![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I need some help here. I have scans of 4 HLC Lathams. 3 of the 4 show a period before the A like the W.A. Variation. The 2 graded cards(my scanner sucks on slabs) show a light ink area before the period where the W should be that looks like a M instead of a W. The most beat up one looks like there was a spot erased through there? Most likely an alteration made back when A Lathams were worth more than WA? Also this card has the darkest Wet Sheet Transfer on the front. All 4 of the ones I have as well as the one on ebay by seller YEPBG(send back scan to pup6913@hotmail.com.....PLEASE) have a Wet Sheet Transfer of the back on the face. I can also tell you the Backs were printed first because the Transfer is under the ink and not over on any of them.
So are there anymore like this with the period on the back or the wet sheet on the face? There is a link to the Ebay card owned by yepbg (without back scan) below as well as scans of my 4 cards http://www.ebay.com/itm/1911-T205-Ho...#ht_893wt_1189) Last edited by Pup6913; 04-05-2012 at 04:23 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
.
Last edited by Pup6913; 02-26-2012 at 09:18 AM. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The differences in print are so minute, as well as the wet sheet transfer you are talking about, that I can't even see them. Maybe I am not looking at them correctly?
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() Here is a link to my thread from 09" about this card when I first noticed it. The scan is of the first card shown on the left. Just to give you an idea of how crappy my scanner is now http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=t205+latham Last edited by Pup6913; 02-26-2012 at 09:25 AM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I added another to my collection of HLC backed Lathams. 4 of the 5 have a period before the A. So exactly how many need to surface to make this a legitimate variation.
All of them have wet sheet transfer under the ink on front. This is just a bizarre card. I wonder if maybe they printed the backs on the front to act as a way of shading?? |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I don't either. Think someone is trying to stretch a double into a triple...
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yeah you are probably right. Nothing to see here. Everybody move on please
The 2 in the graded cases have a faint M or upside down W. The 3 stacked all exhibit the period before A. One I have looks as though someone scrubbed the W/M and period off, only a guess though. Last edited by Pup6913; 04-05-2012 at 04:21 PM. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Possible newly discovered T205 variation | marcdelpercio | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 65 | 12-12-2016 04:30 PM |
Hoblitzell AB & HLC T205, Johnson/Street T201 | selling4nana | Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T | 0 | 10-16-2011 01:49 PM |
Another New T205 Variation | marcdelpercio | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 19 | 08-30-2010 01:35 PM |
T205 A Latham or W.A. Latham | Pup6913 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 14 | 10-03-2009 07:57 PM |
Question About T205 Backs...A. Latham And PSA | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 01-04-2006 06:50 PM |