"Is the George Davis Sovereign 350 a Hoax?"

[HobokenJon]

The esteemed Luke Lyon of "That T206 Life" has now weighed in on the hottest T206 debate on the planet.

http://www.thatt206life.com/2017/03/05/is-the-george-davis-sovereign-350-a-hoax/

Dearest T206 Resource, please respond.

[Leon]

Pretty good analysis. Nice one, Luke.

[Rich Falvo]

Enjoyed reading that. I've learned a lot reading through that site.

[rebelsart]

I have been reading these T206 Sovereign threads and feel the need to respond.

First and foremost, just because a grading company has not graded a confirmed T206 front/back combination doesn't mean its unconfirmed.

According to Scot Readers "Inside T206" book he estimates that T206 production was approximately 370 million cards.

<img src="http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac319/rebelsart/t206.jpg">

As of today PSA has graded 200,660 T206 cards, some identifying the backs and many others without a back designation.

This represents ONLY 5.42% of the estimated T206 population.

Furthermore, SGC has already graded a T206 George Davis with Sovereign 350 back according to their population report.

So to suggest that SGC has made an error just because certain collector/collectors cannot locate one is simply idiotic. Eventually other T206 George Davis with Sovereign 350 backs will appear. Just be patient.

The T206 resource checklists were a labor of love by myself and others for over 35 years. While I cannot specifically remember where every front/back combination first appeared I feel very confident with my research.

Enjoy these cards.
Art Martineau

[sreader3]

I will agree with Art that patience is a virtue when it comes to T206. For years I thought that Schulte (Front View) did not exist with Piedmont 350. Then, lo and behold, a single copy pops-up. Same with Tinker (Bat Off) Piedmont 42. Nowhere to be seen after 10 years of looking, then TWO examples show-up. As I wrote 11 years ago, when it comes to T206, mystery is pervasive and mastery is illusive.

That said, I thank Luke for carrying the research forward and identifying potential problems. Let's wait and see.

[Sean]

Hello Art, always great to hear from you again. :):):)

[Luke]

Art,

First, thanks for reading and for taking the time to comment here.

I don't disagree with your overall point, but this specific situation is a little more nuanced than "me and a few other people haven't seen this card, so SGC must have made an error." PG1 subjects are generally pretty easy to find with Sov350 backs. I know that patterns like that don't always hold, but they are a good starting point for a conversation.

The 9 cards I talk about in the article have a combined POP of 1 between SGC and PSA (the George Davis). The average POP of every other PG1 Sov350 is somewhere in the 8-14 range.

I think it's very fair to look at that data and wonder if it's possible that the 9 cards I talk about might not actually exist. They just don't fit the pattern.

Ultimately, it's just a theory and I presented it as such. All of the research that we now accept as fact started out as a theory that was talked about amongst collectors. That type of discussion is what this site is for, and it's why I started my site.

I get that you've been collecting and keeping tabs on these cards for a lot longer than I have. I also get that by wondering if these 9 cards actually exist, I am questioning those entries in your research. It's definitely not my intention to ruffle any feathers. The checklists on t206resource.com are incredibly accurate and valuable and I don't think questioning a handful of entries should bother anyone, but if it does I apologize. I don't expect perfection of anyone and regardless of whether my theory holds water or not, the checklists are still better than 99.9% perfect.

In the same vein, I don't really have an ego about my theory either. I believe in it enough to put it out there, but I won't be shocked or embarrassed if I'm wrong.

If anyone has a scan of these 9 cards with Sovereign 350 back, I'd love to see them.

Frank Chance Red Portrait Chi Cubs
Jack Chesbro Portrait NY Highlanders
Fred Clarke Portrait Pittsburgh
George Davis Chicago White Sox
Tim Jordan Portrait Brooklyn
Ed Killian Pitching Detroit
Ed Konetchy Glove High StL Cardinals
Tommy Leach Portrait Pittsburgh
Jim Pastorius Ready to Throw Brooklyn


I have been reading these T206 Sovereign threads and feel the need to respond.

