T205 Minor League Replacement Research

[T205 GB]

While researching a group of cards I noticed a pattern emerge from the group. After going through the entire list it became clear that I may have found the cards that gave up their spots for the ML's in the set, but there is more to it.

It has been long theorized that the SP's in the set were the sacrifice for the ML's. It is thought that the ML's are a later insert into the set which could mean that Hassan Fact 649 and PB's were printed during the last run. Its hard to grasp that considering that PB was a large run in both the T206 and the T205 set. Why would the ATC print a very large customer so late if this was the case? If it is true that the SP's were replaced by the ML's then why isn't there any of the SP's found with PB backs or the ML's found with a larger amount of PB backs since the run was large? I know it's far fetched but I think the below list of cards were printed first, the ML's then replaced those cards, and the SP's replaced the ML's.

The following cards I believe are part of a group printed together and are found without Hassan Fact 649 and have a lesser amount of PB backs printed for them and are the cards I believe to have been replaced by the ML's:

1. Barger Full B
2. Bender
3. Bresnahan Mouth Closed
4. Camnitz
5. Cobb
6. Kroh
7. Oldring
8. Smith
9. Street
10. Titus
11. Wallace No Cap**
12. Wilson





**The Wallace No Cap is the only card in the group that fits the pattern minus the AB. It is not out of the question to think that the Wallace could be found with an AB back due to the pattern and backs found with it.

I would like to hear any thought you my have in regards to this.
___________

[Leon]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

While researching a group of cards I noticed a pattern emerge from the group. After going through the entire list it became clear that I may have found the cards that gave up their spots for the ML's in the set, but there is more to it.

It has been long theorized that the SP's in the set were the sacrifice for the ML's. It is thought that the ML's are a later insert into the set which could mean that Hassan Fact 649 and PB's were printed during the last run. Its hard to grasp that considering that PB was a large run in both the T206 and the T205 set. Why would the ATC print a very large customer so late if this was the case? If it is true that the SP's were replaced by the ML's then why isn't there any of the SP's found with PB backs or the ML's found with a larger amount of PB backs since the run was large? I know it's far fetched but I think the below list of cards were printed first, the ML's then replaced those cards, and the SP's replaced the ML's.

The following cards I believe are part of a group printed together and are found without Hassan Fact 649 and have a lesser amount of PB backs printed for them and are the cards I believe to have been replaced by the ML's:

1. Barger Full B
2. Bender
3. Bresnahan Mouth Closed
4. Camnitz
5. Cobb
6. Kroh
7. Oldring
8. Smith
9. Street
10. Titus
11. Wallace No Cap**
12. Wilson





**The Wallace No Cap is the only card in the group that fits the pattern minus the AB. It is not out of the question to think that the Wallace could be found with an AB back due to the pattern and backs found with it.

I would like to hear any thought you my have in regards to this.
___________

Nice research and theory, Andrew. Unfortunately, I am not a set collector so can't help with the theory being proven or not. If this were a T206 thread it would now have 78 posts.

[obcmac]

Andrew,

First of all, it's great to see some discussion of the t205's.

I don't see any way that the Wallace no cap and bresnahan closed can be in the same class of cards. The style of the fronts and the population numbers both suggest that the grouping of pose variations (Barger partial, Bresnahan open, Collins open, Wallace no cap...etc) are all from the same series.

Are there cards other than the Wallace that fit the back pattern?

Mac

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by obcmac

Andrew,

First of all, it's great to see some discussion of the t205's.

I don't see any way that the Wallace no cap and bresnahan closed can be in the same class of cards. The style of the fronts and the population numbers both suggest that the grouping of pose variations (Barger partial, Bresnahan open, Collins open, Wallace no cap...etc) are all from the same series.

Are there cards other than the Wallace that fit the back pattern?

Mac

Wallace one line and the 2 line together make the back match. Wallace is found with all the correct backs to also have an AB possible. We know Wallace no cap was an error that was corrected in the print run so using both of them together make the match possible. Without a sheet or even a strip it's hard to say how they were printed.

In the last 4 yrs I have found with the help of a few guys that our thoughts about print patterns have flaws. Joss is a DP print side by side on Pied 25 and Collins open mouth is a quad print for the PB run found as a block of 4. With that being said it is possible that some cards were just printed in lesser quantities than others. Just so much we don't know about the 205's. That's the great thing about miscuts that have been found.

[obcmac]

It would be interesting to see all the data on miscuts grouped by back category. It seems many of the apparent SP's were multiple prints on specific sheets, but with lower overall population numbers.

I don't know if you'd agree....but I thought that most cards that have a different player next to them (top or bottom) seem to fall in the mid-to-high population levels and any player with the same player next to them, fell in the low ranges. This would indicate a significantly different approach between series.

I worry about any theory that doesn't account for population differences. Bresnahan is much much easier than Wallace...and he comes with the same back set, yet there is a big population difference. Double print in the same group is always a possibility, but not a satisfying one. Stuff to think about I guess.

Keep the theories and discussion going!

