Quote:
Originally Posted by mdschulze
I don't know Ted or the history that he brings with him to the table... so I have no comment on that.
Here's my issue... I'm new into the T206 world and I rely on Net54 members almost exclusively for accurate info. I have witnessed over the last year or so who the "regular" contributors are and which ones who appear to have a wealth of experience and knowledge regarding the 206s.... I rely on their opinions and statements as gospel because of the experience factor. When I encounter a thread like this one that exposes inaccurate info, I now feel the conspiracy-theorist side of me kick in and I start to doubt the legitimacy of other threads regarding t206 info. The only saving grace are for other experts to chime in and correct these misleading posts... thank you for that!
So my questions are: 1) Are the majority of knoweldge based posts on this forum accurate and how confident should I be in the accuracy of obtained info from Net54? 2) Is there a verified, accurate and completed T206 master checklist with all front/back combos? 3) If one exists, can you PLEASE put me in the right direction to obtain it? Thanks guys!!
|
Here's my take on things in general. Assign them whatever level of belief you find comfortable.
1) Most of what you'll read here is fairly accurate/believed to be accurate by the poster when it's posted. In my limited experience, most of the fact based stuff is very reliable.
That being said, there's always something new being discovered/learned etc.
2)The superset list or Scott Readers info seems to be the best out there.
ANY list will have errors and shortcomings. Even with long established lists that are constantly reviewed by experts ther will be differences. Compare a Scotts stamp catalog to a Stanley Gibbons catalog and you'll see what I mean. And uncataloged cards still turn up after 100 years+ I'm sure there are also listed cards that don't exist. There was a thread about just that on the pre 1980 list, and I was amazed how many listed cards aren't really out there.
It makes me a bit sad to see things devolve like this. All the people involved have done some good work, and have workable theories. I do think that eventually we'll be able to get very close to proving a few things about T206. Doing that will require a major collaboration just to generate the raw data and fights like this won't help. (All of which hinges on my own theories which aren't ready for prime time just yet. )
Steve Birmingham