T206 Demmitt & O'Hara....are they 350-only Series cards ?

[tedzan]

No one questions that the St Louis variations of these 2 cards are extremely tough to find. However, there are
some that think that these 2 St Louis variations are 350/460 series subjects. While others of us feel quite sure
that these two were printed and issued along with the 208 cards in the 350-only series. We can speculate and
debate this all day long; however, I prefer to look at what the numbers tell us.

The following data is derived from two randomly sampled T206 surveys whose combined total is 22,000 cards.

Demmitt (St Louis) = 5 cards
O'Hara (St Louis) = 5 cards

The POLAR BEAR sampling in the 350-only series is......

638 PB cards/133 PB subjects = 4.8 average

The POLAR BEAR sampling in the 350/460 series is......

451 PB cards/61 PB subjects = 7.4 average

The fact that the number of Demmitt's and O'Hara's in this survey equal the average number of PB cards in the
350 series is proof of what many (including Lew Lipset) have said in the past.....that these 2 scarce variations
were equally printed and distributed in the initial PB launch.

It's my contention that there was only one press run when the 350-only series cards were printed with the PB
backs in the Spring of 1910. Furthermore, that American Litho. printed only 140 of the 208 subjects with the PB
backs. So,considering these factors and the obvious fact that the St Louis versions of Demmitt and O'Hara exist
only with the PB back explain why these 2 cards are super rare. A general "rule of thumb" why certain T206 sub-
jects are tough to find is a function of how few T-brand backs that they were printed with. For example......

Lundgren (Cubs) is found with only 3 backs

Elberfeld (portrait-Washington) is found with only 3 backs

Dahlen (Brooklyn) is found with only 4 backs






OK, I'd bet my house, my 2 barns and I will throw in my huge wood shed that Demmitt and O'Hara (St Lo) were
printed in the 350-only series.

Anyone care to differ ?



TED Z

[T206Collector]

For those of us who archive such threads, it is useful to have your post from 2007 on this topic as well:

Of Demmitt and O'Hara....St Louis Variations.
March 19 2007 at 8:47 PM
Ted Zanidakis (Login tedzan)

Here's my take on these two rare T206 variations. First, I will start with their brief BB careers.

.............Demmitt.............................. ......O'Hara
Major Lges.
1909.....NY Amer....123 games............NY NL......115 games
1910.....St L AL.......10 games............St L NL........9 games
Eastern Lge.
1910.....Montreal....130 games...........Toronto....122 games
1911.....Montreal....153 games...........Toronto....147 games
Major Lge.
1914-15 Chi AL.......155 games

Both players are featured 1st in the 350-only series (as NY players) with limited backs than most other
Subjects in this series. Demmitt can be found with P350, SC 350/30, Carolina Brt, EPDG, and Tolstoi.
O'Hara can be found with P350, SC 350/30, Sov 350, and Cycle 350. Note....no Polar Bear backs.

Then by mid 1910 when the ATC started designing the T206's for the POLAR BEAR chewing tobacco Co.,
both these guys had been traded to their respective St. Louis teams....of which they played only a very
few games and were sent down to the Minors. Therefore, the T206 designers saw no need to continue to
print them with any other T-brand as Major Lgers.

The Polar Bear exclusivity of these 2 scarce variations is simply just a matter of timing (and, not a mystery).
My guess is that there are probably some where between 300 - 400 of these two variations in circulation.

Subsequently, both Demmitt and O'Hara are printed in the 1912 Canadian Imperial Tob. Co. (C46) set.
O'Hara continues playing for Toronto (his hometown) till the end of the 1915 season.

Demmitt re-appears in the 1914 T-213 (Coupon Tob.) set. The T213 fronts must have been printed by
American Lithograph, as most of the fronts are the exact ones in the T206 set. Demmitt has 2 cards in
the T213 set. The one I've seen, depicts him in the St Louis uniform, but his team is Chicago American.
I've never seen the other Demmitt, which I have heard depicts him with a NY uniform.....this, I find very
strange.
Does anyone here have a scan of the T213 - NY version ?

Well, that's my theory on these two elusive T206 variations....anyone care to venture another story ?

[buymycards]

Hi guys, thank you for the interesting thread about two of my favorite cards.

