|
Nicholls SC150 649 OP CONTROVERSY
For some time now there has been some contention regarding the existence of a Simon Nicholls (Hands On Knees) with a Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 OP back.
The card originally popped up on Scot readers research list and was most likely a typo or a bad eBay scan where a Nicholls card was shown with a wrong back scan and Scot logged it in as verified which was understandable. Later Ted Z. claimed to have completed the set in a "Mission Accomplished" thread: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=91120 Since then Ted has been asked repeatedly to show the card to which he finally said he sold it. When a request was put in a thread on the board asking for proof of this front/back combo Ted posted a scan which was later determined to be the front of a Nicholls and the back was Delahanty. I personally viewed Ted's 649s at the Philly show to determine this. When I confronted Ted on this, his answer was he mixed this scans up. The Sweet Caporal 649 OP set is 34 cards and most all cards surface quite often. There a few a little tougher but not due to being short printed as all 34 were printed in equal quantities and are not scarce. Some are tougher than others, but for reasons not related to this particular backs printing. Tim C. (Abravefan11) began putting this set together not too long ago and within 4 months at least one example of all 34 cards came to market. He has acquired 31 of the 34 and the other 3 are available for sale right now. So if you can complete the set in 6 months I wouldn’t consider any example rare or even scarce. Even really obscure backs such as BL460, BL350, Uzit, Lenox and Hindu etc. we know of and see multiple player’s more than one example. Yet Simon Nicholls Sweet Cap 649 we’ve only heard of one example which was in Ted’s hands and then gone to a mystery collector just like the recent AB460’s…doesn’t add up. Wonka owns 2 of the three known Danny Murphy BL460’s. I would safely take a bet that any BL460 is way tougher than any Sweet Cap 649, and that SWC649 would surface much more than any BL460 I think most here would agree. So as of today we don't have any proof that a Simon Nicholls 649 exists, yet it remains on the confirmed list on this site that many people trust to be accurate. And until Ted can really show this card, produce the buyer of this card or someone can show a graded example, I would not count this as a confirmed card. Ted can’t take it off the list because he claims to have owned it, but if it doesn’t exist it shouldn’t be on the list regardless of what that means for Ted’s reputation. "This card with the SWEET CAPORAL 150 Factory 649 (overprint) back is on my list since it has been seen. Scot Reader's T206 survey of over 14,000 cards indicates that this card exists. I have said it exists; however, certain skeptics here choose not to believe me. My experience collecting this particular SWEET CAP sub-set is that the HOFer's (George Davis, Griffith, Johnson, Lajoie, Marquard, and Matty are quite available. Guys like Alpermann, Bates, Goode, Tom Jones, Killian, Liebrandt, Powers, Ritchey, Sheckard, and Wilhelm are also seen quite often. And, then there are certain subjects like Lake, McIntyre, Nicholls, Schmidt, Spencer, and Heine Wagner that are very tough to find. I do not understand why this is so. I have compared my notes with others that collect this T206 sub-set and their experience is very similar to mine." TED Z I would like to know who the others are that own a Nicholls 649 and share the same experience as you. |
Quote:
I personally have contacted Ted with several entries on the lists that were impossible front/back combinations and all of them were eventually removed. Those cards were entered as being seen indicating that they existed just like the Nicholls but were determined to not be correct and removed. The difference in this situation and those cards that were removed is that Ted didn’t claim to own any of those. Ultimately what anyone owns or claims to own doesn’t matter, the most important thing is putting out the most accurate and honest information we can for those that rely on it. This set is too complex and too difficult to have collectors chasing known bad information. I find it hard to believe that I’m the only one disappointed by this. |
And there it is…Huh I guess the Nicholls is now with the same mystery collector who now owns the AB460's? :)
The saddest thing of all this story time with Uncle Ted is why? He has a nice collection why make up stories....it not only is damaging to the hobby but to himself and his creditability. A lot of folks on here really follow Ted and his info to take advantage of them or send them in a wrong direction is just silly and really questionable. I and others have watched quietly over the year the stories grow and grow and while many of us privately laughed at Ted’s expense and chalked it up as fishing tales if you will. I’ve also personally watched Ted talk to veteran collectors and new collectors with distain and enough is enough. Even worse I’ve seen Ted send other collectors down paths to nowhere which is a shame. Call me mean if you want. But if you guys enjoy being sent on wild goose chases for tale tales then have at it not for me. It’s clear the real and only mission accomplished here is that Ted has proven to be quite the story teller. Cheers, John P.S. There is no conspiracy Ted before you go there again…yawn. It’s simple we all talk it’s a small hobby. Ted when you lie to me and others in print and via the phone and talk to people like they are 2 years old…big surprise people get to talking which if you’re not telling stories and have nothing to hide is no big deal…but in your case….hmmm. |
Tim
Quote:
1 ...... Ewing 1 ...... Gilbert 1 ...... McIntyre 1 ...... Nicholls 1 ...... O'Leary 0 ...... Schlei 0 ...... Spencer 1 ...... Wagner While guys like G. Davis, Johnson, Marquard, Matty, and Powers have 5-6 samples each. P.S. Jim is attempting to rationalize his skepticism. But, he has no proof that this Nicholls entry is NOT valid. Jim....of all people....knows that there exists a high probability of unique T206 front/back combos......e.g. 150 series Schulte with a PIEDMONT 350 back (as only one has been accounted for). TED Z |
Quote:
Those exist and I can prove it with scans. I have looked for the Nicholls long before I started collecting the subset and I have never seen one. No one else has ever seen one. You haven't produced any proof of one. Do you see why I'm skeptical? New front/back combinations still happen from time to time, but this is a common back where every other example shows up with regularity. They were printed the same in the same quantities. Nicholls would show up if it existed. |
Also you continue when pushed into a corner to point to Scot and his work when his list is a survey and he never claimed to own the card.
