How Did the Mitchell "Toront" Ever Get Cataloged

[Pat R]

First of all in my opinion no card that is missing a letter or part of a letter
should be cataloged as an error but supposedly there should be several
confirmed examples of a card to even get considered for cataloging.
img844.jpg

As far as I know there is only one Mitchell "Toront" example and that one
is from T206 museum.
Mitchell Toront.jpg
Mitchell Toront crop.jpg

[steve B]

I think the catalog went with "error" as a catchall term for "recurring things that aren't normal"

If it's genuine, and I say if mostly because I haven't seen the card or a really good scan, I'd say it's an error, as much as the other listed errors like Dopner and Shappe and Nodgrass. All of them would have been caused by a mistake in laying down the transfer onto the stone. And thus, the areas of missing caption like Schmidt and the poorly aligned attempts at correcting the same sort of mistake like Anderson should also be listed since they have the same cause.

I also think that setting the various mistakes as the catalog did is a pretty good idea. It allows each collector an easy way to decide if they want to pursue them. I think most people would feel they had to include the errors if they were part of the main listing.

Steve B

[Sean]

"Maddox" missing name is listed as well? Isn't there only one of them?

I also notice that MURR'Y is not listed.

[Leon]

It used to be a phase to catalog every tiny T206 misprint.

Originally Posted by Sean

"Maddox" missing name is listed as well? Isn't there only one of them?

I also notice that MURR'Y is not listed.

[steve B]

Don't imagine it's just our hobby or just T206s.

The stamps I specialize in have lots of varieties.
One I just got has been known since at least the early 1960's, and was proven to be a constant variety in 2006. It's not listed in the Scott specialized catalog for US stamps. (actually a group of 4 different officials with a specimen over print where the "c" is broken. One per sheet and a short print run, so only 100 of each sold. )
On the other hand. Scotts lists a double transfer on the 10cent Treasury dept. It's been listed in the catalog since 1935, but there's never been an article about it. And nobody has seen one, and unfortunately there's no record of where they got the information from to list it in the first place.
(Oddly I have a couple that I think might be it, but need to find a second copy to prove it. should be a long hunt..... )

They also list or don't list plate varieties that should be on different printings, but the list them for one but not the others.

Big fun that cataloging stuff!

Steve B

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Leon

It used to be a phase to catalog every tiny T206 misprint.

Leon, That's kind of my point about this card, it has been stated through
out the hobby that it takes a few examples of a variation in order for
it to be cataloged but there is no record of a sale of this variation
and the only scan/picture I have seen is the T206 museum example.

I'm ok with them cataloging variations when there are multiple examples
but I don't think they should put prices on them until there are a few sales to reflect an accurate value.

[PhillipAbbott79]

There are multiple of them out there, and they have been sold via auction from what I recall.

[Leon]

I like oddball stuff as much as the next guy but a speck on a printers plate, to make a variations, just doesn't do it for me. However, if it keeps other crazy collectors, such as myself, busy then it is a wonderful thing. I am sure some things I collect are crazy to others. More to the original question, I would hope things don't get cataloged without enough comparative sales and cards.

Originally Posted by Pat R

Leon, That's kind of my point about this card, it has been stated through
out the hobby that it takes a few examples of a variation in order for
it to be cataloged but there is no record of a sale of this variation
and the only scan/picture I have seen is the T206 museum example.

I'm ok with them cataloging variations when there are multiple examples
but I don't think they should put prices on them until there are a few sales to reflect an accurate value.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

There are multiple of them out there, and they have been sold via auction from what I recall.

Phillip, can you post a link to one of these auctions because I still haven't
found any sales of this variation but there are multiple sales of all of the
other variations with the exception of the Maddox that Sean mentioned.

Also T206 Museum states that the one on their site is the only known example.
img062.jpg

[PhillipAbbott79]

I can't locate it, at least easily. It could have been on Ebay.

Here is at least proof there is more than 1.

http://m.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=84408

[bn2cardz]

Even if there are more than one there was suspicion back in 2004 that they are faked by the same person that did the fake 'nodgrass'

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=65239

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Even if there are more than one there was suspicion back in 2004 that they are faked by the same person that did the fake 'nodgrass'

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=65239

I think this is probably the case an altered card(s) that got cataloged.
All of the other plate issue variations both cataloged and the ones that
haven't been cataloged show up on a regular bases with the exception of this
Mitchell card.

[martuzzi]

I'm ashamed to admit this, but...I've had an ebay search going for 16 years on "t206 Mitchell" and have yet to see a "Toront" version show up. I bet I've viewed 5000 Mitchells over that period.

Not feeling very cool at this moment...

[PhillipAbbott79]

Sounds like it is safe to delete that.