Nicholls SC150 649 OP CONTROVERSY

[cfc1909]

For some time now there has been some contention regarding the existence of a Simon Nicholls (Hands On Knees) with a Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 OP back.

The card originally popped up on Scot readers research list and was most likely a typo or a bad eBay scan where a Nicholls card was shown with a wrong back scan and Scot logged it in as verified which was understandable. Later Ted Z. claimed to have completed the set in a "Mission Accomplished" thread:



http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=91120


Since then Ted has been asked repeatedly to show the card to which he finally said he sold it. When a request was put in a thread on the board asking for proof of this front/back combo Ted posted a scan which was later determined to be the front of a Nicholls and the back was Delahanty. I personally viewed Ted's 649s at the Philly show to determine this. When I confronted Ted on this, his answer was he mixed this scans up.


The Sweet Caporal 649 OP set is 34 cards and most all cards surface quite often. There a few a little tougher but not due to being short printed as all 34 were printed in equal quantities and are not scarce. Some are tougher than others, but for reasons not related to this particular backs printing. Tim C. (Abravefan11) began putting this set together not too long ago and within 4 months at least one example of all 34 cards came to market. He has acquired 31 of the 34 and the other 3 are available for sale right now. So if you can complete the set in 6 months I wouldn’t consider any example rare or even scarce.

Even really obscure backs such as BL460, BL350, Uzit, Lenox and Hindu etc. we know of and see multiple player’s more than one example. Yet Simon Nicholls Sweet Cap 649 we’ve only heard of one example which was in Ted’s hands and then gone to a mystery collector just like the recent AB460’s…doesn’t add up. Wonka owns 2 of the three known Danny Murphy BL460’s. I would safely take a bet that any BL460 is way tougher than any Sweet Cap 649, and that SWC649 would surface much more than any BL460 I think most here would agree.

So as of today we don't have any proof that a Simon Nicholls 649 exists, yet it remains on the confirmed list on this site that many people trust to be accurate. And until Ted can really show this card, produce the buyer of this card or someone can show a graded example, I would not count this as a confirmed card.

Ted can’t take it off the list because he claims to have owned it, but if it doesn’t exist it shouldn’t be on the list regardless of what that means for Ted’s reputation.




"This card with the SWEET CAPORAL 150 Factory 649 (overprint) back is on my list since it has been seen. Scot Reader's T206 survey
of over 14,000 cards indicates that this card exists. I have said it exists; however, certain skeptics here choose not to believe me.

My experience collecting this particular SWEET CAP sub-set is that the HOFer's (George Davis, Griffith, Johnson, Lajoie, Marquard, and
Matty are quite available.

Guys like Alpermann, Bates, Goode, Tom Jones, Killian, Liebrandt, Powers, Ritchey, Sheckard, and Wilhelm are also seen quite often.

And, then there are certain subjects like Lake, McIntyre, Nicholls, Schmidt, Spencer, and Heine Wagner that are very tough to find.

I do not understand why this is so. I have compared my notes with others that collect this T206 sub-set and their experience is very
similar to mine."


TED Z


I would like to know who the others are that own a Nicholls 649 and share the same experience as you.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

This card with the SWEET CAPORAL 150 Factory 649 (overprint) back is on my list since it has been seen. Scot Reader's T206 survey of over 14,000 cards indicates that this card exists. I have said it exists; however, certain skeptics here choose not to believe me.

Nobody is arguing that one (1) Nicholls 649 was noted on Scot’s survey. But as Jim said there’s only 1 confirmed out of 14,000 entries and could have been a bad scan or mistake in the entry.

I personally have contacted Ted with several entries on the lists that were impossible front/back combinations and all of them were eventually removed. Those cards were entered as being seen indicating that they existed just like the Nicholls but were determined to not be correct and removed.

The difference in this situation and those cards that were removed is that Ted didn’t claim to own any of those.

Ultimately what anyone owns or claims to own doesn’t matter, the most important thing is putting out the most accurate and honest information we can for those that rely on it. This set is too complex and too difficult to have collectors chasing known bad information.

I find it hard to believe that I’m the only one disappointed by this.

[wonkaticket]

And there it is…Huh I guess the Nicholls is now with the same mystery collector who now owns the AB460's?

