T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Ted,<br /> The Doyle error is only found with the Piedmont 350 back, while the Plank can be found with the Sweet Cap 150 or 350, and there are a lot more 150's than 350's. Also 2 or 3 Piedmont Planks have surfaced, but I believe all are hand cut. One is a proof or printers scrap, the others may have come from the same sheet as the Wagner.<br /> Who knows? But, I doubt we are thru discovering variations in the Monster. Be well Brian <br />

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>William Heitman</b><p>"American Beauty 350's are found with or without an ornamental type of border surrounding the advertisement on the rear." T206 The Monster, 1980, page 11 (pictures page 8)

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Brian<br />I stand corrected on Doyle's tobacco adv. back....thanks.<br /><br />Art M<br />You related the Fritsch/Huggins stories perfectly. I remember<br />them well. Now, let's think about this entire scenerio, why<br />in 1981 a single Doyle variation suddenly surfaces after how<br />many 100's of thousands of T206 cards spread over many various<br />collections over many decades ?<br />Then just 6 years later a 2nd card appears. This whole scenerio<br />defies all the laws of probability. And, being an engineer, I<br />fully appreciate statistics and probability. And, how many more<br />have been found since 1987....not too many....about a handful.<br /><br />And, then the really strange coincidence of two "walk-ins" a<br />few years ago at the show in downtown Phila. A real Doyle that<br />was acquired at this show by Levi Bleam. A fake one that was<br />acquired by Alan Rosen (but it was graded, nonetheless).<br />Then Rosen sells it to Olbermann. And, Keith turns around and<br />sues Rosen.<br />Hey guys, you can't make up this stuff....its surreal.<br /><br />Sorry, this entire scenerio these past 25 years regarding the<br />Doyle variation is just to "mysterious" for me. I was content<br />to consider my 1st T206 set complete without Doyle. Now, that<br />I am only 18 cards short of completing a 2nd set, Mr. Doyle is<br />definitely not on my wantlist.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Ted- the statistical odds of winning the lottery are several million to one, but usually there is a winner. Your theory of improbability does not convince me at all.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Robert {Bigb13}</b><p>The Doyle's could be the work of the GreenHornet. Rob

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p> Hi Ted,<br /> I understand your skepticism about the Doyle, because it's tough to believe it took so many years for the card to surface, but to be fair the Hobby didn't really explode until the 80's. If we can agree that the Hobby really started picking up steam in the mid to late 70's, then It didn't take that long(1980) before one was found. Then 7 years, with only one person looking, to find another. Are there a few fake Doyle's out there, probably so, but I do believe it's a real card, because too many of the Hobby's best have held the Doyle and believe it to be authenticate. Would I like to hold one and see for myself, absolutely, but I probably won't get a chance until I make time to head to the National. <br /> It's also interesting to remember that until shows became more popular during the roaring 80's, many collectors rarely came across cards which were not distributed in there region of the country. I can remember getting exited about the 1975 topps Mini's at a show in Charlotte in the late 70's, because they were never distributed in the South. But, head to Michigan and they were a dime a dozen. The same goes for T206's, not many Northern collectors had Southern Leaguers in there collections, but they did have all the Wagners(ESPECIALLY IN NY City.) I started collecting T206's in 1975 here in North Carolina, and rarely saw T206's without a Piedmont, Old Mill , Sweet Caporal, or Polar Bear back. I owned a few Hindu's, Tolstoi's, and Sovereigns, but never saw Drums, Uzit's or Lenox backs until the early 80's. Sorry for rambling on, but I think the growth of National shows and the advent of auctions made many more cards available to collectors, spurring a boom in the Hobby that brought about many of our greatest discoveries. Be well Brian

