T206 Joe Doyle Variation

[LuckyLarry]

I've been collectiong T206 cards for two or three years. I'm trying for the full set in ANY condition, and currently have about 68% of the set with 355 different cards. I also claim to know less about this set than ANY collector here on Net54 lol! So this morning I'm reading about the one in a million Joe Doyle variation, and I grab my binder to take a look.
Sure…...In the late '80s someone scratched off the lower border to make it APPEAR that this might be a one in a ba-zillion variation card. But I SWEAR I see what looks like the remnants of a letter right where NAT'L should be!

Larry

[Jobu]

While this sure seems like a fun idea, and would certainly be in the running for one of the most expensive paper losses in card history, I think you have the standard version of the card on your hands.

I lined up your card and a Nat'l. The dot on your card is in the same location as the "A" in Nat'l but it seems to be a little too high up. Also, from what I can tell from your scan there is a decent-sized area that still has paper where some of the "N" ought to be visible if it was there.

Have you looked at the color of that dot under a loupe? Does it look like the rest of the ink in the caption?

Sorry to be a "no jackpot" vote!

[packs]

Even if it was once there it's not anymore.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by LuckyLarry

I've been collectiong T206 cards for two or three years. I'm trying for the full set in ANY condition, and currently have about 68% of the set with 355 different cards. I also claim to know less about this set than ANY collector here on Net54 lol! So this morning I'm reading about the one in a million Joe Doyle variation, and I grab my binder to take a look.
Sure…...In the late '80s someone scratched off the lower border to make it APPEAR that this might be a one in a ba-zillion variation card. But I SWEAR I see what looks like the remnants of a letter right where NAT'L should be!

Larry

.............
Printer's mark.............................................. ..................................../\

This version of the Joe Doyle card exhibits a mark where the start of the " N " in the " Nat'L " was in the original caption. When American Litho. realized their mistake
they hastily erased " Nat'L " from the printing plate and left this mark. Less than 10 % of the Joe Doyle cards have this mark.

Anyhow, I aligned my scan with yours to see if any hint of lettering coincides. But, it's difficult to discern.

More importantly, what back is on this Joe Doyle card of your's ?



TED Z
.

[Bpm0014]

I also have a Doyle variation with remnants of the "N" from NAT'L. I paid quite a premium for mine. I'll post pics shortly.

[lharri3600]

The poor mans doyle natl lol

[Bpm0014]

My poor man's Doyle...

[LuckyLarry]

Bryan I dont have a loupe (yet) but under a magnifying glass the ink colors match.
Ted here's the back it's a mess:

Larry

[t206blogcom]

Originally Posted by LuckyLarry

... the back it's a mess..

You could probably soak off most of the attached paper.

[ullmandds]

Compelling situation...for a t206 discussion!!!!! Unfortunate outcome to say the least if it "Were" real!

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by LuckyLarry

Bryan I dont have a loupe (yet) but under a magnifying glass the ink colors match.
Ted here's the back it's a mess:

Larry

Larry

The Joe Doyle Nat'l (error) card exists ONLY with a PIEDMONT 350 back.

We could have eliminated any possibility of it being a Joe Doyle Nat'l card, if this card of yours had a SWEET CAP, POLAR BEAR, SOVEREIGN, etc. back.

But, now there is a fair (however, miniscule) possibility that it may have been.

Good luck,


TED Z
.

[Tao_Moko]

This card w/ rare variation has been known for a long time so the fact that it appears to be scratched off doesn't give a high probability that it's the NAT'L version. That being said - soaking the back might uncover the subject #. According to Ted, that will help determine any possibility. Looks like some of the number may be visible.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

This card w/ rare variation has been known for a long time so the fact that it appears to be scratched off doesn't give a high probability that it's the NAT'L version. That being said - soaking the back might uncover the subject #. According to Ted, that will help determine any possibility. Looks like some of the number may be visible.

Further examination of the Piedmont back is not necessary. The only Piedmont back printed on the Joe Doyle cards is the 350 Series version.

The front caption should be examined under high magnification to see if there are any remnants of the Nat'L lettering.


TED Z
.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Further examination of the Piedmont back is not necessary. The only Piedmont back printed on the Joe Doyle cards is the 350 Series version.

The front caption should be examined under high magnification to see if there are any remnants of the Nat'L lettering.


TED Z
.

I get what you're saying Ted: the Doyle, with or without the Nat'l, only comes with a Piedmont 350, not a Piedmont 150 or 460. So this card must have a 350 back. We can only determine more by looking at the caption.