The saddest thing of all this story time with Uncle Ted is why? He has a nice collection why make up stories....it not only is damaging to the hobby but to himself and his creditability.

A lot of folks on here really follow Ted and his info to take advantage of them or send them in a wrong direction is just silly and really questionable.

I and others have watched quietly over the year the stories grow and grow and while many of us privately laughed at Ted’s expense and chalked it up as fishing tales if you will.

I’ve also personally watched Ted talk to veteran collectors and new collectors with distain and enough is enough. Even worse I’ve seen Ted send other collectors down paths to nowhere which is a shame.

Call me mean if you want. But if you guys enjoy being sent on wild goose chases for tale tales then have at it not for me.

It’s clear the real and only mission accomplished here is that Ted has proven to be quite the story teller.

Cheers,

John

P.S. There is no conspiracy Ted before you go there again…yawn. It’s simple we all talk it’s a small hobby. Ted when you lie to me and others in print and via the phone and talk to people like they are 2 years old…big surprise people get to talking which if you’re not telling stories and have nothing to hide is no big deal…but in your case….hmmm.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Nobody is arguing that one (1) Nicholls 649 was noted on Scot’s survey. But as Jim said there’s only 1 confirmed out of 14,000 entries and could
have been a bad scan or mistake in the entry.

That same 14,000 card survey has the following data on these SWEET CAP 150 (factory 649) cards......

1 ...... Ewing
1 ...... Gilbert
1 ...... McIntyre
1 ...... Nicholls
1 ...... O'Leary
0 ...... Schlei
0 ...... Spencer
1 ...... Wagner

While guys like G. Davis, Johnson, Marquard, Matty, and Powers have 5-6 samples each.


P.S. Jim is attempting to rationalize his skepticism. But, he has no proof that this Nicholls entry is NOT valid.
Jim....of all people....knows that there exists a high probability of unique T206 front/back combos......e.g. 150 series Schulte with a PIEDMONT 350
back (as only one has been accounted for).

TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

That same 14,000 card survey has the following data on these SWEET CAP 150 (factory 649) cards......

1 ...... Ewing
1 ...... Gilbert
1 ...... McIntyre
1 ...... Nicholls
1 ...... O'Leary
0 ...... Schlei
0 ...... Spencer
1 ...... Wagner



TED Z

I own all of those cards with a 649 back on that list with the exception of Nicholls. I have seen all of the 34 come to market within a 4 month period and all but one multiple times.

Those exist and I can prove it with scans. I have looked for the Nicholls long before I started collecting the subset and I have never seen one. No one else has ever seen one. You haven't produced any proof of one.

Do you see why I'm skeptical?

New front/back combinations still happen from time to time, but this is a common back where every other example shows up with regularity. They were printed the same in the same quantities. Nicholls would show up if it existed.

[Abravefan11]

Also you continue when pushed into a corner to point to Scot and his work when his list is a survey and he never claimed to own the card.

You're the only person that has claimed to own this card. Stop shirking that responsibility.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Interesting question of burden of proof. Is the burden to show it does exist, or to show that it does not exist?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Interesting question of burden of proof. Is the burden to show it does exist, or to show that it does not exist?

Peter - When it comes to putting cards on a list of "confirmed" examples and publishing those list to the hobby to be used as credible information the burden absolutely falls on proving the card does exist.

The lists I use have a tremendous amount of cards on them that are listed as "possible" but not confirmed.

It's difficult to say with any certainty that a front/back combo will not show up but it is possible, but great care should be take when making those claims and you should be open to the idea you could be proven wrong someday.

Again when claiming the card as "confirmed" as in this case, the burden of proof falls on proving it does exist.

[wonkaticket]

I too own most of those cards or have owned them as I gave one Wagner away recently.



Funny though never seen a Nichols or owned one...only person I know who has ever claimed to own one is Ted.

Maybe ted has never owned it and this whole story along with others is just another elaborate test by Ted to see if we are worthy to talk T206’s.

Funny in just a handful of collectors I was able to confirm the Wagner above which is a tougher Sweet Cap 649…but not one person has seen a Nicholls besides the entry on Scot’s list and this phantom card of Teds.