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I agree with Brian that because the card is so valuable some counterfeits have entered the marketplace, but the original ones found are surely the real thing. And nobody was looking that hard until post-1980; look how many other previously unknown cards have been discovered in the last 25 years.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>BRIAN W.<br /><br />I really appreciate your comments regarding the "Slow" Joe Doyle card.<br />And, I think several here might be mis-undertsanding my stand on this<br />card. First, of all I'm open to all kinds of inputs; and I would like to<br />say that perhaps I am acting like Socrates (2500 yrs ago) where he<br />questioned certain "dubious" practices or idealogies amongst his con-<br />tempories (I'm also a Greek). Consider these undeniable facts:<br />(1) Until 1987, Beckett (and other catalogs) listed all Doyles in the set<br />as Larry Doyle.<br /><br />(2) Now, Larry Doyle played 2B for the NY Giants (1907-15)<br /><br />(3) Joe Doyle was a Pitcher for the NY Highlanders (1906-10)<br />and traded to Cinc. in 1910.....he was NEVER on the GIANTS !<br /><br />So, I want someone to tell me how this Joe Doyle card gets tagged with<br />the New York "Nat'L" identification ?<br /><br />Now, if you tell me that the printing firm back in 1910 made an "ERROR"<br />and printed a handful or two such cards, I could possibly concede this<br />T206 anamoly is an original card....However, it is not a true VARIATION<br />it is simply another printing error from this set that does not deserve<br />all the "hype" it has received. I certainly can understand this hype, given<br />that Larry Fritsch is the source of this entire scenerio back in the '80s.<br /><br />Guys, I am not the sole skeptic in the hobby regarding this card. Many fel-<br />low collectors of T206 sets that I have known and traded with over the years<br />entertain their reservations on this Doyle card. I guess I am the more out-<br />spoken one. I'd still like to hear from Bill Heitman on this subject.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p> Hi Ted,<br /> I think you put the nail on the head. I do believe the American Lithograph Co. made an error on the Doyle card. I believe the printers assumed that the pitching card was just another pose of Larry and added the NAT'L to the card. After all there were 5 cards of Chase, 4 Cobb's, 3 of Camnitz, and the list goes on. In fact, it appears that one of Camnitz's poses may have been one of his brothers, and not Howie, so I can see how this could have happened. Besides how many caramel cards depict the wrong player with the wrong picture? Quite a few, if memory serves. Besides, it's not like anybody would recognize Larry Doyle, much less Slow Joe.<br /> The real question to me, is when they corrected there mistake, why they failed to add NY AMERICAN to the card? Be well Brian <br />

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>That was my theory which I posited in an earlier post that Joe and Larry were confused. I think it was easy for them to just delete the word NAT'L from the printing plate but more time consuming to take it apart and replace it with AMER. And you know printing baseball cards is a business and businesses do have deadlines. Maybe it was no more than a shortcut to save time and effort.<br /> And Ted- you have in the past proven that certain cards never existed such as the 1949 Bowman Pesky NOF, or pesky Mr. Pesky as you used to say, with an ironclad theory that noone could dispute. But you haven't given us anything concrete to explain why you think the Doyle isn't legitimate.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Barry<br />Boy, you are going back to 1981 about the 1949 Bowmans. But,<br />more significant was my resolving the mystery of the 12 vari-<br />ations in that set; which up until then had everyone confused.<br />After some extensive research, Ralph Triplette and I, identified<br />these 12 cards as being printed on the last Hi# sheet comprising<br />36 cards which included the Paige, Snider, and Doby Rookies.<br />De-bunking the existence of the Pesky controversy was just an<br />incidental by-product.<br /><br />1981, what a year for ERROR & VARIATION collectors in this hobby.<br />Unfortunately, we were deprived in 1981 of the most significant "find"<br />in this category, namely the first Joe Doyle "error/variation" card.<br />Now tell me, if you (or anyone else) discovered such a unique card<br />wouldn't you shout it through out the land ? You bet you would.<br />You would be ecstatic. Yet, Fritsch chose not to share his find with<br />the rest of us. Perhaps, he wanted a 2nd source. And, indeed he<br /> got that in 1987; however, I find this behavior sort of cryptic.<br /><br />You see, my problem is, after going thru approx. 4000 - T206 cards<br />and studying them very closely, I am amazed how the designers of<br />these cards were very accurate in updating player trades during<br />their production (1909-11). Excellent examples of this are Browne,<br /> Dahlen, Demmitt, Elberfeld, Kleinow, O'Hara, etc.<br />And, the point I'm driving at here is I really cannot believe they<br />made the mistake of adding "NAT'L" to a known American League<br /> player.<br />If anything was to be modified with the initial Joe Doyle card<br />they would have reflected the fact that he was traded to Cinc.<br />in 1910. Again, considering that there are 523 cards in this set<br />and the fact that they was issued over several series, it is virtually<br />error-free in its accuracy. This tells me a lot of diligence went<br />into producing these cards; so, I find it very difficult to accept<br />this "strange" Joe Doyle card. It just doesn't fit the pattern. <br />

