T206's....show us your BROAD LEAF's

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

You have your wish.....I started a PIEDMONT 460/42 thread. Let's see where it takes us ?

T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

That is an impressive lot of BROAD LEAF 460 cards you listed.

And, ole Buddy, I don't recall that you and I ever having been on dissimilar pages.

But, you certainly have me beat on T206 expertise.....but, I am working hard to catch up
to you.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Judson Hamlin

I wish my wife listened to me like that when I make suggestions.

The McLean and Rhoades (StL) were 350's. Sorry.

Posted to the 42 thread already

And, just a general thanks for putting these threads out there. I think it's great to get more info into the hobby. Happy holidays.

Edited for lousy grammar. My English profs at Richmond just collectively cringed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Craig H

Alright, it's been documented, but here's mine. It's Clancy of Buffalo by the way.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

From Brian's possible BL 350 "No-Print" list we have eliminated......

Freeman
Graham (Boston)
McLean
Rhoades

And, we still have 11 remaining.....

Barry (Milwaukee)
Cassidy
Demmitt (New York)
Joe Doyle
Fromme
Groom
Howard (Chicago)
Huggins (Hands/mouth)
Kleinow (NY-catching)
Rhodes
Schlafly

We need more inputs, guys......show or tell us of your BROAD LEAF 350 cards ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

In an earlier post here you noted your Huggins BL 350.....

Please be more specific as to which version (portrait or hands at mouth) ?

Thanks, TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Judson Hamlin

would be a portrait (raw, but probably a 50 or 60)

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

UPDATED....list of confirmed....BROAD LEAF 350 cards

THANKS guys....for all your pix and inputs on your BROAD LEAF 350 cards....we are about 1/2 the way
through a possible 196+ cards with this tough back.

To date total = 86.....interestingly, the majority of Subjects are Minor Leaguers and there
are only 6 reported HOFers....Beckley, Bresnahan, Huggins, Joss, Marquard, and Speaker.

Abstein
Adkins
Arellanes
Arndt
Barbeau
Barry (A's)
Beck
Beckley
Blackburne
Bliss
Brain
Bresnahan (bat)....this card has been reported 4 times
Burchell
Burke
Bush
Butler
Carrigan
Casey
Chappelle
Charles
Clancy
Frank Delehanty
Dineen
Donovan (throw)
Dorner
Downs
Joe Dunn
Engle
Freeman
Ganzel
Graham (Boston)
Graham (St Louis)
Grimshaw
Hallman
Hartsell
Hayden
Howell (portrait)
Huggins (portrait)
Davy Jones
Joss (pitch)
Killian (portrait)
Kisinger
Knabe
Kroh
Kruger
Lennox
Maddox
Malarkey
Marquard (portrait)
McBride
McGinley
McGlynn
McLean
Miller (Pitt)
Mitchell
Moeller
Moran (Chicago)
Mullen
Murray (bat)
Myers (bat)
Myers (fldg)
Nattress
Oakes
O'Brien
O'Neill
Paskert
Perring
Purtell
Quillen
Rhoades
Rudolph
Schreck
Sharpe
Slagle
Snodgrass (bat)
Speaker
Stanage
Starr
Strange
Sweeney (bat)
Taylor
Titus
Willett
Wilson
Wright
Zimmerman

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Hey Ted, I have Unglaub who isnt on your list and Dots Miller who is

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Thanks JOHN D

I will list your Unglaub when I update the confirmed list of BL 350 cards.

I've had several emails from readers who have provided some new Subjects, also.

T-Rex Ted

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Guys,
What I find most interesting is that Brian's W. list of 29 known Broad Leaf 460s includes ONLY TWO 460-only subjects [Kleinow (Boston) and Schaefer (Washington)]. The rest are 350/460 subjects. This suggests Broad Leaf 460s, similar to Piedmont 42s, are much easier to find (although still incredibly difficult) on the backs of 350/460 subjects than 460-only subjects.

Also, I have a nice Arrelanes and Burchell with Broad Leaf 350. Here is Arrelanes:

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Arrelanes back:

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Gee, that is one of the sharpest, well-centered Broad Leaf backs I have seen.

Your observation on the Broad Leaf 460 cards being primarily from the 350/460 series is quite
interesting.
And, the Piedmont 460/42 cards having the same yield....what can we derive from this pattern ?
It's trying to tell us somrthing....but, what ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Sean

Here is an iteresting item, it measures about 5" wide and 2.75" tall on heavier card stock. Anyone have any information about it?



