Does anyone have a Barger with this caption flaw

[Pat R]

I only know of one besides this one and I'm curious if anyone has a Barger like this that's missing most of the leg of the T.

img382.jpg

[Pat R]

I just located a Sweet Caporal 350 factory 30 with the T flaw the other two I know of are Sweet Caporal 350 factory 25's. With those two backs based on my print flaw research it should be available on a Piedmont 350 but I haven't found any yet if anyone has a Barger with this flaw and you don't mind sharing I'd like to know about it so I can keep a count it appears to be a pretty scarce flaw as far as T206 caption flaws go.

[Leon]

Interesting catch!
.

[rebelsart]

I just went through my T206 Barger, Rochester cards and found two of these missing part of the "T".
One is a Sweet Caporal 30, 350.
One is a Tolstoi.

I sent the scans to Patrick and asked him to post them for me.

Art M.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by rebelsart

I just went through my T206 Barger, Rochester cards and found two of these missing part of the "T".
One is a Sweet Caporal 30, 350.
One is a Tolstoi.

I sent the scans to Patrick and asked him to post them for me.

Art M.

Thank you for sending the scans Art. It's interesting that you happen to have two of these in your collection I only found three in over 500 Barger's that I looked at.

001a.jpg
001b.jpg

Arts two new additions put the total that I've seen at 5 this is the breakdown

2 Sweet Caporal 350 factory 25
2 Sweet Caporal 350 factory 30
1 Tolstoi

[nineunder71]

Wow, that is super cool. My Tolstoi has a full T

[steve B]

What makes it especially cool?

I've considered that smaller brands like Tolstoi may have had their own sheet layouts. The Tolstoi missing part of the T just like the SC cards proves that for at least one run of 350's and probably more than just one that is not true.

Proving what didn't happen gets us closer to being sure of what did happen.

[nineunder71]

What makes it cool? It’s cool that Pat finds and exploits these factory print marks. And its also cool that after looking at 500 copies, a member here has two new examples, in which doubles the population of this print flaw. THATS COOL!

It’s what was being looked for, and it was found, which is also COOL

[Carter08]

I live in Rochester and support any focus on it!

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B

What makes it especially cool?

I've considered that smaller brands like Tolstoi may have had their own sheet layouts. The Tolstoi missing part of the T just like the SC cards proves that for at least one run of 350's and probably more than just one that is not true.

Proving what didn't happen gets us closer to being sure of what did happen.

That's one of the things I'm trying to figure out with the print flaws Steve. I am pretty certain that for at least the fist two print groups that the majority of the Old Mills and SC350/25's were printed together. The Tolstoi's are hard to gauge because of their lower pops on a lot of subjects I only found 8 different Tolstoi Barger's before Art contacted me about his and none of them had the flaw. Without going through all my folders I can only recall 1 other flaw that's a shared flaw with a Tolstoi back and that's the MURR'Y flaw.

Murrquy%20Group.jpg

[steve B]

That's interesting, I wonder which came first.

What I'm still thinking that this one pretty much proves the sheets being the same, and used for multiple brands including the smaller brands. The Murry is just a bit more, and I'm thinking may come from the same sheet. It seems plausible that whatever caused the transfers to not transfer properly did it multiple times on the same stone.

Of course it's not 100%, and leaves some questions, but each little bit pushes those questions farther toward "unlikely" and other ideas farther towards "probably"

A huge improvement over "nobody knows, or is even close to knowing"

[t206fix]

Not sure if you saw this one Patrick - sold in January of 2020 - (not my card)

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by t206fix

Not sure if you saw this one Patrick - sold in January of 2020 - (not my card)

Yeah thanks Tony, that's one of the two 350/25's that I know about.

[t206fix]

Pat - I recently picked up this p.350 example of this print flaw.

[t206fix]

What's interesting is that I scanned my other two Barger examples, and it's pretty obvious that the "BARGER, ROCHESTER" is much closer to the bottom border than my other two copies.

I thought the name plate was a pretty standard placement. A few years back I posted a thread about how the "factory number line" moved around on SC.460.25s. https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=260593

A question for Steve/Pat - did the "name plate" move around, or was it a fairy standard placement?

Pics #1 & 2 - my three Bargers - at first glance, it seems like they are in different spots. In 2, I adjusted them so their bottom borders are in a straight line.
Pic #2 - comparison with lines - it sure seems like there is a significant discrepancy there, right? Or are my eyes deceiving me?

[steve B]

I don't know if the name plate location has been really investigated yet.
Ordinarily I'd think that the brown layer was just printed out of register on the high side, but I don't see anything that would confirm that.

It's possible the nameplates were added individually. The unissued proofs mostly have no nameplate, or one written in by hand.

I'm not sure why they would do that. There are a few maybe ideas, like they could more easily correct mistakes like Magie, or a change in team.
They would have had a "standard" location, but being added by hand they would probably vary a bit.

The missing or messed up bits of nameplate are from a transfer that didn't transfer properly. I think it's worth looking at the placement on other cards with nameplate flaws to see if relocating the nameplate has anything to do with it.