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>William Heitman</b><p>Ah--Doyle. The T206 Doyle, N.Y. American, card. This card was always a mystery. Why would that be the only card that carried no league desgnation in cities where there were both a National League and American League team? From the time I started hoarding T206, that question has been repeatedly discussed among those of us who cared about the set, or sets. I must say that I expected to one day find a Doyle that carried the American League designation. But after having hundreds of thousands of these cards in my hands, I had kind of given up. Back when I first developed my checklist which was in late 1978 through early 1979, I sent a blank one to Larry Fritsch who mailed it back to me with the cards checked off that he had. He made no mention, at that time, of a no. 105 Doyle with any league identification. It would seem that, at that time, Larry went through his cards pretty thoroughly. He did check off about 4000 cards.<br /><br />If an error was made early on and the Doyle, by mistake, was listed in the National League, why not correct it if the error was caught? Sherry Magee was corrected. Just leaving the league off of the Doyle card is not consistent with what the card proofers did with T206. To me, the no. 105 Doyle with the National League designation is a mystery, but I would say the failure to correct it is a bigger mystery.<br /><br />As has been said, it seems the makers of T206 were pretty meticulous about the accuracy of the cards, but it is just as obvious to me that quality control was awfully bad in the printing of the cards. Poor printing and poor quality control accounts for so much in T206 that is being discussed as errors and variations. The orange background discussion and the miscuts discussion come to mind.<br /><br />In the June 14, 1959, issue of "The Card Collector", there was an article on T206 Wagner. It stated that only 6 examples were known and two were not in circulation. I was still four months shy of 10 years old. At the time I wrote The Monster, there were somewhere between 40 and 50 known. Irv Lerner and I once at a show made a count of just the ones he and I knew of. That number was at 42 if I remember correctly. More have been found since. So the one thing I can guarantee is that if the Doyles found to date are real, there will be more and more found over the years.<br /><br />I only had one brief look at one of these Doyle cards that have been "found". It was brief and I couldn't draw any conclusions from it. I would have liked to compare it to the seven different no. 105's I had checked off my checklist. I would have to say that, at the time of the "discovery", I had had in my possession at least 150 examples of that card, and maybe as many as 250. And I dealt with quite a few old time T206 collectors who combed through many, many no. 105's trying to find one that had the league designation on it. Of course those numbers sound astounding, but remember that lots of us have had the very same cards as others at one time or another.<br /><br />

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Bill Heitman<br /><br />First, I hope my addressing you, Bill, is alright ? I feel like<br />I have known you for many years as I have read, and referred to<br />your book many times. Thanks for your story on the Doyle card<br />which both of us refer to as a "mystery".<br /><br />And, while the Beckett and SCD guides for years had the basic<br />Doyle card (NY - American Lge) confused with Larry Doyle, your<br />book was always the correct checklist that I relied on.<br /><br />Thanks much, Ted Z

