! You guys are fighting over Ty Cobb portraits, when you can get "Dick Turpin III" for a real steal! :-)
No worries, Jonathan. If you read the whole thread, you can tell I was just messing with the guys here. Your collection is very nice and I'm sure it is getting a lot of attention as it deserves.