 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8
07-25-2018, 12:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
The fact that T206 cards are all from various brands of ATC is probably the best argument to keep all backs designated as T206.
As far as I know the E92 Dockman and Nadja brands are different companies from the E92 Croft's Candy and Croft's Cocoa, so this would be a case where there should be at least three different ACC designations. Brian Last edited by brianp-beme; 07-25-2018 at 12:32 PM. 
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| FS: T206 Nap Rucker PSA 5 Double factory designation! | CMIZ5290 | T206 cards B/S/T | 1 | 06-18-2013 05:20 PM |
| Fs/ft: T206 nap rucker psa 5 double factory designation!! | CMIZ5290 | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 08-04-2012 04:34 PM |
| ** On Hold ** T206 Tinker Portrait - NO Factory designation | PEEK enterprises | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 2 | 12-25-2009 08:47 PM |
| T206 Magie on Ebay -- Without that annoying factory designation | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 18 | 11-15-2007 11:26 AM |
| Partial red designation ???? On t206 | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 11 | 09-02-2006 09:19 PM |
Threaded Mode