T207 Anonymous back questions

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>S Gross</b><p>Just picked up these two t207 anonymous back (LA3) cards. <br /><br /><img src="http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a296/mybuddyinc/t207/t207lordh.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a296/mybuddyinc/t207/t207sullivan.jpg"><br /><br />Interestingly, both players are "Recruit/Napoleon" subjects, as opposed to "Broadleaf/Cycle" subjects. I know all B/C subjects can have Anon. backs, yet not all R/N's can have them.<br />My questions: <br />1 -- What is the realitive rarity of R/N vs. B/C Anon. backs???<br />2 -- Are there any R/N Anon. 25 backs known???<br />3 -- Is it assumed that both R/N and B/C Anon. cards were printed in the same batch???<br />4 -- Any other thoughts .....<br /><br />(love Sullivan's "What ever it is, I didn't do it" look, verus H. Lord's "Yeah, you caught me, I did it" look)<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>1. It is believed that all cards CAN exist with an Anonymous Fact 3 back. There are no cards with Broadleaf/Cycle/Anon. 25 backs which also have Recruit/Napoleon backs and vice-versa. <br />2. No<br />3. No<br />4. The theory exists that ANY card in the set can have an Anon. Factory 3 back because there are Fact. 3 backs on both the R/N cards and the B/C/A25 cards but this has never been proven to be true. The Factory 25 cards were printed in Virginia, the Fact. 3s in Louisiana.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>My 207 anon. Buck Weaver psa 5 has a common anon. back stating Factory N. 25nd Dist. Va. <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>Looking back at my article in VCBC from a couple of years ago:<br /><br /><br />1 -- What is the realitive rarity of R/N vs. B/C Anon. backs???<br />See below for a complete list of the cards as they appeared in my survey. <br /><br /><br />2 -- Are there any R/N Anon. 25 backs known??? <br />No, as Bob indicates-- there are no such animals known. The Weaver Mike mentions is a B/C card, so it does appear with the Anon-25 back.<br /><br />3 -- Is it assumed that both R/N and B/C Anon. cards were printed in the same batch???<br />My guess is yes, essentially-- that all the Anon backs were printed in the same series, later in the 1912 issue year. All the B/C Anons were printed at Factory 25, but for some reason Factory 3 printed both B/C and R/N cards with Anon backs.<br /><br />4 -- Any other thoughts .....<br />I can't agree that all R/C cards can be found with Anon-3 backs. My survey of 6800 T207s found only about 23 different Recruit cards with the Anon-3 backs. Every one of these 23 players appeared less often than the average Recruit-backed card. There was not a single exception to this pattern.<br /><br />To explain this, I propose in the article that there may have been two "series" of Recruit-backed cards issued, one of 100, and a second one of 50 issued in smaller numbers. Only this "second series" was issued with Anon-3 backs. I believe, therefore, that only 50 players of the R-N group will ever be found with the Anon-3 back. <br /><br />The Anon backs are extremely scarce, constituting about 1% of all R/N cards. Napoleons constituted about 2.25%<br /><br />Here's a bit of the data from the survey, simply the player and the number of his cards that appeared in the survey. Recruit cards begin at 18 with Ellis, and several other Recruits appear to be as tough as the average Broadleaf card.<br /><br />Donlin12<br />Donnelly12<br />Downey12<br />McCarthy12<br />Pelty12<br />Peters12<br />Houser13<br />Kuhn14<br />Mogridge14<br />Ragan14<br />Sweeney14<br />Tyler14<br />Woodburn14<br />Butcher15<br />Hartley15<br />Hyatt15<br />Rath15<br />Works15<br />Adams16<br />Fournier16<br />Miller, Ward16<br />Rasmussen16<br />Almeida17<br />Birmingham17<br />Blanding17<br />Lange17<br />Bauman18<br />Bushelman18<br />Ellis18<br />Kelly18<br />Ryan18<br />White18<br />Kling19<br />Lewis, Irv19<br />Miller, Roy19<br />Nelson19<br />Carrigan20<br />Cunningham20<br />Higgins20<br />Kirke20<br />Moore20<br />Phelan20<br />Stovall20<br />Wilson, Owen20<br />Graham21<br />Miller, Otto21<br />Nunamaker21<br />Scott21<br />Steele21<br />Sullivan21<br />Wood21<br />Benz22<br />Blackburne22<br />Hoff22<br />Mitchell (CIN)22<br />Thomas22<br />Kutina23<br />Saier23<br />Smith, Frank23<br />Engle24<br />Lowdermilk24<br />McKechnie24<br />Moriarty24<br />Cicotte25<br />McIntyre25<br />Morgan, Ray25<br />Gregg26<br />Wingo26<br />Zeider26<br />Block27<br />Schardt27<br />Schulte27<br />Callahan28<br />Drake28<br />Henry28<br />Herzog28<br />Hooper28<br />Knetzer28<br />Wallace28<br />George29<br />Tooley29<br />Easterly30<br />Gowdy30<br />Hageman30<br />Northen30<br />Perdue30<br />Quinn30<br />Snodgrass30<br />Spratt30<br />Wagner30<br />Weaver30<br />Hall31<br />McDonald31<br />Mitchell (CLE)31<br />Rucker31<br />Hogan32<br />Speaker32<br />Williams32<br />Hamilton33<br />Leifield33<br />Lord, Harry33<br />Bodie34<br />Danforth34<br />Lapp34<br />Leach34<br />Lewis, Duffy34<br />Miller, John34<br />Scanlon34<br />Smith, Wallace34<br />Stack34<br />Strunk34<br />Collins35<br />Oakes35<br />Barger36<br />Daubert36<br />Marsans36<br />Morgan, Cy36<br />Paskert36<br />Severoid36<br />Warhop36<br />Bescher37<br />Hallinan37<br />Lord, Bris37<br />Needham37<br />O'Toole37<br />Stanage37<br />Daniels38<br />Erwin38<br />Evans38<br />Fromme38<br />Tannehill38<br />Barry39<br />Camnitz39<br />Clarke39<br />Ainsmith40<br />Bradley40<br />Derrick40<br />Henriksen40<br />Mullin40<br />Wilson, Arthur40<br />Davis41<br />Golden41<br />Graney41<br />McIntire41<br />O'Brien41<br />Steinfeldt41<br />Ball42<br />Cole42<br />Coulson42<br />Krause42<br />Oldring42<br />Vaughn42<br />Kaler43<br />Reulbach43<br />Doyle44<br />Fisher44<br />Lennox44<br />Tinker44<br />Carey46<br />Ferry46<br />McLean46<br />Simon46<br />Wheat46<br />Chance47<br />Moran47<br />Gainor48<br />Turner48<br />Konetchy49<br />Yerkes49<br />Austin50<br />Crandall50<br />Harmon50<br />Livingston50<br />Olson50<br />Fletcher51<br />Gardner51<br />Wolverton51<br />Covington52<br />Walker53<br />Latham55<br />McBride55<br />Becker56<br />Milan56<br />Bender57<br />Byrne57<br />Devlin57<br />Chalmers59<br />Devore60<br />Delehanty61<br />Lively61<br />Street61<br />Wilie64<br />Schaefer66<br />Dooin69<br />Wiltse69<br />Knabe74<br />Marquard75<br />Bresnahan80<br />McGraw81<br />Johnson89