Thanks,
Sean

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Scot,
On my list there are 39 players who are only available in the 460 series, and none are known with Broad Leaf backs. Germany Schaefer (Washington) is one of the 73 poses which was first available in the 350 series and then again in the 460. Kleinow seems to fall outside the pattern as it has been seen with the Broadleaf 460 back.
Piedmont 42's follow a similiar pattern,except for the Chase and Bergen cards mentioned in an earlier thread as they do not appear on any other 460 only cards.
The list may be missing 1 or 2 cards, but I doubt it's missing many, as we don't have any Carolina Brights or Drum's from this group either.


Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Sean- that's a real neat business card but I think the four-digit phone number would date it well before 1910. I think by then five-digit numbers were used. Anybody know more about that?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Depending when that Broad Leaf adv. was first issued, the New York phone system could have
had only 4-digit Tel #s. The cut-over to 5-digits was somewhere near the turn of the Century.

Ted Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Hi Brian,
I don't think you will ever find Schaefer (Washington) with any 350 back. I know Heitman says he is possible with 350 backs, but I am confident that is not the case. I base this on two considerations: 1) Schaefer (Washington) is possible with Sovereign 460 and 2) Schaefer (Washington) is possible with Sweet Cap 460 Factory 30. The Sovereign 460 and Sweet Cap 460 Factory 30 backs are only possible on the six 350/460 superprints and the 48 460-only subjects. And Schaefer (Washington) is not one of the six superprints. Hence he is a 460-only subject.
Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Scot,
I understand your thinking on Schaefer, but he also fits into the 460 only pattern where he has been seen with Broad Leaf 460, and Piedmont 42 backs. It appears that Kleinow and Schaefer are hybrids of the 2, until we find more evidence, or more cards.

Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Brian,
Maybe, like you, Bill Heitman saw Schaefer (Washington) and Kleinow (Boston) with Broadleaf 460 and thought because of this they fit the 350/460 profile. Great minds sometimes think alike.
Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Scot,
That's very kind, but I think my research pales in comparison to Heitman's work. In fact I used "The Monster" as my T206 bible, and assumed everything in it was correct until proven otherwise. The fact that he was able to amass this amount of data in the late 70's early 80's is quite remarkable, besides the fact that it's probably 95% on the mark.
Thank goodness for the Internet, as now we can all research our favorite cards in a few years versus a few decades.
Very few collectors today would communicate the way Burdick, Lipset, Barker, and Heitman etc did by mail in the past. I doubt you and I, Art and Ted would do as well if we had to write letters everyday.

Keep up the search Brian


PS Ted probably would have written a letter a week....

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

BRIAN and SCOT

With Schaefer as a Washington player, we are talking about the begining of 1910 season; and,
isn't that about the time this last series (460-only) was in the process of design ?

Now as far as Red Kleinow (Boston) goes, ever since I have collected T206's (starting in 1981)
this card was always a tough variation. And, now that I realize this card (and also Frank Smith-
Chi & Bost) do not exist as Sovereign's....I can see why.

Take Smith, for example, I have acquired a Piedmont, Sweet Cap, Polar Bear, Old Mill, Cycle,
and an American Beauty 460......but, I do not expect to ever find a Sovereign.

Do either of you guys have any theories why Kleinow and Smith were not printed with this back
....while all the other 46 (plus the 6 Super Prints) were ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Ted,
Both Frank and Red's families fought in 1776 against the "Sovereign rule" of Great Britain and could not bear to have there pictures on the front of any card with a Sovereign back.......


Ha Ha Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Ted,
Assuming sequential brand production, if Sovereign was the earliest back in the 460-only print run it could explain why Kleinow and Smith were left out, since they joined the Boston club I believe in May and September of 1910, respectively. Perhaps these team switches occurred too late for these subjects to be printed with Sovereign 460, but not with the other 460 back types. Of course, this Sovereign-first explanation might not jibe with your primacy of Piedmont theory if that theory has a temporal component ....
Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

OK....as you know Kleinow was traded in May 1910 and Smith was traded Aug 1910; and, in your
analysis was that about the time that T206 was planning the final Series (460-only cards) ?
Or, were these cards already produced ?

I am not sure why I am asking this....but, it is very puzzling to me that these two Subjects are
not available with the Sovereign brand. Because these two cards appear to be available with
just about every other brand (except HINDU, CAROLINA BRIGHTS, DRUM and UZIT).

