T206 upside down backs "should they be on the back run?"

[mrvster]

I just have to do it.....i have been thinking about this for a while....i feel an "upside down" t206 back should be included as part of a back collection/run...yes, they are extremely tuf!! but they are out there with some hard core searching....we don't have to differentate if it is a "4" back ect, just upside down back.....

Why not????

blank back, old mill brown, brown lenox, cobb....are all on the list

Why not


i feel they should below bl 460 in rarity just over uzit....




Thoughts????

[alanu]

If you include the upside down back, haven't you just doubled the back types since there could be an upside down back for each regular back.

[ullmandds]

[Jaybird]

[ullmandds]

very nice Jason!

[carrigansghost]

For the first and more than likely the last time, I have to agree with a certain board memember, Peter, if T206's bother you, then why do you respond to all of their threads?

Never met you or had any dealings with you, just interested.

Rawn

[wonkaticket]

I vote no.

I think the back set should be broken down into 3 types.

#1 One of each type of brand (Basic Set)

#2 One of each type of brand with each series and color this means Brown Lenox, BL460 etc. (Master Set)

#3 Same as number (Master Set #2) plus Brown Old Mill, upside downs, miscuts and crazy stuff...we can call this the (You Need Help Set), or (Ultra Set.)

Just my thoughts....

Cheers,

John

[ullmandds]

Can't one be called a "super" set?

[wonkaticket]

Sure but Ultra sounds way more cool! IMO.

[atx840]

For me a full back run has all backs up to and including the BL460.

An Ultra back run should add non production cards but not include "errors". This consists of the blank back and both Br Lenox/OM. I don't consider either one an intentional production color change, possibly more of a test run.

Cobb for me is an advertising piece that was given out, not part of the set.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by atx840

For me a full back run has all backs up to and including the BL460.

An Ultra back run should add non production cards but not include "errors". This consists of the blank back and both Br Lenox/OM. I don't consider either one an intentional production color change, possibly more of a test run.

So then you feel Red-Hindu is also a test run? If you pull Brown Lenox you might as well pull Red-Hindu. We know about as much about why Hindu got put out in Red as we know about why Lenox got issued in Brown.....just a thought...

[atx840]

What about the blank backs? Non issued I would say. Do we really consider the Br Lenox to be a color change approved by ALC or just a one off batch like the OMs?

Johnny maybe you need to start an error run/checklist subset

Being that there are plenty of blank backs, but no blank fronts I'd assume the fronts are printed first and upright. It's possible then that the sheet was flipped so the backs were added with the fronts upside down. This would lead to the backs being considered upside down.

[atx840]

Originally Posted by E93

The upside down back is an error. The others are not.
JimB

P.S. The Cobb back does not appear to be a point of sale hand out promotion. Since half of the know examples have tobacco staining, it is fair to presume they were packaged with the tobacco/cigarettes. Ads dating from Feb/March 1910 advertising the brand suggest it came out two years before the tins that have tax stamps dating to 1912. My guess is the tins are a different brand from the "Ty Cobb: King of the Smoking Tobacco World" brand. I have an article that is going to be on T206resource.com soon that goes into more detail on these issues.

Makes sense, and no known ty cobb packs have been located? That would be a very important find.

[atx840]

Never thought about the reds, I guess due to them being not overly rare considering and multiple examples of each (I think) this was a deliberate change similar to the apple greens.

A Br Lenox and Black Lenox can be found with the same front (Cobb off, Jordan, Lajoie etc) but not with the Hindus or apples. I feel this brown batch was a test or wrong color put on one/two or sheets and that's it.

I also am a novice to these types of things

[E93]

My guess is that they ran out of black ink on one of the runs and said, "WTF, lets just run some with brown until we get more black ink tomorrow." Of course this is conjecture, but if something like that is true, it would make it a legit back variation. I think Wonka (Hi John), makes a great comparison with the red Hindus.
JimB

[mrvster]

...please play around / add/ delete move ect...

rarity ranking....i say rarity because they are ALL rare....

THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE AND I'm GOING TO TAKE A STABBER and half asleep



note: these errors are GENERAL classifications...


I HAVE A SNOW FLAKE THEORY....each printer scrap is unique unto itself..and can vary greatly in value....they are so rare that price cannot be determined and rarity is a relative term...some just can not be classified such as my kruger scraps, and multiple problem / one of a kind scraps, they are just un classifiable, too many issues with the card...these cards are in a catagory by themself...IMPOSSIBLE

MAYBE MULTI - WHAMMYS?????????????????



HERE we GO:


1) brown om or cobb(both same rarity)


2)blank backed proof with design change(leon's matty)

3)blank back proof w no design change


4) ghost image front different player/overprint /multi stamp / print ect(CAN BE SCRAP OR FACT ISSUED)*****not "wet stacked" and ACTUALLY PRINTED

example: downey overprint front/ my bender/ my chance cycle over print front ect....

5) ghost image back overprint/multi print( CAN BE SCRAP OR FACT ISSUED) ****not wet stacked....WEIMER, CHANCE, GILBERT, anything directly PRINTED at factory


6) top to bottom front miscut showing a different player(like jamie hull's example) can be scrap or factory cut, they are just impossible

7) full caption jump(del howard/randall) totally outside border and in picture

8)front player miscut side to side showing another player being able to destinguish the player(either fact cut or scrap, they are near impossible)


9) severe front miscut top to bottom (jordan/knight)


10) all missing color scrap- ghost faces/ sever color missing

11)yellow browns / depeds on back/amount of color missing

12) blank back problems on front

13) blank back no problems on front

14)upside down printer scraps/ 4 or 2 backs ect(have to be PRINT SCRAP since we have to include a fact cut example on the mainsteam list( 4 backs are tufer than 2




the top 14 listed are near impossible cards and i'm sure i'm missing some / tired right now....here are the "less " dramatic sub set
15) missing magentas


16) fact back stamp

17) front miscut showing different player name

18) severe back miscuts 25% or more (top to bottom tufer than side to side)

19) double exposure front ghosts w next player negative present on either side or top to bottom, they are tufer

20)double exposure ghost front same player

21) missing color (magentas) fact cut- sweeney no b boston players ect

22) font/plate problems- hemphill, nodgrass, ect

23) printers crop marks, the bigger the better

24) missing color pass one or more cards are fact cut

25) side to side miscut front small portion/top to bottom front not as tuf as side to side


26) color variations orange back grounds quality control/color shifts/ drunken registers

27) wet stacked fronts/backs(the more dramatic the better)

28) same player name top to bottom front(full name at top and bottom scarcer)



remember, this is just a rough draft slapped together, please add delete move or help

PEACE

JOHNNY v

[Blitzu]

Johnny, I respect the time and effort you put into that list but I think you're comparing apples to orangs and have strayed too far from the concept of a "back" list. I still don't see any reason why the current list needs to modified. Nothing new has been identified to prompt a change. But, for a sublist it's nice.

Jared

[Rob D.]

The idea that one of the larger lithographic companies in the United States ran out of black ink is indeed an interesting theory.

[E93]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

The idea that one of the larger lithographic companies in the United States ran out of black ink is indeed an interesting theory.

Anything is possible. Alternatively, maybe someone running the press one night grabbed dark brown instead of black by mistake. Either way they would be legitimate variations.

On a related note, I think we will find many more examples of the brown Lenox back. It is only very recently becoming widely known in the hobby, and I am sure there are examples that have gone unnoticed in collections for decades.
JimB

[atx840]

I agree it most definitely is a true back variation and not considered an error. I also think its different then the red Hindu or apple backs as those variations are exclusive to specific players for their colors. Br Lenox are not.