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>William Heitman</b><p>Thanks Ted. I tried Honus for awhile but it never did stick. Please call me Bill.<br /><br />I was hired to authenticate a Wagner with a Piedmont 350-460 back. Interestly, I knew of some reprints that had made this error. Now, if someone doesn't know T206 and wants to fake a Wagner,<br />isn't that the kind of mistake they could make? Anyway, the card was not authentic.<br /><br />Going back many years, there were collectors who had access to what seemed like old stock paper and spent many an hour faking cards they used as fill-ins. I don't really have much of an opinion on the Doyle. Doesn't it seem possible that someone wanting to fake a league designation on the Doyle might not realize that the card is of Joe Doyle, American Leaguer, and believing it's Larry, might fake it as a Doyle, National League. I can't rell you how many collectors I've known who didn't think this Doyle card should be checklisted with the New York Americans. I'd want to really look this over. What dealers do you know who deal heavily in reprints?

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>William Heitman</b><p>I thought that last post would bring all kinds of statements. Any thoughts on this?

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Bill<br /><br />Are you suggesting or just speculating that the "Nat'L" version<br />of the Joe Doyle card could be an elaborate "fake" that was<br />perpetrated by someone who didn't really know the cards in<br />the T206 set; and therefore, confused Joe with Larry Doyle<br />of the Giants. Hence...."Nat'L".<br />And, this certainly is very plausible as most checklists and<br />price guides prior to 1987 listed the four Doyles without their<br />first names, or in some instances as all four being Larry Doyle.<br /><br />Or are you saying that is was an honest mistake that occured<br />back in 1910 and this card is really an original.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>William Heitman</b><p>The only way that I could form a real opinion about the Doyle card is to have the card in my hands. I consider it a possible scenario. I've collected T206 for more than 50 years. I never confused Joe with Larry. The Monster listed it correctly and my checklist always had Joe on the New York American League team. The checklist I used as a boy had it correct. That was a T Card checklist published by Charles Bray.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>As much as I tend to doubt the legitimacy of some recently discovered "novelties" in the T206 Series, I question whether the proper technology existed to fake such a card in the early (or even late) 1980s. Today, graphic arts and printing have advanced to such a degree that with some practice, one could easily render the proper font in Adobe Illustrator and quite possibly print "Nat'l." with an almost identical ink onto a ready and waiting Joe Doyle. Could it fool the vast majority of collectors and hobbyists? I sure think so. Could it fool someone trained in printing and experienced in grading vintage cards? Probably not. Bill's point is a valid one -- only a close examination of all Doyle variations by those knowledgeable enough to know what they're looking for could produce a definitive answer on authenticity.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>MW<br /><br />Let's take the next Joe Doyle "Nat'L" that surfaces (before its slabbed) <br />and take it to a Carbon Dating Test Lab. And, 1st test the picture of the<br />card to verify it is 95 years old. Then, test the name and especially the<br />"Nat'L" lettering and see what age the Carbon test comes up with.<br /><br />A crazy thought....but, I have to inject some humor on this subject.<br />

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>david</b><p>perhaps if the card was faked 30 years ago it was not done using the current technology but using 60 year old technology. is this a possibility? were there printers around that still were using lithography technology from the turn of the century?

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>David<br /><br />Lithographic printing is not the factor here. Since the original Joe Doyle<br />card does not have a League affilation printed on it, what some are<br />speculating is that the lettering "Nat'L" was simply added next to the<br />existing "DOYLE N. Y." caption.<br />Of course it was not that simple, it had to have been expertly printed so<br />that it closely matched the name and team lettering.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>david</b><p>that is what i was getting at. i was not implying that the entire card was faked but just the Nat'l was added at a later time using the original methods

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Bill</b><p>I have handled 2 different examples of the Doyle Nat'l Variation. The first card was purchased from a man in the Richmond VA area who inherited his father's collection and had no knowledge of the card or any of the other 1000+ T cards that he newly owned. I do not beleive there is any way the card could have ever been altered or "faked" into the variation. The card later graded a 3 with PSA. The second copy is a higher grade example that also came straight from an original collection where again, the owner considered the card a common T206 and had no idea of it's value.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Bill<br /><br />Are all the Joe Doyle (NAT"L) cards with PIEDMONT 350 Subjects<br />backs that you have personally seen ?

