T206 variations

[Archive]

Posted By: rob

So acknowledging the Doyle as the hardest by a mile, what are the next 5-10 difficult variations to acquire in the T206 set? Are there some of them that are harder to find in higher grades (or better condition for non-graders)?

I am sure there will be some discrepancies as to what officially counts as a variation, but would like to get some opinions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Wagner....Plank....Magie....Demmitt (St Louis)
O'Hara (StLouis)....Elberfeld (Portrait- Wash.)
Lundgren (Cubs.....in that order.

Sorry, but I have always had my suspicions about the
Doyle variation.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think even tougher are the printing errors such as "Nodgrass", "Murray part A", and "Shappe", not to mention missing colors, most notably "Sweeney no B." Nobody really knows what the surviving population of any of these are. All are pretty hard to find.

[Archive]

Posted By: Art M.

I think that the Alperman (no stripes on cap) variation would rank high on the list.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Though not a variation, since the Wagner and Plank were mentioned, I think the Cobb/Cobb back deserves mention among T206 rarities. I read that Mastro has a new example to the hobby in the December auction. I'm not sure if that brings the total to 12 or 13. Maybe Hal knows.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

T206 Schulte, one with Chicago and the other with Cubs on the front of the jersey.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I think that most advanced collectors will agree that the Cobb with Cobb back is not truely part of the t206 set. It has about as much in common with a t206 as a t213 does. It just remains in the t206 checklist because it has been there since the beginning of time. I personally think it should be listed seperately as it's own set. I doubt it will ever happen because everyone is so used to looking for that card in the t206 checklist.

Jay

I'm incompetent at being incontenent.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

I was going to say the same thing Jay.I know its come up a few times before in the past but it should be mentioned in this thread that alot of people disagree with the Ty Cobb back being a t206.I personally consider it a 1 card "set".

I dont think counting colors missing cards as rare variations in right because im sure if you looked you could find one for almost every player.Also as pointed out by Arts post theres probably a ton of cards out there with some kind of "error/difference" that makes them unique.

I tried to post some scans but for some reason it wasnt working right tonight

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I disagree that it should not be considered a part of the T206 set. It was produced by the American Tobacco Company at the same time and with identical characteristics as other T206s except that most known copies have a shallack type gloss over the front. Anyway, this has been discussed extensively on previous threads.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

I am curious as to cards such as the Schulte metnioned, Kleinow, Boston and Smith Chiccago and Boston, can be so tough when they were issued in 2 diffeerent series? How can this be?

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Lee,the Schulte tbob referenced is the front view variation of his card which has "chicago" across the front instead of "Cubs" which is always seen.I believe its a unique card and is owned by Keith Olbermann

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Cards such as the Alperman no stripes that Art displayed as well as those such as Schulte are proofs and one should expect that proofs would have visible differences. What about the Eddie Collins batting pose, both unique and perhaps the most valuable and famous of all T206 proofs? Also, Mastronet had a group of proofs several years ago that had four players unknown in the set. I think with proofs one should expect differences, and the value may be based on how dramatically different it looks from the card issued for circulation (as well as the rarity, although virtually all are unique or close to unique).

[Archive]

Posted By: joseph

You cannot count Proofs as being part of the set. Proofs are a whole other ballgame. The 206 Proofs come in full color, progressive color and with aligning marks. Also there have been different players and poses in Proofs that never made it to final printing. The final being the rarest of the Proofs. I know that most of the posters on this web site have a bad feeling about Alan Hager but when I meet him in 93 he was a very knowledgable person. He taught me about Proofs and got me collecting them. I think he is still one of a few people that know Proofs. I am sorry that he took a wrong turn down the straight and narrow.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Joseph- you are correct on both counts: proofs should not be considered variations, and Alan Hager definitely took his hobby involvement in the wrong direction. He had the same problems in the coin business, too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Bob asked...."what are the next 5-10 difficult variations"....
in the T206 set ? Not, color or printing errors, proofs, or
other anamolies that do show up infrequently. So, my initial
response listed some of the true variations in this set. I'll
reiterate and add a few more.

