I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>is beginning to claim me as yet another of its countless victims.<br /><br />I started with the goal of completing the Cubs team set. Seemed innocent enough, until I learned that it has the second-most number of cards of any other team, a rather scarce common, and then like, 13 HOFers. Great. Almost there, but still 7 HOFers short. Nothing like collecting 100 year old baseball cards, owning 30 of them, and still needing 7 HOFers!!! Clearly, I should have thought about this a little longer.<br /><br />Then I discovered the card that I truly fell in love with, quickly acquired, and remain enamored with to this day. Nap Lajoie w/bat.<br /><br />Then I discovered that the set has several other characters of the game that would be neat to own, and then, there were still other cards that have what I think are just amazing images. Merkle-throwing, Lobert, Speaker, Wheat, Becker, Willis-throwing, Doyle w/bat, McGraw port-w/hat, Chases pink and blue.<br />(You will find a wantlist among the tobacco card posts on the BST, should you wish to assist in the addiction). The only thing that saves me thus far is that I have no interest in any of the bigger HOFers.<br /><br />Then there is another subset which I find highly entertaining and may start collecting someday: Players wearing big sweaters. To know me is to know that I am far from a clothes horse, but I find those cards to be an interesting statement of the era/period.<br /><br />And don't even get me started on the sunsets.<br /><br />I truly am beginning to hate this.<br />and yet...I love it.<br /><br />Is this how the decline typically begins?<br />Is there any hope?<br />perhaps a prescription?<br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br /><br />

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>if you need a prescription...you'll have to come and see me first...try advil or tylenol first.

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Mohler</b><p>Kind of off-topic, but I like the big sweaters too. One card I hope to pick up some time is the 1922 Eastern Exhibit of Joe Bush. He has got a great looking sweater on that card.<br /><br />Jeff

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>Sean BH</b><p>I think we all know the prescription, and the only prescription is more cowbell.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rgpD8CKSmhs&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rgpD8CKSmhs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object><br /><br />sdbh

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Speaking of baseball sweaters, below are two interesting photos of MLB players and friends on a hunting/fishing trip. Notice some are wearing their player team sweaters! Joe Bush is on top fishing wearing his Yankees sweater, and the guy on his knee in the bottom photo is Bob Shawkey. The photos are from Eddie Collins' photo album.<br /><br />If the T206 set is the monster, then the 90 year old whool sweater Joe Bush wore while cleaning fish and skinning moose might qualify as the beast.<br /><br /><img src="http://cycleback.com/eddiecollins_files/image003.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://cycleback.com/eddiecollins_files/image011.jpg">

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>Cashews</b><p>Joe Bush was pretty fashion forward. I wouldn't mind owning a sweater like that.

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>Jason, <br />the most promising sign of your healthiness in the quest is your love<br />for everything from sweaters to sunsets!!!<br />the Monster is only taunting you;it's power is only ephemeral.<br />Remember: the Monster wants you to quit; do not listen to it.<br /><br />all the best in your gradual,yet successful slaying of the monster,<br /><br />barry

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...Monster, someone once told me: there's only one way to eat an elephant -- one bite at a time.<br /><br /><br><br>_ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ _ <br /><br />Visit <a href="http://www.t206collector.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t206collector.com</a> for my blog, interviews, articles, card galleries and more!<br /><br />

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>David -- there are two team sweaters in the bottom picture -- the guy on the left also has one on. Any idea who that is?

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>Bill Stone</b><p>As Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong said while admiring the Kramer painting " He is a loathsome offensive brute,yet I can't look away. He transcends time and space. I love it. Me too"

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Mt. Joy</b><p>Here is the sweater in question, haha, and I currently have it up for sale on ebay too )<br /><br /><a href="http://s112.photobucket.com/albums/n182/smtjoy/ebay%20stuff/?action=view¤t=22eebush.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n182/smtjoy/ebay%20stuff/22eebush.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>Rich H.</b><p>I know this may be a naive question - and i think this may have been discussed before in a previous thread (so i will apologize in advance if this is redundant)- but how many cards comprise a "complete" set? Is it 520 of the 524?<br /><br />Of these "big 6," which (if any) are considered "optional"?<br /><br />Plank<br />Magie<br />Wagner<br />Doyle<br />Demmitt<br />O'Hara<br /><br /><br /><br />Rich H.<br /><br />

