|
T206- Rebel Oakes (Ofkes) Error
I've seen this card on ebay for a while now. Never thought it was an actual error card but got moderately excited when I found one in my own collection this evening. Could this be like the newly discovered "Chicaco" card or is it really common? Ebay link to the card is below.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/OAKFS-T206-...il!76227!US!-1 |
It's a minor printing flaw. I don't think that it's worth anything. And the seller doesn't inspire confidence, either.
|
Quote:
|
T206- Rebel Oakes (Ofkes) Error
What is it with people trying to find "variations" (in the T206 set) that's an error because the ink is faded? You can clearly see the lettering and it's just slightly faded.
|
Like the Pfeffer Chicaco, Murry, Shappe, etc., it's a card with a print flaw. I haven't seen many of the Oakfs cards around but haven't been looking, either. Another one was on eBay before but don't know if it ever sold.
The Pfeffer Chicaco has sold for good money (A graded 5 sold for about $1,500) and despite the fact they are 'just' cards with print flaws and not cards with true spelling errors, some still do quite well because it's T206. I wouldn't rule out the Oakfs card selling for the kind of money Pfeffer has. It's the same type of 'error', really, and unless it's drastically more common, I don't see why it couldn't. But the first step would probably be getting a TPG to recognize it as a variation as Beckett did with the Pfeffer. Until then, I don't know that people would shell out that kind of money for it. Beckett generally seems the most open to that if you show them a few examples of others. |
To me it's just as legit as a 1957 Topps GENE BAKEP...
...and by that I mean neither are legit. |
Quote:
It is a printing error and some of us(myself included) love them and WILL pay a premium for them.:D That premium varies greatly by error and collector. |
3 Attachment(s)
Quote:
on the printing plate that blocked part of the E and not fading. The T206 set it loaded with print flaws but they seem to pick and choose which ones get cataloged and that's why when they do you see crazy prices like the recently cataloged Pfeffer Chicaco and Marquard arm pit 8 "variations". Anyone that has the Oakfs "variation" might want to go after the period before the T Polar Bear "variation" to go with it. Attachment 327608 Attachment 327609 Attachment 327607 |
T206s seems to have an inordinate amount of print flaws.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I believe all of these caption errors are from the transfer used to lay out then stone not transferring completely.
They would be identifiable positions from the sheet, which is how I separate variations and errors. I prefer the term variety, as so far it indicates something that happened regularly because of the plate having a difference, but isn't major enough to be recognized as a variation. Errors to me are things that happened haphazardly. They're interesting, and I might collect a few if I had the money. But 1000+ just seems unreasonable. I'm also of the opinion that every position on the plate will be slightly different, and trying to collect them all would be mostly insane. |
Very interesting. Thanks for the feedback fellas!
|
Quote:
|
OAKFS error
I am guessing the "nay-sayers" on this Rebel Error do not own one.
A PSA 1 sold for $500. A raw one sold for $400 (poor). Big Jeff Chicago is now known.... Isnt there a Murray error like this? On Rebel it would be 'light ink' missing ...if it wasn't for the fact that several exactly like this are out there! Go Gators! CV |
Well I just put it up on eBay. I guess we'll see what happens.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:38 PM. |