That is being worked on right now and will be available. Until then the least labor intensive method is:

1) Determine the print group a subject is in. (Example: Johnny Bates, Group 1)

2) Go to that page on the Index (Group 1) and at the top all the possible backs for that print group are listed.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-F...5%252520PM.jpg

3) Go through the brand checklist for that subjects possible backs and determine what has been confirmed, is possible or is believed to be a no-print.

I hope this helps. It will be much simpler in the future.

thanks Tim!

BTW, i should get some acknowledgements or accolades or a trophy or something for submitting an improvement request right? If I don't see my name listed, there will be hell to pay!
:)

Here's your trophy:

http://anacraftyone.whencreativitykn...WCKCJTroll.jpg

eek, I'm a troll!

I don't know, are you?

a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

you gave me a troll trophy, so I assume thats what you were insuating. If you meant differently by it then I'll stand corrected!

Scott I'm surprised you haven't responded to this post at all, especially considering your strong position on attribution earlier in this thread.

-R0SS C. BEEVER$

I missed that post, but I will recommend that you stay out of stuff where you are clueless.

Eric must have sent me the photo originally. If you look at my page, you'll see credits everywhere. Quite obvious that I have not intentionally left anyone out.

But, yeah I get it - you want to get the flame going. Flame on buddy.

I have dog in this fight but you probably need to put your full name out here per the rules....thanks

Please, Eric, just post all the secret details. I'm sure it's movie-worthy.

Anyone else?

I mean, while we're at it - let's just have an all-out virtual rumble.

What other credits am I missing, other than yours?

Once again, I've gotten a former friend all butt-hurt because I voiced my opinion of Saint Tim. Yeah, I know - I have 'website envy'. :rolleyes:

My scans are available for any use that aids collectors and no mention of thx needed.

Rawn

Now it all makes sense. Just found that Eric Angyale is one of the first names in T206Resource's credit page. No wonder he decided that we have suddenly become enemies and he now needs to join the 'you've got website envy' youngsters.

Okay, Eric - this is the best I can do. I'll leave it this way until you feel that you have been appropriately credited for your vast efforts.

http://t206themonster.com/T206Origins.html

Maybe its......
 

An Alphabetical list.

Eric

Good job, Eric! I bet you can count in order also.

SCOTT FORREST


Do you children need anything else?

I hate to fan the fire here but could you put that in your signature line? :o

That was pretty funny Scott. I looked all over the page for awhile in confusion, then I saw it up top and laughed pretty hard. I updated my profile and here's my email as well, rcbeevers@hotmail.com, if anyone wants to message me.

Ross, I am really sorry for attacking you. Seriously, this entire 'us vs them' thing regarding the new site is bullshit, but I don't expect it to go away, just due to the nature of why the site was created to begin with. There apparently was always some alignment behind either Ted or Tim, but now it's more defined, involves more people, and is uglier.

I'm out of this fray now. I only jumped in to support a friend, and mentioned my own site as a supporting example - I was slow to say anything, because I knew the disciples of the 'big 4' would be all over my @ss immediately, and that the multitude of newbies would be joining in order to get their bite of fish. The word I'm hearing now is that the T206 gods thought my site was poorly done and needed to be recreated in their own image. Okay, I will not use their names in vain.

I also freely admit that I know DINK compared to the creators. My interest in the T206 set has always involved the very esoteric aspects - not the numbers and statistics. But I'm glad others are, as it has given us amazing insight into the set that we wouldn't otherwise have.

Haha - that's not flaming the fire. I'm not mad, I'm ready to throw up. I was very excited to re-join the hobby, and I'm a factor of ten below that at the moment. I might switch to collecting OJ's, just to get in with a better class of people (no offense toward anyone who's thinking about buying any of my cards :( - I am sure that you are all the best of the bunch :) )

woops
 

Scott- I didn't realize that WAS your name in your sig line when I made the last post. I wasn't thinking and was only looking at the top of the post, near your avatar. Carry on :)

You're not going crazy - it wasn't there - I just added it :D

I can live with that....
 

Anyways, its not like too many people will be viewing it, especially with the new site up and running.

Eric

I'm counting on your name being a big draw, but I'll monetize it just in case.