First and foremost, just because a grading company has not graded a confirmed T206 front/back combination doesn't mean its unconfirmed.

According to Scot Readers "Inside T206" book he estimates that T206 production was approximately 370 million cards.

<img src="http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac319/rebelsart/t206.jpg">

As of today PSA has graded 200,660 T206 cards, some identifying the backs and many others without a back designation.

This represents ONLY 5.42% of the estimated T206 population.

Furthermore, SGC has already graded a T206 George Davis with Sovereign 350 back according to their population report.

So to suggest that SGC has made an error just because certain collector/collectors cannot locate one is simply idiotic. Eventually other T206 George Davis with Sovereign 350 backs will appear. Just be patient.

The T206 resource checklists were a labor of love by myself and others for over 35 years. While I cannot specifically remember where every front/back combination first appeared I feel very confident with my research.

Enjoy these cards.
Art Martineau

[HobokenJon]

Hi, Art. Per your comment: "First and foremost, just because a grading company has not graded a confirmed T206 front/back combination doesn't mean its unconfirmed."

You're missing the point, wittingly or otherwise. In the matter of the occasionally rumored forest green Sovereign 350 George Davis (a.k.a. the Loch Ness Monster...pun intended), the issue at hand is whether T206 Resource and SGC can back up their claims of its existence with proof or, short of that, a mere scintilla of evidence. I have asked them both. SGC told me at this month's Philly Show that it cannot, and that the entry could be a data error. The mandarins at T206 Resource haven't replied to my e-mails, or to the pointed (but unfailingly polite) questions put to them on this board.

It is well known there are glaring inaccuracies in SGC's and PSA's population reports. So this wouldn't be the first time. Here are two examples, to illustrate.

Go to the SGC pop report, type T206 for the set name and Spike Shannon for the player name. Hit the search key. You'll see a lone Piedmont 150 listed there, graded SGC 70. Under set name it says: "1909 Piedmont Cigarettes." Except, as most of us know, that's impossible, because Shannon is part of the 350-only series. Or go look up the lone Molly Miller with the Sweet Cap back that's listed in PSA's pop report. For those who don't recognize his name, Miller is a Southern Leaguer, and Southern Leaguers weren't printed with Sweet Cap backs.

Absent facts that provide evidence of confirmation, it seems to me far more likely that T206 Resource and SGC both erred on this occasion. So, for the time being, I'll continue to classify the putative forest green Sovereign 350 George Davis on my own checklist as "unconfirmed." (Thank you for your concern, Art.) The same goes for the other cards Luke listed in his fine, well-researched article, which I again encourage everyone to read here: http://www.thatt206life.com/2017/03/05/is-the-george-davis-sovereign-350-a-hoax/

Regards,
Jon

[HobokenJon]

On a related matter . . . Art, given your position as a senior contributor to T206 Resource, could you please address the question of why T206 Resource lists a Sovereign 350 forest green Fred Clarke (portrait) as "confirmed" on one page of its website, but as a "probable no print" elsewhere on its website? Which one is correct? If it's confirmed, how does T206 Resource know that?

As a reminder, the Clarke (portrait) is one of the cards that Luke cited in his article.

It's listed as confirmed here:
http://www.t206resource.com/Checklist.html?appSession=216519066504875971615429 43996147908651225439591235805683791387640370066165 23768394926224124891550780313184801222946496613552 7350&RecordID=92,93&PageID=8&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=1&CPIsortType=&CPIorderBy=&cbCurrentRecordPosition=2&Mod0LinkToDetails=True

But it's listed as "probable no print" here:
http://www.t206resource.com/Sovereign%20350%20Forest%20Green%20Checklist.html

[ty_cobb]

Its 2017. The 'measure' of what the population of t206s in part seems to be gleaned from grading data. the average bear sends in 10-20 cards. You have to remember older collectors could buy or access lots of 100+ cards in one sale. The sample size of what someone could see in a year was 10 -50 times what it is now. relying in psa or sgc data is a relatively small sample size to whats out there.

