T206 Prices... Article by Buck Barker

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bruce Dorskind</b><p>Posted for Bruce...<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1216169349.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Adam</b><p>Interesting, what year was that published? <br /><br />I wonder why the author cites 1908-1909 (instead of 1909-1911) as the years for T206s?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>neat! Thanks Bruce(s)!<br /><br />Rob<br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>Just judging from that opening paragraph, I'm amazed ANY of the Bruces would enjoy such an article! Well, perhaps in some sarcastic way.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Great article. It really conveys the feeling of the hobby back in those days. It may have been an oversight, but he did not even mention Drum and he misspelled Usit (sic). If I remember correctly, Burdick misspelled Usit also in the ACC.<br />JimB<br /><br /><br />Edited to add:<br /><br />Bruce,<br />Thanks for sharing this with us.<br />JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Pcelli60</b><p>His words and message ALL lost on the collectors of today..The Hobby is so totally changed with the loss of such purity..There is NO turning back..

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Interesting how certain cards were considered more valuable then than today. For example, Barker feels minor leaguers were more valuable than common major leaguers. And he valued Demmitt and O'Hara over Magie. He also cited Demmitt, NY as a scarce card. I guess there wasn't enough information regarding relative rarity.<br /><br />$2.00 for a Magie? $25-50 for a Wagner? It seems impossible to believe.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>I don't see any mention of the Doyle error, unless he made a mistake and put the Demmitt in there twice. Was the Demmitt NY considered valuable at one time? Maybe he just made a typo or something.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The Doyle hadn't been identified yet. That was discovered in the 1980's.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>I guess I got confused by the Sen. Russell thread a week or so ago. Ted Z. seemed adamant that these "founding fathers" would not have missed this variation. Was it L.Fritsch who discovered the Doyle variation in the 80's?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob D.</b><p>I have the utmost repsect for the work of Burdick, Barker, Carter, et al. Yet when I read Barker propogating the myth that the T206 Wagner card was pulled because of Wagner's opposition to smoking, I'm reminded that a blind allegiance to their body of work isn't a wise idea.<br /><br />The "founding fathers" aren't above reproach, no matter how some might want to spin it today.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>BARRY S and PAUL S<br /><br />1st....It appears that Buck Barker was not fully aware all the T206 Minor Leaguers (ML).....<br /><br />"a lot of 84 minor leaguers (out of 95)".<br /><br />As we now know, there a 86 ML's and 48 SL's.<br /><br />2nd....Apparently, these old hobby veterans like Barker, Burdick, Carter, etc. were not aware of the Russell collection.<br /><br />3rd....This brings us to a very important question.....Was Larry Fritsch aware of Russell's collection; and therefore, he<br />had fore-knowledge of the Joe Doyle error card ?<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>We'll never know if Fritsch was aware of the Russell collection unless his son can shed some light.<br /><br />The story I heard, and it may not be completely true, is that Fritsch discovered it accidentally while going through a collection, quietly put it aside, and then proceeded to run classified ads offering above market prices for all Doyle cards. He figured it would be worth it since it might uncover one or more examples of the unknown variation.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>thank you Bruce.<br /><br />that was a very enjoyable read.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Is my understanding correct....Larry Fritsch actually had two Joe Doyle error cards....<br /><br />1st....His initial one and then Bill Huggins found one (in the mid-'80s) and Fritsch acquired it.....<br /><br />or,<br /><br />2nd....Fritsch acquired a 2nd one; and, Bill Huggins' Joe Doyle error card was the 3rd one.<br /><br />What do you recall ?<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>Who was this "fellow" who was paying the crazy sum of $5 for Ty Cobb backed cards? Considering approx. half of the surviving examples of the TC back were found relatively recently in a book, it's odd they didn't place more value on it. I wonder how many they had seen up to that point in time. This is from the 60's right?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>From what I heard, and this could be incorrect, after Fritsch got the first, his aggressive advertising led to a second.<br /><br />And the one Huggins found was the first that was announced publicly. After Huggins' find word came out that Fritsch was well aware of the variation and had quietly secured his pair. But I only know this second hand. Does that sound right?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>andy becker</b><p>barry, that's exactly the way i have heard it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p>The story is that he found the one around 1980 while looking thru a collection,put out the ad buying Doyle cards for over market value but couldnt find another until House of Cards(Huggins) found one and put it in their May 1987 auction. That card was won by Fritsch for $10k as by now he assumed it was the only other example of his card which he incorrectly assumed was a unique card previously. He had to have both of them and paid a hefty sum.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>ANYONE....I reiterate my earlier question here regarding this card and Larry Fritsch......<br /><br />"This brings us to a very important question.....Was Larry Fritsch aware of Sen. Russell's collection; and therefore, he<br />had fore-knowledge of the Joe Doyle error card ?<br /><br />I met Larry several times up in Cooperstown (where he had a BB card shop and a BB card museum) in the early 1990's.<br /> A very interesting guy. Had I known of the Russell Collection back then, I would have asked him this question.<br /><br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>Ted, while I can't answer your question from first hand knowledge (I also met Larry a few times as I grew up a mere 20 miles from Cooperstown), I believe we can deduce that Larry was NOT aware of the Russell collection from what we know of Larry's finding of the Doyle.<br /><br />First, we know (or it is believed) that Larry discovered and acquired his first Doyle while looking through a collection he acquired. Since we know Larry acquired his first Doyle through this collection, we know that he was not merely looking through the Russell collection since the Russell collection still has its Doyle (and that Doyle was not acquired by Larry).<br /><br />Secondly, we know (or it is rumored) that Larry believed his Doyle was unique after being unable to acquire another through his advertising. That is, until, the Huggins auction. So, since Larry thought his Doyle was unique, it would lend credence to the fact Larry did not know of the Russell collection (or at least the existence of a Doyle in there) since had he known of Russell's Doyle, we would have known it was not unique.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p> Its highly doubtful Larry would've paid 10k back in 1987 for a card that wasn't a 2 of 2 like he stated. If there were 2 beforehand,one being his and the other being the Russell one, he could've probably had the Russell one for a lot less than $10,000. He bought the 2nd one as I stated,thinking it was just that,the 2nd one in existence and first one found since 1980. He paid that extreme amount to corner the market,not to have one more than someone else