[T205 GB]

Pop reports are very inaccurate. I have seen on some cards such as Joss were there are just as many floating around raw as there are graded. Probably a bit more graded but I would say that an accurate count is not feasible without tons and tons of tracking and verification of individual cards.

The miscuts are few and most have Pied 25 backs. There are at least 12 PB backs I know of and a few SC. The PB don't give enough of the other card to determine the next but they are top to bottom miscuts and don't appear to have the same cards repeating.

Wallace is a highly collected variation and would be much scarcer because of this. Bresnahan is very possible to have been triple printed on a sheet accounting for the amount also. The 205 set is a very odd grouping and without data or a sheet/strips being found we can only try to prove our theories based on what research we can do.

[T205 GB]

Anyone else have opinions or thoughts on this. Would like more feedback or questions

[steve B]

I haven't looked at the population numbers for T205s.

But for what it might be worth, I have been looking at the numbers for T206 in as much detail as I can.

What I've found is that each individual HOF card is approximately double the population of a particular common. Not precisely since there's a lot of variance, but if a common in say P150 has 40 examples most HOFers with the same back will be around 80 examples. Some of the known rarities are more skewed towards being graded, for SGC the Magie is very nearly as common as Magee.

I'd think that the 2:1 ratio for HOF vs common would hold for T205 as well, and I'd expect the SPs and other tough cards to be graded much more often, depending on the percieved difficulty and value.

The replacement theory you have sounds entirely plausible. I haven't looked at the lists etc to be able to comment beyond that.

Steve B

[Rob D.]

Nevermind. Better to let the experts hash this out.

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Nevermind. Better to let the experts hash this out.

Rob you can PM me if you want.

[Wite3]

I don't have my notes in front of me because I am at work but I used to think that the short prints were the substitutions but Andrews research is sound on this if the wallace cards are combined.

It is important to note that cards like joss sweeney collins open etc were printed multiple times on one sheet they are still rare...the print runs for those sheets were probably much smaller than the other more common ones.

[T205 GB]

Error correction about the Collins mouth open: It is a side by side like Joss and not a quad block print.

Just found the card and wanted to clarify it. Either way its neat to find this stuff to help determine layouts and printing quantities with enough info and research

[EvilKing00]

love all this info on the T205s!

[marcdelpercio]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

If it is true that the SP's were replaced by the ML's then why isn't there any of the SP's found with PB backs or the ML's found with a larger amount of PB backs since the run was large? I know it's far fetched but I think the below list of cards were printed first, the ML's then replaced those cards, and the SP's replaced the ML's.
___________

Good research Andrew. I think that your theory is definitely plausible. I am curious though what you meant by the above quote regarding SP's not found with PB backs...or am I just misreading that? Which cards are you considering SP's as there are many that are generally regarded as such that are found with PB backs?

As others have said, it's good to see some T205 discussions!

[T205 GB]

Marc I have a thread from before naming only 12 true SP's in the set. All of these are only found with 3 backs being Pied 25, Hassan 30, and Cycles. Examples such as Bresnahan mouth open, Dahlen, Raymond, Joss, Donohue, Grant, and so on.

Yes there is some dispute as to what is considered a SP but I only count 12 true SP's and then there are toughies (5-7backs), commons (7-9backs), and super prints (11 backs). I would be more than happy to list them later (kinda busy with work and my list is packed away right now)

If you add the list of SP's and the ML's it matches the Toughies with 5 backs and most of them match all 5 backs found on them. The argument can be pop reports (which aren't that accurate) but realistically we don't know anything about print quantities yet.

[marcdelpercio]

I'd be really interested to see your lists again or a link to that thread as I'm having a tough time finding it for some reason.

Assuming that the 12 cards you listed in your original post were the ones that were replaced by the ML's and then the SP's, wouldn't you theorize that these cards would likely appear in much more limited quantities as well? Aside from the Wallace (no cap) and, to a far lesser extent the Titus, I would say that the other 10 cards on that list are some of the most commonly found in the entire set. I agree that population reports and such can often be misleading but from my own experience, I'd say that cards like Camnitz, Kroh, Oldring, and Smith, for example, are among the most common of the commons.

That said...very interesting theory and discussion!

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

I'd be really interested to see your lists again or a link to that thread as I'm having a tough time finding it for some reason.

Assuming that the 12 cards you listed in your original post were the ones that were replaced by the ML's and then the SP's, wouldn't you theorize that these cards would likely appear in much more limited quantities as well? Aside from the Wallace (no cap) and, to a far lesser extent the Titus, I would say that the other 10 cards on that list are some of the most commonly found in the entire set. I agree that population reports and such can often be misleading but from my own experience, I'd say that cards like Camnitz, Kroh, Oldring, and Smith, for example, are among the most common of the commons.

That said...very interesting theory and discussion!

Marc you might want to look at my old forum name Pup6913. If you search for threads by that it will pop up.

[Wite3]

Marc,
I can answer that...When I started my research, I focused on the rarer cards as replacements for the minor league cards but when you start to look at the back matrix, it just did not really add up.