When the grading guys started they didnt have any knowledge of what fronts could be on what backs anyways. Advanced collectors kept their own lists. In a sense collectors didnt give a damn about the knowledge of that anyways, its was only valuable if you could acquire the physical 1 of 1 card before someone else. I always found that to be a real shame... many collectors put in a life time to collecting these cards and catalog them ,, but strangely the research itself is discounted. But why? The grading card company doesnt have a scan of what he graded either! How silly. Does that mean in the future what the pop reports are will trump the research of veteran collectors , when the grading companies have no scans or records themselves,,,lol

[HobokenJon]

So the pseudonymous Ty Cobb says: "many collectors put in a life time to collecting these cards and catalog them ,, but strangely the research itself is discounted. But why? The grading card company doesnt have a scan of what he graded either! How silly. Does that mean in the future what the pop reports are will trump the research of veteran collectors , when the grading companies have no scans or records themselves,,,lol"

And Art says: "I feel very confident with my research."

I agree with Mr. Cobb -- in general terms -- about "the research of veteran collectors." And I agree with Mr. Cobb wholeheartedly about the reliability of grading companies, or lack thereof.

But anytime a supposed expert responds to a series of reasonable, fact-based questions with, "I feel very confident with my research," I have to ask: Why should I feel very confident with your research?

[ty_cobb]

I/m looking for a scan of the card. Thought i had it, will look ...

[HobokenJon]

How about a video of you holding the card and showing us the front and back (and sides, too)? It would be easy for me to show you scans of a Davis front and the back of a Sovereign 350, but they would be from two different cards.

[PhillipAbbott79]

While you do that, hold up your drivers license and the current day's newspaper then mail your Ancestry DNA kit.

[HobokenJon]

That would be terrific, assuming it's an authentic Ty Cobb driver's license, preferably accompanied by Ty Cobb's PSA-authenticated death certificate (autographed by Mr. Cobb, of course).

[ty_cobb]

Haha!~ Thats a lot of hoops to jump through boys. Is there a prize for finding the Davis Sov 350? He'd make a good GPS Geocache treasure hunt

[HobokenJon]

I'm on the verge of offering a cash reward to anyone who merely can prove its existence. Maybe we can take out ads on the sides of milk cartons, too.

[HobokenJon]

Still waiting for T206 Resource to speak up in defense of its own research ...

Print newspapers have a feature every day called a corrections box. (I know, I'm dating myself by referring to quaint notions such as black ink on fish wrap, but hear me out.) It's where reporters and editors correct errors, set the record straight, and explain why mistakes happened. Good newspapers know that correcting errors is vital to their reputation and credibility, and they are eager to correct them. They usually are eager to explain how they know what they know, too (except for stories that rely on anonymous, confidential sources).

So here's my question: Why won't T206 Resource either (1) explain how it knows what it claims, or (2) correct the record? Doing either would be so much better than doing nothing.

I assume its source for the mysteriously "confirmed" Sovereign 350 cards isn't Edward Snowden or the late W. Mark Felt (a.k.a. "Deep Throat").

[PhillipAbbott79]

The site is up there for fun and hobby from what I can see apart from the single banner ad. It is by no means, de-facto apart from the fact it is a good repository.

There are other items that deserve update as well, such as Ty Cobb back legitimacy and Brown Old Mill scarcity order.

Pull down what is there, and make your own site with the corrections on it.

[HobokenJon]

Still waiting for T206 Resource to speak up in defense of its own research ...

[HobokenJon]

After all this time, not one person has piped up to show us his Sovereign 350 George Davis? There is still no evidence of this card's existence? Or any of the other Loch Ness Monster forest green Sovereign 350's that Luke cited in his post?

I believe we have an answer. There are none. Just like Nessie.

[PhillipAbbott79]

There is another card, that is so rare, that I believe it to not exist also. It is not even a 1 of 1. It just happens to be a card that I would expect there to be a public record of or an image of because of the subject on the front and yet I can find nothing.

Sometimes the information is so limited that it is impossible to agree or disagree with what is claimed. This may be one of those situations.