T207 Anonymous back questions

[Archive]

Posted By: S Gross

Just picked up these two t207 anonymous back (LA3) cards.




Interestingly, both players are "Recruit/Napoleon" subjects, as opposed to "Broadleaf/Cycle" subjects. I know all B/C subjects can have Anon. backs, yet not all R/N's can have them.
My questions:
1 -- What is the realitive rarity of R/N vs. B/C Anon. backs???
2 -- Are there any R/N Anon. 25 backs known???
3 -- Is it assumed that both R/N and B/C Anon. cards were printed in the same batch???
4 -- Any other thoughts .....

(love Sullivan's "What ever it is, I didn't do it" look, verus H. Lord's "Yeah, you caught me, I did it" look)

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

1. It is believed that all cards CAN exist with an Anonymous Fact 3 back. There are no cards with Broadleaf/Cycle/Anon. 25 backs which also have Recruit/Napoleon backs and vice-versa.
2. No
3. No
4. The theory exists that ANY card in the set can have an Anon. Factory 3 back because there are Fact. 3 backs on both the R/N cards and the B/C/A25 cards but this has never been proven to be true. The Factory 25 cards were printed in Virginia, the Fact. 3s in Louisiana.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

My 207 anon. Buck Weaver psa 5 has a common anon. back stating Factory N. 25nd Dist. Va.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Looking back at my article in VCBC from a couple of years ago:


1 -- What is the realitive rarity of R/N vs. B/C Anon. backs???
See below for a complete list of the cards as they appeared in my survey.


2 -- Are there any R/N Anon. 25 backs known???
No, as Bob indicates-- there are no such animals known. The Weaver Mike mentions is a B/C card, so it does appear with the Anon-25 back.

3 -- Is it assumed that both R/N and B/C Anon. cards were printed in the same batch???
My guess is yes, essentially-- that all the Anon backs were printed in the same series, later in the 1912 issue year. All the B/C Anons were printed at Factory 25, but for some reason Factory 3 printed both B/C and R/N cards with Anon backs.

4 -- Any other thoughts .....
I can't agree that all R/C cards can be found with Anon-3 backs. My survey of 6800 T207s found only about 23 different Recruit cards with the Anon-3 backs. Every one of these 23 players appeared less often than the average Recruit-backed card. There was not a single exception to this pattern.

To explain this, I propose in the article that there may have been two "series" of Recruit-backed cards issued, one of 100, and a second one of 50 issued in smaller numbers. Only this "second series" was issued with Anon-3 backs. I believe, therefore, that only 50 players of the R-N group will ever be found with the Anon-3 back.

The Anon backs are extremely scarce, constituting about 1% of all R/N cards. Napoleons constituted about 2.25%

Here's a bit of the data from the survey, simply the player and the number of his cards that appeared in the survey. Recruit cards begin at 18 with Ellis, and several other Recruits appear to be as tough as the average Broadleaf card.

Donlin12
Donnelly12
Downey12
McCarthy12
Pelty12
Peters12
Houser13
Kuhn14
Mogridge14
Ragan14
Sweeney14
Tyler14
Woodburn14
Butcher15
Hartley15
Hyatt15
Rath15
Works15
Adams16
Fournier16
Miller, Ward16
Rasmussen16
Almeida17
Birmingham17
Blanding17
Lange17
Bauman18
Bushelman18
Ellis18
Kelly18
Ryan18
White18
Kling19
Lewis, Irv19
Miller, Roy19
Nelson19
Carrigan20
Cunningham20
Higgins20
Kirke20
Moore20
Phelan20
Stovall20
Wilson, Owen20
Graham21
Miller, Otto21
Nunamaker21
Scott21
Steele21
Sullivan21
Wood21
Benz22
Blackburne22
Hoff22
Mitchell (CIN)22
Thomas22
Kutina23
Saier23
Smith, Frank23
Engle24
Lowdermilk24
McKechnie24
Moriarty24
Cicotte25
McIntyre25
Morgan, Ray25
Gregg26
Wingo26
Zeider26
Block27
Schardt27
Schulte27
Callahan28
Drake28
Henry28
Herzog28
Hooper28
Knetzer28
Wallace28
George29
Tooley29
Easterly30
Gowdy30
Hageman30
Northen30
Perdue30
Quinn30
Snodgrass30
Spratt30
Wagner30
Weaver30
Hall31
McDonald31
Mitchell (CLE)31
Rucker31
Hogan32
Speaker32
Williams32
Hamilton33
Leifield33
Lord, Harry33
Bodie34
Danforth34
Lapp34
Leach34
Lewis, Duffy34
Miller, John34
Scanlon34
Smith, Wallace34
Stack34
Strunk34
Collins35
Oakes35
Barger36
Daubert36
Marsans36
Morgan, Cy36
Paskert36
Severoid36
Warhop36
Bescher37
Hallinan37
Lord, Bris37
Needham37
O'Toole37
Stanage37
Daniels38
Erwin38
Evans38
Fromme38
Tannehill38
Barry39
Camnitz39
Clarke39
Ainsmith40
Bradley40
Derrick40
Henriksen40
Mullin40
Wilson, Arthur40
Davis41
Golden41
Graney41
McIntire41
O'Brien41
Steinfeldt41
Ball42
Cole42
Coulson42
Krause42
Oldring42
Vaughn42
Kaler43
Reulbach43
Doyle44
Fisher44
Lennox44
Tinker44
Carey46
Ferry46
McLean46
Simon46
Wheat46
Chance47
Moran47
Gainor48
Turner48
Konetchy49
Yerkes49
Austin50
Crandall50
Harmon50
Livingston50
Olson50
Fletcher51
Gardner51
Wolverton51
Covington52
Walker53
Latham55
McBride55
Becker56
Milan56
Bender57
Byrne57
Devlin57
Chalmers59
Devore60
Delehanty61
Lively61
Street61
Wilie64
Schaefer66
Dooin69
Wiltse69
Knabe74
Marquard75
Bresnahan80
McGraw81
Johnson89