You're the only person that has claimed to own this card. Stop shirking that responsibility. |
Interesting question of burden of proof. Is the burden to show it does exist, or to show that it does not exist?
|
Quote:
The lists I use have a tremendous amount of cards on them that are listed as "possible" but not confirmed. It's difficult to say with any certainty that a front/back combo will not show up but it is possible, but great care should be take when making those claims and you should be open to the idea you could be proven wrong someday. Again when claiming the card as "confirmed" as in this case, the burden of proof falls on proving it does exist. |
I too own most of those cards or have owned them as I gave one Wagner away recently.
http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...e/wagnerop.jpg Funny though never seen a Nichols or owned one...only person I know who has ever claimed to own one is Ted. Maybe ted has never owned it and this whole story along with others is just another elaborate test by Ted to see if we are worthy to talk T206’s. :confused: Funny in just a handful of collectors I was able to confirm the Wagner above which is a tougher Sweet Cap 649…but not one person has seen a Nicholls besides the entry on Scot’s list and this phantom card of Teds. Cheers, John P.S. If anyone can produce a real not re-backed, fake scan etc. Nicholls Sweet Cap 649 OP I’ll pay you cash to see it. If it’s in decent shape I’d say I’ll trade you a VG Green Cobb for the card but my extras are P150 so their OC to the top as 95% of them all are unless they are Hindu. :) |
Quote:
|
I don't know how to argue this question legally. All I know is I have compiled lists of thousands of inputs and I know how easy it is to make a mistake on one.
And time and time again collectors have claimed to own cards that defy front/back possibilities and when asked to produce the card it turns out to be a different back or they can't produce the card at all. When there is enough evidence to warrant reasonable skepticism as in this case a tangible example of the card needs to be produced to confirm it. Also I will add that Ted's other "Mission Accomplished" threads damage his credibility and cause further skepticism about his actually owning the card. |
It is really impossible to prove that a card does NOT exist. I could claim that I own several previously uncatalogued T206 cards and nobody could prove that I don't. Logically, it would seem that anybody (especially one who truly wishes to research and document this set) who did own such an elusive card would be very eager to display it frequently or at least verify its existence.
It would be the equivalent of a prominent biologist who claimed to have captured a Yeti, but then refused to show the rest of the scientific community any evidence. |
On the original thread, another collector stated that he too had put together a 35 card set (same number Ted identified including the card at issue).
#20 10-20-2008, 01:15 PM Archive Administrator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 58,918 MISSION ACCOMPLISHED....Sweet Cap 150/fac 649 ovpt subset -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted Thanks guys. I'm curious, if anyone else out there has completed this short series of T206's ? TED Z Archive View Public Profile Send a private message to Archive Send email to Archive Visit Archive's homepage! Find all posts by Archive Add Archive to Your Contacts #21 10-20-2008, 07:26 PM Archive Administrator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 58,918 MISSION ACCOMPLISHED....Sweet Cap 150/fac 649 ovpt subset -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted By: Brian Weisner Hi Ted, Congrats.... I put that set together several years ago with the help of Scott Elkins. I think it was 2002 or 2003, but both of us put a set together. Be well Brian PS Hi Ted... too bad the number is 35 instead of 36 or it would really start your sheet discussion going... PS 2 As you know this set is important when trying to find out "possible backs"... |
Peter - They put together a set of 34. They did not have a Nicholls.
|
Peter there is no Nicholls confirmed on the superset survey. The only known record of Nicholls was made by Scot R; he admitted that it could have been a mistake via wrong scan back front combo from eBay many years ago.
Ted went off this list of Scot's told everyone he had the card when asked to show it he said he just sold it (snap fingers here)... Any other collector of worth told me they had this card I might buy the dream for a bit but still ask to see it. Fact is this is the Same Ted who pulled the AB 460 subset mission accomplished thread. When asked by dozens to show up..guess what that's right you just missed it...as the Church Lady would say..."Isn't that convenient." Funniest thing about this whole mission accomplished subset for the Sweet Cap 649 is that when he won the Johnson card in B&L and posted he had this 35 card set not 34…when Jim asked him to bring them all not only was Nicholls missing but many others were as well. When Jim asked him how then are you finished the set forget the Nicholls tall tale for now…Ted said I’ve been keeping a list and I’ve owned all 35 over the years but sold many of them off. LOL that’s like me coming on here and saying I just finished the T206 set and when asked where are the 520+ cards I state well I had one of each over the years. Once again more tall tales not I’ can now confirm all these cards and here are the images so the list is…no it’s hey everybody I finished this set look at me and tell me how great I am. John |
Quote:
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Mx3wrfhQaqk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> John |
I want to say that this has really bothered me as I considered Ted a very close friend and this is baseball cards but he has crossed the line. I told him I was willing to forget all this and forgive him just don't expect me to believe all the claims of completing sets and subsets, it insults my intelligence. His answer was not good and can not be repeated here. Obviously our friendship is not very important...:(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias ...:rolleyes: |
Thanks for explaining the Nicholls SC150 649 OP situation guys. And I do understand that this is not an issue of just this card, but boils down to putting out bad info that you know is false, for whatever reason ?