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Levy</b><p>IMO...I have always viewed the T206 set as 520 + 3 or 4. The most optional of the 4 being the Doyle Nat'l (again my opinion). But I don't think you can consider the set complete without the Demmitt and O'Hara.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Scott

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>My two cents on the subject, I only feel the set is complete at 524 and only at 524. The other cards (Plank, Magie, Doyle & Wagner) although very expensive and quite unobtainable to most of us do exist, ignoring or them or omitting them from a checklist due to rarity and or price makes no sense. <br /><br />I have excepted that my collection may be missing any of these big cards at any given time during my collecting lifespan, telling myself I’m complete due to lack of significant funds doesn’t make that hole where Mr. Wagner should reside any easier to overlook.<br /><br /><br />

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>Frank B</b><p><br /> I do not consider error cards a necessary part of a completed "fronts" set.<br />It is interesting how Magie and Doyle are considered necessary by some but <br />other printing variations such as Doc Marshall (no "B" on uniform) are not. <br />I do not see any real difference. <br /><br />

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>Phil</b><p>To add on to the last 2 comments.....this is something that I have felt for a long time.<br /><br />The Wagner & Plank cards (as expensive & difficult as they are) are part of the set. They are not error or variation cards.<br /><br />The Doyle, Maggie, O'Hara, & Demmitt cards are errors/variations. You might say 520 is a complete set, but that 520 should include Plank & Wagner.

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>Short prints should obviously be included, but the minute you include errors and variations, you leave yourself open to a never-ending quest for every miscut, misprint, or any other type of variation.<br /><br />A set should be the intended set of the maufacturer. That's fair and hardly arbitrary!<br /><br />same goes for the T206 Monster or 1988 Fleer.<br /><br /><br />Good point to you as well Frank.

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>wouldn't that coincide then with the 520 that T206-Collector had said it was referred to in earlier days? (if I have that correct)<br /><br />perhaps it's just better to omit the error/variation discoveries of the past decades...those are just oddities

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>Magie and Doyle are not "printing variations." They are legitimate, corrected errors in what text should read on the bottom fronts of the cards. Sweeney missing the B because the red ink dried up is not an error that was corrected. It is an unintended "printing variation." Cards missing ink are totally different than spelling errors or corrected team city origins.<br /><br /><br><br>_ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ _ <br /><br />Visit <a href="http://www.t206collector.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t206collector.com</a> for my blog, interviews, articles, card galleries and more!<br /><br />

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>"A set should be the intended set of the maufacturer(sp)."<br /><br />That is the loaded statement; intended by the manufacturer at what point? <br /><br />

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Phil & Jason..you guys are going crazy...LOL<br /><br />Demmit and O’Hara are short prints guys; they were team change cards that were only picked up by one of the tobacco companies within the ATC, hence the reason why there scarce etc. These are not printing mistakes; they didn’t accidently print the St.Louis logo on Demmits chest asleep at the printing press one afternoon, or by pure mistake carry the team change of these 2 ballplayers.<br /><br />As for Magie and Doyle they are legitimate errors, not printing flaws or freaks like the below cards of Randall where something interfered with the plate. These were separate type sets and plates used to print these, we can only speculate as to why they were corrected.<br /><br /><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/randall.jpg"><br /><br />Missing “B”, Nodgrass, Milwaukef, color missing,wrong color,double name,name on top, ghosts, bleeds etc. those are printing anomalies nothing more nothing less collect them if you like them which some I do, these should not however be part of the set checklist.<br /><br /><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/small/milligan.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/small/marquard.jpg"> <br /><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/websize/abst.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/small/lindaman.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/small/bresh.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/small/lieb.jpg">

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>at whichever point is most economical to the collector! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />I'm not sure I totally understand where you're going with it though ...<br />what I meant was the original intent prior to printing. what other points would you measure?

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Consider if a manufacturer inadvertently leaves a player out of a set and during production introduces that card. Alternatively, consider a card that the manufacturer included that they decided they wanted to stop producing mid-way through for whatever reason (say the player objects to endorsing tobacco products). You would only included card #2 as part of the complete set?

I fear the Monster...
 

Posted By: <b>Frank B</b><p><br /> Paul and John,<br /><br /> I do get what your point is - that the number of different cards that were <br />set up to print (including a correction that later was set up to replace a card)<br />is what constitutes the set. I had not considered the distinction between a <br />set-up error and something going wrong post set-up. I now see the difference.<br /><br />