Cheers,

John

P.S. If anyone can produce a real not re-backed, fake scan etc. Nicholls Sweet Cap 649 OP I’ll pay you cash to see it. If it’s in decent shape I’d say I’ll trade you a VG Green Cobb for the card but my extras are P150 so their OC to the top as 95% of them all are unless they are Hindu.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Peter - When it comes to putting cards on a list of "confirmed" examples and publishing those list to the hobby to be used as credible information the burden absolutely falls on proving the card does exist.

The lists I use have a tremendous amount of cards on them that are listed as "possible" but not confirmed.

It's difficult to say with any certainty that a front/back combo will not show up but it is possible, but great care should be take when making those claims and you should be open to the idea you could be proven wrong someday.

Again when claiming the card as "confirmed" as in this case, the burden of proof falls on proving it does exist.

OK, but to continue the legal analogy, why isn't the confirmation on the 14,000 card survey and Ted's stating that he owned the card enough to meet his burden or, in legal terms, to shift the burden to the people claiming it does not exist?

[Abravefan11]

I don't know how to argue this question legally. All I know is I have compiled lists of thousands of inputs and I know how easy it is to make a mistake on one.

And time and time again collectors have claimed to own cards that defy front/back possibilities and when asked to produce the card it turns out to be a different back or they can't produce the card at all.

When there is enough evidence to warrant reasonable skepticism as in this case a tangible example of the card needs to be produced to confirm it.

Also I will add that Ted's other "Mission Accomplished" threads damage his credibility and cause further skepticism about his actually owning the card.

[marcdelpercio]

It is really impossible to prove that a card does NOT exist. I could claim that I own several previously uncatalogued T206 cards and nobody could prove that I don't. Logically, it would seem that anybody (especially one who truly wishes to research and document this set) who did own such an elusive card would be very eager to display it frequently or at least verify its existence.

It would be the equivalent of a prominent biologist who claimed to have captured a Yeti, but then refused to show the rest of the scientific community any evidence.

[Peter_Spaeth]

On the original thread, another collector stated that he too had put together a 35 card set (same number Ted identified including the card at issue).

#20 10-20-2008, 01:15 PM
Archive
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,918

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED....Sweet Cap 150/fac 649 ovpt subset

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted
Thanks guys.

I'm curious, if anyone else out there has completed this short series of T206's ?

TED Z





Archive
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Archive
Send email to Archive
Visit Archive's homepage!
Find all posts by Archive
Add Archive to Your Contacts

#21 10-20-2008, 07:26 PM
Archive
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,918

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED....Sweet Cap 150/fac 649 ovpt subset

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Ted,
Congrats.... I put that set together several years ago with the help of Scott Elkins. I think it was 2002 or 2003, but both of us put a set together.
Be well Brian


PS Hi Ted... too bad the number is 35 instead of 36 or it would really start your sheet discussion going...

PS 2 As you know this set is important when trying to find out "possible backs"...

[Abravefan11]

Peter - They put together a set of 34. They did not have a Nicholls.

[wonkaticket]

Peter there is no Nicholls confirmed on the superset survey. The only known record of Nicholls was made by Scot R; he admitted that it could have been a mistake via wrong scan back front combo from eBay many years ago.

Ted went off this list of Scot's told everyone he had the card when asked to show it he said he just sold it (snap fingers here)...

Any other collector of worth told me they had this card I might buy the dream for a bit but still ask to see it. Fact is this is the Same Ted who pulled the AB 460 subset mission accomplished thread. When asked by dozens to show up..guess what that's right you just missed it...as the Church Lady would say..."Isn't that convenient."

Funniest thing about this whole mission accomplished subset for the Sweet Cap 649 is that when he won the Johnson card in B&L and posted he had this 35 card set not 34…when Jim asked him to bring them all not only was Nicholls missing but many others were as well. When Jim asked him how then are you finished the set forget the Nicholls tall tale for now…Ted said I’ve been keeping a list and I’ve owned all 35 over the years but sold many of them off.

LOL that’s like me coming on here and saying I just finished the T206 set and when asked where are the 520+ cards I state well I had one of each over the years.

Once again more tall tales not I’ can now confirm all these cards and here are the images so the list is…no it’s hey everybody I finished this set look at me and tell me how great I am.

John

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

It would be the equivalent of a prominent biologist who claimed to have captured a Yeti, but then refused to show the rest of the scientific community any evidence.