Wagner and Plank (PIEDMONT 150 Subjects) are the Rarest of
the Rare. And, we know that Magie exists only (PIEDMONT 150)

Demmitt and O'Hara (St. Louis - Natl Lge)

Elberfeld (Portrait - Washington)

Kleinow (Boston)....Lundgren (Cubs)....Dahlen (Dodgers)

Smith (Chi & Boston)......Matty (White Cap....Chase (Pink)

These are off the top of my head, I know you guys can add
several more. And, now that I have almost completed my 2nd
T206 set; I will join a growng number of T206 collectors, who
are very skeptical regarding the legitimacy of the "Doyle error".

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ted- Why are Wagner and Plank on your list of variations? What are they variations of?

[Archive]

Posted By: rob

I would not have include Wagner or Plank in my original question, thus wouldnt count them as variations. I was more wondering Doyle, Demmitt, etc, and how easy it is to acquire them or how populus they were. I also would not count proofs and such. What about the Brown, Wash variation, does that go on the list?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Barry

Given that only 2 or 3 Wagner or Plank cards exist with a
PIEDMONT 150 Subjects back......

Then....to the original question that was posed, my response
is that a Wagner or a Plank with a PIEDMONT 150 back can be
considered as a "rare variation". And, I feel that such cards
of these two guys should have a higher value than their SWEET
CAPORAL counterparts.

This thinking is along the same vein as the above posted dis-
cussions regarding the significance of TY COBB back in the
T206 set.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

If you are calling them variations based on their back advertising, then every Drum, Uzit, and Lenox would be a rare variation. I think we disagree on the terminology.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Barry

Why not ? The ultimate T206 collection would consist of all
the Front/Back permutations that are identified in Heitman's
T206 book. While it is "mind-boggling" to even consider such
a vast collection of T206's, it is not an impossibility.

Of course anyone daring enough to engage in such an enormous
challenge should embark on it in his teenage years; and, perhaps
by time he is collecting Soc. Sec. he will have collected every
possible card in the set.

Finally, to me there exists a "mystical" connection between the
Wagner, Plank, and Magie cards in the PIEDMONT 150 series.
Why are these three (with this particular back) several orders of
magnitude more rare than all other T206 cards. I would love to
solve this mystery.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I just define variation as something that is different on the front of a card, not a different brand name on the back. A Drum of Smith and a Uzit of Smith are the same card manufactured by a different company. So I do not define this as a variation. That's all I meant.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Barry

I have known you for over 22 years. We've had a lot of lengthy
discussions over many aspects of this hobby. In this case your
definition of variations in this set applies only to the front of
the cards. My definition covers a much broader aspect of this
set.
Incidently, if a T206 is a Drum or a Uzit (or whatever back), I
believe they were all produced in the same Printing Firm.

Speaking about the printing process, our mutual friend, Tom Faith,
has a theory that the front pictures were printed on a very fine film.
This film was then applied onto a sheet of cardboard whose back
was pre-printed with the particular Tobacco Co. advertisements.

[Archive]

Posted By: William Heitman

You guys are all over the place on this question. I'll go with saying that I'll stick with what I said in The Monster. I happen to think the Cobb back belongs with T206, but I would also say that I think T206 groups at least several sets together, but we have Jeff Burdick to thank for that. While I mention Burdick and the American Card Catalog, I must say I just have never understood why the later issued T205's weren't given T206 as its number and the earlier issued T206 weren't given the catalog number T205.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

No way on the preprinted film theory; I have too many printing errors proving many layers of ink were used on this little lithographs.

Burdick's numbering is all over the place, it is not choronological. Why are T202 and T210 before T204? Why is T205 before T206 but T207 after both? E79 and E80 (boxing) too. Remember, the system is one man's work; it ain't perfect. Think of him as the Dewey of baseball librarians.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Adam W

The fellow Barry Sloate and I know is a Chemical Engineer who specializes
in all forms of paper restoration. In fact, during the late '80s he did some
card restoration. The quality of his work is unbelievable. His "film" theory
regarding the fronts of the T206 cards is not to be discounted.

Most vintage BB cards are composed of two layers of thin cardboard laminate.
And, indeed the color printing process required 4 - color inking stages.
Pre-printed front sheets were laminated onto pre-printed back sheets of cardboard.

