A New T205 Variation.... It's Official Now.

[Matt E.]

#133 Christy Mathewson (Cycle Back)......... 10.00


Just happened to look at the T205 SGC Master Set Registry this morning and noticed a new variation. I know we have talked about this before on the board, but am wondering when SGC made the final call to make it a variation.

Interesting

previous thread on this topic.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=751541

Matt

[FrankWakefield]

So if SGC says it is so, then that is "official"?

[Matt E.]

I agree with you Frank that what SGC says pretty much goes as the standard, but I am not so willing to agree with our beloved SGC right now. Maybe I will change my mind.

Regarding this new Mathewson Cycle "variation"... Currently the card is found with only one back. It should not be added to the Master Set until a "37-1" example surfaces on a different advertising back........ OR with the correct stats listed on the Cycle back to set a baseline comparison.


Would love to hear thoughts from SGC or Joshua on this one please.

Can someone post a scan of the back of this card?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Matt E.

Regarding this new Mathewson Cycle "variation"... Currently the card is found with only one back. It should not be added to the Master Set until a "37-1" example surfaces on a different advertising back........ OR with the correct stats listed on the Cycle back to set a baseline comparison.

My esteemed fellow Matt - we've discussed this before, but here it goes again. I don't agree that a card must exist with two different versions of the text on the same advertising back to be considered a variation - and there is much precedent against your position, first and foremost that the T206 O'Hara and DeMitt St. Louis, only exist with the PB backs.

Answer me this question - this was clearly an error that was corrected in between the Cycle run and the other backs. You agree that if it was found in the middle of the Cycle run it should count as an official variation, or if it was found after say the Cycle and Hassan runs it should also be counted - why is the fact that they found and corrected the error after only the Cycle run a reason not to count it?

Actually, I'll take issue with SGC on this one as well - it should be listed as "Mathewson (37-1)" as opposed to "Mathewson (Cycle back)."

[FrankWakefield]

Matt, I don't think that at all. Just because SGC says something in no way convinces me that it is right. Same even more so for PSA...

[Tcards-Please]

Matt

I don't necessarily agree with your opinion that a Cycle with "37-11" should be found before listing the cycle as a variation. You seem to accept that Wilhelm "suffe ed" is a variation although it is only found with a piedmont back. I could be wrong, but I've never seen a "suffered" version with a piedmont back.

I'm glad to see that SGC finally listed it on their registry. Here is a copy of mine, although not too clear.

Another ghost to chase around.

Everybody needs to feel important an kudos to who ever found a card with a misprint. The card was never corrected so it is not a variation. Kinda like the Doc White quotes no quotes variation. Only found on polar Bear cards and no corrected version. They should be listed as UER's and not variation's . I guess the other 2 cards mentioned in the DOC WHITE thread as well as the white will be the next 3 variations I give up. Whats next in this long exhausting journey.

I am a little pissed as now I have to explain to my wife I need another card for the set and that now it is going to be another over priced inflated card.

Maybe the new Latham card I have will be a variation also. I mean it has a W ghost printed on a back that is not known to have the W.A. version.

I will Call it the W.A. Latham HLC ghost printed W version. should be worth about $300+ normally but I will take offers of no less than $5000+ I mean it is a POP 1 and there are no others or corrected types.

Crazy there are 4 new variations in an few months

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Pup6913

I am a little pissed as now I have to explain to my wife I need another card for the set and that now it is going to be another over priced inflated card.

At least you and Matt E and honest that your opposition to this being called a variation is biased because it means you have to chase another cards for your sets

[marcdelpercio]

Originally Posted by Matt

Answer me this question - this was clearly an error that was corrected in between the Cycle run and the other backs. You agree that if it was found in the middle of the Cycle run it should count as an official variation, or if it was found after say the Cycle and Hassan runs it should also be counted - why is the fact that they found and corrected the error after only the Cycle run a reason not to count it?

I have yet to see anybody who claims that the Mathewson and White cards are not variations offer an answer to the above question that Matt posed. I have also not seen an answer to whether they consider the T206 Demmitt and O'Hara cards to be variations. I have ALSO not seen an answer to the question that I posed in the thread I started about the T205 Doc White regarding what cards in the T205 set they DO consider to be variations as the majority of the widely accepted variations in the set DO NOT feature both versions with the same advertising back. It seems to me that somebody who genuinely believes that these cards are not variations should be able to easily answer these questions and offer some logical reasoning for their answers. Anybody?

I also find it interesting that some of the people who claim that these are not variations, in their following posts, lament the fact that they will now have to collect them for their sets.

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

I also find it interesting that some of the people who claim that these are not variations, in their following posts, lament the fact that they will now have to collect them for their sets.

Well if its part of the master set you have to get it to be 100% complete. I do not agree with it but thats how it is. Same way with the White. If it gets recognized then I guess It's another for the collection. From my guess there should be about 3 more variations to arise.

[BCD]

yes Frank! they get paid for that!

Has anyone else but me noticed that Polar Bear backed cards contain the Most "Variations" Anyone ever think maybe they just wanted to be different???

The Doc white card
The Moran with stray line is found with Polar Bear only.
The T206's Demmitt and O'Hara

I am sure there are more. Feel free to add to the list These are just off the top of my head