One more thing......I know sometime back I stated....that I do not expect that these two cards
will be found as Sovereigns. Do you concur with this ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Ted,

I pegged the 460-only launch to the Fall of 1910 based on artwork completed the preceding Spring and Summer. So if Sovereign 460 were printed first it could explain the absence of Kleinow (Boston) and Smith (Both) with that back. And I do agree with you that these subjects are likely unavailable with Sovereign 460--if they were available we probably would have seen them by now.

Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: J Hull

It's seemed to me that Smith (Chi & Bos) and Kleinow (Bos) are the easiest of the 48 cards in the 460-only series to find with Polar Bear backs. And also, that the most commonly found back on those two cards is Polar Bear. The general rule for the 460-onlys seems to be that Piedmont 350-460 factory 25 is most common, but not for those two cards. And so far as I've noticed, only those two cards have Polar Bear as the easiest brand to find. Not sure how that connects to not being present with Sovereign 460 backs, but maybe it does somehow.

Jamie

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Ted,
I haven't seen a Kleinow, but Smith does exist with a UZIT back.

Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Jamie,
I think you are right about Kleinow (Boston) and Smith (Both) with Polar Bear. These two subjects seem easier to find with Polar Bear than Piedmont or Sweet Caporal. Not sure why that is. Ted, Brian: theories?
Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

that is an awesome item.

I am not sure....
but I think those cards came in garbage-pail-kids packs

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Scot and Jamie,
I'm not sure why Smith and Kleinow seem to show up more often with Polar Bear backs, but here are a few ideas:

1. Distribution: The Polar Bear brand dominated the loose tobacco market at the time and was sold throughout the country, not just in certain markets. It was also the only loose brand that contained cards, and I'm told that at least 2 cards were in each pack and as many as 6 have been reported in some.

Personally I find Smith more often with Polar Bear backs, then Piedmont, while I see Kleinow more 50/50 between the two, and the Sweet Cap.

Just a few thoughts. Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Millerhouse

Dear Ted,

I can add three Broad Leaf 350 backs from my collection to your listing entered above on December 16: Dessau, Milligan and Phelps. (I also have 460 backs of M. Brown throwing (Chicago) and Willis throwing, but I suspect, without checking, that these are otherwise known.)

Best regards and keep up the good work,

Dan

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Thanks DAN.....
For your inputs and the nice words.

SCOT....JAMIE....BRIAN

I am in full agreement....I have had, and have seen both these cards with POLAR BEAR backs
more than any other back.

And, very true regarding Piedmont 460 backs. When I was putting together my Piedmont-only
set the Frank Smith card was one of the very last. And, not far behind was the Kleinow.

It almost seems as the 3 most popular brands (P, SC, Sov) were "short-printed" or "no-printed"
with respect to these two cards. And, "over-printed" with the other 460 backs.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: dd

I own a delehanty and a malarkey

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

dd

Thanks for you inputs.

That makes 3 - Frank Delehanty BL 350 cards....your's, mine and Bill Brown's.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: J Hull

Ted, Brian, Scot:

One other, and obvious, thing that Kleinow (Bos) and Smith (Chicago & Bos) have in common that distinguishes them from the rest of the 460-only cards is the fact that their images are reused images from the 350 series. Maybe an explanation for their lacking Sovereign 460 is linked to that.

So here’s a theory. Perhaps these two cards are a hybrid between the 350 series cards that were reprinted as 460s and the 460-onlys. Since the only change to the printing plates would have been in the typography line, the designers may have simply made that change between ending the 350 print run and initiating the 460 run. That would explain why Kleinow (Bos) and Smith (Chicago & Bos) lack any 350 backs. But if printed with the other 54 cards that were holdovers from the 350 series, Kleinow and Smith would not be available with Sovereign 460s. They also would not be available with Sweet Caporal 350-460 factory 30. Has anyone ever confirmed either of these two cards with that back? I have not been able to.

Jamie

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

To date total = 90.....interestingly, 40 of the Subjects are Minor Leaguers and there are
only 6 reported HOFers....Beckley, Bresnahan, Huggins, Joss, Marquard, and Speaker.