Rick

[paul]

So, does that mean that if someone was inclined to complete a T206 Polar Bear set with all 350 backs, the O'Hara and Demitt would be no more challenging than any other card? (Except for the fact that they cost more).

[FrankWakefield]

No more challenging to locate, correct.

No more challenging to acquire, not correct.


If folks only collected T206 Polar Bear cards, and ignored all other T206s, then acquiring Demmitt and O'Hara wouldn't be special. But folks do collect other T206 cards. And generally, they ignore the backs. So if they're just chasing fronts, then they find way fewer Demmitt's and O'Hara's out there than other cards. So Demmitt and O'Hara ARE more challenging to acquire, and their cost reflects that.

Yea, you have it... "except for the cost"

[FrankWakefield]

................T206 Demmitt NY...............................T206 Demmitt StL............................T213 Demmitt Chi Amer....

nice display Frank. Great eye candy

[Matt]

Hey Ted - thanks for digging out the numbers. You've definitely shown that it's likely they were 350 only cards, but I've got one more question

Can you confirm that none of the the PB cards that we know are 350/460 cards showed up only 5 times in your sampling? If they all showed up at least 6 times and the O'Hara and Demitt showed up only 5 then I think you've proven it as best as you can statistically, but if some/several of the 350/460 PB cards appeared 5 times then the O'Hara and Demitt showing 5 times doesn't prove they are 350 only cards.

(BTW; it's not that I believe it to be a 350/460 card, just that I haven't yet seen conclusive proof it's a 350 only)

[ethicsprof]

My ole friend, Ted, I've love to win your house but you, as an engineer, know as well as I -- that in the amazingly elusive arena of the Monster-- there is no way to unequivocally verify your contention.
Still, I find your evidence very compelling and for me the best answer i've seen. But unequivocal verifiability breathes better in logic and epistemology
classes, and even has trouble 'breathing' there.

best,
barry

[buymycards]

Hi Ted,
If I read your numbers correctly, the numbers seem to indicated that Demmitt and O'Hara were printed in approximately equal quantities. I have been watching these cards for quite a while, and it seems that I see many more Demmitt's come up for sale, and the O'Hara's cost roughly 1 1/2 times as much as a similar grade Demmitt. Do you have any research on the Demmitt/O'Hara ratio's?

Thanks!


Rick

[tedzan]

Rick

Although every survey indicates that the availability of these two cards are the same, I agree with you that Demmitt
appears to be more available. My experience in collecting (or selling) these 2 cards tells me that Demmitt is somewhat
more available than O'Hara.

I like Frank Wakefield's explanation for this...."when BB player's Major League careers end, kids threw away their cards".

Demmitt returned to the Major Lges. after a stint with Montreal. Plus he was pictured on subsequent T-cards.

O'Hara's BB career ended with Toronto (Eastern Lge.).

Anyhow, that's my best answer. Perhaps, some one else here has a better explanation ?


TED Z

[tedzan]

Thanks for reprising my thread on this subject from 2 1/2 years ago. It provides some very worthwhile added info on Demmitt and O'Hara.

TED Z

[tedzan]

".....but I've got one more question
Can you confirm that none of the the PB cards that we know are 350/460 cards showed up only 5 times in your sampling? "

And, your contention......
"If they all showed up at least 6 times and the O'Hara and Demitt showed up only 5 then I think you've proven it as best as
you can statistically, but if some/several of the 350/460 PB cards appeared 5 times then the O'Hara and Demitt showing 5
times doesn't prove they are 350 only cards."


This argument of yours, Matt, is not a statistically valid one.

Incidently......
The range of the 350-only PB cards in these surveys was from 1 to 8.

The range of the 350/460 PB cards in these surveys was from 4 to 23.


Matt

Now, I have a very serious a question for you......

If these two St. Louis variations were printed in the 350/460 series, then why aren't they identified with their respective
Eastern League teams ?
Remember, the 350/460 subjects were not available until the Summer/Fall of 1910.






TED Z

[Matt]

Originally Posted by tedzan

".....but I've got one more question
Can you confirm that none of the the PB cards that we know are 350/460 cards showed up only 5 times in your sampling? "

And, your contention......
"If they all showed up at least 6 times and the O'Hara and Demitt showed up only 5 then I think you've proven it as best as
you can statistically, but if some/several of the 350/460 PB cards appeared 5 times then the O'Hara and Demitt showing 5
times doesn't prove they are 350 only cards."