However, the T206 printing process appears to be different. I have had T206
cards whose fronts have disintegrated into small flakes due to aging (sun expo-
sure, heat, etc.). I would say this type of deterioration reinforces this "film"
printing theory.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

JimB:

There are 13 different "Ty Cobb with Ty Cobb Back" cards known to exist.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Ted,
T206's were printed by the American Lithograph Co., and were printed in a multi layer process involving 6 basic colors.

1. Yellow: foundation upon which other colors were added.

2. Black: Provides the border, as well as any black in the picture.

3. Brown: includes name and team designation, as well as brown in picture.

4. Blue: Printed on top of the yellow base becomes the light green of the grass and fields.

5. Green: dark green was added for green background

6. Red : Can anyone say No B's? Orange backgrounds instead of red?

Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Brian

I am familiar with these layers of colors in the process of printing, not only
T206's, but in printing any color picture. Nowadays, it has been refined
to just a 4 - color process. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your information;
it is very worthwhile reviewing.
I have several ORANGE background (normally RED) T206 cards; including a
Ty Cobb. How exactly did this color error result ?

It seems there must have been lighter tint of RED inking prior to the final
RED ink application. This would account for the "orange" printing errors.
For example a PINK tint over the initial YELLOW inking would result in ORANGE.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi TED,
I believe the Orange backgrounds were created when the red ink was running low, or was applied lightly. If you look at the faces of the Orange back ground cards you will see that they look pale with very little red in there lips or cheeks versus the normal red back ground cards. Likewise the Boston cards exhibit everything from bright red, to almost No red at all.

Here are a few pics....

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Here are a few more Ferguson's.... One with a disappearing B....

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

BRIAN

Your Ferguson examples appear to reinforce my theory that there had to
be two RED inkings in the printing process. Consider this, there are
cards in the set that have normally ORANGE backgrounds (Steinfeldt comes
to mind). There is no way you could create an Orange color with a just deep
RED ink.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jamie Hull

Not to tread on the back and forth going on here, but what happened during the printing of these?



The middle two are mine, and I'd thought the difference in background color maybe correlated to the rosiness of Cassidy's cheeks. Then I found these scans of graded examples -- nearly equally rosy cheeks despite the color differences.
Anybody have any ideas?

[Archive]

Posted By: William Heitman

You are so right. Burdick's system was his very own and it was all over the place. It was sometimes chronological and sometimes alphabetical, but all the time, it was just his system. How many of you remember Burdick's auctions? They were just as confusing.

[Archive]

Posted By: jpcw

this is the first i've heard of burdick's auction, just a lurker speaking out.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

you will find if you lay out a few dupes of each player that is very easy to pick ou the 150 series from the front alone, the color is always much bolder and better registered as well. most all 350 series cards will have a slightly washed out or pale look. i imagine they increased production and cranked up the presses, both running low on ink at times and the printing plates probably became worn as well.

scott

[Archive]