Abstein
Adkins
Arellanes
Arndt
Barbeau
Barry (A's)
Beck
Beckley
Blackburne
Bliss
Brain
Bresnahan (bat)....reported 4 times
Burchell
Burke
Bush
Butler
Carrigan
Casey
Chappelle
Charles
Clancy
Frank Delehanty....reported 3 times
Dessau
Dineen
Donovan (throw)
Dorner
Downs
Joe Dunn
Engle
Freeman
Ganzel
Graham (Boston)
Graham (St Louis)
Grimshaw
Hallman
Hartsell
Hayden
Howell (portrait)
Huggins (portrait)
Davy Jones
Joss (pitch)
Killian (portrait)
Kisinger
Knabe
Kroh
Kruger
Lennox
Maddox
Malarkey
Marquard (portrait)
McBride
McGinley
McGlynn
McLean
Miller (Pitt)
Milligan
Mitchell
Moeller
Moran (Chicago)
Mullen
Murray (bat)
Myers (bat)
Myers (fldg)
Nattress
Oakes
O'Brien
O'Neill
Paskert
Perring
Phelps
Purtell
Quillen
Rhoades
Rudolph
Schreck
Sharpe
Slagle
Snodgrass (bat)
Speaker
Stanage
Starr
Strange
Sweeney (bat)
Taylor
Titus
Unglaub
Willett
Wilson
Wright
Zimmerman

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Rivera

Ted,

In the last REA there was a BL lot that had 11 or 13 BL/350s in it.I know there was a Jackson and 2 Polands in the lot. I'll check my book and lyk the others.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Jamie,
This is great stuff. I want to think about it for a while before responding.
Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: Art M.

Ted,
I have the following T206 with Broad Leaf 350 backs that are not showing up on your most recent list:

Burns, Chicago American
Clark, Columbus
Summers, Detroit

Art M.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Okay Jamie, Here goes.

I believe your theory is correct and explains not only the relative scarcity of Kleinow (Boston) and Smith (Chicago and Boston) but also the relative scarcity of Kleinow (N.Y. Catching) and Smith (Chicago White Cap).

First we assume for purposes of this theory that Kleinow (N.Y. Catching) and Smith (Chicago White Cap) were not introduced with the 350-only subjects but rather were introduced with the 350/460 regular print subjects. As with other 350/460 regular print subjects, these two subjects were thus shortprinted with 350 backs (relative to a typical 350-only subject) and were supposed to be continued by a shortprinting with 460 backs (relative to a typical 460-only subject). However, the team switches occurred before their planned printing with the 460 backs, and thus these two subjects never made it to print with 460 backs. This accounts for the scarcity of Kleinow (N.Y. Catching) and Smith (Chicago White Cap) relative to a typical 350-only subject. I think most would agree that these two subjects are more difficult than a typical 350-only subject. My survey data bear this out, as does the PSA population report. Now, thanks to you, I think we know why.

Continuing on, the caption changes were made and the shortprinting with the 460 backs proceeded with Kleinow (Boston) and Smith (Chicago and Boston) INSTEAD OF their predecessors Kleinow (N.Y. Catching) and Smith (Chicago White Cap). This explains the well-documented scarcity of Kleinow (Boston) and Smith (Chicago and Boston) relative to a typical 460-only subject.

WHAT DOES THIS THEORY TELL US? First, Kleinow (N.Y. Catching) and Smith (Chicago White Cap) should be just about as difficult to find as a typical 350/460 regular print subject is WITH BACKS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE 350 SERIES. I have data at my office, but I believe this means there should be roughly 2/3 as many of these cards floating around as cards of a typical 350/460 regular print subject. A price premium thus seems warranted.

Second, Kleinow (Boston) and Smith (Chicago and Boston) should be just about as difficult to find as a typical 350/460 regular print subject is WITH BACKS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE 460 SERIES. I believe this means there should be roughly 1/3 as many of these cards extant as a typical 350/460 regular print subject. A substantial price premium is thus warranted.

HOW DO WE PROVE THIS THEORY? There are several ways. First, we can look, as Jamie has suggested, at the ABSENCE of Kleinow (Boston) and Smith (Chicago and Boston) with Sovereign 460 and Sweet Caporal 460 Factory 30. These are fairly common backs that appear ONLY on 460-only subjects. Importantly, Bill Brown and Ted Z. have been able to find the Sovereign 460 back on ALL of the 54 460-only subjects EXCEPT Kleinow (Boston) and Smith (Chicago and Boston). My survey data also show no examples of either of these subjects with either of these plentiful backs. This is highly supportive of the theory.

