T207 backs question

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw&nbsp; </b><p>I've read and re-read the article in VCBC and I just cannot get it. Are any of the following considered tougher backs: Recruit factory 240, Recruit factory 606?<BR><BR>Also, has anyone noticed that on some cards "Red Sox" is brown (Henriksen) and on some it is red (Hall)?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ty_cobb</b><p>Recruit 240s are plain ol' commons. 606s a little<BR>tougher but do not carry a premium to my knowledge.<BR>Napoleon backs are a rare 'parallel' to all Recruit<BR>back cards.<BR><BR>Cards like Buck Weaver etc. never have the Recruit <BR>or Napoleon ad , cards in this tier only have Broadleaf,<BR>Anonymous, Cycle (red) or the ultra rare Red Cross back. <BR> <BR>Thus a complete set could never be done with Recruit<BR>backs only. A complete set would have to have some <BR>combination of Recruit, Broadleaf, or even tougher<BR>rare back ads.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>Hi Adam,<BR><BR>Sorry my article has stumped you <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Feel free to send me any questions directly.<BR><BR>The two factories issuing Recruit backs do seem to be unequal in numbers. Factory 240 seems to outnumber 606 about 2.5 to 1. But I don't think anyone has bothered to argue that 606 backs should command a premium, since most Recruits are pretty common and there doesn't seem to be a correlation between factory number and the scarcer Recruit cards...<BR><BR>Any other questions, let me know and I'll try to answer them--<BR><BR>Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>I'm not as stupid as I look; just lazy. Table 3 was what I was missing because the folks at VCBC printed Table 4 before Table 3 and I did not turn the page.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>tbob</b><p>It appears a lot of collectors are so entranced by the sharp looking red Cycle backs that they are much more in demand than the scarcer Anonymous backs.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>edited.