Possible newly discovered T205 variation
 

I believe that I may have discovered a T205 variation that I have not previously seen discussed. On the back of some Doc White cards, the first "Doc" is in quotation marks. On other cards, it is not.

To this point, I have been able to find this card with four backs...Piedmont, Hassan, Honest and Polar Bear. On both of the Polar Bear backs that I own, the Doc is clearly NOT in quotation marks. I don't feel that this is simply due to light ink registration or anything like that as the ink is very dark on the rest of the text and the "Doc" four lines from the bottom is clearly in quotation marks. On the Piedmont, Hassan, and Honest cards I have seen, the first "Doc" is clearly in quotation marks.

Even if it turns out that only Polar Bear backs feature this variation, I do still feel that it is a legitimate variation just as some of the other widely accepted print variations (Wilhelm "suffered", Hoblitzel, etc) appear with only one back as well. I will post scans of a Polar Bear and an Honest backed card. I apologize for the slightly blurry scan on the Polar Bear card. I have yet to figure out how to get a completely clear scan on an SGC holdered card. It should be clear enough however to distinctively see the difference in the cards. I would appreciate any other feedback/scans from others who own this card, especially any rarer backs.

Marc - I'd like to see a clearer scan for confirmation, but if it is confirmed, it is every bit the variation that the others are. Nice find! I hope you stockpiled the PB backs before you went public :)

I have tried every possible setting on my scanner to get a clear scan through the SGC slab but it always seems to come out blurry. Any tips would certainly be appreciated. I have been researching this for several months and have picked up a few of both of the variations but the Polar Bears seem to be fairly uncommon.

My guess is that you have a CIS scanner which can't do depth well. If you can pickup a scanner with CCD technology which handles things not directly up on the glass.

A quick search shows at least 3 PB backed Doc Whites sold in the last few months on eBay, including an SGC 70, but none available at the moment :)

I bought an SGC 50 and an SGC 30 on eBay over the past few months. I don't recall seeing the 70. Perhaps somebody got a steal and didn't even realize it :) I also posted on the BST and never got a reply.

This variation has been known for awhile by a few collectors and was never really outed until now. I have charted it for about 9 months...It only occurs on the Polar Bear cards. I have seen 13 Doc Whites in the last 9 months. 4 with Polar Bear backs all of which were missing the quotes...9 with other backs that had the quotes. Small sample size but interesting. I do not think this will command a huge premium but maybe a slight premium like the Latham cards. I have to say that I have seen more Polar Bear Whites (29) than the other three backs (Piedmont 22, Hassan 649 17, Hassan 30 11, and Honest Long Cut 13) in the last few years.

I am happy this was on a Doc White and not Kirb...then we may be looking at a Wilhelm/Gray/Moran situation.

Joshua

The biggest variation is not the missing quotes.....it's the giant words POLAR BEAR on the back!

Not a variation unless the same brand has it both ways.

Thanks for the reply and the data Joshua. That seems to confirm that it is in fact a variation. I'm surprised that nobody has outed it until now. I didn't figure it would command much of a value premium as the Polar Bear backs seem to be relatively common throughout the set. It is interesting that you haven't noted any other backs besides the four I mentioned. I wonder if this card exists with any other backs.

That theory is not consistent with the other established T205 variations.

egbeachley,
So do you feel that the other print variations mentioned in this thread by myself and Joshua should also not be considered variations? Most if not all of those only occur with one back.

Josh - any chance you want to share any other not publicly known variations? I know you put a ton of work into your research so I understand if you want to keep it close to your vest, but at some point it would be a good idea to get a complete "master" checklist out there.

Matt (and everyone else)...

I do not have a master list. YET. I have been tracking this set for a long time now. I have seen thousands of different T205s but I still seem to find new ones to confirm. Ask Rawn. He and I were looking for a Polar Bear backed Carrigan for a long time. Just in the past three months, I have seen at least three different ones. I have several other T205s that should exist but just have not seen examples of (not including the really tough backs i.e. Drum, Hindu, Broadleaf) them...like an Honest Long Cut Bates.