I like applesauce

Congrats to the crew for both the great site and the research effort involved. Keep it up!

After a long phone call with one of the owners of the site, I want to make one last comment and then I'm done.

Tim apparently came up with the idea of posting original images along with cards, without ever having even seen my site, and with no idea that it existed. So I apologize for using my web-page as an example in defending Frank's statements as to Tim's failure to give credit to others. Eric apparently lost the original image that he sent me and felt fine in sending the collage from my website, and that is fine. Tim was unaware that the combined photo/T206 image came from someone else's website, and clipped off the card immediately. So, sorry about that Tim. As promised, I am sending a c.d. to one of the owners, with all original images that I can find, but I do not have most of the originals from my website - I had a hard-disc crash 6 years ago and lost everything that was not stored on the server or on discs. These were among the casualties, but I still have 30-40 others that haven't been 'collaged' yet.

As far as the stats and stuff on the new site, if I discovered for the first time that dogs bite, it might surprise you, but you can't fault me with presenting that information along with other qualities of dogs that were previously unknown to anyone (new dog discoveries), and you can't expect me to try to go find the first person ever bitten by a dog, so that I can give them credit.

(I, too, like applesauce. My gf's father makes it from trees in his backyard, and sends me a container each Christmas.)

I haven't had a lot of time to look at the site yet, but I did check out a couple of the pages and I'm astounded thus far with it's organization and clarity. I've accumulated a lot of T206 cards, but not as much information on some aspects of the set and I'm sure this site will be the next go-to spot for me.

I also didn't read all of this thread, but I'd like to point out that Tim has been one of the most respectful board members since he's started posting here. Not to mention, his posts are informative to say the least.

Good job guys.

Rob

Yeah, I only know Tim from his discussions on the board the last few months, and have based my opinions entirely on that. I'm sure there are some older posts where he was totally respectful, as you say.

"second largest self-righteous clown on the board (has no idea who the first is)"

Simple answer me, and I will never let you take my title Scott! :)

Tim, is ok but like McKee quite the drunkard. :D

Cheers,

John

I was basically saying that it should be me. Thanks for spoiling it.

We should form a circus of indignation. Wrinkling Brothers.

"We should form a circus of indignation. Wrinkling Brothers."

Love it! LOL :)

Guys this is what cracks me up about this whole credit thing. If something is shared sometimes it's used elsewhere with no mention of who found it out.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=145505

Perfect examples are the two cards here that Trae is selling in the BST. He links to two blogs of Bob Lemke's where the articles gush about how Trae has found these errors

"Now, through the efforts of T206 devotee Trae Regan, four more T206 errors will be added to that "set" in a forthcoming edition of the catalog. These are not earthshaking discoveries; they have been known among serious T206 collectors for a long time, but they have never been previously cataloged. We'll share two of those with you today. Both have been confirmed in several examples, signaling they are "collectible" to those who want to search them out"

http://boblemke.blogspot.com/2011/05...-listings.html
http://boblemke.blogspot.com/2011/05...th-errors.html

When in fact I found the Marquard and posted it in 2008 here, I also clued Trae into the "Partial" G card of Lefty and the Randall card has been talked about for years amoungst collectors.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=Reverse+comma

It is what it is if you share info with the public sometimes it will be used with no mention of the orginal source by mistake or on purpose. The only way to be sure you never have your info used in this way is to not share which is lame...in the end none of us are going to get rich with T206 tidbits.

But if you want to tar and feather Trae for plagiarism here ya go.

Cheers,

John

T206
 

John,

Great point !! I hope to continue working on the set for many years to come If I happen across something interesting I will post it as fast as I can to share information. The knowledge of the members of this board is why I continue to read daily and learn. I certainly don't think that I could make any " discovery " worthy of copyrighting before sharing and quite honestly wouldn't care to.

Anyway, again I love the site and enjoy the content greatly !!

Adam, same way I feel. Hope you had good holidays.

BTW I have stuff for your son I got your message when I was overseas I'll drop you an email so you can get him some of his stuff.

Cheers,

John

By mistake is one thing, but when you don't mention the original source on purpose it is a dick move. Giving credit where credit is due is just a sign of decency and respect, in all areas of life, not just cards.


edited to add: I'm not referring to any one person or group specifically, just making a generalization that hopefully everyone can agree with. Thanks.

