T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>With printing errors 'abounding' in the T206 set with some salient examples<br />such as Shappe,Nodgrass,Murr'y,Toront,Sweeney no B on cap,perhaps Dopner<br />and Hemphill(missing first H), and the renowned Magie and Doyle 'Nat'l',<br />I find myself asking why the Magie and Doyle 'Nat'l' should be treated as<br />variations essential to completing the set. Certainly, none of the others<br />have this status. <br />I know the various arguments such as the Magie error was quickly discovered and immediately corrected but this doesn't seem to be sufficient to change my thinking. <br />Team change variations such as the Demmitt,O'Hara,Elberfeld, <br />Lundgren,etc. certainly must be included on the 206 checklist. Errors such as<br />noted above, including the Magie and Doyle Nat'l, are another story methinks.<br />I recognize that Magie's place on the checklist already has a long history behind it with key T206<br />collectors writing this history, all deserving respect for their efforts.<br />I also recognize that the Doyle Nat'l has had a much more debatable history<br />with key T206 collectors on both sides of the issue,even creating nuanced positions which are not reducible to one side or the other.<br />With the great work being done on the backs on this N54 site with some major reworking being done on the backs checklist, I would add that we also need to<br />do some rethinking of what we need to do with the errors including the Magie and Doyle Nat'l. Obviously, I'm not dealing with the color errors which<br />involve the cards missing one or more colors in the printing process(yes,<br />the Sweeney B probably falls into this 'color errors' category). <br />Any thoughts?<br />all the best,<br />Barry<br /><br /><br />

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>You leave out the most salient distinction between Magie/Doyle and the others: Magie/Doyle were errors made by the creators of the cards -- typographic errors -- that were negligently created and then subsequently intentionally edited. The others were caused by flaws in the actual printing process and thus much less interesting to me (and many other) T206 collectors. Lumping them all in as the same kind of printing error is not a persuasive basis upon which to claim that Magie and Doyle do not belong on the checklist. I own a Magie, with an "I" -- it is a different card with a different name than the Magee that shares its portrait. Nodgrass lost his S because of a flaw in the printing process itself and is more akin to a bubble on the paint of a card.

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>I agree 100%. Magie and Doyle Nat'l were created as such, as were the rarer team variations. These should be checklisted (as they currently are), and are needed to consider the T206 set complete.<br /><br />Cards with stray marks, missing letters, etc. are in the same category with those with missing ink -- they can be considered variations (or errors, or defects), but there is no reason to consider needing them to complete a set.

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I tend to agree with the distinction Paul made. Intentional changes are different from printing errors.<br />JimB

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Complete agreement here too. The Magie and Doyle are very significant errors that demanded a revised print run, while the others are nothing more than a little glitch in the process that caused some ink to be left out of a letter or even a serif.<br /><br />My opinion of the latter variations is they are grossly overrated, and are poor ways to spend money because they are so easy to fake that many bad ones will end up getting slabbed.<br /><br />If a rebacked Cobb with Drum back can't be detected, how on earth are the graders going to get these minute print errors right?

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I think the print variations are cool, but it seems like we have recently been scared by the possibility of fakes. I have a "Nodgrass" that I think must be real because a previous owner (presumably near the time of issue) hand wrote in the "S". So there are real ones out there.<br />JimB

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>There are undoubtedly real examples of each of those variations, but to sophisticated card alterers faking these is like taking candy from a baby. And you know the graders won't get them all right.

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>i agree the doyle & magie are in a seperate category...BUT, the other printing variations are still pretty rare.

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p>I will add to the chorus. Design errors/variations should be separately checklisted; printing errors/variations should not be. The former are more interesting because they were made consciously.