This argument of yours, Matt, is not a statistically valid one.

Incidently......
The range of the 350-only PB cards in these surveys was from 1 to 8.

The range of the 350/460 PB cards in these surveys was from 4 to 23.


Matt

Now, I have a very serious a question for you......

If these two St. Louis variations were printed in the 350/460 series, then why aren't they identified with their respective
Eastern League teams ?
Remember, the 350/460 subjects were not available until the Summer/Fall of 1910.

Hey Ted - thanks for checking. I'm not sure what you mean "it's not a statistically valid" argument? Let me explain - you said that 350/460 series PB cards averaged 7.4 appearances in your study and because Demitt and O'Hara only presented 5 times, that means they are 350 only series (which averaged 4.8). But with the informaiton you just provided, that some cards we KNOW to be 350/460 cards showed up only 4 times in your survey, O'Hara and Demitt showing up 5 times can't prove they are 350 only cards. Make sense?

As far as your question regarding why the T206 printers might not have made a team change on those cards, I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that there are (several) other instances of players changing teams or retiring between 1909-1911 where the team change is not reflected on their T206 cards.

[egbeachley]

Matt is right, statistically speaking. But we can determine with a certain probability that they were from the 350-Only series if we know how many of the cards from the 350/460-series had a pop sampling of only 4 or 5. It helps that both target items (Demmitt and O'Hara) are both a pop 5.

For example, if 10% of the 350/460-series cards sampled as a pop 4 or 5, then there would be a 10% chance that 1 target of pop 5 would be 350/460-series. But since both targets are a pop 5, then the possibility would be 10% of 10% or a 1% chance that based on this methodology that the 2 cards are really 350/460-series.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

For example, if 10% of the 350/460-series cards sampled as a pop 4 or 5, then there would be a 10% chance that 1 target of pop 5 would be 350/460-series. But since both targets are a pop 5, then the possibility would be 10% of 10% or a 1% chance that based on this methodology that the 2 cards are really 350/460-series.

We're moving away from cards now, but I don't believe you are correct here (any statisticians in the house?). Multiplying probabilities to arrive at the probability that both A and B are true only works in scenarios where A and B are exclusive of each other - if A is true it has no bearing on if B is true. (i.e. the odds that both you and I have birthdays on January 1st is 1/365 * 1/365) That clearly isn't the case here as we all agree whatever is true for Demitt is true for O'Hara (i.e. the odds that twins have a birthday on January 1st is 1/365) .
To illustrate this point better, consider the inverse of your argument. Using your numbers, there is a 90% chance Demitt is a 350 only back and a 90% chance O'Hara is a 350 only back. By your logic (multiplying the probabilities), therefore, there is an 81% chance that they are 350 only backs which contradicts your finding above (of it being a 99% probability).
A such, I don't think you can multiply the probabilities in this case.

I certainly could be off with what I just wrote, so if anyone out there knows probability logic, please chime in.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Matt

To illustrate this point better, consider the inverse of your argument. Using your numbers, there is a 90% chance Demitt is a 350 only back and a 90% chance O'Hara is a 350 only back. By your logic (multiplying the probabilities), therefore, there is an 81% chance that they are 350 only backs which contradicts your finding above (of it being a 99% probability).
A such, I don't think you can multiply the probabilities in this case.
.

Simple statistics error. Never add or multiply the chance of something happening, rather multiply the chance something won't happen.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Simple statistics error. Never add or multiply the chance of something happening, rather multiply the chance something won't happen.

It's inverse so it doesn't matter - the probability it is a 350 only is the inverse of the probability it's not a 350/460. The probability is is a 350/460 is the inverse of the probability it is not a 350 only. Here it is reworded:

"To illustrate this point better, consider the inverse of your argument. Using your numbers, there is a 90% chance Demitt is not a 350/460 back and a 90% chance O'Hara is not a 350/460 back. By your logic (multiplying the probabilities), therefore, there is an 81% chance that they are not 350/460 backs which contradicts your finding above (of it being a 99% probability).
A such, I don't think you can multiply the probabilities in this case."