As to sharing the information. I made that mistake once before when I shared a great deal of my back information, variation info. (including the Wilhelm), and pop. reports with a fellow collector who said he would help write an article, give me credit, and let me look over the final draft before submitting it. That did not happen and the article was published without me.

Since then, I have been willing to share some of the knowledge I have gathered but stopped publicly sharing my back info. and population reports. I used to share these once a year around September. I stopped doing that in 2004 or 2005.

I am always willing to share information with fellow collectors but putting together a comprehensive list is a massive job and I just did not think there was such a huge interest. As far as I know, the last two variations that I had marked down were the White and the Matty. Anything else is new to me.

Joshua

Josh - thanks; you've put a TON of work into your research and it's your right to keep it private. I was really asking for the full list of variations you know of, not the front/back combos. If the only other ones you know of are the Mathewson "37-1" variation and the White "no quotes" variation then we've got as complete a full checklist as is known at this time.
thank you!

The Hoblitzel No Stats is definitely a variation. Same brand with 2 clearly defined differences where a change was made at the printers. Right?

I think the Suffered is more a printing error in that there wasn't a deliberate change in the typeset. But I can see a viewpoint of it being a collectible difference.

Think of it this way, when someone says they have a missing quotes variation of the "Doc", is the reply going to be "oh, you mean a regular Polar Bear back?"

Tell that to the T206 Demmitt and O'Hara collectors, which variations are only available on Polar Bear backed T206 cards.

I think they know it's a St Louis variation for front collectors. No variation for PB collectors.

Well, assuming they know there isn't a non-St Louis PB back.

I agree
 

I agree....if all Polar Bear backs are the same, is it really a "variation", or just a PB back?:cool:

T205 Cycle Mathewson - Not a variation by SGC standards
 

Based on a request to SGC on why the Cycle Mathewson wasn't listed on the Master Registry Set, this was their reply:

Hi Frank,

"We have not added it to the Master Set because all Cycle back Mathewsons come this way so it is more of an uncorrected error rather than a variation, but I will revisit that decision a little more in depth and get back to you if anything changes."

Thank you,

Brian

So based on that response from SGC, if all PB Whites are that way, then it would fall into that same category of the Mathewson (though not necessarily an uncorrected error).

My way of thinking is if it is different than the majority of cards, then it should be classified as a variation and listed accordingly in the registry.

Just my 2 cents.

r/
Frank

Frank - Aside from it being incorrect (how could it be an uncorrected error if it was corrected on other backs?) that's an inconsistent response from them as it's no different then Wilhelm suffered. My guess is that they haven't indicated it yet since it has yet to be included in SCD, but it will be shortly and then I'm sure the grading companies will follow.

The Doc (no quotes) White is different than the majority of cards. The difference is that it has a Polar Bear back. A master set of all front/back brand combinations already has this card.

Same thing with the Mathewson. Not a variation either.

And how is SCD going to list this differently? They already acknowledge the White comes with a Polar Bear back.

And Wilhelm, which is already acknowledged by everybody as being a variation? The fact that they went in and fixed the back text makes it a variation. It may not be more rare then any other card with Polar Bear back, but Doc White clearly has cards printed with 2 different versions of the back. I don't see how the fact that they caught the error after the PBs were printed and before the other backs were printed makes it not a variation.

By virtue of the Cycle Mathewson and PB White being different than the others should be the reason for inclusion on the Master Registry. Don't care if they call it a variation or not, but it is different, so it should be listed.

Good Point
 

I think the best made point is that this card is already covered in the master checklist. If it were a new variation, it would need to be added to the checklist.

Matt,
I agree with you completely that it is no different than the Wilhelm and do hope that it is included in SGC's Master Registry in the future. Not sure why SCD has to mention this before the grading companies acknowledge it. They know it exists, so why not include?