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>And what a resounding oppositional chorus it is!!!<br />Your fleshing out of the Magie,Doyle Nat'l nuance is, admittedly, very helpful. I appreciate your efforts.<br />The distinction between design errors and printing errors is pointed and<br />most illuminative. Also the element of intentionality with respect to the<br />Magie,Doyle Nat'l cases sings powerfully in your chorus.<br />I still wonder whether an error, be it design or printing, merits such singularity so as to gain position on the hallowed checklist.<br />Don't get me wrong. With Mr. Sloate, I have thought we have made a bit too<br />much of the various errors---and would simply enlarge his point to include<br />possibly the Magie and Doyle Nat'l. I would reiterate that I do appreciate<br />the errors and with Jim B find them cool, if you will. <br />I do have enough sense, hopefully, to respect and bend toward the resonance<br />and euphony of your chorus, as I continue to wonder.<br /><br />all the best,<br />Barry<br />

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Barry,<br />I could see an argument made that one could have a complete set without the error cards. It has been about 28 years now, but I remember there was a team error/variation on the '79 Topps Bump Wills card. A set without the rare error was still complete back then, although with an asterisk and obviously less desirable. I don't even know if anyone cares about that card anymore, but you see my point. I think the Magie and Doyle NY Nat'l are similar cases.<br />JimB

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I distinctly remember that Bump Wills card...in 1982, when I first started, it seemed like a big deal.<br /><br />I know all of these minor print variations are actively collected, but I feel that there are going to be many instances where a collector pays thousands of dollars for a Shappe or Nodgrass and then ultimately finds out it's a fake. And it's probably going to happen more often than we will want to hear about it.

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>Many thanks, JimB,(and Barry S.) for the very helpful historical precedent.<br />You do understand well what I am 'wondering'. Your example does bring some<br />corroboration to my position. The idea of the asterisk, given to the set without the Magie and Doyle Nat'l, makes perfect sense to me since the<br />2 cards do enjoy a significant history already in the collecting community and a highly interesting status in themselves.<br />I'm enjoying this 'wondering', Jim et al. Many, many thanks.<br /><br />all the best,<br />barry

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>You can remove the "Toront" from your list as there are no valid ones. All were made by greenhornet, the Nodgrass creator that should be SHOT!

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>many thanks, Dan.<br /><br />all the best,<br /><br />barry

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p>Barry A.,<br /><br />Let me first say that I have always appreciated your uniformly positive and thought-provoking posts. You are truly a gentleman and a scholar.<br /><br />I just wanted to add a few thoughts on why design and printing variations are treated differently. When you think about it, every T206 that rolled off the press almost a century ago was different--for example, in ink tones. The differences range from the almost undetectable to the easily noticed--but they are always there. Our discussion of Ritchey (No Dove) an Ritchey (Dove) a while back is illuminating. The differences in the dove-like cloud in the sky are so easily noticed that at first blush one is fooled into thinking it was the product of a conscious effort; however, after one looks at dozens of examples it becomes apparent that the differences are within manufacturing tolerances. Hence, we do not need to a Ritchey A and a Ritchey B in the Standard Catalog. On the other hand, someone at ATC clearly had a hand in deciding, albeit erroneously, that Sherry Magee spelled his name with an "i" and that Joe Doyle was actually Larry and played for the National League club. It is these uniquely human mistakes that we celebrate.<br /><br />Scot

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>Scot,<br />Your words are most kind and gratefully received.<br />Your finely crafted T206 monograph brought out the vintage scholar in<br />many of us and is continuing to transform T206 research and scholarship.<br />Thank you.<br />In response to your last entry on this thread, I must say that<br />your delineation of 'why design and printing variations are treated differently' is clearly and expertly articulated and very helpful.<br />Further, I appreciate very much the poignant way with which you close as you refer to the Magie and Doyle Nat'l design errors: "It is these uniquely human mistakes that we celebrate." I join you in this celebration.<br />I do continue to wonder if such celebration necessitates the cards' placement<br />on the T206 checklist rather than a separate errors list--an errata, if you will--<br />with design and printing errors differentiated with appropriate explanations.<br /><br />all the best,<br />Barry

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Barry,<br />It sure would be nice to NOT need a Doyle for my set. You got my vote. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />JimB

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>and now I know the meaning of serif (or alternatively, ceriph). Awesome.