LOL dead on but in this case it's more like….. “opps you just missed the Yeti I just sold it....oh well maybe next time but trust me he’s out there keep looking for him you're bound to find him...but currently I'm the only superstar who has…how dare you question me!”



John

[cfc1909]

I want to say that this has really bothered me as I considered Ted a very close friend and this is baseball cards but he has crossed the line. I told him I was willing to forget all this and forgive him just don't expect me to believe all the claims of completing sets and subsets, it insults my intelligence. His answer was not good and can not be repeated here. Obviously our friendship is not very important...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias ...

[teetwoohsix]

Thanks for explaining the Nicholls SC150 649 OP situation guys. And I do understand that this is not an issue of just this card, but boils down to putting out bad info that you know is false, for whatever reason ?

I am one of the people who took whatever TedZ said as gospel when I first joined Net54,,,and I will say that I'm sure that I have learned alot from TedZ. But what bothers me is having to go back and re-check what I took as gospel- some of this stuff is very complicated to follow (and learn ).

I really enjoyed the way Tim C. was doing the SC lists awhile back, because it was an interactive way to compile the factual data- and if an input didn't sound right, at that point a scan for confirmation could be requested. Compiling a list and saying "it's been seen" doesn't jive........especially when proof cannot be found thereafter......

I see two ways to try to clear things up here (maybe).........

TedZ- did you scan your AB460's? If you did, please post them.

TedZ- if you didn't ever own the Nicholls card in question, just say you didn't. People make mistakes, it's part of life and I believe people respect people who own up to their mistakes. My 1 cent of opinion.

As far as the data on the confirmed lists.......what do we do now?

Sincerely, Clayton

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I see two ways to try to clear things up here (maybe).........

TedZ- did you scan your AB460's? If you did, please post them.

TedZ- if you didn't ever own the Nicholls card in question, just say you didn't. People make mistakes, it's part of life and I believe people respect people who own up to their mistakes. My 1 cent of opinion.



Sincerely, Clayton

+1. I've certainly made my share of mistakes, and a lot of guys here have been great teachers and storehouses of knowledge. Nobody's perfect. I guess I just hate to see the cross and nails coming out.

Best wishes to all my compadres here, including Ted, with whom I've had several interesting discussions on this board.

Larry

[mrvster]

Hello All,

I find this very very sad....i wish this wasn't transpiring.....we are all in this together.....compiling info....i haven't followed the back combos(since everyone knows i'm obsessed with the "freaks"), and I trust our hobby veterans info and contribute when i can....I have gotten along with pretty much all collectors here, i guess since i collect and don't really sell/ or rarely trade mine, i just try to aquire, I haven't had anyone "mad" at me, because i want to have fun and get along with everyone(libra hereLOL)....But this truly sadens me, there was no "motive" to make money here.....THIS TO ME IS CHILDISH!!


TED, IF THIS IS THE CASE, FESS UP!!!!!

LET'S MOVE ON!!!

we need to all try to stick together !!!

I respect people who admit their mistakes, and try to move forward....

this is shady.......


if this card doesn't show, no offense, but i have lost all respect for you Ted...


i'm not trying to "jump on the bandwagon" but no offense, i have tried to email you a few times just to talk about the cards, and you were never too receptive to me...no big deal, as my feelings weren't hurt too bad, i'm a big boy, and i guess i wasn't part of the "in crowd" and maybe did'nt have enough knowledge about combos for you, i'm just a "fringe" collector, but at least i tried to be friendly a few times and extend myself....even tho, i always respected your"hard" work and have always posted or congradulated you, but now i have lost respect if you can't admit a "mistake"

DUDE!!

COME ON!!!

your not fooling anyone but yourself....

i'm far from perfect myself, give up the charade and come clean, we are all adults....


John

[cfc1909]

For anybody that may think Ted is being crucified or this threads sole purpose is to make him look bad needs to know that he has been asked, begged and pleaded with for 10 months privately to correct this. As recently as the Oaks show I told him to just admit that he didn't own the Nicholls card, remove it from the list and we could all move on. He has chosen to continue to put out bad information and in spite of all my efforts to get him to do the right thing as a last resort I brought it to the boards attention.