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>Barker used to stamp the back of his cards, as well as date them in pencil.<br /><br />my Garter (which i've already mentioned is in Mastro's Live Auction) used to belong to him<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1216220166.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>The fact that Larry Fritsch did not acquire the Russell Doyle is moot (in my opinion).<br />As, once an item (yes, this includes a BB card) is dedicated to a museum (or similar<br />type of institution), there is NO-WAY anyone can purchase it....not even Larry Fritsch.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>"Considering approx. half of the surviving examples of the TC back were found relatively recently in a book, it's odd they didn't place more value on it."<br /><br />Remember, at this time there were only six Wagners known.<br />JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Even if Fritsch knew of the Russell collection, he may not have noticed the Doyle variation if he saw it before recognizing the first one in the early 1980s. It could easily be missed when quickly flipping through 400+ T206s if knowledge of the variation did not even exist at the time.<br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Having met and talked BB cards with Larry Fritsch, I have to strongly disagree with you.<br />Nothing got passed this guy....I wish he was still alive.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>Ted and Jim - First, the Russell collection was not even donated (or found in the donated materials) until 1983. Larry found his first Doyle in 1980. So, I would believe that Larry knew of the Doyle before he ever could have even viewed the Russell collection even assuming the Russell collection was available for viewing immediately after its' donation.<br /><br />Ted - I agree with you when you said that Larry could probably not have acquired the Russell Doyle had he known about it since it was donated and part of a collection. However, the more important issue is that Larry thought his example was unique until 1987, so I still find it unlikely he viewed the collection or knew about Russell's Doyle until at least after 1987.<br /><br />Also, you specifically asked whether Larry had fore-kowledge of the Russell Doyle. I think the answer still almost a most definite no - he had no fore-knowledge. Again, since the Russell collection was not even donated until 1983, Larry could not have seen it before 1983 at the earliest. Larry found his first Doyle before 1983.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Red</b><p>The catalog number assigned to the white border set in the 1936 edition of the The US Card Collectors Catalog was #521, and in the description for the set they list the number of known cards at 521 cards. Coincidence? They still referred to it as set number 521 in the April 1942 Card Collectors bulletin. Some time between then and the 1946 edition(and change of name to The American Card Catalog), the white border set was now listed as having 522 cards and had its 521 catalog number changed from 521 to T206. Ty Cobb as a back possibility was not listed in the 1939 or 1946 editions. In the 1953 edition Ty Cobb was added as a possible back to T206. Hustler, which was listed as a possible back in 39,46,53, was removed in the 1960 edition. Ty Cobb remained as a possible back in the 1960 edition. So if the person who created and maintained the T206 classification decided to include Ty Cobb in the T206 set then in memory of Jefferson Burdick no T206 should be considered complete without the fifth Cobb. Time to rearrange those pages and make room for another card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>J Hull</b><p>What a fascinating read. One thing seems pretty clear -- that we today with the Internet and eBay and card shows and conventions and numerous major well-publicized auctions every year have far, far more information and experience (virtual and real) seeing T206s than the “founding fathers” ever could have. They really were piecing together answers with very limited tools.<br /> <br />I find it interesting that Mr. Barker lumps Ty Cobb, Lenox (misspelled Lennox), Uzit (misspelled Usit), and Carolina Brights together as approximately equal in rarity. Interesting also that, as was said earlier, there’s no mention of Drum, or of Broad Leaf or Red Hindu. <br /> <br />I thought the population of Ty Cobb backs was very small, say a dozen or so, and that a handful had been found at one time in an old book long after Barker wrote this article. How is it that Barker knew as much, or more, about a back with a scarcity at that level as he did Uzit or Lenox or Drum or Broad Leaf?<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Red</b><p>Can Bob Lemke add anything to my recollection of another side story about the Doyle? When Larry discovered the Doyle he wanted to have the card added to the checklist for the T206 set in the guide. The issue came up of not knowing if what he had was unique from some sort of proof, or if he did in fact discover a new very rare regular issue card. At the time for it to be recognized as a "real card" and worthy of being listed in the guide as a card in the T206 set, they needed confirmation that other's existed and it wasn't just some printer's proof scrap. So the Doyle buy ads started and the search began to find another card like his discovery piece. Another card was found and they had what they needed to add a new card to the T206 checklist. The unissued Collins is an example of a "card" that never made it.