I am one of the people who took whatever TedZ said as gospel when I first joined Net54,,,and I will say that I'm sure that I have learned alot from TedZ. But what bothers me is having to go back and re-check what I took as gospel- some of this stuff is very complicated to follow (and learn :o). I really enjoyed the way Tim C. was doing the SC lists awhile back, because it was an interactive way to compile the factual data- and if an input didn't sound right, at that point a scan for confirmation could be requested. Compiling a list and saying "it's been seen" doesn't jive........especially when proof cannot be found thereafter...... I see two ways to try to clear things up here (maybe)......... TedZ- did you scan your AB460's? If you did, please post them. TedZ- if you didn't ever own the Nicholls card in question, just say you didn't. People make mistakes, it's part of life and I believe people respect people who own up to their mistakes. My 1 cent of opinion. As far as the data on the confirmed lists.......what do we do now? :o;):confused: Sincerely, Clayton |
Quote:
Best wishes to all my compadres here, including Ted, with whom I've had several interesting discussions on this board. Larry |
T206 op controversy
Hello All,
I find this very very sad....i wish this wasn't transpiring.....we are all in this together.....compiling info....i haven't followed the back combos(since everyone knows i'm obsessed with the "freaks"), and I trust our hobby veterans info and contribute when i can....I have gotten along with pretty much all collectors here, i guess since i collect and don't really sell/ or rarely trade mine, i just try to aquire, I haven't had anyone "mad" at me, because i want to have fun and get along with everyone(libra hereLOL)....But this truly sadens me, there was no "motive" to make money here.....THIS TO ME IS CHILDISH!! TED, IF THIS IS THE CASE, FESS UP!!!!! LET'S MOVE ON!!! we need to all try to stick together !!! I respect people who admit their mistakes, and try to move forward.... this is shady....... if this card doesn't show, no offense, but i have lost all respect for you Ted... i'm not trying to "jump on the bandwagon" but no offense, i have tried to email you a few times just to talk about the cards, and you were never too receptive to me...no big deal, as my feelings weren't hurt too bad, i'm a big boy, and i guess i wasn't part of the "in crowd" and maybe did'nt have enough knowledge about combos for you, i'm just a "fringe" collector, but at least i tried to be friendly a few times and extend myself....even tho, i always respected your"hard" work and have always posted or congradulated you, but now i have lost respect if you can't admit a "mistake" DUDE!! COME ON!!! your not fooling anyone but yourself.... i'm far from perfect myself, give up the charade and come clean, we are all adults.... :mad: John |
Larry
For anybody that may think Ted is being crucified or this threads sole purpose is to make him look bad needs to know that he has been asked, begged and pleaded with for 10 months privately to correct this. As recently as the Oaks show I told him to just admit that he didn't own the Nicholls card, remove it from the list and we could all move on. He has chosen to continue to put out bad information and in spite of all my efforts to get him to do the right thing as a last resort I brought it to the boards attention.
|
Jim
Jim
You did the right thing.....at least you have a set of "cahoonies" |
t206
and also John, Tim, Clayton the rest Thank You:), at least you all had "cahoonies"...we are not here to "bash" Ted, just get him on the right track...since i have not been compiling back combos and that is not my expertise, i will leave that to Tim, Jim, and John....i'm sure they are all hurt because they have come to know Ted close and personally, like i said i am sadened....
Art M. is another living legend, and i respect him greatly, he may know the truth here..... i have invested alot of time and money in this set like all the rest of us, and an advancement of the knowledge i respect...we need t206 "scholars" Ted, do yourself a favor, please, just admit an "error"....let me get some respect back for you.....because i thought of you as the "professor" of this set(you also Barry!!) Respectfully, Johnny V |
Thanks Johnny, agree on all points and thanks for having the "nuggets" also to post well said all around.
Really a shame on Ted. :( Cheers, John |
T206
John!!
THANKS:D You Rock!! You, Jim, Tim, Art and a few other may now be our true "scholars"...please keep up the good work guys!! Hope you did well in rea:) Peace Johnny |
I think what everyone what's is accurate information, if there is no proof a question they they should not be on a confirmed list. We went through the issue with a Cycle 460 card that has a good chance of existing but no one has been able to confirm it's actually existence.
I personally have submitted wrong backs To Bill Brown's Super Set and after being called out I rechecked my scans and found that I was wrong. Ted was even one that brought to question a couple of the cards. Once again, I think what everyone wants is accurate information, Lee |
Lee well said.
|
Quote:
There are indicators that point to the SC 150 649 subjects being printed at the same time as the brown Hindu. If this is true a subject that can be found with SC 649 should be found with brown Hindu as well. All 34 subjects in the SC 649 subset have been confirmed with brown Hindu but Simon Nicholls was not printed with this back. The brown Hindu printing excluded 1/3 of the available major-league subjects at the time and Simon Nicholls was one. In addition Simon Nicholls was incorrectly added to the brown Hindu list on this site but that entry was removed when shown to be bad. This isn’t a case of doubting Ted just for the sake of trying to make him look bad as the initial quote implies. A tremendous amount of time has and continues to be invested researching this set and at this point the data shows this card more than likely isn’t a good front/back combo. I believe most people can understand our position and that in the end we only want the information being presented to collectors to be accurate. |
Proof or not, we’re looking at a guy who has not made a few clerical mistakes but an absolute attempt to lie and prove false cards to inflate his ego. :mad:
That’s way more than an innocent mistake of opps I made a typo Ted needs to put up or shut up if you will, but all Ted will do is cry the blues and play the victim here and drag innocent collectors into his fantasy land period. As said before he can't show what he has never owned but never stopped hi from telling anyone what he has done in the hobby and how great he is etc. If you're new to this board dont go taking Ted Z posts as gospel, they are like fruit some are good and others are rotten and stink. Cheers, John |
Tim
Your citing my original research (posted on this forum two years ago) regarding the correlation between the SWEET CAPORAL 150,
Factory 649 (overprint) subjects and their Brown HINDU counterparts. And, I realized at that time that the Nicholls card was the exception to this correlation. As, Brian Weisner convinced me that a Brown HINDU card of Nicholls will not be found. So, does a Nicholls card with the SWEET CAPORAL 150, Factory 649 (overprint) back exist ? At this point, I cannot say it exists or it does not exist. Perhaps, I imagined it several years ago when I put together this sub-set. Or, perhaps it was an invalid data point in an independent 14,000 card survey. I can say from my experience, though, that several subjects (e.g. McIntyre, Schlei, Spencer, Wagner, etc.) in this sub-set are considerably more difficult to find than the majority of the other subjects. In any event, I've labelled Nicholls as UNCERTAIN on my SWEET CAPORAL 150, Factory 649 list. At the Chicago National this Summer, I am getting together with an old buddy of mine on a deal, who is bringing his stock of 6,000+ T206's. Many of which are cards with tougher backs. If this Nicholls card does exist, I expect that he may have one. TED Z |
"So, does a Nicholls card with the SWEET CAPORAL 150, Factory 649 (overprint) back exist ?At this point, I cannot say it exists or it does not exist."
LOL went from Mission Accomplished and in your collection to not so sure... "I am getting together with an old buddy of mine on a deal, who is bringing his stock of 6,000+ T206's. Many of which are cards with tougher backs. If this Nicholls card does exist, I expect that he may have one." Same buddy you sold the mythical AB460's with Cobb too in Oaks...keep digging deeper at this point its more entertainment than anything Ted 6000+ T206's LOL, how about you call him and ask him if he has one? If he does have him send it on I'll pay for grading and give him $500 for the effort and return the card....but wait right he just got rid of his phone this month so you can't call..oh darn the luck. Once again lots of talk from you with very little substance or images, but please don’t let that stop more story time with Uncle Ted I want to hear how you will get my head spinning or make me “dizzy” with all of your awesomeness. http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ght=green+cobb "Am I making you "dizzy" Dan ?" Cheers, John |
And there you have it forum member’s right from ol’ greatness himself.
"I cannot say it exists or it does not exist. Perhaps, I imagined it several years ago when I put together this sub-set." Hmmmm I wonder how many cards you are chasing right now are imagined or figments of Ted’s imagination or story telling or epic yarns? :mad: Look back at this thread and see where he said these are made up and not real...hmmm looks a lot like a guy bragging about cards he doesn't have...hmmm. http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=91120 Enjoy your lists from Ted Z, let me know how ya make out. ;) John |
John, Please remind me nver to piss you off, thanks Dan.
|
Quote:
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6nUbCgQEiHo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> |
LMAO that is the greatest thing ever....! Thanks for that.
Cheers, John |
Quote:
First the work is not yours. The SC 649 34 card set is common knowledge, the Nicholls is a Reader confirmation and the Hindu parallel is also common knowledge. You add Nicholls to both lists and your contribution results in an inaccurate list. We have to continue to listen to what you have accomplished which tells me how insecure you are about the set. How can the Nicholls go from a card you own to UNCERTAIN on your SC 649 list? Why wait until the National to see if your buddy has Nicholls 649? Look now and you will see he does not have it. These backs lists were kept and added to by a group of t206 collectors. The lists were shared with you privately. You started posting them, to see if any could be added to, which is good until you started claiming the work as your own and boasting Mission Accomplished with adding cards on lists that do not exist. Also taking email confirmations with no proof which made most lists inaccurate. You never state the lists were shared with you.I needed to post about this when collectors started posting they are trying to complete subsets and they are using your lists. It is necessary for collectors to know your work is separate from any other work done at this point and has been for the past year or so. You have been pleaded with to change lists you are posting, with no results. I had tried to keep this private but with lists continuing to be inaccurate, I saw no other option. I'm sure this may look to some people like I'm making a big deal over one confirmation, but anyone that knows all the facts understands that it is a lot more than that. Some of these checklist took collectors years to put together and Ted was shared them, posted them, and claimed them as his own. No one spoke up as this was happening until now because he's ruining that work with confirmations like the Nicholls. It's not just the 649 list but many others as well. |
T206
John,
I vote you,Tim and Jim as the new t206 crusaders!!:)....although there are many others(Art M, Etc.,Ect.).......keep hold of the flame:D we must look to your research primarily...unless a Nicholls is produced, might as well burn Ted's lists:o..... i'm usually the Peace keeper, but this hobby sees enough CRAP!!! we don't need it from one of our "brain trust"....story telling i'm leaving up to Mary Poppins... these cards make people do some strange things:confused: Why is ......some super great points;).... Ted, why NO RESPONSE????!!! PLEASE MAN!! tell us you had a momentary lapse of reason... just admit it, and we can move on...if not , collectors will be chasing their own tales for what???eventually collectors will catch on that some of the cards you said existed , really don't exist.. either way, the truth will come out....we would accept you back, admit your mistakes, just change your ways....we could use some good , honest research it is just another bruise that collectors don't want to deal with, and turn people off of the hobby....i love my cards, don't get me wrong, but crap like this turns me sour :mad: Respectfully, Johnny |
t206
Jim,:)
Please get together with Tim and John and pick up where you guys left off...I(and i'm sure many other collectors) follow you and John's back scarcity (except the blank backs;)) lists... and you collectors a true back aficinados:D Scot Reader's work is still the t206 manual.....but this set evolves everyday!:) just my 2 cents |
Quote:
Dan, True, but I'd love to see the T-Shirts! :p |
Lmao
:p on the video
|
this will not continue
Hey guys,
While I understand all of the arguments, probably better than I want to, this personal attacking is not going to continue on this board. Even if mistakes were made I don't think it's right that every time Ted breathes he gets attacked. Ted might have included things in the listings that should not have been included, maybe some poor decisions were made in the process, but this personal attacking is going to cease. It's just not right. Ted has a lot to offer in the way of knowledge and I think every one is much more aware (now) of being careful when accounting for cards that exist, or don't. As a matter of fact in the next few weeks I hope to come out with some very interesting information about this very topic. It might include some 206 information but will definitely address the concerns of verifying what we are doing before reporting it as the gospel. Ya'll can make fun of me, or joke around at me, that is fine. No problem. Everyone that has good intentions should be able to post on the board without fear of being persecuted. Again, trust me, I get it; all of it. best regards edited to add....I do agree with Jim R's post right above too......We all need to work together to send out correct information that has been fully verified, not only through an unknown email etc...... |
Thanks Leon.