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>S Gross</b><p>Thanks for the info -- greatly appreciated. I just ordered the back issues of VCBC. I picked these up because I need them, but how great is it that they are two rare backs !!!!<br /><br />Kinda' funny (although explainable) that Johnson is the most "common" card on Tim's list .....<br /><br /><img src="http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a296/mybuddyinc/t207/t207johnson.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />One thing I find interesting as I look at Tim's comprehensive population report is that hofers are mainly at the bottom of the list meaning they're more likely to be found by us collectors.<br /><br />Now, do we attribute this to:<br /><br />1.) The theory that says more hofers survived because old time collectors/consumers were more likely to hold onto a popular player of the time.<br /><br />2.) Were more hofers printed and distributed with Recruit backs then common players similar to what we see with Scot Reader's "superprint theory?" <br /><br />3.) Is it purely reflective of the hofers being present with Recruit backs which were just more common than the other backs?<br /><br />4.) Is it a combination of all these ideas?<br /><br />I have found the first theory to ring true with small caramel sets where all the different players were printed together on sheets, but of course the sets that I'm thinking of don't have back variations like this larger set.<br /><br />Any ideas?<br /><br />Rob<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p><br />Rob,<br /><br />Interesting post.<br /><br />The Hall of Famers who were established stars before 1912 were:<br /><br />Tinker 44<br />Chance 47<br />Bender 57<br />Bresnahan 80<br />McGraw 81<br />Johnson 89<br /><br />Seems like a pretty wide gulf between the top three and the bottom three if they were all printed in equal numbers.<br /><br />Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>that Rob has asked-- we could speculate all night on it. My guess is that Rob's #1 is most operative, though the others might also be to a degree. <br /><br />Another point that hasn't been mentioned is the strong present-day tendency to grade HOF cards where commons might be left ungraded. As I remember, the PSA/SGC population reports, which I don't have in front of me, exhibited an even stronger slant toward HOFer cards in this set compared to commons. <br /><br />I suspect it's largely a combination of both early and present-day collecting patterns. Actually maybe we have to say that it's a continuous timeline of likelihood or unlikelihood of being saved: at every moment between 1912 and contemporary collecting, it was more likely that cards of players whose names were recognized would have been saved, compared to players totally forgotten. <br /><br />It would be interesting to examine closely the careers of the players in a set like this through 1911. The HOF was not even a gleam in anyone's eye at that point, but you could come up with a "most likely to be saved" category of player that would include all the HOFers at the bottom of the scarcity list (McGraw, Bresnahan, Johnson, Marquard) plus some stars who looked like potential immortals in 1911-12 (Rucker, Schulte, Dooin, Doyle, Reulbach, etc.) and see if we could determine any patterns of scarcity that were distinct from the retrospective category of HOFer. Wheat, Carey, Hooper and Speaker were all just starting out in 1912 and couldn't have been considered any more likely to become immortal than two or three dozen other guys at the same stage of their careers. <br /><br />Concerning the "super-print theory," in the case of T207 I doubt the HOFers were printed in greater numbers than the other players in their "series." Wallace, Speaker, and Hooper I have speculated were in the second Recruit "series" of 50, printed in smaller quantities along with the rest of that group. <br /><br />There are, of course, some sets that did double or triple print stars-- most notably R316 Kashin (where Ruth appears four times as often as the rest of the cards) and M116 Sporting Life (where the star-heavy first series was clearly reprinted many times over to satisfy continued demand). <br /><br />Do we know whether any of the caramel sets did that?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p><br />I will only add that there is no doubt in my mind that precisely six T206 subjects were superprinted since, beyond the strong indication from the PSA population report, these six subjects alone appear both with backs that are otherwise found only on 350-only subjects (e.g. American Beauty 350 with Frame; Carolina Brights) and backs that are otherwise found only on 460-only subjects (e.g. Sovereign 460; Sweet Caporal 460 Factory 30). It doesn't seem a stretch that T207 may have followed suit. Superprinting The Big Train may have sold a few more of those little cigars, after all. Scot