So why do the Doyle and Magie errors counts as part of the set?
 

I obviously don't collect t206s, but I do collect sets. In my world of set collectors you have set guys, master set guys, subset guys, etc. I collect sets, do not do masters or errors. If the Doyle and Magie are errors, why are they part of the 524? Sure seems like the set stops at 522. Are there other errors in the t206s that are part of the 524? Seems like those would be more or a master set, but you t206 guys are goofy and I cant keep up with you. My first t206 post....feels weird.

I hope that you survive your first T206 post and continue, because this is a great question.
In both cases the picture on the error card is the same as on the correct version, only the spelling or team is different. In both cases the printers made an error, caught the error, and corrected it by changing the caption beneath the picture. This change is enough to cause the new (correct) version to be considered a new card.
If this definition of a new card seems arbitrary to you, I suppose that you're right. But this definition of what constitutes a new card has been accepted for years so I guess we just don't question it.

Yeah, but theres other sets with errors that people do not count to be complete. Look at t205s, people count thier set complete at 208 with a master at 221. 1914 CJ collectors do not get the Bresnahan no number for a complete 144...not sure if we're splitting hairs with variation vs error but the t206s are always labeled error. I always thought what constitued a new card is a new/different card, not an error that the manufacturer caught and corrected.

I agree Steve, t206 just has some of its own rules and quirks. In most other sets miscut and registration problems are just that, problems and detract from a card's value. I can't figure it out. Darn weird back collectors.....

So why do the Doyle and Magie errors counts as part of the set?

Anal bastards. ;)

That made me laugh...

Nodgrass and Dopner should be added

I think it's a combination of a couple things. And Magie and Doyle are different situations.

With Magie it's mostly tradition for it to be included. The early checklisters didn't make much distinction between a different card and one with a caption difference. There are plenty of caption differences in T206 that aren't because of errors that it makes some sense.
The Herrer and Bakep cards in the 50's are debatable even as variations, but they're still included in the master list, mostly because they've been listed for so long.

Another reason for it being listed is that it's only comparatively recently that the error could be narrowed down to a particular part of the set with any certainty. When I started, it was almost impossible to find any list at all that showed the back choices as being limited.
So if it was an error that was maybe on one card out of a sheet it might be considered as a different card.
A lot of the T205s that are variations that aren't part of the main set are limited to one brand.

The Doyle is a bit different. I think it's being part of the main set is mostly because of how it was initially promoted by a dealer with a lot of influence.

There are paralells in other hobbies. In stamps the one cent stamp from 1851 was printed from a few plates and the image wasn't complete in nearly every position on all plates. The catalog lists them under numbers 5 through 9 with a couple having capital letters after the number like 5A. They're all essentially the same stamp, just with different degrees of completeness. The typical ones can be had for well under 100 dollars. There was one position on one plate that showed the complete design. That one is rare, and sells for around $85,000 The stamp right next to it on the sheet is just as rare, but only catalogs 16,000..........And yet, plate differences in any later series of stamps only get minor numbers(similar to variations) And even than not all of them are listed. The 1851 listings are against the published listing policy, but have been that way since the 1930's or earlier, so it's not likely to change anytime soon.

Steve B

Thanks Steve, not a back guy so that point was not considered.

I still think its all odd, especially with it being based on a couple old dealers perspective. The answer to my question seems to be tradition, tradition, tradition...thanks for all the input.

I have completed the set of 520 and consider it functionally complete at this point.

In my heart of hearts, if the fates are kind, I expect to get a beater Magie error and a very low grade Plank at some point in the future.

The Wagner is just insane and may have never really been released to the public...I have a stand in for it and, even if the money comes along, would prefer a nice vacation home or to help my children start a business. The Doyle just seems like a silly little anomaly of a player of minor significance and i wouldn't have any interest in it at 1/100th of the price it is selling for.

I think that possibly the most interesting part of collecting the monster and one you must come to terms with is the idea that you define what your monster will look like and you don't let the fact that someone else has a different idea of it that you do necessarily has to redefine your ambitions.

These days with the tremendous amount of knowledge and discussion about vintage cards occurring on a daily basis...to me...most of the printed data...especially regarding prices and such is very dated...not including more recent works of course! Similarly there are still many perceptions of the hobby that still maintain widespread acceptance because in the 70's -80's this is what was documented and published as the gospel.

Today...to me...valuations...perceived rarity...desirability has really become opinion...and we are all entitled to our own opinion.

This is why some consider t206 to be complete at 518...520...some 522...some 524. As anyone says...t206 is so great because you can collect it in so many ways?!:p

On the rare occasion you see an e97 set for sale...it is often considered complete without the sulivan, steinfeldt, nichols variations.

TO me...a set with all of the variations is a master set.

And SHAPPE and MURR'Y?:D

I think it's because of the series and backs.. I'm not sure of the availability of the variations within each back/series though, I've never really paid much attention to it. But if it's the only variation available with a certain back/series, then it is just THE CARD for that series/back.. No different than a pose change or team change in a different series.. Because both shouldn't be available within ALL the same series/backs across the board..

Theoretically, if the Magie is available in Piedmont 150, and NO corrected version was available in the P150, then I'd say it's "the card" for that series(meaning that technically, it's not a variation within the back/series). It should then be a part of the collective basic set.. Even if BOTH were available in any other series..

