Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan
P.S. Jim is attempting to rationalize his skepticism. But, he has no proof that this Nicholls entry is NOT valid.
TED Z
|
No, Jim does not have “proof” that the Nicholls entry is not valid but beyond anyone’s ability to produce an auction listing, scan, or other proof that this card does exist, there is additional information that should cause skepticism.
There are indicators that point to the SC 150 649 subjects being printed at the same time as the brown Hindu. If this is true a subject that can be found with SC 649 should be found with brown Hindu as well. All 34 subjects in the SC 649 subset have been confirmed with brown Hindu but Simon Nicholls was not printed with this back.
The brown Hindu printing excluded 1/3 of the available major-league subjects at the time and Simon Nicholls was one. In addition Simon Nicholls was incorrectly added to the brown Hindu list on this site but that entry was removed when shown to be bad.
This isn’t a case of doubting Ted just for the sake of trying to make him look bad as the initial quote implies. A tremendous amount of time has and continues to be invested researching this set and at this point the data shows this card more than likely isn’t a good front/back combo. I believe most people can understand our position and that in the end we only want the information being presented to collectors to be accurate.