|
You’re right Leon I’m sure all the story telling, lies about cards Ted doesn’t own sending collectors on wild goose chases for cards that don’t exist, butchering lists and years of collectors works with mis-information, adding info to lists with no qualified inputs for years was all done with the best intentions.:rolleyes:
Attack or being mean or not whatever. I find it funny about be easy on Ted take a look over the years at the way the man has talked to many new collectors funny never saw you or anyone asking him to take a chill pill. Let’s also be clear and on the record here Leon he has been caught lying make no mistakes. These are not innocent errors or oversights and it’s insulting to the people who know better I would think you included would feel that way as much as you are a historian of this hobby Mr. buy the 1939 catalog out from under me:), and a travesty for the folks who depend on this board for an education and web based learning annex. Johnny is also correct and one of the few who has had the guts and upset enough, rightfully so to say something. More importantly ask Ted why he feels the need to ignore our information and proof in black & white written by him we didn’t make this stuff it’s on this forum read it. But if you feel getting along and allowing Ted to continue his stories is what is best so be it. I guess that’s where we differ, I can’t be cool with a guy putting out bad info and lies to new collectors who depend on this site, and if making one person happy is at the expense of a community or hobby I have issue with that. Leon Ted can share without telling stories lots of us do that FYI, you don't need to act the expert and each turn especially when you have to make up stuff to play the role, heck just in his Elite 8 thread he had misinformation. Is it really too much to ask that if you’re going present theories on a set, take the time to really research prior to posting and check for errors, give credit to your sources and if you use folks information you don’t screw it up. Most important of all don’t lie about findings and lie to prove your theories right when questioned in a professional manner. Attacks or barbs however you would like to see it. Many of us for years have had tried to have conversations with Ted in a civil manner Ted won’t have it, he’s right you’re a moron for questioning him end of story. You push it then you’re picking on Ted and outcome the protective sheep…its clear good hobby info isn’t priority it’s making sure Ted Z is happy is. Cheers, John |
John
John- I have said my piece on it and have communicated exactly the way I feel.
BTW, within 2 weeks of me getting that 1939 ACC I ended up buying another one that is missing part of it's cover. If you want the one I bought I would be happy to sell it to you for exactly what I paid...with free guaranteed delivery. Just let me know.....(and you know darned well I asked you about it when I bought it...I gave you first dibs as you saw it first) btw, except for the personal attacks I agree with almost everything you said concerning verifying things before reporting them as truth.... . . . . . |
Have to agree with John, Leon. Look back at threads in which Ted has ripped into guys for simply not agreeing with him. Never once saw you jump in and tell Ted publicly to take a time out when he went off.