Also - didn't you multiply probabilities of something occurring?
"For example, if 10% of the 350/460-series cards sampled as a pop 4 or 5, then there would be a 10% chance that 1 target of pop 5 would be 350/460-series. But since both targets are a pop 5, then the possibility would be 10% of 10% or a 1% chance that based on this methodology that the 2 cards are really 350/460-series."


Consider this - say Demitt was a 5 population but O'Hara showed 7 times in the survey. We can all agree then that it should be about 50/50 since Demitt would look like a 350 only card (which averaged 4.8) and O'Hara would look like a 350/460 card (which averaged a 7.4) and knowing both are the same, we couldn't use that data to say any one was more likely then the other. But multiplying the probabilities, as you have done, would lead you to the wrong conclusion:

We would have a 10% probability that Demitt would be a 350/460 series (or not a 350 only series) and say a 50% probability that O'Hara would be a 350/460 series (that percentage doesn't really matter to make the point, but assuming a normal distribution 50% is a reasonable number). So, you've got .10 * .50 = a 5% chance that they are 350/460 series and 95% chance they are 350 only series, even though we all agreed above that with those numbers it's 50/50.

[tedzan]

Matt
I think egbeachley has clarified what I meant by......
"This argument of yours, Matt, is not a statistically valid one."

A weighting factor must be considered in interpreting the data from these T206 surveys.

The range of the 350-only PB cards in these surveys was from 1 to 8.
HOWEVER, ONLY 5 OF THE 638 SAMPLES WERE 8.

The range of the 350/460 PB cards in these surveys was from 4 to 23.
HOWEVER, ONLY 8 OF THE 451 SAMPLES WERE 4

I think you will agree that these extrem #s represent the 3 SIGMA points on a Bell curve; and, further reinforce
my contention that a very high probability exists that the Demmitt and O'Hara (St Louis vars.) were printed and
issued during the 350-only POLAR BEAR run.


TED Z

[Matt]

One last follow up for the sake of correctness (I'll continue the OT probability discussion with ebeachley offline unless it's of interest to others):

One flaw in the logic we've both been using: Say 10% of 350/460 cards have a population of 5. That doesn't mean there's a 10% chance that a given card with a survey population of 5 is a 350/460 card. Rather, it means if a card IS a 350/460 card it has a 10% chance of being a 5 pop. In order to do a correct statistical analysis for our example, we need to compare the 10% chance of a 350/460 being a pop 5 to the % of a 350 series being a pop 5. Let's say the probability that a 350 only card is a pop 5 is 50%. Now, knowing we have a pop 5 card, we can say it is 10%/%10+%50 or a 1 in 6 probability it is a 350/460 card.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Matt
I think egbeachley has clarified what I meant by......
"This argument of yours, Matt, is not a statistically valid one."

As I've shown above I believe his logic to be incorrect.

Originally Posted by tedzan

A weighting factor must be considered in interpreting the data from these T206 surveys.

Agree - 100%

Originally Posted by tedzan

The range of the 350/460 PB cards in these surveys was from 4 to 23.
HOWEVER, ONLY 8 OF THE 451 SAMPLES WERE 4

How many 350/460 backs were 5 populations since that's the population number we're dealing with? And while we are there, how many of the 350 only cards are 5 populations?

Originally Posted by tedzan

I think you will agree that these extrem #s represent the 3 SIGMA points on a Bell curve; and, further reinforce
my contention that a very high probability exists that the Demmitt and O'Hara (St Louis vars.) were printed and issued during the 350-only POLAR BEAR run.

I don't have the raw data so I can't say exactly, but my guess based on the numbers you have shared here is that it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 70%-80% likely.

[E93]

The area of a circle is πr2
JimB

P.S. I vote for 350 series only.

[tedzan]

Hey guy, it was great meeting you at the National.

We don't always agree on things; but, we do on this subject



TED Z

[tedzan]

In response to several requests, I'm listing here all the players in the T206 set whose trades or reassignments are
reflected in their repeated cards with respect to each series.