Historically, SGC has been very reluctant to include variations unless they are widely acknowledged. I believe they still don't indicate the "Over 300 Subjects" back variation on M116 cards although I'm hoping that changes as well when SCD includes the information.

One more thought for the naysayers here:
Had the error been caught in the middle of the PB press run, or in the middle of a later run (say Hassan backs) you all would agree it counts as a variation, but because the error was caught after the PBs were printed and before the other backs were printed it doesn't count?

It is already on the Master Registry. The 37-1 Mathewson is called a Cycle Mathewson and the no quotes Doc White is called a Polar Bear White.

How many cards are in a T206 set in your world?

Let's clarify something else. There are two types of Master sets when it comes to many of the T-card issues. A "master set" which includes all player related textual/image variations and a "true master set", which includes that plus all possible front/back advertising combinations. The first definition is what we are discussing here and that is what is commonly called a "master set" as that is what is within reach for collectors; you seem to be arguing about the second kind of checklist.

Using these commonly held definitions, the White is a variation deserving of a spot in the "master set."

??????????
 

I'm not sure you and I are on the same page. You are talking about a Master Checklist and I'm talking about a Master Registry. No where in the SGC Registry does it list the Cycle Mathewson. I also included an email a few posts up from SGC stating that they will address listing it in the future.

r/
Frank

I'm a little confused --

All Polar Bear T206 Demmitts are the St. Louis variation. Purely from a printing variation perspective, how is that any different from all Polar Bear T205 Doc Whites not having the quotation marks?

I think the bottom line is that the text and image of the card was intended to be identical regardless of the brand advertisement on the back. I believe that any difference in the text or image of the card should rightfully and by definition be considered a "variation" regardless of whether this appears on only one back.

I think the example of the T206 Polar Bear Demmitt and O'Hara cards is perfectly appropriate here. What does it matter whether the "variation" appears on the front or back of the card? These cards appear with only one back advertisement so if the T205 Doc White Polar Bear card is not a variation, it is impossible to assert that the T206 Polar Bear Demmitt and O'Hara are variations.

There are several quite valuable variations in the T205 set that appear with only one back. To those who honestly do not believe that these are legitimate variations, I will generously offer to pay 150% of book value (of the lower priced variation) for all of your copies of these cards. If you truly believe what you are stating, the offers should begin rolling in pretty quickly.

My thoughts on the mater....
The Doc White is a variation of the text. It is found on one advertiser.

The big differences here is the perception that it is somehow rare. It is not. It is common. Both ways are fairly common.

The Wilhelm was short printed greatly. This is what causes the value differences. Not the variations. (Same with the Demmit/O'Hara cards in T206s...it is not the variation that causes the value increase it is the print run). Many team, pose variations exist in the T206 and the value is the same for them unless they were short printed or rare.

I personally do not do the registry thing but I feel that if the T205 Matty or White is listed with the advertising type on the slip then that is all you will need. Sounds like people are trying to create value for their sets where none really exists.

Joshua

IMO with Demmitt & O'Hara it's exactly the variation that causes the value increase; there are many other Polar Bear T206s that are only printed in the laster series like the Demmitt and O'Hara and are equally as shortprinted, but carry little to no premium because their text is identical to their Piedmont version. People chasing the T206 master set drive the price of the Demmitt and O'Hara and likewise do/will with the T205 Wilhelm, Matty and to a lesser extent Latham and White when they are cataloged as part of a complete master set.

Joshua,
You make some very good points and I certainly respect all of the research you have done on this set. I do have to slightly disagree with your analysis, however, that it is not the variation that causes the value.

To use the T206 Demmitt and O'Hara example, these cards had the same print run as all other Polar Bear 350 only series cards and are presumably equally scarce. If not for the variation (team change), these cards would be looked at as commons, just as the other PB 350 only series cards. Conversely, if it was only the print run that determined the value, all other PB 350 series T206's would command similar values as the Demmitt and O'Hara. Clearly, in this case it is strictly the variation that causes the increased demand and thus, higher value.

