The T206 "Exclusive 12" of the 460-Only series

[atx840]

Hey Scott, agree its not getting anyone further ahead.

When I recently started to look at the 460 group I erased the base 34 from the process and started fresh. Within a few groupings it showed up 100% for every 460 back. I'd love to show someone my data in person/phone as the forum is the wrong format to get it properly across.

I'm not stating 34 is the definitive # in my previous post only that the theory is not limited to 34 per sheet but multiples stacks of 34.

I've tried to contact Ted to review notes offline, no luck

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by atx840

Hey Scott, agree its not getting anyone further ahead.

When I recently started to look at the 460 group I erased the base 34 from the process and started fresh. Within a few groupings it showed up 100% for every 460 back. I'd love to show someone my data in person/phone as the forum is the wrong format to get it properly across.

I'm not stating 34 is the definitive # in my previous post only that the theory is not limited to 34 per sheet but multiples stacks of 34.

I've tried to contact Ted to review notes offline, no luck

Well, good luck Chris. With all due respect to TedZ, I don't think he's willing to entertain anything other than what he presents. And that's ok too. We all have different opinions, but being open minded to new research and new developments would make it easier to come to a rational conclusion
Until then, it's like mountain goats butting heads on the side of a steep cliff

I think there is great progress happening with other avenues to piece together what a sheet may have looked like, with the double named cards (same name top/bottom and different name top/bottom) as well as Steve's brilliant idea to piece together the backs with the plate scratches.

Maybe one day we will have a "God particle moment" and it will all make sense

Sincerely, Clayton

P.S. Thank everyone for their hard work and time spent trying to unravel these mysteries.

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Well, good luck Chris. With all due respect to TedZ, I don't think he's willing to entertain anything other than what he presents. And that's ok too. We all have different opinions, but being open minded to new research and new developments would make it easier to come to a rational conclusion
Until then, it's like mountain goats butting heads on the side of a steep cliff

Not necessarily true. It's hard sometimes to dump your heart and soul into something and then be told you are wrong. Not that you want to discuss it rationally and pass info to conclude an answer but to just be told you are wrong. That makes a person block out opinions of others. It makes sense to them and some others as does the other theories to everyone else. As of now everybody is just speculating till a sheet or solid proof is found thus making everybody wrong and only correct based on opinion.

Look at my theory about the 12 T205 ML subjects. I spent several yrs researching this and thought I had figured it out because the numbers matched so close it was hard to ignore. Post it here and immediately was told I was wrong and that because some guys from 70+ yrs ago had a theory without proof either that it was pretty much conclusive evidence what they said was correct. No one wants to be wrong but in the end someone always is.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

Not necessarily true. It's hard sometimes to dump your heart and soul into something and then be told you are wrong. Not that you want to discuss it rationally and pass info to conclude an answer but to just be told you are wrong. That makes a person block out opinions of others. It makes sense to them and some others as does the other theories to everyone else. As of now everybody is just speculating till a sheet or solid proof is found thus making everybody wrong and only correct based on opinion.

Look at my theory about the 12 T205 ML subjects. I spent several yrs researching this and thought I had figured it out because the numbers matched so close it was hard to ignore. Post it here and immediately was told I was wrong and that because some guys from 70+ yrs ago had a theory without proof either that it was pretty much conclusive evidence what they said was correct. No one wants to be wrong but in the end someone always is.

Nice post Andrew, and I understand what you are saying.

I guess I don't look at it as though anyone is telling someone everything they think is wrong, but rather "hey, look how all of this fits together".

As far as your research-I'm a fish out of water when it comes to T205's I do like the Minor League T205's though (and I did see your thread).

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

Not necessarily true. It's hard sometimes to dump your heart and soul into something and then be told you are wrong. Not that you want to discuss it rationally and pass info to conclude an answer but to just be told you are wrong. That makes a person block out opinions of others. It makes sense to them and some others as does the other theories to everyone else. As of now everybody is just speculating till a sheet or solid proof is found thus making everybody wrong and only correct based on opinion.

Look at my theory about the 12 T205 ML subjects. I spent several yrs researching this and thought I had figured it out because the numbers matched so close it was hard to ignore. Post it here and immediately was told I was wrong and that because some guys from 70+ yrs ago had a theory without proof either that it was pretty much conclusive evidence what they said was correct. No one wants to be wrong but in the end someone always is.

Andrew

They can tell me I'm "wrong" all day long, after all that's their prerogative. No problem.

The real problem, though, is that they want to discuss their highly convoluted scheme....which I (and others) find mathematically incongruent
with the the structural numbers in the T206 series. And, their failure to consider the printing press size that was compatible with the standard
size (18", or 19" x 24") sheets of that era used for this type of lithographic printing.

And, as an engineer, I am not confident in any system that does not follow a logical and mathematical pattern.

Furthermore....Andrew, have you noticed if they are willing to meet me half way....by discussing my hypothesis ? Absolutely NO !


TED Z

[tedzan]

These Exclusive 12 cards in the 460-Only series are found with the El Principe de Gales (EPDG) back. Not all the other 36 subjects that were printed with only 460 series backs
appear to have been printed with the EPDG back. Approximately 14 subjects in this series have yet to be confirmed with the EPDG back (and, may be No-Prints).

Furthermore, relative to the Exclusive 12 with AMERICAN BEAUTY 460, red HINDU & SOVEREIGN 460 backs, the EPDG versions of these 12 are not often seen. They indeed are
tough to find.








TED Z
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

LOOKING for these T206 guys to complete my AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 sub-set (75 cards)

AMES....CAMNITZ....CRAWFORD (bat)....DOYLE (port)....JORDAN (bat)....McGRAW (port-cap)
McQUILLAN (bat)....TINKER (bat off)....WILTSE (port-cap)

[t206hound]

I happen to have two of the twelve in EPDG; percentage wise (I have 85/384 EPDG), I should have three. Interesting...

[tedzan]

Erick

Wishing you luck in finding the 10 other EPDG's for a run of the Exclusive 12. I have found them to be quite tough.

And, your collection of 85 cards with the EPDG appears to suggest that they are....since you have only 2 of them.

Thanks for posting your Ford and Gandil.


TED Z

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Maybe one day we will have a "God particle moment" and it will all make sense

If we could get this guy to turn to T206 research, I'm certain he could find the answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqeC3BPYTmE