The commons that Andrew listed (including Wallace when put together with the capped version which in my opinion is one of the easiest cards in the set) fit the back pattern nicely.

Here is a theory...lets say American Litho printed 500 sheets of the commons and then substituted the minor league cards later for a smaller run of 100 sheets. That would account for the relative ease of some and toughness of others.

The only thing I have not done yet is go through the cards Andrew listed and looked at the stats and write-ups yet to try to get a better handle on the dates of issue.

The minor leaguers were almost certainly issued in early 1912 just by reading the backs and looking at the times when the players played for the teams listed (not to mention the design change).

Joshua

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by Wite3

Marc,
I can answer that...When I started my research, I focused on the rarer cards as replacements for the minor league cards but when you start to look at the back matrix, it just did not really add up.

The commons that Andrew listed (including Wallace when put together with the capped version which in my opinion is one of the easiest cards in the set) fit the back pattern nicely.

Here is a theory...lets say American Litho printed 500 sheets of the commons and then substituted the minor league cards later for a smaller run of 100 sheets. That would account for the relative ease of some and toughness of others.

The only thing I have not done yet is go through the cards Andrew listed and looked at the stats and write-ups yet to try to get a better handle on the dates of issue.

The minor leaguers were almost certainly issued in early 1912 just by reading the backs and looking at the times when the players played for the teams listed (not to mention the design change).

Joshua

Josh it's based off the Wallace no cap with both variations. Wallace with cap has its own run of backs.

[obcmac]

I still don't buy the list with Wallace no cap on there. Here are the population totals (PSA I believe) from the last time I looked:

1. Barger Full B (158)
2. Bender (227)
3. Bresnahan Mouth Closed (220)
4. Camnitz (124)
5. Cobb (456)
6. Kroh (116)
7. Oldring (116)
8. Smith (124)
9. Street (136)
10. Titus (145)
11. Wallace No Cap** (combined 72/60)...(note 1 line is much harder, so 1:1 ratio probably indicates either regrading or biased sampling)
12. Wilson

 (116)

Before you dismiss population numbers, you will see that the total range of cards that are known to be printed together (ML'ers)...show remarkable similarity in population numbers (79-95 in my sample)

Now, if you look at potential pose variations, you see the following:
Barger (partial) 78
Bresnahan (open) 86
Collins (open) 110
Harmon (left) 74
Ford (black/white) 83/85
Shean/Graham variations also fall within the range.

So we have the pose variations line up nicely...so the question is...does the Wallace belong with the other group based on back analysis alone, or should it belong with the pose variation group? When you consider HOF bias in grading, as well as some variation bias, inflated relative population of the 1 line back, I think the combined population of the Wallace no cap is most similar to the pose variations group.

I believe that when you consider the populations, known relative difficulties, and stylistic matching, it's much more likely that the Wallace no cap should be grouped with pose variations rather that the group proposed by Andrew.

Would any dedicated T205 guy suggest a Bresnahan Mouth closed is in the same class as the Wallace based on experience?

The problem with back analysis is that any grouping of sheets can be printed with any back. The ultra rare seemingly common backs suggest that leftover sheets were used when changing the back advertising...resulting in just a few cards with these particular backs. Overall I feel like the evidence on the front of the cards is more convincing for this reason...though I enjoy hearing the theory on why the backs suggest another theory.

Mac

[T205 GB]

The Wallace no cap we know was an error that was corrected at some point in the run. It could very well be the case that Wallace was printed in lesser quantities. Your arguement that Wallace's pop numbers hold no water when you have Cobb at nearly 2X the amount of all the others. If you add the one line and two line together the numbers match. It's the same card just one was a corrected error.

Bresnahan to Wallace is all opinion!

[Zach Wheat]

I think this directly relates to the fact that Factory #649 was in the process of being shut down and located closer to NYC. There has been a lot of research done on this issue as Factory #649 seemingly disappeared for a couple of year. Ultimately it would be moved to Brooklyn at the area that later became known as the House of Mecca.

I think this also explains why we see some of the same anomalies in other sets like T201, T206 etc. I do not have access to my notes as I am out of the country, but can look up when I get back.

z Wheat

[obcmac]

Cobb very possibly was double or triple printed...and the survival and grading rates might be higher. My point isn't that all the other cards on your list are from the same category, but that there is evidence to suggest Wallace is different from the others. I would guess Cobb is too, but that is purely a numbers argument without corroborating front evidence.

Originally Posted by T205 GB

The Wallace no cap we know was an error that was corrected at some point in the run. It could very well be the case that Wallace was printed in lesser quantities. Your arguement that Wallace's pop numbers hold no water when you have Cobb at nearly 2X the amount of all the others. If you add the one line and two line together the numbers match. It's the same card just one was a corrected error.

Bresnahan to Wallace is all opinion!

[T205 GB]

Mac I am curious about Front Evidence or Grouping. I am not following you on this. I would love to hear more and see what is going on with fronts since I am a back guy myself