Posted By: William Heitman

It seems to me that I was born collecting T206. I was stricken with polio when I was two (1951) and was quite sickly as a young boy. My family had so many teachers in it and they sent me books. My Mom was a junior high school counselor and teacher and my Dad was a college professor, who collected cards maniacally. The result was that I learned to read before I was in kindergarten. I was sick at home the first half of First Grade and what I did at home was read the backs of these wonderful little pen and ink drawings of baseball players that my Dad was just getting, Callahan Hall of Fame cards. So I was interested most of all in "Old Timers" and that lead me to Old Judges and T206. For the next 20 years, I corresponded with anyone who would tell me about T206's, Obaks, Caramel Cards, Old Judges and Gypsey Queens and anthing else from that era. Mostly I traded cards with these guys that my Dad knew--Burdick, Bray, Wagner, Gammon, Tannenbaum, Goldfaden, Wagner, Taylor and so many more. And I got my hands on thousands upon thousand of T206's. After I left school, I met Lew Lipset, who was just getting into the hobby and he aided my obsession greatly by sending me tons of T206. What I did with the cards was keep them in the order of the checklist published by Charles Bray and later by Richard Eagan and, within that I ordered them by Series 150, 350, 350-460 and Assorted and then alphabetically by the backs. In the late '70's I created a checklist using the same method. I used all of the notes I had taken over the years and the some 3500 different T206 I had accumulated over the years (with a big headstart from my Dad, I must admit) and laid it out in the same manner that The Monster's checklist is laid out, but without anything being blacked out. When I had checked off everything from what I had and the notes I had taken, I noticed that there were undeniable patterns in the checklist. I had already started researching the players and their careers. So I came to some conclusions and started blacking things out. I called Denny Eckes (rest his soul, he was just as responsbile for Beckett publications as my good friend Jim was) to talk about this checklist. He said he thought it could be a book, and, he would publish it if I provided him with all of the cards to be illustrated. I sent it all to him, and he took it from there. The published book has mistakes in it (and I'm not just talking about the Farrah cards that Denny put in without my approval), but my own checklist does not contain those errors. I hope to very soon go over the checklist item by item to find all of the errors. Anyway, that's how The Monster came about. From lots of collecting, accumulating and researching. No computers and no real place to go for information. I did, incidentally, write books on both T205 and T207 using the same methods--my method was reading, collecting and accumulating--but they were never published except in an issue of Baseball Hobby News, which published the T205 book in one of its issues. I hope The Monster has helped all of you in your pursuits of these cardboard treasures.

[Archive]

Posted By: William Heitman

Charles Bray took over from Jeff Burdick. Before Bray's auctions, they were Burdick's auctions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

Mr. Heitman,

Is there any way for someone to get a copy of that T207 manuscript today?

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

I got this card from a fellow board member a few months back. I think it is striking without the blue, but I'd prefer one with blue, frankly.



So I have posted it on the B/S/T link to hopefully accomplish this purpose:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/376260/thread/1131757971/last-1131757971/T206+Baker+--+Missing+Blue+Ink

[Archive]

Posted By: William Heitman

Have any of you seen the "die cut" T206 Honus Wagner?

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

It's stories like Bill's that make this board so enjoyable. Thanks for sharing, Bill.

Out of curiousity Bill, how many different front back combinations do you have or have seen?

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: William Heitman

As I came across T206's, I always kept any front/back variety that I didn't already have. After "The Monster" came out, I was surprised to find that some other "Old Timers" had collected pretty much the same way I had. I got some filled out checklists from several of the people whose names appear pretty often in your threads. My own holdings as per my checklist hit somewhere above 4500 and I just stopped counting. I have yet to hear of, or see, a card that breaks the patterns I found to exist.

[Archive]

Posted By: Art M.

Nice to see Mr. Heitman contributing to the T206 discussions.

I have only seen (and own) one T206 that breaks the pattern of backs issued within specific series.
All of the 350 series cards with American Beauty 350 backs have frames except:



This is the only exception I have identified in 25 years. I own this example and have seen other Nichols (batting) cards with the same no-frame 350 back.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

BILL HEITMAN

Please give some insight to the "infamous" Doyle "Nat Lge"
variation. It was not mentioned in your famous book that was
published in 1980 and if I am correct it was an unknown card
at that time. I am sure you had many thousands of T206's by
then but no "Doyle". None of us back then knew it existed.
So, all of a sudden it surfaces and then Fritsch claims he
was hoarding two of them. This is really strange stuff. I am
very skeptical.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cat

Art:

Can you explain your point by comapring your example to the example in this link:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1910-T206-WALTER-JOHNSON-GAI-5-AMERICAN-BEAUTY_W0QQitemZ8720388625QQcategoryZ106178QQssPag eNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Cat,
Art's Nichols card is only availbale in the 350 series, so It should have a frame. The Johnson Pitching pose, is available in both the 350 and 460 series, so it shouldn't have a frame.


Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ted- I have never been skeptical of the Doyle variation and believe it is a legitimate rarity. Since there were two Doyles playing in NY at the time- Larry with the Giants and Joe with the Yankess- it would be easy for the typesetter to mix the two up. I believe the error was caught very quickly and instead of changing the typeface to read "Amer Lg", the "Natl Lg" was simply removed from the plate. The fact that it took a long time to discover does not discredit it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Barry

Consider this, over 100,000's T206 cards have been looked at
by collectors the likes of Burdick, Lionel Carter, Frank Nagy,
Bill Heitman, Lew Lipset, Irv Lerner, and even you and I for
decades until 1990.....and no such Doyle was evident. WOW !
That says a lot.
Then, suddenly, 4 or 5 surface; and, not even from one of the
tougher series (I think you'll agree T206's in the 350 series
are most plentiful).
Now, we know that 99 % of the Plank's are from the 350 series.
Perhaps, we can we conclude there is a link between the scarcity
of the Plank and Doyle (var.)? If memory serves me, they are
both SWEET CAPORAL 350 subjects. However, there exists approx.
50 - 75 Plank's and less than 10 Doyle's (correct me if my
numbers are incorrect.
Tell me where my thinking is wrong ?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

It's not a matter of your thinking being wrong. I'm simply saying just because something was unknown at one time doesn't mean that a few examples can't surface as the hobby has matured. I think you are implying that the known Doyles may be fakes and I just don't think that is true.

[Archive]

Posted By: Art M.

Here is the history of the T206 Joe Doyle variation cards from my research of many years ago involving my conversations with Larry Fritsch and Bill Huggins.

1981 - Wisconsin dealer Larry Fritsch is selling T206 team sets (imagine that in todays market!) from his card inventory. One morning while filling an order for a T206 New York team set, he came across a card of Doyle, hands over head, N.Y. Nat’l. At first, he is puzzled by this card and is unable to find any record in his checklists or personal collection. This was the first discovery of the T206 Joe Doyle variation. Larry proceeded to place several ads in hobby magazines offering twice the current value for any T206 Doyle card. The Doyle cards pour in, however none are the Doyle error.
******************************
This is from a conversation that I had with Bill Huggins back in 2001 regarding the first publicly documented T206 Doyle variation in 1987. Hope this is interesting to T206 collectors:

April 14, 2001

Conversation with Bill Huggins
House of Cards, Maryland
by Art Martineau

Topic: T206 Joe Doyle variation card

Bill remembers the May 1987 auction of the T206 Joe Doyle variation card very well. This was the first public offering of the tough variation. Bill got a collection of about 500+ T206 cards from the Richmond, Virginia area. He had a friend in Richmond who sent the owner of these cards to Bill.
When the cards arrived, Bill had one of his workers sort the cards. He told him to get out the big Beckett book and put them in order. When the worker finished, he said "What about this one that’s not in the book?" Bill said to just put it at the bottom of the pile and he would figure it out. He had thought that the worker just couldn’t determine which card it was, but after looking at it closer himself, Bill noticed it was definitely not in the Beckett book.
He called another friend/collector in Maryland to ask about the card, but his friend had never seen or heard of this variation. Another call, this time to Lew Lipset, resulted in the same response.
Larry Fritsch had owned the only known example of this Doyle variation since 1980, and had regularly teased Lew Lipset that he had a T206 card nobody had ever seen!
Bill Huggins decided to sell this unknown variation in a Sports Collectors Digest auction in 1987. Lew Lipset advised Bill that he would either get $300 or $3,000 for the card.
The auction began, and the first bid to come in was $2,000. Bill sat back and smiled, knowing that he had a valuable card. There were 3 bidders going after the card up to the $7,000 level. One dropped out at $7,000, but Larry Fritsch and Dan Flanagan continued to go back and forth. Larry was the first bidder to get to $10,000. Dan called to check on the card and was told that he had been outbid at $10,000. Dan put in another bid, this one for $10,500. A couple minutes later, Dan called Bill back and decided to withdraw his last bid and let the other bidder win the card for $10,000. Dan said, "I don’t want to go there" meaning past the $10,000 level and not knowing where this might end. Larry had an advantage over Dan in the bidding because Larry already owned a Doyle variation and no other collector had never seen or heard of it before. Bill Huggins then called Larry Fritsch to congratulate him on winning the T206 Joe Doyle variation for $10,000. Larry now owned the only 2 known copies of this rare card.