I think the same principle applies to some of the T205 variations. While I do not believe the T205 Doc White (no quotes) variation is very scarce or valuable, I do believe that it will command a premium as, by your own tracking numbers, it appears to be about 2-3 times as scarce in total as the other version.

Great thread. Another reason I enjoy this set so much.

Just to clarify...the Polar Bear advertising is the most commonly found back on Doc White in my research. It is not scarce.

Joshua

Joshua,
As purely a back variation regardless of brand advertisement, the "no quotes" variation IS scarcer. Your numbers noted that you have tracked 29 Polar Bear backs (which are all the "no quotes" version) and 22, 17, 11, and 13 respectively of the other backs, all of which have the quotes. So the total of "no quotes" versus "quotes" is 29 to 63, thus making it 2-3 times scarcer as a back variation.

Oh, you are correct when you look at it that way...I stand corrected.

Joshua

If you want to pay a premium for the card it is your right whether it is a variation or what ever you think. If some book tells you it is a variation makes you feel better then you have a fight. If you own some of these cards you obviously keep the fight up to keep them in the forefront.

I currently own 25% of all the T202 backs of a certain variation that I have been able to track. Not many seem to give a rats ass about them but I don't care, I can buy them cheaper when I see them and then maybe some day if I want to sell them I will make more noise about them and hopefully it will raise awareness and drive the prices up.

It all comes down to each individuals wants, needs, and perceptions.

Lee

In my opinion, the Doc White "quotes" and "no quotes" shouldn't really command much of a premium.

I know of three other T205's in the set that exhibit the same type of "error". These examples range from missing quotation marks to no parenthesis added in the text. I've taken these into account, but I never thought they would demand much of a premium or become recognized as new variations.

As far as the Mathewson Cycle "variation", that card is found with only one back. It shouldn't be added to the Master Set until a "37-1" example surfaces on a different advertising back OR with the correct stats listed on the Cycle back. Just my two cents.

Nice find, nonetheless.

Edited to add: Josh, there is a HLC Bates on eBay right now.

Turner,
Would you mind sharing the other three variations that you have discovered? Regardless of anybody else's opinion, I DO consider these cards variations and would like to add them to my collection.

To those who insist that both versions of a variation must appear with the same back in order to legitimately be considered a "variation", could you tell me what cards in the T205 set you consider to be true variations? On the vast majority of the T205 variations I am aware of, both versions DO NOT appear with the same back. Some appear with more than one back, but those backs are still exclusive to their respective variations. If we checklist the set in that way, it will be 10-15 cards smaller than what is currently recognized.

To reiterate my feelings on the Doc White "variation", I do not believe that either version will be extremely valuable as both seem to be relatively easy to find. However, I do believe that there will eventually be a modest premium attached to the "no quotes" version as I believe that most collectors (at least set completists like myself) will feel that this is a legitimate variation and, by Joshua's research and tracking numbers, this version appears to be about twice as scarce as the "quotes" version.

Hi Marc,

I can tell you two of the three:

Edward Barger: No parenthesis around "Cy" in first line of bio (I've only seen it on the Partial "B" variation, not the Full "B")

"Germany" Schaefer: no quotes around Germany

So, the O'Hara and Demmitt St Louis variations don't count towards a T206 set because they are only found with PB backs?

Thanks Turner,
Guess I will keep searching for that third one :)

I guess there seems to be a double standard regarding this issue. Not quite sure why there seems to be one standard for the T206 PB variations, but a similar variation with the T205's brings a totally different response. I'm trying to figure the reasoning, could someone please explain? Don't want to beat a dead horse with this one, but would like to understand the thought process for the difference.

r/
Frank

Frank - by the existing and established hobby definitions, the White, Matty, O'Hara and Demitt are all variations and should be check-listed as part of a master set. Some here perhaps are arguing theoretically if there was no already long standing defined standards. I don't see why an error being caught in between back print runs (instead of mid back run) or being on the back and not the front should make a difference, even in theory, but we're all entitled to our opinions.

Frank,
I don't think that there is any logical way a person can claim that the Demmitt and O'Hara are variations but the Doc White is not.

I understand the argument that in a true "master set" which is comprised of every possible front/back combination of every card in the set, you could checklist these simply as the Polar Bear backed Demmitt, O'Hara, and White. If you checklist these sets in this way, they will of course contain thousands of cards.

However, the vast majority of collectors checklist the set by the front and/or back design regardless of the ad brand. In this case, any variation in these designs (which are intended to be the same regardless of the brand) will be considered a listed variation. By that standard, Demmitt, O'Hara and White must all be considered true variations.

When somebody says, "I have a complete set of T205's", I don't think anybody would take that to mean that they have every possible front/back combination of every card in the set. What that person means is that he/she has one of every front/back DESIGN in the set. By definition, this would have to include the Doc White, Matty, and any other such variations.

Are all of the Moran and Gray variations consistant with a specific back like the Wilhelm? Meaning is all brands of the back that these variations are found all have the variation? I thought the Moran and possibly Gray are found with both variations on the same brand back? I am not sure but I think this makes a huge difference as to scarcity and value. I don't think the Wilhelm Piedmont card should command an extra value at all. The Hassan back is much tougher to find for Wilhelm. Thanks, I think Joshua can answer this for me. Dan.

I think everyone is in agreement that the White "no quotes" shouldn't carry any major premium.

Dan and all,
The Gray with stats comes with only two backs...Piedmont Fact. 25 and Sovereign.
The Gray without stats comes Honest Long Cut, Polar Bear, and all three Sweet Cap. backs.

The Moran with stray line is found with Polar Bear only.
The Moran without stray line is found with American Beauty Black, Cycle, Drum, Honest Long Cut, Piedmont Fact. 25, Polar Bear, Sovereign, and Sweet Cap Red.

I can say that the Moran with stray line is more infrequent than that of the Gray w/ stats.

I also feel that the Moran was an error that was fixed and that Gray w/ stats was included in two later print runs.

Hopefully this answered Dan's question.

BTW...Gray no stats Piedmont is one of my mystery cards. I feel it should exist but it just does not. Strange.

Joshua

PS These lists my be incomplete as I am working off my paper list at home and not the computer one at work.

Joshua,
I would love to get a copy of your list if you are willing to share. I have owned and tracked quite a few T205s and have attempted to put together a master list myself though I'm sure your data is much more complete than mine. I'd be glad to add anything to your list that I'm able to. Thanks again for all of your research.

Josh my moran with stray line has a piedmont back

Hi Josh,

Here's a scan of a Moran I used to own.

Since this was brought back up, I have a question to pose to all that think that any of the variations that show up only on one specific back.

Please explain your argument as to why these should be stand out variations with no correction to the back and why every back variation should not be listed.

The argument I see from you folks is that if an error was made on back, (Matty 37-1, only verified Cycle) than that justifies it being listed. But the matty with Piedmont has correct text with a Piedmont ad variation, why is this not listed? The Matty Sweet Cap has correct text but different than Cycle and Piedmont, thus a variation. This goes on with all different ad backs.

I think we all want continuity in the listing and by adding variation with errors specific to one back is doing an injustice to not listing each ad back variation for a card.

The Demmit and O'hara seem to be your only argument, to me it also could be list as Polar Bear backs but it sure is easier to make them St. louis vartiations because people tens to read the front much more and more easily identified.

Will the believers please answer the question, without using the Demmitt O'Hare as an example. Just because something is written it doesn't always make it right and sometimes through time evidience is found to change things. Bob lemke is constantly updating the SCD with new evidence (The Matty Cycle has always been known, just not so publically noticed with the 37-1 back).


