Joe Tinker t206 variation?
 

In the middle of this very long article, https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...f_the_T206.pdf, the author discusses the existence of Joe Tinker hands on knees variation. Specifically, for those that haven't read the article, he notes there are 3 known copies where his uniform has remnants of the "Chicago" name on the front as well as the "CUBS" name. You might recall that many of the t206 cubs players that show gray road "CUBS"-adorned jerseys are short printed and/or discontinued after the 150 series...to be replaced with images with gray jerseys adorned with "Chicago". The team never actually used gray road jerseys with "CUBS" across the front prior to 1911 so the t206 designers backed out those versions. I'm not quite sure why the artists ever rendered those in the first place but maybe because it was easier to place CUBS on an image than a logo or the full text.


https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...4eecf23b57.jpg


Now I am no expert, but I thought I had devoured every t206 thread on this board since early 2005. In all that time, I can't recall any discussion of the existence of a Joe Tinker Uniform variation. I don't think TedZ nor scott reader have ever made reference to such a variation. Clearly I missed it as it is referenced here as well: https://prewarcards.com/2018/11/15/j...schulte-proof/

To me, if this is a real pack-issued variation, and not just a proof, there is a strong case for this to be the 525th card in the set. I am well aware of printing variations such as Sweeney "no B" (and others missing red ink), the Sharpe/Shappe or (s)Nodgrass Batting. I agree with the current convention that these were printing anomolies that occurred during the printing and not a purposely-designed flaw. The Tinker card, much like the Doyle NY Nat'l or Magie, was a willfull and intended that was quickly discovered and corrected. If this is news, then its very possible there are more than 3-4 out there, but its not likely 150-200 like magie, or someone else would have surely mentioned it by now. How is this any different than the other two variations? This is not an accidental flaw to a printing plate (like what caused the nodgrass or shappe). It is not a lack of color being printed on the card.

Isn't this a big deal? What say you?

I remember reading Anson's article on this one a few years ago. I honestly dont know what to make of it. The line between "print anomaly" and true variation seems pretty thin. If this happened in one or two sheets that were printed and those were the only instances, is it a true variation? Its really cool, whatever it is

The Joe Tinker has been talked about in this group, but I think it was on the original message board, before Leon had to do a conversion. I bought a Tinker with the darkest Chicago background that I could find. It's not as impressive as the picture above, but it was the best I could find, when this was a hot topic.

There is an article on T206resource.com that shows the proof that Keith Olbermann owns or owned of Schulte with a similar topic.

https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=36311



https://www.t206resource.com/Article...206%20Set.html

Keith Olbermann article link above.




-------------------------------------------

relevant
 

Here is something Tbob texted me a couple of weeks ago...Jerry

I am aware of the Tinker and have read about it in the past, but I have never seen one. I would agree that it’s more of a variation than a printing error or anomaly, which would make it more like Doyle/Magie than Nodress, etc. But until/unless a huge swell of support develops and is supported by TPGs and auction houses, which I doubt will happen, the Tinker variation will not be considered #525.

The Schulte Proof/variation is awesome!

Here is the Mathewson proof listed above; it certainly has increased in value!

The first link in the post to the PDF doesn't work for me, but here are some Net54 threads on the subject:

2011:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=135053

2013:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=176468

REA example in 2012:
https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=21868

REA example in 2013:
https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=27434

Steve

Thanks for the input. Clearly i missed this, but i'm surprised it didn't cause a bigger stir. It certainly seems like a legit card (3 copies) all graded now....and doesn't appear to be a proof of any kind. Its not a stray printers mark, its clearly a previous version (like schulte proof) that has "Chicago" not completely blanked out. So clearly it was an early version that was a mistake and corrected. How is this any diff than Doyle? There's maybe 10-15 doyles right? I might guess there are 10 of these out there hiding in plain sight.

I think the Tinker should be listed as a separate card.

But I have doubts it actually will be.

If it is.... Well, there's a whole bunch of stuff that would also qualify.

Like - Tinker also exists with the "Chicago" sort of visible, as well as the ones where it's not there at all.

Some 350 series come without the bright red. The one I always think of is Dygert, where the effect is lipstick or none... And both are far too common for it to be anything but deliberate.

Thanks
 

Thanks for the links Steve...those were cool old threads...Jerry

Jerry, wild vintage Proof Price List!

Ryan, I never get ties of seeing that Matty Proof!