....................150 series..............350 series................350/460 series................460 series

Ball...................NYA........................ .................................................. ...........Clev
G. Brown...........Cubs.....................Was
Dahlen..............Bos N....................Brkl
Elberfeld............NYA.....................Was
Herzog..............NYA........................... .................................................. ........Bos
Lake.................NYA.......................... .......................St Lo A...........................St Lo A
Kleinow.............NYA......................NYA.. .................................................. ......Bos A
Lundgren...........Cubs.....................KC
McIntyre...........Brkl........................... .......................Brkl & Cubs
Schaefer...........Det............................ .................................................. ........Was
F. Smith............Chi.......................Chi.... .................................................. ......Chi & Bos A
Willis.................Pitt....................... ...........................St Lo N

Designed as a 350/460 subject....but, not issued since Nicholls retired May 1910 upon being traded to Cleveland.

Nicholls.............A's.......................... ....................(would be Baltimore)



Demmitt..................................NYA & St Lo A

O'Hara....................................NYG & St Lo N

If the Demmitt & O'Hara variations were printed and issued during the 350/460 series (Summer/Fall 1910 release),
American Litho. would have identified them with these teams......

Demmitt.......................................NYA. ......................Montreal

O'Hara.........................................NYG .......................Toronto



Hopefully, this info provides you with an overall perspective on how the T206 designers kept pace with the player
changes during the T206 production era (1909-1911).



TED Z

[Matt]

Originally Posted by tedzan

In response to several requests, I'm listing here all the players in the T206 set whose trades or reassignments are
reflected in their repeated cards with respect to each series.

The list I'm interested in is which players did not have their trades or reassignments reflected? i.e. they were printed in a series after their trade or reassignment and the change was not made to their repeated cards.

[tedzan]

Matt

The above post is in response to several Net54 reader's requests....I was able to provide this info
off the top of my head.


It's not in response to your request. Your's will require some time to completely research.


TED Z

[jimonym]

Matt,

I'll have to double-check my totals, but with respect to the 350-only series cards...

202 different players are pictured.
Nearly all had their artwork/card designed during the late summer or fall of 1909. We know that because there were so many team changes that occurred throughout 1909, during the offseason, and following the spring training transactions.

By the opening of the 1910 season, somewhere around 60 of those 202 fellows were no longer with the team their 350-series T206 card shows them with.

Of those, only Demmitt and O'Hara were updated to show their new team.

I can post the list if anyone's interested.

[tedzan]

Hey ole buddy

My response to your...."But unequivocal verifiability breathes better in logic and epistemology classes, and even has trouble
'BREATHING' there."

.....certainly, understanding The Monster can be an ongoing elusive adventure. However, in my book I have no doubts that
the St Louis variations of Demmitt and O'Hara are 350 series cards.

As you very well know, the 350 series was the most prolific of all the series in the T206 issue. There is no debating this fact.
The 216 subjects printed in the 350 series enjoyed a long run. This series was initially released in late 1909 and continued to
the Summer/Fall of 1910. Furthermore, 6 subjects (super-prints) were extended into the 460 series run.

I have posted here constructive facts supporting my contention. For the most part, I've seen skeptical replies. But, no hard
facts dispelling my contention. I realize it is tough for someone to prove a negative. So, I wont hold my "BREATH" waiting for
such to occur.


T-Rex TED

[Matt]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I have posted here constructive facts supporting my contention. For the most part, I've seen skeptical replies. But, no hard
facts dispelling my contention. I realize it is tough for someone to prove a negative. So, I wont hold my "BREATH" waiting for such to occur.

Ted - my contention is that I haven't seen anything that proves your original assertion that "The St Louis variations of Demmitt & O'Hara were printed
in the initial PB press run. Subsequent PB press runs did not include these St Louis cards of Demmitt & O'Hara". I don't need to prove they are 350/460 to support my contention; all I need to do is point out why your arguments aren't conclusive. I'll give it up since it seems you think I'm bothering you somehow and I think I've exposed that all we know is that it seems somewhat more likely then not, that they were 350 only.

[ethicsprof]

Ted,
Thanks for the response.
You have indeed posted constructive facts supporting your contentions, and,
as i said in the earlier post, you have offered the best answer that i've seen.
I was simply wanting to help you save your house by reminding you that your having the best answer in no way means you have proven your contention unequivocally.
Certainly, if there are no hard facts dispelling your contentions, your best answer continues to rise brightly. But you are wise not to hold your 'breath' for someone to prove the negative and you would be just as wise not to hold your 'breath' believing you have proven your contentions herein. I simply mention this as I note your saying that 'in your book you have no doubts...'.
I for one am pleased to take a breath or two, my friend, and salute you and the brightness continuing to surround your best answer---but not a proven answer.