Please explain your argument as to why these should be stand out variations with no correction to the back and why every back variation should not be listed.

I really want to hear a good explaination on my question,

Lee

Lee - the established criterion for T-card variations is a variation in the text that is player specific.

As the Ads are through the whole set and not player specific, they certainly count towards a "true master set" which comprises every front/back possibility, but not to what collectors call a "master set" which doesn't count ad-back variations and only uses the criterion I explained above.

I get it, now. When looking to get a master set for everyone to collect you ignore the ad back as a variation (they don't count) but pay attention to any errors to the card.

Lee

Lee,
I will reiterate what I posted on the other thread related to this topic. I think the bottom line is that, when these cards were printed, the front design and the back text were intended to be identical regardless of the advertisement. There are really only two conceivable ways that a person can collect a "complete" T205 set:

1. A true master set which would include every possible front/back combination of every card. We may never even have a checklist of such a set, and certainly never anything approaching an actual complete set.

2. A set of all front/back DESIGNS regardless of advertisement. This is the method of the vast majority of set collectors and thus the way these sets are nearly always checklisted. A variation in design, by definition, would be any difference in the text or artwork of the card.

Either way, both of these cards must be listed separately. If you feel that option number one is correct, the text variation is incidental and irrelevant. If you feel that option number two is correct, the ad is incidental and irrelevant. However, there can be no definition of a "complete set" that does not list these cards separately, either by design variation or by ad variation.

By eliminating the ad as a variation to the set then the "only complete set" should be of all the front variations. By picking out parts of the back variations to be a "complete set" shows no continuity to your definition of a "complete set"

By the Way, Thanks for the responses, just trying to understand

Lee

My definition of a complete set is a card featuring every design that was printed, regardless of the advertisement. The design (meaning artwork and text) of the card was intended to be identical regardless of the ad back. The text on the back of the Doc White card was not intended to change in any way based on the ad brand. However, some Doc White cards were printed without quotation marks in the text. To me, this constitutes a different design and therefore a variation. I couldn't care less how many different ad brands appear with this variation because I do not consider the ad brand when checklisting my set. I only consider the design of the card.

If i get your theory correct than the fact that Demmit and O'Hara should not have been changed even though they actually changed teams?

I see that you are under the thinking of their needs to be text variations in order to be a cataloged variation and that an ad back variation is insignificant.

To try to simplify, your complete set is with text variations (technically an ad back is a text variation, but for the sake of this discuss they will be ad variations) and all other variations are not included?

Lee

I will re word my question about the Demitt/O'Hara, how they fit into your theory?

Lee

I'm not sure that I understand your question regarding the Demmitt and O'Hara. These cards feature a variation in the design (i.e. the team change). The fact that this variation only appears with the Polar Bear back is irrelevant to me. If the Demmitt and O'Hara (St. Louis) cards also appeared with...say, a Piedmont back as well, I would checklist these as the same card as the design is the same.

I do not consider the different ads to be a "text variation" as those were intended to be interchangeable amongst all copies of the card. When the Doc White card was designed, the front artwork and back text and stats were intended to be unchanged, regardless of the ad. I consider the version of this card without quotation marks to be a different design.

T205 Back Variations
 

I have been looking for these 2 back variations to include in my own "Master Set" - (whatever THAT means!)

Although my search has admittedly NOT been exhaustive, I have NOT seen these variations either... Are they specific to a particular brand of cigarettes???

Sounds like scrubbing with a good eraser might net you the variations. :) (j/k)...Good luck in the hunt. As we always say, the hunt is a lot of the fun.

I have never seen either of these variations either, and I have been searching pretty intensively since they were first mentioned several years ago. Maybe Leon's eraser suggestion is the best way to go :)

Thanks, Leon!

One can always count on you as the Voice of Reason!!! :D

Thanks, Leon!

One can always count on you as the Voice of Reason!!! :D