But if BOTH variations are available in EVERY series in which the Magie appears, then it's a variation in every back/series across the board. In that case, I wouldn't count it as part of the basic set, only the Master..

For me :
basic set 518 cards
master set 524 cards
Crazy master set : almost 6000 cards with all diff back :) LOL

Interesting to hear the different perspectives on this.

Doyle and Magie were corrections - you can count them or not count them. There are plenty of other things that were intentionally changed, or 'corrected', in various cards, that don't involves the captions, and no one considers those to be different cards. And there are things like missing red 'B's, 'nodgrass', etc., that are just crappily-produced cards. If you are interested in such things, then collect them - I'm surprised no one has created a new checklist that includes all of these in it (even the odd Marquards, caps missing stripes, etc - anything released to production and not a scrap).

My list is much simpler - I want at least one of each player (one Cobb, one Chase, etc) but multiples if I like the design a lot (all three Matty's). Not sure what the length of such a checklist would be, but it's simpler and cheaper to collect the 'mini-monster'.

Any reason why the two PB variations (O'Hara & Demmitt) would not be considered part of a basic set?

That was how I started. The mini-monster is a gateway drug....

I think it's interesting that virtually no one ever includes the 8 "new" proof cards of totally different players, that Keith Obermann now owns. Perhaps because they seem to be unique, and probably were NEVER released to the public? I suppose that makes them a little bit different than the Doyle error card - but only very slightly different! When I first heard about those proofs, I figured the "master set" number would increase to 532? Didn't happen.

If I had my druthers I would not have the Magie and Doyle errors in the set. Magie I am more o.k. with because it is in a more abundant supply. On the other hand there are less then a dozen Dolyes. I know supply is not the first thing on collectors mind. I don't see why people would spend so much money just because it says two different letters.

I would much rather have one of those Planks with the missing ink and put the rest in the bank.

why isnt nodgrass included then?

i think it is because there are so few of them, and if it was unofficially officially included , the price would skyrocket for all of the unofficial official set collectors would now have to have one. if there were 300 nodgrass errors in existance, it would be okay, but there are only ? so people don;t want it added to the unofficial official list because it would just be another card to go for big huge bucks, and the set is expensive enough already.

Items like “Nodgrass” aren’t included because like all of these font screw ups. They are nothing more than a card that had something get on the plate during printing that caused a letter or part of a letter go missing.

Whereas Doyle and Magie were mistakes made and the original plates were changed to reflect a correction to the typo. Then the cards were printed again in greater quantity with the typo fixed with the plate changes.

'nodgrass' wasn't intentional - it was just crappy production. If you include 'nodgrass', you have to include all the other crappy problems that ended up in packs.

You may not want one in your set, but that does not mean it was not released. There is simply no evidence to substantiate this guess.

Can you explain how it is that approximately 60 different examples would end up in original period collections of T206s and eventually make their way to our hobby if they were not released in packs? Were they all the collections of 60 friends of someone from ATC who handed them out?
JimB

George Browne Washington & Chicago is another. Same picture, different caption. Does anyone beside me only consider having 1 to be sufficient?

It was a typical day at the American Lithograph Company. The employees where busy as usual going about regular there job. It is not a quite place with all the machines running but all of a sudden they could hear a major commotion coming from the boss's office. They looked up to the second floor where they could see the boss through the big plate window stomping around and cursing. All of a sudden he flung the door open and stepped out on the catwalk and yelled, " WHO IS THE DUMB A$$ THAT THINKS MAGEE IS SPELLED WITH AN I IN IT?"

I believe ATC considered Brown, Dahlen, Elberfeld, Demmitt, O'Hara, Klienow and Smith to be one subject with an updated team designation. As a collector I would consider them variations and would want one of each for a set.

The great thing is there is no wrong way to collect. Just create the checklist that fits your parameters and budget.

I don't consider any set complete without the variations. '14 CJ has to have both Bresnahans, '49 Leaf Peterson, Hermanski and Aberson pairings.
T206 isn't any different.

Thanks for the answers gang. By all means, to each their own. Im collecting my Frankenstein CJ set - Currently at 159 1915s, 19 1914 including the Bres no # going for my monster number of 180. I could care less what anyone else thinks should or should not be in my set and its never even dawned on me to ask for anothers opinion as its irrelevant. Is this the point of t206? Are you guys the rebel of the set collecting world? Did I just make a connection to you crazy people? I get it, maybe my bigger issue is I have never thought of a way that feels comfortable for me to do t206s...Wagner really puts a kink in my set collector self....

just get a nice reprint or skip the wagner, anyone collecting autographs of heavyweight boxing champions have to skip the marvin hart, because there arent any around. so the set is considered complete without the hart autograph.

I hate to admit it, but I bought a nice Wagner reprint about 8 years ago, knowing I would never own the real thing. Still, it is part of the set.

I did the same thing. I bought a reprint of Wagner, and later got it autographed by Wayne Gretzky. I always get a laugh from people to whom I show it.

Cobb & Edwards signed mine.

^
|______ Huge 'just kidding'

I don't know much about Cracker Jacks. Do you have the 1914 Mathewson and Del Pratt cards?

Thats a negative...I have the 1915 CJs of both. The 1914 CJ Matty may be the most expensive card that I hold out hopes of ever owning as I think its truly an iconic card. The Pratt doesnt do anything for me...there are other 1914s just as rare without all the pub. This is awesome, CJs getting into my first and only t206 thread!