So maybe you do not relate to the T206 research, which is odd for a type collector who admires the cataloging that took place so many decades ago, and seems a bit out of place for you to stick up for Ted who has brought this on himself. Frankly I think the guys are going easy on him considering how he has butchered research that was carefully put together by others. Greg |
Hi John- I've haven't posted at all in this thread but I have been reading it very closely, as you know Ted is my longtime friend. Let me add my thoughts:
You and Jim R. and anyone else can disagree with Ted's theories or anything else you want. I will say I disagree with some of them too, and I know that he is wrong on the Nicholls card. I also think he should take a step back and not post so many of these theories. Sometimes he goes into overdrive and overdoes this stuff. You have my agreement there. But I think your photoshop images of Ted have crossed the line. No need to belittle him in that manner, regardless how angry you are with him. You've put up lots of pictures of me but they were in good fun, and even if they poked fun at me I can have a little laugh at my own expense. But the images of Ted are insulting and weaken your position, not strengthen it. I also notice that the three quotes you have in your by-line (I forget the exact term for it) are all derogatory and aimed at Ted. Come on John, you are one of my favorite hobby people and you are a better man than that. If I may ask you a favor could you please remove them? Thank you. And that's it for me. |
Another innocent mistake I guess? In a past Hindu thread where this card below was posted by Ted Z and claimed to be owned by him, then when questioned the scan got pulled down and the post got edited. :confused:
Then in his list (35) subset of 649 OP he claims to own the card, even as far as many times when addressed about 35 cards never says no I only have 34.:confused: Now addressed again and he can’t edit the list from the old board and its another story of how this lie came to be. http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...hollsSC649.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ollsSC649b.jpg I guess we will just have to wait until Ted’s good buddy with 6k T206’s mostly with tougher backs fairs huh. Shame SC 649 isn’t a rare back….:) Leon all we really have is the shots now as its clear Ted has no remorse or plans of stopping. It's our way of dealing with how silly it is venting if you willand others even a few get hip to the jive great. I think in many ways the continued lies and stories to the very community that worships you (not me) and messing up priceless hobby information that was complied by countless dedicated should prior is far worse than some ribbing and shots across the deck. Cheers, John |
John
I will go ahead and reiterate my stance. Jab me, poke me, do whatever you want to me.....not a big deal. Just lay off the personal attacks. If you want to continue to expose unverifiable information which is not correct I hope you continue to do so. As far as worshiping, I don't think anyone worships anyone on this board. We all make mistakes and we are all human. The last thing I will say is that no matter what I do in situations like this, there will be folks not happy. I just have to make the best decisions I can; right, wrong or indifferent. best regards
|
it's all been said though...
Quote:
|
Barry while I have always liked you and enjoyed you still do.
Do you feel Ted’s actions of falsifying entries telling tale tales at the expense of a community and hobby info have placed him in bad position or just me with my few barbs & images all tounge and cheek? Remember I’m just a collector on here I’m not the self proclaimed T206 expert. My images and tags in poor taste perhaps? To each his own, but lying to a community and continuing to do so without acknowledgement or remorse what do you feel is worse and where is your post on that Barry. Barry this isn’t about agreeing with a theory or input, this is about lies perpetrated on a community by one individual. The facts are here and in his own hand right among the Photoshop’s for you to see. Yet I find it sad or disappointing Barry you only felt the need to address me for my tags or sense of humor not Ted’s actions. Cheers, John |
Leon, not sure how my last post with the images of the Nicholls card ted faked and posted here were a jab at you?
|
Hi John- Ted and I have spoken at length on the phone and will probably continue to do so. I am choosing not to do it on the board, which is my prerogative. And there is no question Ted has gotten himself into a bad position here. I will be speaking with him about that too. But I'm not crazy about the photoshop stuff. What else can I say?
|
it wasn't
Quote:
|
Fair response Barry I understand and you are correct it’s your choice to post or not on the subject I also respect that.
But I can’t help but feel a bit miffed if you will that folks will get bent out of shape or say I’m being a bit hard on a person who has clearly been lying and taking advantage of a community. When all I have really done is post in a joking manner serious info with a tongue & cheek barb or two. I wish folks spent half as much energy getting bent out of shape over Ted’s actions and lies as they do my few Sanford and Son pop culture references and one liners then perhaps we get something done and clean up this mess Ted has created. Sadly Barry I feel Ted is beyond saving many of us have given him ample private and public opportunities to resolve this Ted has chosen to continue down the same path at the sacrifice of many hobby friends and fellow collectors no matter how silly and you guys are only seeing a fraction of it here FYI. Now all we can do is warn others that much of Ted’s info is in fact falsified or what is presented as fact is not much more than one person’s views. Cheers, John |
Quote:
|
Barry,
Something I never do and will never do again ever but for you I will. Because I feel nobody should get a pass for lies and taking advantage of collectors mentally or financially, funny no out cries that my Photoshop’s were too much for Pat Chan, or Doug Allen/Mastronet. But to show how important this topic is to me I’m taking down all the images and tags. Now that my position is less than belittled if you will lets’ see this board and most importantly Ted addresses these fabrications. So Ted, what do you say care to explain honestly why the above was done, why you have fabricated stories of cards you have not owned? I can’t say your theory’s are all wrong as we can’t really prove anything 100 years later dead accurate there will always be new info come to light etc. However I can see when folks are adding bad entries, and creating fictional or “imagined” as you said cards and entries to prove their own points or make themselves look the big shot. Not holding my breath but let’s see if as a community and if Ted will bring the greatest “Mission Accomplished” thread to light yet. The one where he makes good on what he has done now that would be a mission of true accomplishment. But I have feeling nothing comes of it…and it gets ignored pushed away into the nether reaches of the NET54 bowels…so if that’s the case it must be a joke or not mater to anyone, so forgive us if we then have a laugh amongst ourselves post funny pictures and laugh. Cheers, John |
I don't know Ted or the history that he brings with him to the table... so I have no comment on that.
Here's my issue... I'm new into the T206 world and I rely on Net54 members almost exclusively for accurate info. I have witnessed over the last year or so who the "regular" contributors are and which ones who appear to have a wealth of experience and knowledge regarding the 206s.... I rely on their opinions and statements as gospel because of the experience factor. When I encounter a thread like this one that exposes inaccurate info, I now feel the conspiracy-theorist side of me kick in and I start to doubt the legitimacy of other threads regarding t206 info. The only saving grace are for other experts to chime in and correct these misleading posts... thank you for that! So my questions are: 1) Are the majority of knoweldge based posts on this forum accurate and how confident should I be in the accuracy of obtained info from Net54? 2) Is there a verified, accurate and completed T206 master checklist with all front/back combos? 3) If one exists, can you PLEASE put me in the right direction to obtain it? Thanks guys!! |
Thank you John, I do appreciate it...and they're called "tags", thanks.
|
Mike, all great questions and our history with Ted is exactly that history.