[mrvster]

Jim

You did the right thing.....at least you have a set of "cahoonies"

[mrvster]

and also John, Tim, Clayton the rest Thank You, at least you all had "cahoonies"...we are not here to "bash" Ted, just get him on the right track...since i have not been compiling back combos and that is not my expertise, i will leave that to Tim, Jim, and John....i'm sure they are all hurt because they have come to know Ted close and personally, like i said i am sadened....
Art M. is another living legend, and i respect him greatly, he may know the truth here.....

i have invested alot of time and money in this set like all the rest of us, and an advancement of the knowledge i respect...we need t206 "scholars"
Ted, do yourself a favor, please, just admit an "error"....let me get some respect back for you.....because i thought of you as the "professor" of this set(you also Barry!!)

Respectfully,

Johnny V

[wonkaticket]

Thanks Johnny, agree on all points and thanks for having the "nuggets" also to post well said all around.

Really a shame on Ted.

Cheers,

John

[mrvster]

John!!

THANKS
You Rock!!
You, Jim, Tim, Art and a few other may now be our true "scholars"...please keep up the good work guys!!

Hope you did well in rea

Peace

Johnny

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

I think what everyone what's is accurate information, if there is no proof a question they they should not be on a confirmed list. We went through the issue with a Cycle 460 card that has a good chance of existing but no one has been able to confirm it's actually existence.

I personally have submitted wrong backs To Bill Brown's Super Set and after being called out I rechecked my scans and found that I was wrong. Ted was even one that brought to question a couple of the cards.

Once again, I think what everyone wants is accurate information,

Lee

[wonkaticket]

Lee well said.

[Abravefan11]

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.

[wonkaticket]

Proof or not, we’re looking at a guy who has not made a few clerical mistakes but an absolute attempt to lie and prove false cards to inflate his ego.

That’s way more than an innocent mistake of opps I made a typo Ted needs to put up or shut up if you will, but all Ted will do is cry the blues and play the victim here and drag innocent collectors into his fantasy land period.

As said before he can't show what he has never owned but never stopped hi from telling anyone what he has done in the hobby and how great he is etc.

If you're new to this board dont go taking Ted Z posts as gospel, they are like fruit some are good and others are rotten and stink.

Cheers,

John

[tedzan]

Your citing my original research (posted on this forum two years ago) regarding the correlation between the SWEET CAPORAL 150,
Factory 649 (overprint) subjects and their Brown HINDU counterparts. And, I realized at that time that the Nicholls card was the
exception to this correlation. As, Brian Weisner convinced me that a Brown HINDU card of Nicholls will not be found.

So, does a Nicholls card with the SWEET CAPORAL 150, Factory 649 (overprint) back exist ?

At this point, I cannot say it exists or it does not exist. Perhaps, I imagined it several years ago when I put together this sub-set.
Or, perhaps it was an invalid data point in an independent 14,000 card survey. I can say from my experience, though, that several
subjects (e.g. McIntyre, Schlei, Spencer, Wagner, etc.) in this sub-set are considerably more difficult to find than the majority of
the other subjects.

In any event, I've labelled Nicholls as UNCERTAIN on my SWEET CAPORAL 150, Factory 649 list. At the Chicago National this Summer,
I am getting together with an old buddy of mine on a deal, who is bringing his stock of 6,000+ T206's. Many of which are cards with
tougher backs. If this Nicholls card does exist, I expect that he may have one.


TED Z

[wonkaticket]

"So, does a Nicholls card with the SWEET CAPORAL 150, Factory 649 (overprint) back exist ?At this point, I cannot say it exists or it does not exist."

LOL went from Mission Accomplished and in your collection to not so sure...

"I am getting together with an old buddy of mine on a deal, who is bringing his stock of 6,000+ T206's. Many of which are cards with tougher backs. If this Nicholls card does exist, I expect that he may have one."

Same buddy you sold the mythical AB460's with Cobb too in Oaks...keep digging deeper at this point its more entertainment than anything Ted 6000+ T206's LOL, how about you call him and ask him if he has one? If he does have him send it on I'll pay for grading and give him $500 for the effort and return the card....but wait right he just got rid of his phone this month so you can't call..oh darn the luck.


