T206 group of 350-only Series NO-PRINTS....CB, EPDG, OM, PB

[HobokenJon]

Ted, if you're looking at pop-report data as a guide, I would encourage you to check out the numbers for George Brown (Washington), in particular. PSA shows a total pop of 4 for the Old Mill back. SGC shows a total pop of 2. Those numbers are more consistent with the Old Mill pops for 150-350 cards than for the subsequent series, where Old Mill pops tend to be significiantly higher (except for the Exclusive 12 in 350-460 that you've chronicled extensively).

The same line of thinking that you outlined above would lead me to conclude that George Brown (Washington) was part of the 150-350 series. Its pop-report data is ultra-low, just like so many of the other 150-350 Old Mill backs.

It would be much easier to answer the question at hand if any of these three subjects (Browne-Washington, Dahlen-Brooklyn, or Elberfeld-Washington) came with backs that clearly excluded them from membership in the 150-350 series. That's the case, for instance, with the Lundgren (Kansas City) variation, which comes with a Carolina Brights back. Absent a clear-cut data point such as that, I don't see evidence they're part of the 350-only series. But I'm willing to keep an open mind.

Perchance, has anyone out there ever seen a miscut George Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) or Elberfeld (Washington) with a different player's name printed on top? If such a card existed, that likely would settle the question.

[HobokenJon]

Separately, following up on Luke's comment above about Joy Doyle (N.Y.), Kleinow (catching-New York), Rhoades (arm extended) and Frank Smith (Chicago-white cap) being part of the 350-460 series ....

Ted, are you sure these four subjects should be classified as part of the 350-only series? I'd be curious to know why you include them there. All four of these subjects appear with apple green Sovereign 350 backs, rather than forest green.

Putting aside the six super prints, would you agree that subjects with apple green Sovereign 350 backs are part of the 350-460 series?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Separately, following up on Luke's comment above about Joy Doyle (N.Y.), Kleinow (catching-New York), Rhoades (arm extended) and Frank Smith (Chicago-white cap) being part of the 350-460 series ....

Ted, are you sure these four subjects should be classified as part of the 350-only series? I'd be curious to know why you include them there. All four of these subjects appear with apple green Sovereign 350 backs, rather than forest green.

Putting aside the six super prints, would you agree that subjects with apple green Sovereign 350 backs are part of the 350-460 series?

Jon

I am referring you to my Net54 thread posted in 2009....Sovereign phantom "350/460" series

American Lithographic advertently (or inadvently) introduced the 350/460 series when they printed these 66 subjects with "apple green" SOVEREIGN 350 backs.

So you ask me if....."I would agree" ?

I'm the guy who presented this theory in 2009....having completed a basic 402-card SOVEREIGN set. With all due respect, I do not understand where you are coming from ? ?



v.................................... Six super-prints ....................................v









TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[HobokenJon]

Nothing but love, Ted! As you know, I deeply value our friendship and hugely appreciate your contributions to the hobby and to this board.

Where am I coming from? It's simple. You said in your post above (#8) that Joe Doyle, Kleinow (catching-N.Y.), Rhoades (arm extended) and Frank Smith (Chicago-white cap) are part of the 350-only series. I saw that comment by you and thought to myself ..... no way, that can't be, because aren't those four cards part of the 350-460 series, given that they all appear with apple green Sovereign 350 backs?

So I put the question to you to make sure I had my facts right. In your latest post above (#27), you confirmed what I initially had thought: all four cards are part of the 350-460 series. And I'm glad we agree on this point, because that resolves the matter in my mind.

I'm still interested in understanding the rationale for why G. Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) and Elberfeld (Washington) should be considered part of the 350-only series. I'm not trying to challenge your conclusions or knowledge base so much as I'm trying to test whether I have my own facts right. You're the godfather on this subject matter. That's why I asked you in response to your posts on this thread.

Huge respect, Ted!

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Nothing but love, Ted! As you know, I deeply value our friendship and hugely appreciate your contributions to the hobby and to this board.

Where am I coming from? It's simple. You said in your post above (#8) that Joe Doyle, Kleinow (catching-N.Y.), Rhoades (arm extended) and Frank Smith (Chicago-white cap) are part of the 350-only series. I saw that comment by you and thought to myself ..... no way, that can't be, because aren't those four cards part of the 350-460 series, given that they all appear with apple green Sovereign 350 backs?

So I put the question to you to make sure I had my facts right. In your latest post above (#27), you confirmed what I initially had thought: all four cards are part of the 350-460 series. And I'm glad we agree on this point, because that resolves the matter in my mind.