(On another topic, if you'll send me your address again, Ted, I have a T206 related item that i'd like to send to you as a response to our fabulous Drum transaction.)
best,
Barry

[tedzan]

Barry A

Thank you for your kind comments; and, I appreciate your residual skepticism. Can we prove my expressed contention that the
St Louis vars. of Demmitt & O'Hara are 350-only subjects, 100 years later ?....Not with 100% certainty.

However, we can refer back to actual T206 "finds" that will reinforce this contention. One such "find" has come to my attention.
And, a forthcoming post here, regarding this "find", I think should quite well settle this matter.


T-Rex TED

[ethicsprof]

Ted,
many thanks for the response.
i'm eager to see your new find!
any luck at Philly?

all the best, ole friend

barry

[tedzan]

Barry A

The T206 "find" I'm referring to is not mine. But, a well recognized member of Net54. I hope he
chimes in and posts it.

I will be emailing you.

No luck finding the card you requested.

T-Rex TED

[ethicsprof]

Thanks,Ted, for the efforts on my behalf; i'm sure the ole Kimball will rear its head
down the road.
I'll check my email to see the update on the find.

best,
Barry

[wonkaticket]

Wow you go away on business for awhile and all heck breaks loose…LOL

I will also agree that no theory is 100% on these cards but I’m up for 99% until some really serious stuff makes me think otherwise.

In regards to what series do Demmitt and O’Hara originate from I would agree with Ted 100% that these are most likely 350 series only cards.

I have many reasons for my views many of which mirror Ted’s for one I think they would have been covered with the team change to Montreal and Toronto. It seems logical seeing as they took the time to correct the St.Louis change for both Demmitt and O’Hara.

Second most of my set came from multiple finds within the Maryland area. One of the finds which did yield me my first Demmitt and O’hara was about 150-175+ T206’s all of which were 350 only Sweet Caporals and PB cards. Demmitt & O’Hara were present in this find. I had other finds and purchases over the years ranging from small 460 heavy finds to mix bagged finds of many, many cards Demmitt & O’Hara were not present in any of those.

I have long since upgraded my original Demmitt and O’Hara to the below.

Take this tid bit for what it’s worth but to me it really makes me lean to 350 only based on evidence and personal collecting experience.



So until I see one of the 2 below pop up I’m sticking in the 350 only camp on these cards…



Cheers,

John

[tedzan]

John

Thanks for posting your personal T206 "find" story that consisted of cards that were exclusively from the 350-only
series, which included the Demmitt and O'Hara (St Lo variations).

First hand finds like this one of yours provide us with more substantive evidence of how American Litho's designers
produced the various series of the T206 set, than any amount of our present day's T206 analysis, conjecture, and
argumentation ever can.


Hey John

I'll trade you my 1912 Imperial Tobacco Demmitt and O'Hara for your two sweet looking Eastern League proofs





EFHARISTO big guy....you are the man.....(Greek for a big THANK YOU).


TED Z

[ethicsprof]

John,

many thanks for the helpful corroborative evidence and for the pics
of your gorgeous cards.
And thanks to you, Ted, for the great research and the always fascinating
'detective' mystery!!!
best,
barry

[tedzan]

During many idle hours at the Philly Show this weekend, John Wonka and I had some great
conversations on Movie Star (and other Non-Sports) trading cards. Then, I remembered John
had acquired some great T206 finds in his youth.

So, he told me about the Demmitt & O'Hara cards he got in one of those finds.

Hey Barry......
Are you more convinced now ?

And, are my house and barns safer in my possession now ? ?


TED Z

[Hal Kaplan]

Thanks Ted for another great T206 thread. Is it me, or do the NY and STL versions of Demmitt have slightly different images? From looking at Frank Wakefield's scans, it appears the NY version shows slightly more hair/shorter cap. Demmitt's right eye seems to be open wider in the NY version, and his left eye in the NY version seems to have slightly more of a "shadow" next to it. The ears are also slightly different in shape. I apologize if this is just due to scan quality or is already well-known.