But you are 100% bad info does nobody good no matter the motives. I would take much of what you read with a grain of salt, don’t be afraid to double check or ask questions of the source and of others. On the other hand there's a lot of good info on here and that's what makes what Ted has done all the worse, because how are many folks to decode what is good and what is bad. Yes there is a good list and we can make sure you get a copy or links. Cheers, John |
Barry you're welcome.
All the images are down, however all the substance of Ted’s actions still there let’s see if this makes a difference in Ted addressing HONESTLY this situation. My humor at Ted’s expense removed from, Ted’s actions at our expense and the hobby's expense still alive and well FYI. Cheers, John |
can I still order a t-shirt?
|
“Thank you John, I do appreciate it...and they're called "tags", thanks.”
Barry I assume you are making corrections to my typos correct? A bit of irony if you will that you would be concerned with my typos in a thread that’s very nature is about much more important typos/lies, made by the very person you have asked me to take it easy on. Well played Barry you grammar ball buster love it. :) John |
Quote:
|
John- as I said in my email, I was correcting myself with the word "tags." I called them "by-lines" in my earlier post because I forgot what they were called. And I appreciated that you used the correct term. No, I stopped playing spelling/grammar cop a long time ago.
|
Quote:
This is the really bad/sad part of all of this, what people just took for granted now is tainted and that really sucks. |
I don't know the whole story here but just want to say that if someone did fib or lie and doesn't correct it or provide evidence otherwise their should be no mercy no matter who it is. I like Ted but he hasn't defended himself at all or just said 'hey guys I fk'd up and am really sorry' and for all the collectors that considered him a guru this isn't looking very good. Say it ain't so Ted !!
|
Quote:
-Al |
I, too, have had enough of these personal bashing/attacks on Ted. Expose the mistakes & errors---We ALL get it by now! He made some unwise choices & apparently embellished the results----We ALL get that too!
I only know Ted from this Board. Fall of '09 when I made my 1st T206 purchase of 136 card Lot I EM'd Ted for some guidance & advice on what I had. He was nothing but courteous, very responsive & helpful, replied several times to my novice questions w/out a hint of superiority or disdain and even went so far as to breakdown my entire 136 cards as to what he thought was the approximate worth. I offered to pay for his expertise but he would not hear of it. All I can go on is my personal experience--Ted was more than gracious & helpful to me! Point out all the mistakes Ted made in compiling & publishing T206 info you want---The continued belittling has gone far enough---WE ALL get it by now!!!!! |
Ok you may get it but does Ted?
Apparently not continued to put up bad lists and tell stories or lie to folks within the hobby via NET 54 and offline. Even in this very thread the lies continue. But that’s ok if that continues right? Just don’t continue to bust his chops let the sweet old man be and let him spin his wonderful works of collecting fiction at the hobbies expense. Note too liars out there be sure to be gracious as a liar then it makes it ok, but don’t be an ungracious liar or bust a gracious liars chops about misinformation that’s crossing the line. LOL John P.S. Barry I like when you were the grammar police, the Your or You’re was fun. |
Quote:
1) Most of what you'll read here is fairly accurate/believed to be accurate by the poster when it's posted. In my limited experience, most of the fact based stuff is very reliable. That being said, there's always something new being discovered/learned etc. 2)The superset list or Scott Readers info seems to be the best out there. ANY list will have errors and shortcomings. Even with long established lists that are constantly reviewed by experts ther will be differences. Compare a Scotts stamp catalog to a Stanley Gibbons catalog and you'll see what I mean. And uncataloged cards still turn up after 100 years+ I'm sure there are also listed cards that don't exist. There was a thread about just that on the pre 1980 list, and I was amazed how many listed cards aren't really out there. It makes me a bit sad to see things devolve like this. All the people involved have done some good work, and have workable theories. I do think that eventually we'll be able to get very close to proving a few things about T206. Doing that will require a major collaboration just to generate the raw data and fights like this won't help. (All of which hinges on my own theories which aren't ready for prime time just yet. ) Steve Birmingham |
I do not see this discussion as a personal attack. If ANYBODY...and that means somebody who can't even spell T206 to somebody who has been researching and collecting the set for 50 years...is intentionally promoting false information, they should absolutely be called out on it. The substance of the allegations made seems to be very straightforward. Either Ted (or somebody) owns the cards in question. This was a claim he clearly made on several occasions. If this is the case, it should be very easy to show credible and legitimate evidence of this. Otherwise these cards don't exist and Ted has made deliberately false statements. There really is no other alternative.
I can understand the mixed feelings on some of John's photos and such. I personally think they are hilarious but can see how others would not. The substance remains the same however, and while I see many who are defending Ted or at least saying "enough", conspicuously absent is a response from Ted himself to set this record straight one way or the other. I am not interested in belittling or attacking anybody. In fact, this is the first "controversial" thread I have ever even posted in. I am VERY interested though in fully supporting the efforts of those who are attempting to accurately research and document this hobby that I have been so passionate about since I was a toddler. I think all can agree that there is far enough shady behavior, misrepresentation, and outright fraud in this hobby that it is especially damaging when somebody who seems to quite publicly wish to combat that is accused of some of those same activities himself. Here's hoping that this issue is resolved quickly and positively and that we all continue in our own small or large way to add good things to this hobby that I love. |
Johnny: welcome to the Monster. For the most part the info put up here as to specific card sets is quite solid. Many of the posters here are listed as contributors to the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards and have written many articles for various hobby publications. That said, you have to take any information here with a grain or two of salt. We are ruminating on what might have happened in a print shop 100 years ago while they were making throw-away inserts for ciggy packs. It wasn't exactly rocket science to them.