Once again lots of talk from you with very little substance or images, but please don’t let that stop more story time with Uncle Ted I want to hear how you will get my head spinning or make me “dizzy” with all of your awesomeness.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ght=green+cobb

"Am I making you "dizzy" Dan ?"

Cheers,

John

[wonkaticket]

And there you have it forum member’s right from ol’ greatness himself.

"I cannot say it exists or it does not exist. Perhaps, I imagined it several years ago when I put together this sub-set."

Hmmmm I wonder how many cards you are chasing right now are imagined or figments of Ted’s imagination or story telling or epic yarns?

Look back at this thread and see where he said these are made up and not real...hmmm looks a lot like a guy bragging about cards he doesn't have...hmmm.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=91120

Enjoy your lists from Ted Z, let me know how ya make out.

John

[danmckee]

John, Please remind me nver to piss you off, thanks Dan.

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by danmckee

John, Please remind me nver to piss you off, thanks Dan.

[wonkaticket]

LMAO that is the greatest thing ever....! Thanks for that.

Cheers,

John

[cfc1909]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Your citing my original research (posted on this forum two years ago) regarding the correlation between the SWEET CAPORAL 150,
Factory 649 (overprint) subjects and their Brown HINDU counterparts. And, I realized at that time that the Nicholls card was the
exception to this correlation. As, Brian Weisner convinced me that a Brown HINDU card of Nicholls will not be found.

So, does a Nicholls card with the SWEET CAPORAL 150, Factory 649 (overprint) back exist ?

At this point, I cannot say it exists or it does not exist. Perhaps, I imagined it several years ago when I put together this sub-set.
Or, perhaps it was an invalid data point in an independent 14,000 card survey. I can say from my experience, though, that several
subjects (e.g. McIntyre, Schlei, Spencer, Wagner, etc.) in this sub-set are considerably more difficult to find than the majority of
the other subjects.

In any event, I've labelled Nicholls as UNCERTAIN on my SWEET CAPORAL 150, Factory 649 list. At the Chicago National this Summer,
I am getting together with an old buddy of mine on a deal, who is bringing his stock of 6,000+ T206's. Many of which are cards with
tougher backs. If this Nicholls card does exist, I expect that he may have one.


TED Z

Ted

First the work is not yours. The SC 649 34 card set is common knowledge, the Nicholls is a Reader confirmation and the Hindu parallel is also common knowledge. You add Nicholls to both lists and your contribution results in an inaccurate list.

We have to continue to listen to what you have accomplished which tells me how insecure you are about the set.
How can the Nicholls go from a card you own to UNCERTAIN on your SC 649 list?

Why wait until the National to see if your buddy has Nicholls 649? Look now and you will see he does not have it.

These backs lists were kept and added to by a group of t206 collectors. The lists were shared with you privately. You started posting them, to see if any could be added to, which is good until you started claiming the work as your own and boasting Mission Accomplished with adding cards on lists that do not exist. Also taking email confirmations with no proof which made most lists inaccurate.

You never state the lists were shared with you.I needed to post about this when collectors started posting they are trying to complete subsets and they are using your lists.

It is necessary for collectors to know your work is separate from any other work done at this point and has been for the past year or so. You have been pleaded with to change lists you are posting, with no results.

I had tried to keep this private but with lists continuing to be inaccurate, I saw no other option.

I'm sure this may look to some people like I'm making a big deal over one confirmation, but anyone that knows all the facts understands that it is a lot more than that. Some of these checklist took collectors years to put together and Ted was shared them, posted them, and claimed them as his own. No one spoke up as this was happening until now because he's ruining that work with confirmations like the Nicholls. It's not just the 649 list but many others as well.

[mrvster]

John,


I vote you,Tim and Jim as the new t206 crusaders!!....although there are many others(Art M, Etc.,Ect.).......keep hold of the flame


we must look to your research primarily...unless a Nicholls is
produced, might as well burn Ted's lists.....

i'm usually the Peace keeper, but this hobby sees enough CRAP!!!

we don't need it from one of our "brain trust"....story telling i'm leaving up to Mary Poppins...



these cards make people do some strange things
Why is

......some super great points....

Ted, why NO RESPONSE????!!!