[ethicsprof]

very convinced, ole friend.
and the house and barns are now safe.
i still may have to win that huge wood shed, though.

all the best,

barry

[tedzan]

I have enough wood in that shed to last us 100 years. So, drive up with a big truck and haul a ton of it back down
to Florida.
Hey guy, they tell us that the climate is cooling off (even in Florida). All that wood might come in handy this winter.

Regards,

TED Z

[ethicsprof]

In the 90's all day, Ted, but glad that i have a Penn. wood shed plan in place in case things change!!!
many thanks!

best,
barry

[wonkaticket]

Ted,

Deal on the trade would you like them to have black bar OP's...I sort of know a guy?

Cheers,

John

[tedzan]

I'd prefer a "chartreuse green" overprint on those cards. Can you arrange that ?


T-Rex TED

[tedzan]

It's very interesting....how the prior "naysayers" to Demmitt & O'Hara being in the 350-only series have regressed
back into their hiding places.

Their silence is deafening !


T-Rex TED

[Matt]

Ted - I thought you didn't want to argue about this so I left you to your wishes. Coming and taunting me is incredibly mature of you.

If you want to continue, I'd be interested to know how big the finds were and how many duplicates (approximately) were in each. Obviously the size of the "finds" we're considering matters for the statistical analysis.

[tedzan]

Matt

I wasn't specifically addressing you. There were several skeptics....in particular, a Net54 reader who continually emailed me.

My argument with you on this subject is over.....give it up. Wonkaticket's experience is a very valid proof of my contention.
However, in your manner of thinking, I expect that you will consider it an anecdotal "find" that doesn't prove anything.

Well, you don't realize how wrong you are. I've acquired several original T206 collections these past 29 years that I've been
putting together 5 complete sets (- the big 3) and 5 (T-brand) sub-sets. The size of these "finds" have ranged from 200 to
440 cards....and, I have seen certain unmistakable patterns in these T206 finds.

If you were better informed of the 4 successive series that comprise the T206 set, you would not be arguing this point at all.
You see, the 350/460 series subjects are the most prolifically printed T206's with respect to their various T-brand backs. The
61 cards in this series far outnumber the cards of the other three series with respect to their numerous backs. American Litho.
printed these 61 subjects with as many as 24 different tobacco advertising backs.

This fact alone, totally contradicts your suggestion that the St. Louis variations of Demmitt and O'Hara are 350/460 subjects.
Use some common sense, man....they only exist with the POLAR BEAR back.

I suggest you thoroughly read Scot Reader's very informative T206 book. And, if you have read it....then read it again.

Your entire approach to this subject is blurred by your narrow minded zeal to strictly statistically analyze everything. Take it
from a retired Bell Labs EE, who applied statistical analysis many times to design very sophisticated electronic circuitry, there
are more meaningful methods to unraveling the mysteries of the the "T206 Monster".

And, one of those methods is the empirical knowledge gleaned from having looked at 100's of thousands of T206's in one's life-
time.

Regards,

TED Z

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Matt

I wasn't specifically addressing you. There were several skeptics....in particular, a Net54 reader who continually emailed me.

My argument with you on this subject is over.....give it up. Wonkaticket's experience is a very valid proof of my contention.
However, in your manner of thinking, I expect that you will consider it an anecdotal "find" that doesn't prove anything.

Well, you don't realize how wrong you are. I've acquired several original T206 collections these past 29 years that I've been
putting together 5 complete sets (- the big 3) and 5 (T-brand) sub-sets. The size of these "finds" have ranged from 200 to
440 cards....and, I have seen certain unmistakable patterns in these T206 finds.

If you were better informed of the 4 successive series that comprise the T206 set, you would not be arguing this point at all.
You see, the 350/460 series subjects are the most prolifically printed T206's with respect to their various T-brand backs. The
61 cards in this series far outnumber the cards of the other three series with respect to their numerous backs. American Litho.
printed these 61 subjects with as many as 24 different tobacco advertising backs.

This fact alone, totally contradicts your suggestion that the St. Louis variations of Demmitt and O'Hara are 350/460 subjects.
Use some common sense, man....they only exist with the POLAR BEAR back.

I suggest you thoroughly read Scot Reader's very informative T206 book. And, if you have read it....then read it again.

