.
 

deleted

I will tell you that the perception of cards being a single print because they are hoarded is just not correct. I (and a few others who will hopefully come forward) who have had opportunities to view original collections and even purchase original collections over the years clearly see some patterns that just do not bear out your hypothesis of scarcity being tied closely to back advertising.

A couple of examples...

When i first started seriously researching these cards, I looked at an original collection from Las Vegas (did not obviously start there but the collector's father retired to Vegas and brought the original collection with him). It included just over 600 T205s...not a single Joss, Wilhelm, Walsh, Rowan, Grant, or Suggs. There were 10 of the twelve minor league cards though including 2 Collins and 2 Dunns. There were 6 Titus cards though. One of the ones your maintain is a single print. There were also 3 Matterns. Is this definitive. Nope...but let us look a little deeper....

About 3 years ago, I bought a collection of 191 T205s...there was a Joss and a Suggs but no minor league cards and a Wagner was the only other SP. There were 2 Millers, a Titus, a Oakes, a Mattern, and a Tannehill.

Al C. and Dan M. both just bought decent sized T205 collections and would love to hear their experiences both past and present with SPs.

Trader Speaks from 40ish years ago lists certain cards as tougher. This was way before people started to hoard cards as investment. The cards at that time sold for $1 to $100 (yes, you could get a mid grade Cobb for $100 or less!). Also, an article from about 20 years ago in Vintage Card Collector lists the rarities even then (although if I recall, they got one or two wrong) but it was fairly consistent.

I also know if you look back in some of the auction catalogs, you will see a similar pattern with duplicates of many cards and a few single prints.

People did not just pull this info. out of the air, this research has been going on for decades.

I just feel that the "SPs" you listed in your other post are not SPs but really common.

Joshua

..

those are not the cards you listed on the other list...so I am still confused

....

Please see #20 on your thread from this morning...Titus is listed and you say SP
here...
http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=160535

...

My two cents
 

I have handled a fair amount of t205's over the years, and from dozens of different sources.
My opinion, any list with McConnell or Tannehill on it shouldn't be designated SP, tough, or rare. Titus a little less but these are *easy*cards in the set. Plenty of Doc White to choose from too, I know because I looked for just the right "Kirb" for a long time and sifted through a bunch of "Doc" on the way.
I have had more extra Tannehill cards than any other player besides Olmstead.

I am not certain about the theory of which cards were switched with the minor leaguers. It does appear more complex than a 1:1 relationship (i.e- say Sweeney for Dunn), and I may try harder to join the research team on this topic. I spent too long in the "accumulation"phase , but now I might be ready to better sort some of the collection out.

When I first began collecting these, I can tell you there wasn't mass hording going on in the Northeast, where I bought my earliest T205's. Why would there be when most cards cost 10 bucks? As I gathered enough to generate a wantlist, I had several cards in my stack that were/are designated as SP but they didn't cost anything more unless they were in nicer condition...Sweeney, Vaughan, Kleinow, Wagner, Karger...nothing special in the early 90's.
Turner and Suggs never showed up, nor the left ear Chase. Those remained on my list just about the longest. (Cobb , Speaker and Young just took money they weren't hard to find)

I find myself intrigued with all of your research. I hadn't particularly cared about the backs over the years, but tried to keep a Cycle or Polar Bear over the other common ones I had. I just liked them better. Still, I focused on fronts so who knows how many Pied42's I passed over or traded along the way. I never saw a Drum though, I recall that specifically.
Anyway, keep up the debate, Its all good when we talk about the best set ever:p

Andrew...I read it (and honestly, with your tone, probably going to be the last thing I read of yours)

"While researching another group of cards I noticed a pattern emerge from a group of cards. After going through the entire list it became clear that I may have found the cards that gave up their spots for the ML's in the set. It has been long theorized that the SP's in the set were the sacrifice for the ML's and I had also thought this to be the truth. The following cards I believe are part of that group:"

And then you list a bunch of commons...this sentence seems to indicate that these are part of the SPs AND/OR were given spots to the minor league cards. I could be wrong but honestly...this is not very clear.

You speak of single prints and super prints and then use SP interchangeably. You often say people are hoarding and then use pop reports to support or disprove theories and then say the reports are meaningless. You have confused the issue greatly.

I feel my list of the 12 single prints that are missing the PB and Hassan 649 backs are the most obvious swap for the Minor League cards. You say, wait...there are sixteen single prints (or more) I think. I bet if you line those up, they will replace other single prints quite nicely (Shean Cubs with Shean Rustlers or Collins open with Collins open).

I agree there are patterns to the backs. This is due in large part to the number of cards printed but as Ted has shown us. Some of the single prints were often double printed (or more) on one sheet. It is impossible to know rarity just using advertising backs. Was Piedmont 42 more rare because there were less print runs? Of course. That only works though when you compare any one card with any one back. If talk about a card with multiple backs that breaks down. Austin is one of the most common cards in the set and often easily found. Does that mean the Broadleaf Austin is a common? No, of course not...what it says is that the print runs for the other backs, combined with the quantity of the backs makes Austin a common. NOT because he has more advertising backs than say, Ames...who is just as common when collecting in general.

Joshua

...