PLEASE MAN!! tell us you had a momentary lapse of reason...

just admit it, and we can move on...if not , collectors will be chasing their own tales for what???eventually collectors will catch on that some of the cards you said existed , really don't exist..


either way, the truth will come out....we would accept you back, admit your mistakes, just change your ways....we could use some good , honest research
it is just another bruise that collectors don't want to deal with, and turn people off of the hobby....i love my cards, don't get me wrong, but crap like this turns me sour


Respectfully,

Johnny

[mrvster]

Jim,

Please get together with Tim and John and pick up where you guys left off...I(and i'm sure many other collectors) follow you and John's back scarcity (except the blank backs) lists... and you collectors a true back aficinados


Scot Reader's work is still the t206 manual.....but this set evolves everyday!

just my 2 cents

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by danmckee

John, Please remind me nver to piss you off, thanks Dan.

Dan,
True, but I'd love to see the T-Shirts!

[mintacular]

on the video

[Leon]

Hey guys,

While I understand all of the arguments, probably better than I want to, this personal attacking is not going to continue on this board. Even if mistakes were made I don't think it's right that every time Ted breathes he gets attacked. Ted might have included things in the listings that should not have been included, maybe some poor decisions were made in the process, but this personal attacking is going to cease. It's just not right. Ted has a lot to offer in the way of knowledge and I think every one is much more aware (now) of being careful when accounting for cards that exist, or don't. As a matter of fact in the next few weeks I hope to come out with some very interesting information about this very topic. It might include some 206 information but will definitely address the concerns of verifying what we are doing before reporting it as the gospel. Ya'll can make fun of me, or joke around at me, that is fine. No problem. Everyone that has good intentions should be able to post on the board without fear of being persecuted. Again, trust me, I get it; all of it. best regards

edited to add....I do agree with Jim R's post right above too......We all need to work together to send out correct information that has been fully verified, not only through an unknown email etc......

[nolemmings]

Thanks Leon.

[wonkaticket]

You’re right Leon I’m sure all the story telling, lies about cards Ted doesn’t own sending collectors on wild goose chases for cards that don’t exist, butchering lists and years of collectors works with mis-information, adding info to lists with no qualified inputs for years was all done with the best intentions.

Attack or being mean or not whatever. I find it funny about be easy on Ted take a look over the years at the way the man has talked to many new collectors funny never saw you or anyone asking him to take a chill pill.

Let’s also be clear and on the record here Leon he has been caught lying make no mistakes.

These are not innocent errors or oversights and it’s insulting to the people who know better I would think you included would feel that way as much as you are a historian of this hobby Mr. buy the 1939 catalog out from under me, and a travesty for the folks who depend on this board for an education and web based learning annex.

Johnny is also correct and one of the few who has had the guts and upset enough, rightfully so to say something. More importantly ask Ted why he feels the need to ignore our information and proof in black & white written by him we didn’t make this stuff it’s on this forum read it.

But if you feel getting along and allowing Ted to continue his stories is what is best so be it.

I guess that’s where we differ, I can’t be cool with a guy putting out bad info and lies to new collectors who depend on this site, and if making one person happy is at the expense of a community or hobby I have issue with that.

Leon Ted can share without telling stories lots of us do that FYI, you don't need to act the expert and each turn especially when you have to make up stuff to play the role, heck just in his Elite 8 thread he had misinformation.

Is it really too much to ask that if you’re going present theories on a set, take the time to really research prior to posting and check for errors, give credit to your sources and if you use folks information you don’t screw it up.

Most important of all don’t lie about findings and lie to prove your theories right when questioned in a professional manner.

Attacks or barbs however you would like to see it.

Many of us for years have had tried to have conversations with Ted in a civil manner Ted won’t have it, he’s right you’re a moron for questioning him end of story.

You push it then you’re picking on Ted and outcome the protective sheep…its clear good hobby info isn’t priority it’s making sure Ted Z is happy is.

Cheers,

John

[Leon]

John- I have said my piece on it and have communicated exactly the way I feel.

BTW, within 2 weeks of me getting that 1939 ACC I ended up buying another one that is missing part of it's cover. If you want the one I bought I would be happy to sell it to you for exactly what I paid...with free guaranteed delivery. Just let me know.....(and you know darned well I asked you about it when I bought it...I gave you first dibs as you saw it first)

btw, except for the personal attacks I agree with almost everything you said concerning verifying things before reporting them as truth....
.
.
.
.
.