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Bill</b><p>Both cards were Piedmont 350.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>While PSA has made errors in the past (haven't we all) I would like to think that with regard to the few Doyles they have graded, they spent the extra time needed and used a black light at the least to make absolutely sure they got it right. That of course doesn't explain the fiasco with the one graded by SGC, and to this day I can't explain how that happened. Therefore, I will stand by what I have been saying all along: the Doyle variation is a legitimate error that was made at the time of issue and quickly corrected. I respect those who question its authenticity, but I politely disagree.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>William Heitman</b><p>From reading the comments and putting two and two together, one thing seems clear. There's going to be a lot more Doyles found with the league designation. Only time I know of that T206 corrected an error with another error?

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Bruce Babcock</b><p>There was a fairly notorious case in the early 80s regarding a 20-something California dealer who created a lot of fake Pete Rose Topps rookie cards. Rose cards were hot then as he chased and surpassed Cobb's lifetime hits record. He (the forger, not Rose) was arrested, charged & convicted, as I recall, but I don't know what sentence he might have served. I remember being shown one of the fakes along side a real one and I thought it was pretty convincing. I realize that Topps cards are not T206 but I think that the technology to create fake T206s probably existed in the early 80s. Having said that, and further stating that I am in no way a T206 expert, I think that some sort of mishap or mistake in 1910 or thereabouts possibly could have created a real rarity. Or not. It's an interesting story in either case.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I remember the 63 Rose counterfeits and eventually all those that were recovered were stamped "counterfeit" or something to that affect in red ink.<br /> And Bill, why do you say T206 corrected an error with another error? Once the league designation was removed, it simply read "Doyle N.Y." That may not be specific, but it is correct.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Bill Heitman<br /><br />We both have agreed that it certainly appears that the designers of<br />the T206 set were very meticulous in keeping up with player trades,<br />correcting errors, and even quickly responding to Wagner's request to<br />drop his picture from the very first series.<br /><br />Look how immediately they corrected the Magee error. So quick that the<br />initial "Magie" card didn't get past the very 1st series, PIEDMONT 150.<br /><br />The O'Hara card was quickly reprinted to reflect his trade to St. Louis.<br />O'Hara the following year was sent down to the Minors, never to return to<br />the Majors.<br />Smith (Chicago) is then traded to Boston, so they reprint him with both<br />teams on his card. I could go on and on, you know these little subtleties<br /> much better than I.<br /> As a student of many BB card sets and their flaws, it utterly amazes me<br />how well designed and virtually flawless the cards of the T206 set are.<br /><br />So, 1st....I cannot accept that they incorrectly labelled the Joe Doyle card.<br />And, 2nd....If they did, they would have immediately corrected it.<br /> Hence. we would have a 3rd - Joe Doyle card with "N.Y. AL" on it.<br /><br /><br /><br />

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>So Ted, now I have to take you to task. You are clearly implying that all the Doyles are fakes. Now I need you to supply your proof. A hunch isn't good enough; we need documentation.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br />Hi Ted,<br /> While I agree the printers did a good job correcting some of the team changes which occured during the printing of the series , they did a poor job of correcting spelling errors. Out of the 24 misspelled cards in the set, they corrected only one Magee/Magie.<br /> I wonder why he was the only spelling correction? Did he complain? Did the Delahnty's not? Or Harry Sentz???<br /><br /> That's why I love the set, more questions than answers. Be well Brian<br /><br />