Second, we can look at Brian W.'s Broadleaf 460 data. All of the confirmed Broadleaf 460s are found on 350/460 regular print subjects, EXCEPT Kleinow (Boston) and Schaefer (Washington). Let's set Schaefer aside for the moment. The existence of Kleinow (Boston) with Broadleaf 460 is supportive of the theory set forth here.

Additional considerations that would advance this theory would be the ABSENCE of Kleinow (N.Y. Catching) and Smith (Chicago White Cap) with backs that are only available on 350-only subjects (and the six 350/460 superprints). These backs include American Beauty 350 with Frame, Broadleaf 350, Carolina Brights and Cycle 350. Consistent with the theory, Ted Z.'s post on this very thread indicated that these two subjects have not been confirmed with Broadleaf 350. Does anyone have either of these subjects with American Beauty 350 with Frame, Carolina Brights or Cycle 350? If this theory is correct, I would suspect not.

A final consideration that would in my mind remove nearly all doubt about the correctness of this theory would be confirmation of either Kleinow (N.Y. Catching) or Smith (Chicago White Cap) with the American Beauty 350 No Frame back. With the lone exception of Nichols, this back has been seen only on 350/460 regular print subjects. If either Kleinow (N.Y. Catching) or Smith (Chicago White Cap) could be confirmed with this back, the present theory would be meanigfully advanced.

Comments welcome.

Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

JAMIE

Your theory is a valid one....and especially since both Kleinow and Smith for many years
were considered to be available as 350/460 series cards. However, I am not sure I fully
understand your explanation why they were not printed with Sovereign 460 backs........
while they are available with numerous other Tobacco brands ?

JIM R and ART M

Thanks for your inputs, I will update the list sometime soon....with your inputs we will be
over the 1/2 way point of all the possible Broad Leaf 350 cards.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: J Hull

Scot:

Great, great post. You fleshed things out extremely well.


Ted:
The explanation seems to be that Kleinow (Bos) and Smith (Chicago & Bos) aren't really true 460-only cards. They should be viewed as 350/460s which were slightly modified by the designers between the 350 and 460 print runs. Thus, like all the other 350/460s, they lack Sovereign 460 backs (and SC 350-460 F30).

Now, why all those cards lack those two backs is another question. I don't think it was a matter of timing. We know that Uzit was printed and distributed at the very tail end of T206 production, only covering the final month or two, if I'm remembering right. And yet 350/460s can be found with Uzit backs -- and in fact, as Brian W noted earlier, Smith (Chicago & Bos) has been confirmed with a Uzit back.

I would guess that ATC simply decided to stop running as many baseball player cards in the Sweet Caporal and Sovereign brands, and facilitated that by reducing the number of T206s being packed with Sweet Caporals out of Factory 30 and with Sovereigns out of VA Factory 25. The easiest way to do that might have been to just not include cards from one print run. Obviously they didn't stop altogether, because the 460-only cards were packed with these brands in these factories and distributed. I don't collect non-sports cards of the era, but many, many different sets were packaged with Sovereigns and Sweet Caporals. I would guess that ATC just switched to more flags or fish or state capitals or whatever for a few months.

Jamie

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

JAMIE

Pardon me, but my thinking must of been momentarily out in "la-la" land.....I should have
understood what you said the first time, by virtue of my own observations in putting to-
gether the Sovereign set that I am working on.

Thanks for your very astute analysis on these two "mysterious" cards.

SCOT R

Excellent analysis and presentation on this subject. It's posts like yours and Jamie's that
make this Forum really worthwhile.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Ted, Jamie:

If I can crystallize things a bit:

For shorthand we can call the theory the Kleinow/Smith Bifurcation Theory.

It holds:

1. Kleinow (N.Y. Catching) and Kleinow (Boston) TOGETHER had a print coextensive with the 350/460 regular print (RP) subjects. Thus, IN COMBINATION they should be found with the same backs as 350/460 regular prints and IN COMBINATION they should be as plentiful as 350/460 RP subjects.

2. Smith (Chicago White Cap) and Smith (Chicago and Boston) TOGETHER had a print coextensive with the 350/460 RP subjects. Thus, IN COMBINATION they should be found with the same backs as other 350/460 regular prints and IN COMBINATION they should be as plentiful as other 350/460 regular prints.