As for the issue at hand, I can speak to it with a somewhat different perspective, being a publisher of checklists and a catalog on cards for several years now. It is extremely difficult to separate urban myth and assumptions from proven facts when it comes to so many cards because a lot of what we accept as "card lore" originated from best guesses and creative assumptions by pioneering hobbyists, as well as memories of well-meaning collectors. Some of the information is accurate, other stuff "seemed" accurate and ends up reported as fact. That is why mistakes/interpolations/errors/intentional fabrications rankle so many collectors. What is critical above all is to be open-minded enough to admit that a theory is untrue, that a checklist is wrong, etc. I've had to go back and correct several things from my earlier checklists and catalogs and I expect to do more in the future. It is both an illuminating and humbling experience. It should not be maddening. |
Steve B,
Thank you for taking the time to contribute the info within your previous post. I just finished scanning through Scott Reader's T206 Distribution PDF file, in which you referenced, and I'm just in awe of how much research must have gone into that compilation. I'm in the process of printing it out as I type!
Out of curiosity, are Reader's checklists updated often or is everything about 99% complete (with the exception of some newly discovered card in someone's attic)? Thanks for your help. -Mike Schulze |
Quote:
I downloaded Scot Reader's Inside T206 PDF awhile back and use it from time to time as a reference to front/back combinations. As far as accuracy, like you said, new front/back combinations are sometimes discovered and won't appear on Scot's report. All that means is they have not yet been confirmed. I have emailed Scot in the past with a few combinations that were not confirmed on his report. Since you mentioned that you are printing Scot's PDF. Here are the unconfirmed combos that I've run across. Joss (pitching) Sweet Caporal 350-460 Fac# 42 (no overstrike) Paskert Tolstoi Bell (hands over head) Old Mill Doc White (pitching) American Beauty 460 Liebhardt Old Mill Hope this helps Jantz |
Quote:
I really like the superset spreadsheet. I kept the original, but renamed a second copy and cleared the fields to use as a checklist. A handy thing to keep open while I browse Ebay or BST. Steve B |
Thank you Jantz for the updated info. When I first started buying up 206s I didn't realize how much was involved or how this set could turn out to be an obsession. I started out wanting one example of every card (minus the big 4). At the present, I find myself paying more attention to the backs instead, which will probably end up driving me nuts in the long run. Thanks again Jantz & Steve B for sharing your knowledge... A+!
|
Quote:
Also, thanks Jantz for those inputs, that is awesome. Sincerely, Clayton |
For some, collecting and appreciating images of baseball players on pre-war tobacco and candy advertisement premiums is a hobby of sorts; a favored pastime for filling idle moments.
For others it has a shade more importance...... |
Chris, you are right.
It’s 100% a hobby and a pastime for me I get so much enjoyment out of collecting cards that’s why I have done it for the past 25+ years. In the old days if some guy was telling tall tales it was bad enough but short of a small group or circle the info could be shrugged off and ignored or even quickly corrected. Now in today’s age with thousands of folks clicking thru this site if some person is putting out bad info it needs to be stopped or corrected by both the moderators and the collecting community. Imagine you’re a new collector starting into this hobby with limited funds and free time. You take a piece of info that you find interesting and start a project say a certain team or player. You spend all of your money and time chasing a project that can never have an end. Does that person get frustrated and quit the hobby because he could never find that one card…one card that never was real because somebody made it up. Or does that person feel cheated upon finding out it’s not real and feel he picked the wrong project. I’m disgusted that Ted would do what he has done many folks look up to Ted. For Ted to come on here put up lists to send others down a path they think he accomplished only to find out it’s about half true is ridiculous. As a collectors we should be beside ourselves and make an attempt to correct for future generations. For a man who fancies himself the scholar what Ted has done makes no sense, to date he shows no remorse or signs of stopping either and the bulk of you are aiding him along with train wreck. Cheers, John |
October 2010...Still claiming to own or have owned this Nichols.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...light=insights Post # 8 Abravefan11 “The Sweet Caporal No. 649 set has 34 cards.” Post #14 Ted Z “Jim & Tim Sorry to differ with you guys. But, the SWEET CAPORAL 150 Factory #649 sub-set consists of 35 subjects. I put this sub-set together years ago, and there are 35 cards in it. I've sold many of them since.” This example is not a mistake this is not a human error, this is fraud or dishonesty for those of you who chalk this up to a “mistake” in the case of this Sweet Cap 649 mission accomplished boast and list from Ted Z. Here we go another example from October 2010 where Ted claims to have the card but actually uses his 35 card not 34 as it should be currently listed set to not only ignore valid debates from fellow collector, but lend credibility to his own theory on the printing process. Ted says he has an engineering mind and can remember all sorts of front back combos. Yet now he can’t recall a card that he has been caught faking scans of and talking about for years on this forum? The very card that he has told countless collectors privately he owned yet could never produce except in here with the aid of a computer. Now it’s a card he may have imagined back in the day what does that even mean? Readers should also read the thread and see how condensing Ted was towards Tim C in this thread as Tim tried to have a friendly discussion and provide his points. Note the “You damn well” and other tones. Cheers, John |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:59 PM. |