Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan
I appreciate what you are saying; however, by your definition this Ambrose Puttman card can be considered the "rarest"....as it's back is irrelevant.
TED Z
. |
No by my definition that still wouldn't qualify. That is clearly a t206 proof, not a t206 that was to be mass produced but changed in the process (Like the Doyle and Magie).
[QUOTE=tedzan;1363972]
Furthermore, you refer to a "typical" T206 collector....it's been my experience dealing with many T206 collectors for the past 33 years....that after they have put together a
near complete T206 set....it doesn't stop there.
The Monster has you "addicted". Many collectors will continue the hunt for player sub-sets with all their possible backs. Or, team sets of players with all their possible backs.
TED Z
I didn't refer to a "typical" t206 collector. I referred to a typcial t206 set collector. In which case the set is defined by one of each front with exclusion to what is on the back. There are tough front/back combos but they come into play for other subsets, in which case new "rarities" are defined. For instance if you are trying to build a set of just the backs, you may say the Old Mill Brown is the rarest, and Piedmont 350 is the easiest to find even though a Shaw Piedmont 350 isn't easy. So you are mixing two thought processes.
Your original statement about the rarest t206 being the Doyle is made in reference to building a front set not in regards to a full Master Set with all the front and back combos.