T206 Addie Joss pitching/ PSA 4 with Tolstoi back
 

Hello Guys,

Any one have an idea on what the value might be on this card...It is a beauty. Any help would be greatly appeciated.


Thanks,
Christian

As a reference, a Cycle back in psa 4 sold at heritage a month ago for $836, it was a nice looking psa 4. Some corner wear and a light corner crease. I know a Cycle is different from a Tolstoi but they're in the same neighborhood I think.

Sounds like a nice card!

Thank you for the refrence...it was helpful.

Regards,
christian

VCP's last recorded sales of that back and condition date from 2009, and center around $300.

IMHO, I'd say the card is worth around $400, maybe more on a good day or in the right auction.

On the up side, 1) Joss is a HOFer that once threw a Perfect Game and 2) the card has a less common back (Tolstoi should bring a premium of around 1.5x to 2.0x over the same card with a common back). On the downside, Joss Pitching is one of the most common T206s in the set that is not one of six the "Super Prints". It is believed that the card was double printed toward the end of the T206 run due to Joss dying young in 1911.

The Joss Cycle comp is good, but not exactly apples to apples. Joss Pitching is in the 350/460 Series which means the Cycle backs for this card are all Cycle 460s. Tolstoi is definitely on the same level as Cycle 350, but Cycle 460s carry much more of a premium - especially as of late.

Good luck!

Steve

Hi Steve - I don't know the source of the above quoted information but I don't believe it to be accurate. I like the pose no matter what Rob may say about it but nothing I've seen would lead me to believe it was double printed or received and special attention due to his death.

Tim,

I certainly didn't make that theory up myself - I read it somewhere (and I've read quite a bit about the T206 set). I'll let you know the source once I find it.

Steve

I just wanted to thank all the board members for the help...this is truly a great site.


Regards,
Christian

T206 Addie Joss pitching/ PSA 4 with Tolstoi back
 

Tim,

The source is Scot A. Reader's Inside T206, Third Editon.

In the Series Discussion section (section III), the commonality of the Joss Pitching card is mentioned on page 32 - "Joss (Pitching) is the most common of the 350/460 RP subjects, rivaling the six 350/460 'superprinted' subjects in availability. It is possible, although far from certain, that ATC liberally printed this subject at the tail-end of the T206 production in response to the well publicized illness of the great Cleveland hurler that led to his premature death on April 14, 1911." (Note: this same text appears in the updated Centennial Edition of Inside T206.)

Also, in the Difficulty Rankings section (section VI), which starts on page 46, Joss (Pitching) is listed with a difficulty ranking of 519. The only cards listed with a lower Difficultly Ranking are Cobb (Red Portrait) at 520, Chance (Yellow Portrait) at 521, Mathewson (Dark Cap) at 522 and Evers (Chicago on Shirt) at 523. (Note: this Difficulty Rankings section was not included in the updated Centennial Edition of Inside T206.)

If this theory has since been discredited, I was not aware.

Steve

My understanding is that the rule of thumb re back multipliers is that they only apply for common cards and do not apply to HOFers. My experience has been that there's actually a little extra bump for the HOFers for the less-common backs (maybe 10%) but not nearly as much as the "listed" back multiplier would give you. I'm referring to the less-common backs such as PB, OM, Sov, etc (when you get to the rarer backs such as CB, P42, C460, uzit, etc then i find all bets are off). Any thoughts?

Steve - First and foremost I have great respect for both Scot and his work and think Inside T206 was groundbreaking to say the least.

Within the text Scot writes "It is possible, but far from certain..." setting up the information that followed to be understood as an idea or theory and not fact as to why his survey count showed a higher number of Joss entrants than other subjects. I'm not sure if he had any other evidence for this theory other than the timing of both, but either way there is nothing wrong with offering a possible explanation.

I believe based on what we know now about how the set was produced that this wasn't the case. I haven't seen any evidence of a single subject being double printed or printed in excessive numbers to any other within their group or subgroup including Joss.

Concerning Joss on the rankings list there are a tremendous number of variables that go into how many of a particular subject can and will come to market. And I believe even the best surveys will produce different results when duplicated at different points in time and for different durations.

All the best.

I am going to get a scan of it over the weekend...again guys thanks for all the insight,

Best regards,
Christian