[LuckyLarry]

Thanks for the replies. With the PIEDMONT 350 back I know the odds of it being a "Doyle N.Y. NAT'L" have improved from being a ba-zillion to one odds down to a million to one odds But under my magnifying glass there appears to be the remnants of additional letters……..
I've soaked plenty of cards before, but I won't put this one in my sink because I would be afraid of removing whats left of what appears to me to be scratched off lettering.
Heres a possible theory: Maybe some ten year old back in 1911 said "This isn't Larry Doyle who pitches for the NY NATL team" "It's Joe Doyle who pitches for the NY AMER team" and scratched of NATL! My 1950s and 1960s Topps sets have PLENTY of team and name changes scratched out in ink!
Ted you suggested I examine the card under magnification, if I took this card to a jewelry store could they look at it for me using a loupe, or do I need to put it under a microscope?
Also if this IS a one in a million card (and I really dought that it is)(but there is something there) wouldn't PSA or SGC grade it as the N.Y. NAT'L variation in poor condition?
Larry

[Tao_Moko]

Originally Posted by LuckyLarry

Thanks for the replies. With the PIEDMONT 350 back I know the odds of it being a "Doyle N.Y. NAT'L" have improved from being a ba-zillion to one odds down to a million to one odds But under my magnifying glass there appears to be the remnants of additional letters……..
I've soaked plenty of cards before, but I won't put this one in my sink because I would be afraid of removing whats left of what appears to me to be scratched off lettering.
Heres a possible theory: Maybe some ten year old back in 1911 said "This isn't Larry Doyle who pitches for the NY NATL team" "It's Joe Doyle who pitches for the NY AMER team" and scratched of NATL! My 1950s and 1960s Topps sets have PLENTY of team and name changes scratched out in ink!
Ted you suggested I examine the card under magnification, if I took this card to a jewelry store could they look at it for me using a loupe, or do I need to put it under a microscope?
Also if this IS a one in a million card (and I really dought that it is)(but there is something there) wouldn't PSA or SGC grade it as the N.Y. NAT'L variation in poor condition?
Larry

I probably shouldn't chime in on what the tpg's will do, but I highly doubt they would grade it as a NAT'L. Your theory of the kid is awesome.............. Good luck to you and I hope you're able to find some tangible evidence on the card.

[tedzan]

I agree with what Eric just said regarding whether SGC or PSA would grade this card as a legitimate Joe Doyle Nat'L.

I have a legitimate rare T206 red HINDU card that has been laminated by someone. These TPG's refuse to grade it.

Look, the odds of this card being a true Doyle error card are greatly against it. Several years ago I was asked by SGC to render a 2nd opinion
on the authenticity of a new Joe Doyle Nat'L card. I verified it, and it is only the 8th confirmed example in the hobby.

I not trying to dash your hopes on the validity of this card. But yes, under high magnification you may see that there is remnants of lettering
indicative of the word Nat'L....that has you convinced. But then, you have to consider that many common Joe Doyle cards were counterfeited
with the Nat'L lettering. Good counterfeits that even fooled the TPG's who graded them.


TED Z
.

[Jobu]

I added some lines to the first image I posted - the ripped card and a Nat'l. Everything to the bottom/right of the red line appears to be paper loss, the scan isn't great so it is a little tough to tell if this line is perfectly accurate, but it looks close. I then put lines around the N in Nat'l and the upper and lower bounds of the caption on your card to make a box at the location of where the N ought to be on your card. It looks to me like my initial guess was right - there is an area that is not missing paper that should hold a large portion of the N but does not. If I am wrong and there is paper loss that I can't see in the image that occurs in the blue box then the possible top of the A comes back into play, but if all that paper is there I don't see how it could be a Nat'l.

[LuckyLarry]

My son in law is a scientist and said he could look at my card under magnification so I sent it to him. He took the card to his lab, and provided me these two pictures. The lab analyst said that a better lab could pull tiny samples from the ink to see if it matches, and he provided me a recommendation on a lab. Anyway here are the pictures

[Lgarza99]

I have to agree with Jubo. The way he presented this it looks like some of the "L" should also be visible.

Good luck though!

[ullmandds]

seeing the high magnification images it becomes obvious to me the type was scraped away.

[iwantitiwinit]

The remaining font that is purportedly the top of the A under magnification is too rounded in my opinion. Unfortunately, I believe you have nothing more than a defaced Joe Doyle, N.Y. specimen.

[4815162342]

Go ahead and send it in to ACA. It would go along great with this one: