New T207 variation confirmed - Clarke with and without sleeve emblem

[marcdelpercio]

I have been tracking this potential variation for a few years and have collected enough data to say that I have confirmed it with certainty. The Tom Clarke card exists with the "C" sleeve emblem and without. This is not just a missing or light color pass as you can clearly see strong red ink sections on the cap, collar and belt of the "no emblem" variation. This variation fits in with other known and accepted variations from the set (Austin, Lewis, Mullin) that are found with and without uniform emblems. Both Clarke variations appear with Recruit Factory 240 and Recruit Factory 606 backs and neither is scarce, though I have tracked the "without emblem" variation to be slightly less common. So...one more for the checklist, all you T207 lovers out there

[ullmandds]

nice discovery!

[Jobu]

I am not a T207 guy but I love discoveries like this - thanks for doing the research and posting it.

[Leon]

Nice discovery. It's always fun to learn of new variations of established sets.

[cardsfan73]

Thanks for sharing your discovery with us, great find. Things like this are one of many reasons I love this place!

Scott

[PolarBear]

Good job on the research. This is the kind of stuff that makes the hobby interesting!

[caramelcard]

Marc,

This is great! Did you just happen to have two of them when you initially noticed this?

Rob

[timn1]

Marc, terrific! I wish I had eyes as sharp as yours-

Tim

[marcdelpercio]

Thanks for the kind words, guys! Looking for stuff like this is one of my favorite parts of collecting.

Rob, I did have two of these when I first noticed it a couple of years ago. Since the emblem is right on the edge, at first I thought the "no emblem" version may just have been cut off-center or a missing/light color pass. It took me a few months to find more examples of that version and it became clear that the emblem was actually missing. At that point, I started tracking them closely to see which versions appeared with which backs. In a little less than three years, I have tracked 22 total "with emblem" and have seen 14 so far "without emblem." Neither is a scarce card...there are multiple copies of each on eBay right now...but NO T207s are what I would call extremely common, so I'd recommend that the set collectors check their versions and maybe pick up one of the others now. I have one of each version from each Factory back in my set, so I'm satisfied with that!

[caramelcard]

Very cool Marc. I can't tell you how many times I looked through my set/dupes for something like this.

[RCMcKenzie]

The example with the emblem looks like it has more red in the belt. Maybe the emblemless ones missed a color pass, either way very interesting.

[marcdelpercio]

I thought that at first also, regarding the missing color pass, but there are many examples I have found of the "no emblem" version on which the red is otherwise very strong throughout. In fact, on the ones I posted, the red is stronger overall on the "no emblem" version. Note the coloration on the face, for example. The belt is maybe just a trick of the scanner as the red is at least the same if not a bit stronger than the "emblem" variation when you look at them in hand.

[brianp-beme]

Great spotting Marc...T207 master sets just got a little larger. Ok folks, check your T's for C's!

Brian

[frohme]

Nice, Marc - great eyes and attention to detail!

There are at least a couple other such unreported variations within T207 that don't get much attention. Some have report hat color variations with a couple of the Chi-Nat players, if I recall. A fairly clear one is found on Graney - the C on his shirt is either brown or grey-ish (like the color difference between the Big and Small 'C' variations of Livingston). Quick look around showed a number of each in just a few looks, so both seemed to be pretty common.

A more subtle I came across recently that is similar is a striking color difference on Cunningham (Wash). In everyone I'd ever seen, across all four possible backs, the blue is the light blue seen in most of the set where used for uniform content. This one had the same blue as seen in Saier's hat and emblem, not the washed-out blue like W. Miller.

Comparison images of both are below. The Cunningham images are scans from the same scanner over a number of years. In hand the color difference is very clear.

Like other sets of the times, there are more and more tiny variations once you really start looking closely. I'm still trying to convince myself of what would be a very unpopular opinion, which is that with T207, every variation except the 3 Livingstons is simply a print flaw... including Lewis (no-emblem) . But since I've not handled that card, I really can't judge, so for unpopularity, I'll just stick to T213-1 Coupon being part of T206

--
Mike

[caramelcard]

"I'm still trying to convince myself of what would be a very unpopular opinion, which is that with T207, every variation except the 3 Livingstons is simply a print flaw... including Lewis (no-emblem)"


I agree Mike and always have. When the printing flaw creates a lack of a letter or emblem i think it's a bit more significant than a faded color. At least more interesting, but in my opinion none of these should be considered part of the set.

When printing these I don't think they intended for the letter to be missing.

Here was a printing error I found in a collection a while back:

t207 dooin.jpg


Shows that they printed dark red over pink.

[Vintagecatcher]

Thanks Marc for bringing this to my attention. I also had noticed this variation.

I have seen some examples where the emblem is printed in the border as well.

Decided I needed a "no emblem" Clarke to go with my Clarke with emblem.

As luck would have it, my "no emblem" Clarke has a Factory No. 606, and the "emblem" version has a Factory No. 240.

Thanks,

Patrick

[SMPEP]

Patrick, are my eyes playing tricks on me?

If I look at the two you just posted and compare with the two Marc posted, it looks like the newer pair has what I'll describe as a partial light gray "B" in that area ... whereas the original two don't seem to have this.

Is this just a picture photo scan issue or are there 4 variations? Of course my eyes playing tricks on me is also another likely explanation!

Cheers,
Patrick

[SMPEP]

Also, in Patrick's there looks to be a pretty easily seen "B" on his chest (on right side), but in Marc's this appear much fainter.

Is this just a scan issue or something more?

Thanks,
Patrick

[Vintagecatcher]

Gentleman,

I think you are seeing just the design above and below the shirt pocket.

Patrick

[uffda51]

Turns out I once had the "emblem" version. Never knew about this. Nice discovery, Marc.

[frohme]

Originally Posted by Vintagecatcher

Gentleman,

I think you are seeing just the design above and below the shirt pocket.

Patrick

I agree with Patrick in that its nothing special

This looks like the effect of updating the card image for the current look of the uniform based on an earlier photo. Cincy's 1911 uniform has an emblem on the chest with the word 'Reds' in it - 1912 does not.



You can see the effect and emblem more clearly on McLean. They did a more thorough job downplaying the emblem on Clarke, both of which were "created" from photos taken in 1911 uniforms.

McLean:



Uniform images from M. Okkonen's book as referenced via http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.o...d_to_the_nines

--
Mike