[Archive]

Posted By: S Gross

Thanks for the info -- greatly appreciated. I just ordered the back issues of VCBC. I picked these up because I need them, but how great is it that they are two rare backs !!!!

Kinda' funny (although explainable) that Johnson is the most "common" card on Tim's list .....

[Archive]

Posted By: robert a

Guys,

One thing I find interesting as I look at Tim's comprehensive population report is that hofers are mainly at the bottom of the list meaning they're more likely to be found by us collectors.

Now, do we attribute this to:

1.) The theory that says more hofers survived because old time collectors/consumers were more likely to hold onto a popular player of the time.

2.) Were more hofers printed and distributed with Recruit backs then common players similar to what we see with Scot Reader's "superprint theory?"

3.) Is it purely reflective of the hofers being present with Recruit backs which were just more common than the other backs?

4.) Is it a combination of all these ideas?

I have found the first theory to ring true with small caramel sets where all the different players were printed together on sheets, but of course the sets that I'm thinking of don't have back variations like this larger set.

Any ideas?

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Rob,

Interesting post.

The Hall of Famers who were established stars before 1912 were:

Tinker 44
Chance 47
Bender 57
Bresnahan 80
McGraw 81
Johnson 89

Seems like a pretty wide gulf between the top three and the bottom three if they were all printed in equal numbers.

Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

that Rob has asked-- we could speculate all night on it. My guess is that Rob's #1 is most operative, though the others might also be to a degree.

Another point that hasn't been mentioned is the strong present-day tendency to grade HOF cards where commons might be left ungraded. As I remember, the PSA/SGC population reports, which I don't have in front of me, exhibited an even stronger slant toward HOFer cards in this set compared to commons.

I suspect it's largely a combination of both early and present-day collecting patterns. Actually maybe we have to say that it's a continuous timeline of likelihood or unlikelihood of being saved: at every moment between 1912 and contemporary collecting, it was more likely that cards of players whose names were recognized would have been saved, compared to players totally forgotten.

It would be interesting to examine closely the careers of the players in a set like this through 1911. The HOF was not even a gleam in anyone's eye at that point, but you could come up with a "most likely to be saved" category of player that would include all the HOFers at the bottom of the scarcity list (McGraw, Bresnahan, Johnson, Marquard) plus some stars who looked like potential immortals in 1911-12 (Rucker, Schulte, Dooin, Doyle, Reulbach, etc.) and see if we could determine any patterns of scarcity that were distinct from the retrospective category of HOFer. Wheat, Carey, Hooper and Speaker were all just starting out in 1912 and couldn't have been considered any more likely to become immortal than two or three dozen other guys at the same stage of their careers.

Concerning the "super-print theory," in the case of T207 I doubt the HOFers were printed in greater numbers than the other players in their "series." Wallace, Speaker, and Hooper I have speculated were in the second Recruit "series" of 50, printed in smaller quantities along with the rest of that group.

There are, of course, some sets that did double or triple print stars-- most notably R316 Kashin (where Ruth appears four times as often as the rest of the cards) and M116 Sporting Life (where the star-heavy first series was clearly reprinted many times over to satisfy continued demand).

Do we know whether any of the caramel sets did that?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

I will only add that there is no doubt in my mind that precisely six T206 subjects were superprinted since, beyond the strong indication from the PSA population report, these six subjects alone appear both with backs that are otherwise found only on 350-only subjects (e.g. American Beauty 350 with Frame; Carolina Brights) and backs that are otherwise found only on 460-only subjects (e.g. Sovereign 460; Sweet Caporal 460 Factory 30). It doesn't seem a stretch that T207 may have followed suit. Superprinting The Big Train may have sold a few more of those little cigars, after all. Scot