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>William Heitman</b><p>Barry, I said they corrected an error with another error because Doyle with no league is the only card in the set that didn't have the league desgnation where the city had a team in both leagues. I think of it is error in many ways, while I don't consider it an "error card." You have to have a correct card in the set to have another be an error. Joe Doyle never got a correct card.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I agree it is not consistent with any other cards featuring a player from a city with two teams, such as NY, Chicago, St. Louis, or Philadelphia. Fair enough.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>William Heitman</b><p>Can't let this one get swept under.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>tobacco-r-us</b><p>This one is a good one.<br />Regardless of some of the speculation, assumptions, supposition, conjecture, and anything else derivative to a fertile mind --<br />We all seem to agree that the printers of that period, and anyone else connected to producing the cards, weren't all that bad.<br />In fact, they were very good.<br />The only problem is that they were human, and thus subject to human error. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <br /><br />The Magie error was caught fast, and the Slow Joe error, - faster.<br /><br />

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Joe P.</b><p>This thread is a good one, and I nominate Barry Sloate for the first Congressional Medal of Frustration.<br /><br />Before I go any further I must say, that I only have the highest respect for Ted Z.<br />When it comes to the 1948 Bowman fooball set, he's da man, he was my Guru, he wrote the book.<br />He stated numbers, and the numbers were factual.<br />Reading his take on the 1948 Bowman FB set, was like walking and talking with God.<br />Anyone that thinks that I'm elaborating, or exaggerating, really doesn't understand what I'm going through.<br /><br />You think it's easy?<br />You think I can just shrug this off just like that?<br />This is a tough ordeal.<br /><br />From the Bowman Mt Olympus, to the world of T206.<br /><br />From facts to ... conjecture, assumptions, suppositions, and speculations. ..... not a shred of any kind of facts.<br /><br />The God that failed.<br /><br />I can see Barry's face turning blue with frustration.<br />He pleaded and begged to be listened to, but to no avail.<br />Actually, he shouldn't feel like a failure, because many others tried to explain and reason with the Bowman Olympian.<br /><br />Ted is still my hero when it comes to the 1948 Bowman FB set, but Barry gets my vote for the first Congressional Medal of Frustration. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Listen Joe- I still have no idea what your beef is with me, but I must request that you stop talking about me in any context. Everyone on the board knows that you suffer from some form of mental illness, and you need to take care of it. You can't just go on the board and continue attacking me for no reason whatsoever. The next time you refer to me negatively, I will be calling my attorney and we will start a defamation lawsuit against you. I have a business and a reputation to protect and I can't allow people to defame it in any way. Get yourself some help Joe, because you have the voice of a sick and desperate soul.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>You may continue to post on the board but you may not ever mention Barry's name in a post again, or make reference to him, however slight it might be, or you will be banned. This is in keeping with the board rules on personal issues.....thanks much....moderator dude

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Joe P.</b><p>Next time you earn yourself a few scheckels, go out and buy youself a sense of humor.<br /><br />If you had any intelligence, instead of being a fragile sensitive wimp.<br />You would see that I was giving YOU credit for knowing what you were talking about.<br /><br />Schmuck, ..... I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU.<br /><br />You appear to be a nice guy, but you're turning out to be the lamest dumbest New Yorker that I ever met.<br />I'm ashame to call you a fellow New Yorker.<br /><br />Have you ever looked at a Doyle error card real up close?<br />Who the hell put the card in your delicate little hands at the Willow Grove show?<br /><br />There you have it little one.<br />Now see if you can tell the difference between someone having a little fun in YOUR favor, ..... and someone attacking you?<br /><br />Don't ever leave your apartment, ... it's a jungle out there. PUNK!