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Never saw that alternate spelling. I just learned something, too!

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>BARRY A....et al<br /><br />Regarding these two T206 variations....when putting together my 1st set, I had high hopes of acquiring at least 522 cards (no Wagner,<br /> and Doyle error was known only to Fritsch). So, I did acquire a Magie (Vg) for $600 (mind you a nice T206 common was selling for $10<br /> back then). But, Plank became too prohibitive, as I had to put my Daughter's thru College. So, I was happy with my 521 card set.<br /><br />Subsequently, in doing my 2nd and 3rd T206 sets, I had no interest in the "Big Four", as I preferred to buy a "ton" of cards, rather than<br /> just the cost of a Magie (much less Doyle, Plank, and Wagner). I like to spend $$$$ on cardboard, just like everyone else; but, I draw<br /> the line on these 4 cards.<br /><br />Besides, I rationalize in my mind that the Joe Doyle (Piedmont 350) with the "printer's mark" (SERIF) is my "poor man's-wannabe Doyle error";<br />and, that's just fine with me.<br /><br />Currently, I avoid the "Big Four" by collecting T206 sets with T-brands other than Piedmont or Sweet Caporal....I highly recommend this style<br /> of collecting T206's.....it is certainly more affordable, and believe me just as much fun.<br /><br />TED Z <br />

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>Many,many thanks everyone for the very helpful comments and insights.<br />I assure you that they are being incubated.<br /><br />I personally think that we are at a very important crossroads in T206<br />scholarship,in large part due to Scot Reader's book which not only brought new pieces of the puzzle but created a larger newly designed puzzle. I hope that he knows that I, and many others, watch intently for each unfolding of the design. <br /><br />I have brought up the Magie/Doyle Nat'l issue because I think this is an<br />important piece of the larger puzzle that needs reconsideration. I learned<br />how important a task this can be in my work in textual criticism years ago.<br />JimB knows much better than I how a particular error in a manuscript may<br />appear to change key ideological elements for one generation of scholarship<br />and then become a footnote, a generation or two later. The very recent history of the Doyle Nat'l find makes me wonder about it, in this respect.<br />JimB and Barry S.'s citing of the '79 Topps Bump Will's card strikes a chord,<br />as I wonder about Magie and Doyle. Sometimes in the formation of a field of study, we realize that we have been to some degree simply accepting what we have been given or told and we decide to take a second look at things, with deep respect and<br />gratitude for all that has been provided before us.<br /><br />A broader issue than the Magie/Doyle Nat'l one but linked inextricably to it<br />is the issue of errors in general. I raise the issue because this is an<br />amorphous area which could use this or the next generation's definitional precision and clarity. As Barry S. strongly contended, we are in an era in which fakes abound, particularly in this arena of printing errors. Perhaps<br />a measured reining in of our financial preoccupation with anomalies (only to the point of definitional precision,e.g. an errata page---never to the point of taking away the joy of en'joy'ing the anomaly) might begin to help with the problem Barry S. and others note.<br /><br />all the best,<br />Barry<br /><br /><br /><br />

T206 checklist revisited
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Barry A. makes a good point about hobby knowledge that has been accepted for a generation or more as gospel but really deserves a reexamination. I think history is no different- many of the stories passed down over time are simply wrong and need revision.<br /><br />I like errors such as Nodgrass, and think they are very collectable. But with forgeries rampant in the hobby, what does it take to alter a card such as a Snodgrass, Murray, or Sharpe? Very little indeed, and for someone skilled in paper restoration, it would involve almost no effort at all. And if well done, it could easily escape detection by the grading services. That's why I recommend all collectors buy these cards with great caution.<br /><br />Doyles too are faked, as well as Magies, but they are much more difficult to do and they should be easily detected by an expert eye.