Your entire approach to this subject is blurred by your narrow minded zeal to strictly statistically analyze everything. Take it
from a retired Bell Labs EE, who applied statistical analysis many times to design very sophisticated electronic circuitry, there
are more meaningful methods to unraveling the mysteries of the the "T206 Monster".

And, one of those methods is the empirical knowledge gleaned from having looked at 100's of thousands of T206's in one's life-
time.

Regards,

TED Z

Ted,

First, let me start by saying that I have the highest respect for the research you have done, and the knowledge you have accumulated and shared, in regards to T206 (and other sets.) However, your last couple of posts are far out of line, especially toward Matt.

The tone of your responses ("If you were better informed...", "Your entire approach to this subject is blurred by your narrow minded zeal...", "I suggest you thoroughly read Scot Reader's very informative T206 book. And, if you have read it....then read it again.") is demeaning, at best.

Have your opinion. Share it with others, if you're so inclined. Listen to their opinions and thoughts, and rebut them if necessary.

But calling out to the "naysayers" isn't necessary. And ridiculing them when they reply is totally uncalled for.

But this thread, and the silly one on Dunn, are asking questions about a baseball card set issued 100 years ago. Seeing the cards, touching the cards and studying the cards, answers some questions but leaves many others open to discussion.

Don't attack those who attempt to have that discussion.

[tedzan]

Jim VB

I...."didn't start this fire"....Billy Joel, 1989

You make me laugh.....your cohort (Rob D) started this back in July 2008, when I posted an informative thread of Jack Dunn
discovering Babe Ruth. It was a very interesting discussion until your buddy Rob interjected with his totally OFF-TOPIC posts.
Thread's link......

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ight=jack+dunn


Since then, Rob and/or you will interject the "T206 Dunn" into totally unrelated threads of mine in order to distract from the
subject of that thread. This has been a recurring tactic of Rob's; and, it has become quite stale. A wise-a$$ remark may be
initially entertaining....but, when it is repeated as often as this Dunn "gimmick" has been, that is the sign of a diabolical mind.

But, I guess I should be "honored" to be the target of you guys. I join the ranks of Frank Wakefield, Potomac Joe, etc., etc.
Where do you guys draw the line ? ?

Both you & Matt are leaping to unwarranted assumptions. I did not address Matt in my post (#45). You are guilty of raising
a big "stink" here, over your imagined criticism by me. As I said, Matt was not the only one shooting flak at me on this topic.

Your quote of my comments....
"The tone of your responses ("If you were better informed...", "Your entire approach to this subject is blurred by your narrow
minded zeal..."

Why did you leave out my key words that followed...."to strictly statistically analyze everything." That's the crux of the mat-
ter with Matt. He tries to super-analyze this situation and when I provide him supporting data for my argument he goes off on
another tangent. And, mind you this continued via emails. Believe me, one cannot appreciate the various aspects of the T206
series subtleties by simply analyzing them statistically. I think you'll agree with this, that many years of experience collecting
T206's are needed to fully understand the Monster.


I'll end this by repeating to you (and Rob) your own final words with my modifications......

"don't attack"....DISTRACT...."those whoSE THREADS attempt to have (that) MEANINGFUL discussion"......

WITH YOUR WISE-A$$ TACTICS THAT TEND TO DIGRESS THE INTENT OF THE ONE'S DISCUSSION ON THIS FORUM.


Regards,

TED Z

[Jim VB]

I have no idea what you're rambling on about Ted. I don't believe I posted anywhere in the thread you linked. I'm not sure I have ever posted in any of the several Dunn threads. Yet somehow you accuse me of derailing your threads. I didn't even vote in the poll. Reason? I don't know what was the intent of the artist for that card.

If you have a problem with Rob, feel free to take it up with him. Leave me out of it.

I also have no problems with Frank Wakefield or Joe P. Again, you're making stuff up. I anxiously await your apology. I won't hold my breath.


As far your post to Matt, I'm not trying to distract. I was as direct as can be. Although you said your post about "naysayers" wasn't specifically addressed to Matt, you then went on, for several paragraphs, explaining how, and why, he's not as smart as you. It was demeaning and you owe him an apology also.

Lastly, just because someone asks a question or two, or even if they disagree with you, that doesn't mean they are "shooting flak at you." It just means they don't understand and/or don't agree with you. It's you who then goes on the personal attack.