[botn]

Have to agree with John, Leon. Look back at threads in which Ted has ripped into guys for simply not agreeing with him. Never once saw you jump in and tell Ted publicly to take a time out when he went off.

So maybe you do not relate to the T206 research, which is odd for a type collector who admires the cataloging that took place so many decades ago, and seems a bit out of place for you to stick up for Ted who has brought this on himself. Frankly I think the guys are going easy on him considering how he has butchered research that was carefully put together by others.

Greg

[barrysloate]

Hi John- I've haven't posted at all in this thread but I have been reading it very closely, as you know Ted is my longtime friend. Let me add my thoughts:

You and Jim R. and anyone else can disagree with Ted's theories or anything else you want. I will say I disagree with some of them too, and I know that he is wrong on the Nicholls card. I also think he should take a step back and not post so many of these theories. Sometimes he goes into overdrive and overdoes this stuff. You have my agreement there.

But I think your photoshop images of Ted have crossed the line. No need to belittle him in that manner, regardless how angry you are with him. You've put up lots of pictures of me but they were in good fun, and even if they poked fun at me I can have a little laugh at my own expense. But the images of Ted are insulting and weaken your position, not strengthen it. I also notice that the three quotes you have in your by-line (I forget the exact term for it) are all derogatory and aimed at Ted. Come on John, you are one of my favorite hobby people and you are a better man than that. If I may ask you a favor could you please remove them? Thank you. And that's it for me.

[wonkaticket]

Another innocent mistake I guess? In a past Hindu thread where this card below was posted by Ted Z and claimed to be owned by him, then when questioned the scan got pulled down and the post got edited.

Then in his list (35) subset of 649 OP he claims to own the card, even as far as many times when addressed about 35 cards never says no I only have 34.

Now addressed again and he can’t edit the list from the old board and its another story of how this lie came to be.



I guess we will just have to wait until Ted’s good buddy with 6k T206’s mostly with tougher backs fairs huh. Shame SC 649 isn’t a rare back….

Leon all we really have is the shots now as its clear Ted has no remorse or plans of stopping. It's our way of dealing with how silly it is venting if you willand others even a few get hip to the jive great.

I think in many ways the continued lies and stories to the very community that worships you (not me) and messing up priceless hobby information that was complied by countless dedicated should prior is far worse than some ribbing and shots across the deck.

Cheers,

John

[Leon]

I will go ahead and reiterate my stance. Jab me, poke me, do whatever you want to me.....not a big deal. Just lay off the personal attacks. If you want to continue to expose unverifiable information which is not correct I hope you continue to do so. As far as worshiping, I don't think anyone worships anyone on this board. We all make mistakes and we are all human. The last thing I will say is that no matter what I do in situations like this, there will be folks not happy. I just have to make the best decisions I can; right, wrong or indifferent. best regards

[Leon]

Originally Posted by botn

Have to agree with John, Leon. Look back at threads in which Ted has ripped into guys for simply not agreeing with him. Never once saw you jump in and tell Ted publicly to take a time out when he went off.

So maybe you do not relate to the T206 research, which is odd for a type collector who admires the cataloging that took place so many decades ago, and seems a bit out of place for you to stick up for Ted who has brought this on himself. Frankly I think the guys are going easy on him considering how he has butchered research that was carefully put together by others.

Greg

Greg- As I just told someone in an email. I am taking the "enough is enough" approach here. I guess I get to make that decision. I do respect your comments and opinion though. regards

[wonkaticket]

Barry while I have always liked you and enjoyed you still do.

Do you feel Ted’s actions of falsifying entries telling tale tales at the expense of a community and hobby info have placed him in bad position or just me with my few barbs & images all tounge and cheek?

Remember I’m just a collector on here I’m not the self proclaimed T206 expert.

My images and tags in poor taste perhaps? To each his own, but lying to a community and continuing to do so without acknowledgement or remorse what do you feel is worse and where is your post on that Barry.

Barry this isn’t about agreeing with a theory or input, this is about lies perpetrated on a community by one individual.

The facts are here and in his own hand right among the Photoshop’s for you to see. Yet I find it sad or disappointing Barry you only felt the need to address me for my tags or sense of humor not Ted’s actions.

Cheers,

John