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>As regulars on this board are aware Joe Palaez seems to have it in for me, and to this day he has never explained why. He claims that his post to me was a compliment. I invite other board members to please read that post and tell me if it sounds like a compliment to you. If it is, it went straight over my head. Joe just got himself permanently banned so I want to make certain I understood yet another one of his hopelessly convoluted posts.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p>I thought he shouldve been banned a long time ago but he seemed to be in hiding for awhile so all was well.I wouldnt worry about it Barry,its obvious from the past that hes had something against you and theres no way a compliment can be taken from what he wrote before.If he cant follow simple instructions as to not not mentioning your name or he will be banned,he obviously doesnt care if he can post or not and we dont need people like that around here

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Barry no need to worry these people always seem to show there true colors and if a reader can't figure that out it is someone you don't need to deal with. The personal bashing tends to come from people that have little or nothing to contribute to the actual context of the forum.<br /><br />Lee

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>BcDaniels</b><p>the third beer I have in three years! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>martin dalziel</b><p>Barry,<br />If its any consolation, i've yet to read a Joe P post that didn't go over my head. <br /><br />Lee hit the nail on the head - very little ever offered, so nothing will be missed.<br /><br />Shame it reared its head in this post - a good and informative thread.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Thanks to all who have been supportive on this thread. I don't know if anyone noticed, but the last response before Joe's was three months ago. What compelled him to drag this old business up to start bashing me again? It's unfathomable. He's a man with a serious problem and I'm not even sure he knows what it is.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Joe Pelaez</b><p>This is a very interesting, and telling thread.<br /><br />Joe

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Glyn Parson</b><p>I personally am nearly 100% confident the Doyle variation is legitimate. I feel this way because I worked for LEvi when he inadvertantly purchased the copy of the card he owned. He purchased the card at the 1998 Sportsfest from Joe Esposito in a huge binder full of T206 cards. The binder was originally purchased by Alan Rosen in Dave Zubas (sp) shop in western PA. The binder was then sold to Esposito. Joe first offered the binder to Jimmy, who looked through it then passed. As he was walking the floor it struck him that the Doyle error was in that binder. He quickly proceeded back to Joe's table where he was informed that Levi had purchased the binder. In the meantime Levi had brought the binder back to the table and handed it to me to put in the back. Jimmy came over and asked if Levi was by with a binder of T206s I showed it to him. We went through the binder and there it was. I must state that the card though 100% real in both our minds appeared to be hand cut not really that uncommon for a T206. Before Levi came back and Jimmy could tell him what he had purchased, I had already told Steve Novella and Kris Keppler of the find. Word spread quickly through the hall. Rosen was angry and felt Levi should give Joe more money since such a valuable card had been found in ther binder, Levi declined and Joe stated it was on him Levi did not owe him a thing. Then a day or two later the other supposed Doyle came in and Merkle slabbed it for SGC. Rosen attempted to sell this card first to Craig Roehrig who was buying tons from Rosen at this time. Craig showed Jimmy and I the card and we laughed hysterically as it was an obvious fake variation and we told Craig that we felt it was fake, so he passed. Levi in the meantime had PSA slab his card as authentic, possiblty the first card to be slabbed as Authentic, I heard it has since received a number grade though I can niether confirm or deny this fact. This story is to my recollection 100% accurate and I stand by my statements.

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Rick McQuillan</b><p>Hello,<br />I'm glad that this thread resurfaced. I just read it from beginning to end, and it is fascinating. I enjoy the stories from the collectors who have been collecting T206's for many years. Thank you Ted, Barry, Bill and the others who shared their T206 knowledge.<br /><br />Rick

T206 variations
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Hey guys, that was about 2 years ago and back then I was sort of skeptical about the Joe Doyle error;<br /> and, I was just throwing out some thought-provoking stuff.<br /><br />This card (the few that have been found), exists only with a Piedmont 350 back....and, that reinforces<br /> my "Piedmont Primacy" theory. So, I am fully convinced it is an original T206 issue.<br /><br />And, in a recent thread, I posted a subtle Mark (shown here) that exists on some Joe Doyle cards....<br /> that appears to be a remnant of the "Nat'l" lettering......that we can only assume the T206 printer's<br /> inadvertently left remaining when they erased the "Nat'l" lettering on the printing plate (or stone).<br /><br />TED Z <br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/aadoylexmk.jpg"><br />................................................. ......./\<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/cjoedoylenatl.jpg">