3. MORE PARTICULARLY, Kleinow (N.Y. Catching) and Smith (Chigaco White Cap) underwent the 350 series portion of the 350/460 RP print run. Thus, these subjects should be found with the same 350 series backs as the 350/460 RP subjects. This set of backs is somewhat different than the set of backs that can be found on the 350-only subjects. For example, unlike 350-only subjects, these two subjects should not be found with American Beauty 350 With Frame, Broad Leaf 350, Carolina Brights or Cycle 350. These two subjects should also be found in similar quantities as the 350/460 RP subjects with 350 series backs.

4. Kleinow (Boston) and Smith (Chicago and Boston) underwent the 460 series portion of 350/460 RP print run. Thus, these subjects should be found with the same 460 series backs as the 350/460 RP subjects. This set of backs is somewhat different than the set of backs that can be found on the 460-only subjects. For example, unlike 460-only subjects, these two subjects should not be found with Sovereign 460 or Sweet Caporal 460 Factory 30. These two subjects should also be found in similar quantities as the 350/460 RP subjects with 460 series backs.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

This is great stuff.......now can we expand this theory to account for the
remaining 64 cards (350 Series) that appear to be Sovereign "No-Prints" ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: J Hull

Scot:

Nice summary of what we know about Kleinow and Smith. As Ted said, they certainly are "mysterious." There's still the lingering mystery of why Kleinow (Bos) and Smith (Chicago & Bos) are more plentiful with Polar Bear backs than any other brand. If we now move those cards into the 350-460 category, this fact doesn't seem quite so anomolous. From what I've been able to tell, the 350-460 cards are about 2.75 times more common with Polar Bear backs than the 460-only cards are. Quite a few of the (perhaps now 56) cards in 350-460 series seem to be at least as commonly found with Polar Bear as they are with Piedmont 350, Piedmont 350-460, or any other back.

However, presumably the 350-460s were double-printed with Polar Bear backs, once in the 350 series and once in the 460 series -- or at least once, who knows how the print runs were actually managed. Thus the high Polar Bear frequency on these cards.

And therein lies the mystery. Kleinow (NY) and Smith (White Cap) are found with Polar Bear backs, so the explanation isn't as easy as saying that the team change was made to the cards DURING the 350 series, before Polar Bears were printed (and, necessarily, that PB was the final brand printed in that series). If that had been the case, Kleinow (Bos) and Smith (Chicago & Bos) would have been double-printed like the other 350-460s and...mystery solved.

Jamie

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Jamie,

I agree with your comments about the relative abundance of Polar Bear with the 350/460 RP subjects and that being at least a partial explanation of the high frequency of occurence of that back on Kleinow (Boston) and Smith (Chicago and Boston). Perhaps the Polar Bear back was printed throughout the print run of the 350/460 RP series with a higher concentration in the 460 series portion of that run.

I will still continue to categorize these two subjects as 460-only rather than 350/460 RP due to the fact that they do not appear with any 350 back. I will continue to speak of Kleinow (N.Y. Catching) and Smith (Chicago White Cap) as 350-only subjects for similar reasons. That said, I think these four subjects really have to be treated as a special case due to their 350/460 RP qualities.

Ted,

I don't have an answer for you on the 64 no prints. With T206 there is always more research to do.

Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: BcD

here she is.......... I have a psa 5 Johnson hands on chest somewhere as well as an AB psa 5 Johnson I purchased from Quan~

BcD

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

"With T206 there is always more research to do"....well said Scot....regarding the Sovereign
"No-Prints" in the 350 series and the 350/460.

There seems to be a pattern in that some of these cards exist essentially with Piedmont,
Sweet Caporal's Fac 25 and Fac 30; and, very few (if any) additional brands.

Then, there are quite a few, that have AB, BL, CYCLE, CB, EPDG, OM, PB and SC 350/30;
however, no Sov 350 or SC 350/25......Doc White (pitch) and Vic Willis (throw) are two
examples of this in the 350/460 Series.

The common denominator here being Factory 25 (Sovereign & Sweet Cap/25)....No Prints.

Now, we know that in the 350 series Amer. Bty, Broad Leaf, Carolina Brts, Cycle, and Old Mill
are all Fac. 25.....therefore, perhaps T206 guys switched away from Sov & SC to provide
more premiuns for promoting these 5 new Tobacco brands.?

Is my imagination running "wild" again, or is there some thing of substance here to ponder ?

Check this out guys.....I will post next a reprise of my Sovereign No-Prints list for reference.

TED Z