Not only do I agree with you, I posted this same idea previously. You could at least give me credit. What a dick move.

(I hope everyone has a good sense of humor by now :))

John, please start a new thread about these errors. I sent Trae a PM with my thoughts, but didn't want to discuss publicly since he has sales going. But I would love to talk about these cards. Thanks.

John, the articles don't gush about me finding these errors. They both say the same thing, that they'll be cataloged through my efforts. All that means is that I took the time to bring them to Bob's attention (with multiple follow ups), to have them cataloged.

It clearly states "they have been known among serious T206 collectors for a long time, but they have never been previously cataloged". That's you, among others.

--

Hi Scott, just saw your email. These "errors" have already been debated many times over in existing threads.

Okay, since I missed the discussions then, I understand, and they will never again be mentioned.

No-no, I was just thinking you could dig them up using the search and continue any existing discussions. John even linked one in his post. I do appreciate your consideration to my sales post though!

Thanks, and congrats on selling them. The prices were fair, just for the fact that they were anomalies.

Trae, I don’t really care either way that's my whole point here. I know you’re just taking info you found via others and trying to push it forward....to have it added to add to value to your sales of these cards.

The main reason me and other "advanced" T206 collectors aren't chasing Bob on these is there are dozens if not 40-50 of these little things like Randall, Marquard, Lefty in this set. If we added them all we would have a really long checklist with goofy errors a lot of which are nothing more than printing var. that's all.

John

I agree. I'm not going to say there is a variation on every pose but there sure are a lot of them. There's a big difference between these variations and legitimate changes that were made to the plates (on purpose) resulting in a wholly different card. Many of the proofs show these changes that were made (i.e., Leon's Matty). You can see many differences (not so subtle) which are readily apparent. Partial G, partial S, and all these that happen during the course of printing are somewhat interesting but more of an insight into the printing process itself rather than the intentions of the printers or the company that made the cards.

I've found a couple over the course of collecting just by putting some of the same cards side by side. Here's one I found. I didn't ascribe any value to it but if others do, so be it.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=135461

I see the cards you mention as being of three types: 1) errors (such as 'Magie'), 2) intentional variations (possibly the Matty black cap), and 3) poor execution of a design ('nodgrass', the partial 'G' discussed here, the 'red blob' McGraw portrait, the 'comma' Marquard, the partial 'Natl' McGraw that I showed several years ago, Sharpe/Shappe - as John points out, the list is endless and if you are going to include these, you might as well throw in 'Weimer ghost on back' (since there are more than one), and any other odd card that made it into production).

As you would expect, there was a lot of poor execution.

You lay it out nicely, Scott. #1: Errors, which were corrected resulting in two different cards, the error card and the corrected card (i.e., Magie). and then #3 Poor Execution.

However, I don't know if I understand the #2: Intentional Variation one. On your Matty Black Cap, are you saying they intentionally were making a different looking card? I'm not sure I agree. I think the quality control was just not quite up to the task or they went about the procedures in a different way to create the card. It's hard for me to believe the printer was looking and trying to make the green background 1/16 of an inch shorter than another card.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.

That's why I said "possibly". I'm not sure it was intentional either; in fact, I'm leaning against it. But we have seen some very minor changes to cards, so it's clear that creative urges were sometimes implemented (Bender 'with/without' trees, chase white/black cap, etc.). The Matty ink color differences might have been unintentional, similar to orange vs red background (I assume that was unintentional) in portraits, or there might be other examples we haven't studied closely enough, where ink differences actually were intentional. I don't know for certain, but I'm not ruling it out.

If it turns out that I'm right about ANYTHING new, I think Eric Angyal deserves the credit - it's important to him, and he was always a decent hobbyist friend.

If it turns out that I'm wrong about something, feel free to rake me over the coals...as usually occurs on this forum :)

Cheers, John. Understood.

Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. I need it sometimes (often).

Thanks, Scott! In the end, I came down a little over 20% and sold them as a pair.

Marquard and Leifield
 

I'm happy to have them both. My collection is back heavy but some interesting fronts are fun too. Thanks Trae.