T206- Rebel Oakes (Ofkes) Error

[ronniehatesjazz]

I've seen this card on ebay for a while now. Never thought it was an actual error card but got moderately excited when I found one in my own collection this evening. Could this be like the newly discovered "Chicaco" card or is it really common? Ebay link to the card is below.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/OAKFS-T206-...il!76227!US!-1

[Sean]

It's a minor printing flaw. I don't think that it's worth anything. And the seller doesn't inspire confidence, either.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Sean

It's a minor printing flaw. I don't think that it's worth anything. And the seller doesn't inspire confidence, either.

The seller is an annoying idiot IMHO. He(they) have also been banned from this site thankfully.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

What is it with people trying to find "variations" (in the T206 set) that's an error because the ink is faded? You can clearly see the lettering and it's just slightly faded.

[Cozumeleno]

Like the Pfeffer Chicaco, Murry, Shappe, etc., it's a card with a print flaw. I haven't seen many of the Oakfs cards around but haven't been looking, either. Another one was on eBay before but don't know if it ever sold.

The Pfeffer Chicaco has sold for good money (A graded 5 sold for about $1,500) and despite the fact they are 'just' cards with print flaws and not cards with true spelling errors, some still do quite well because it's T206.

I wouldn't rule out the Oakfs card selling for the kind of money Pfeffer has. It's the same type of 'error', really, and unless it's drastically more common, I don't see why it couldn't. But the first step would probably be getting a TPG to recognize it as a variation as Beckett did with the Pfeffer. Until then, I don't know that people would shell out that kind of money for it. Beckett generally seems the most open to that if you show them a few examples of others.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

To me it's just as legit as a 1957 Topps GENE BAKEP...


...and by that I mean neither are legit.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

To me it's just as legit as a 1957 Topps GENE BAKEP...


...and by that I mean neither are legit.

Completely agree on them not being a legit error.

It is a printing error and some of us(myself included) love them and WILL pay a premium for them. That premium varies greatly by error and collector.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

What is it with people trying to find "variations" (in the T206 set) that's an error because the ink is faded? You can clearly see the lettering and it's just slightly faded.

I've seen a few of these and they're all similar so I think it was probably something
on the printing plate that blocked part of the E and not fading.

The T206 set it loaded with print flaws but they seem to pick
and choose which ones get cataloged and that's why when they do
you see crazy prices like the recently cataloged Pfeffer Chicaco
and Marquard arm pit 8 "variations".

Anyone that has the Oakfs "variation" might want to go after the period before the T Polar Bear "variation" to go with it.

Oakes PB - Copy.jpg
Oakes PB 2.jpg

Oakes PB.jpg

[Leon]

T206s seems to have an inordinate amount of print flaws.

Originally Posted by Pat R

I've seen a few of these and they're all similar so I think it was probably something
on the printing plate that blocked part of the E and not fading.

The T206 set it loaded with print flaws but they seem to pick
and choose which ones get cataloged and that's why when they do
you see crazy prices like the recently cataloged Pfeffer Chicaco
and Marquard arm pit 8 "variations".

Anyone that has the Oakfs "variation" might want to go after the period before the T Polar Bear "variation" to go with it.

Attachment 327608
Attachment 327609

Attachment 327607

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Leon

T206s seems to have an inordinate amount of print flaws.

Probably the result of printing so many of them. When your print run is in the gazillions (that's just an estimate), you're bound to have various inking problems along the way.

[steve B]

I believe all of these caption errors are from the transfer used to lay out then stone not transferring completely.

They would be identifiable positions from the sheet, which is how I separate variations and errors. I prefer the term variety, as so far it indicates something that happened regularly because of the plate having a difference, but isn't major enough to be recognized as a variation. Errors to me are things that happened haphazardly.


They're interesting, and I might collect a few if I had the money. But 1000+ just seems unreasonable.

I'm also of the opinion that every position on the plate will be slightly different, and trying to collect them all would be mostly insane.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Very interesting. Thanks for the feedback fellas!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Probably the result of printing so many of them. When your print run is in the gazillions (that's just an estimate), you're bound to have various inking problems along the way.

I think gazillions is probably millions and that's a lot. There are print errors in most other sets they just aren't discussed as much.

[NotVader]

I am guessing the "nay-sayers" on this Rebel Error do not own one.

A PSA 1 sold for $500.

A raw one sold for $400 (poor).

Big Jeff Chicago is now known....

Isnt there a Murray error like this?

On Rebel it would be 'light ink' missing ...if it wasn't for the fact that several exactly like this are out there!

Go Gators!

CV

[ronniehatesjazz]

Well I just put it up on eBay. I guess we'll see what happens.