I'm still interested in understanding the rationale for why G. Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) and Elberfeld (Washington) should be considered part of the 350-only series. I'm not trying to challenge your conclusions or knowledge base so much as I'm trying to test whether I have my own facts right. You're the godfather on this subject matter. That's why I asked you in response to your posts on this thread.

Huge respect, Ted!

OK, let's back to Post #8 here, in which I have identified the 23 subjects in the 350-only series that are A - B - C - D no-prints.
Three of those guys were printed only with an OLD MILL (besides the usual PIEDMONT, SWEET CAP, and SOVEREIGN backs).......

Browne (Washington).....traded to Washington May 21, 1909
Dahlen (Brooklyn).....traded to Brooklyn Oct 27, 1909
Elberfeld (portrait-Washington).....traded to Washington Dec 14, 1909

These 3 subjects were involved in trades during the early printing of the 350-only series. My guess is this "trade factor" timeframe
coincided with American Lithographic printing them, which resulted in them being Short-Printed.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[HobokenJon]

Thank you, Ted. I'm going to take one more try here -- as always, with huge love and respect!

This still doesn't make sense to me. It's widely believed that the 350-only series began its print run in 1910, sometime after the completion of the 150-350 series. (For instance, SGC on the flips of its holders dates 350-only subjects with Cycle 350 or AB 350 backs as "1910.") We don't know which month in 1910 that the 150-350 series ended and which month the 350-only series began -- unless you know something I don't -- but my impression is it's well established that the print run for the 350-only series began and ended sometime in 1910.

Given that these three subjects switched teams in 1909 -- in Dahlen's case, Brooklyn announced in October 1909 that he would be its manager for the 1910 season -- I don't understand why the printing of their cards with their new teams would have been delayed until after the completion of the 150-350 series. It would've made all the sense in the world for the printer to have replaced Dahlen's Boston card with his Brooklyn card, and the G. Brown Chicago card with the G. Brown Washington card, and the Elberfeld N.Y. card with the Elberfeld Washington card -- on the very same sheet, in the very same spot as the originals.

Likewise, it doesn't make sense to me that the new-team variations for these three subjects would have been printed in the same series on the same sheets as 350-only subjects such as Marquard portrait or Bresnahan batting. Especially the G. Brown card. To me that May 1909 trade date for him helps explain why the number of confirmed Old Mill backs for the Washington variation is so low -- consistent with the typical low pops for 150-350 Old Mill backs. (The pops for Old Mill backs in subsequent series tend to be much higher, as you know, except for the 460-only Exclusive 12.) You also said "these three subjects were involved in trades during the early printing of the 350-only series." However, heretofore, I haven't seen anyone else assert that the 350-only series began its print run as early as May 1909.

And then there's the fact (as Pat pointed out in post #24) that there are known copies of Dahlen Brooklyn with the large factory 30.

Mainly what I'd like to be sure of here is that our disagreement is really between competing theories and opinions -- your theory/guess vs. my theory/guess -- as opposed to a disagreement over established facts. I haven't seen any hard facts that definitively establish these three cards were printed as part of the 350-only series.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Thank you, Ted. I'm going to take one more try here -- as always, with huge love and respect!

This still doesn't make sense to me. It's widely believed that the 350-only series began its print run in 1910, sometime after the completion of the 150-350 series. (For instance, SGC on the flips of its holders dates 350-only subjects with Cycle 350 or AB 350 backs as "1910.") We don't know which month in 1910 that the 150-350 series ended and which month the 350-only series began -- unless you know something I don't -- but my impression is it's well established that the print run for the 350-only series began and ended sometime in 1910.

Given that these three subjects switched teams in 1909 -- in Dahlen's case, Brooklyn announced in October 1909 that he would be its manager for the 1910 season -- I don't understand why the printing of their cards with their new teams would have been delayed until after the completion of the 150-350 series. It would've made all the sense in the world for the printer to have replaced Dahlen's Boston card with his Brooklyn card, and the G. Brown Chicago card with the G. Brown Washington card, and the Elberfeld N.Y. card with the Elberfeld Washington card -- on the very same sheet, in the very same spot as the originals.

Likewise, it doesn't make sense to me that the new-team variations for these three subjects would have been printed in the same series on the same sheets as 350-only subjects such as Marquard portrait or Bresnahan batting. Especially the G. Brown card. To me that May 1909 trade date for him helps explain why the number of confirmed Old Mill backs for the Washington variation is so low -- consistent with the typical low pops for 150-350 Old Mill backs. (The pops for Old Mill backs in subsequent series tend to be much higher, as you know, except for the 460-only Exclusive 12.) You also said "these three subjects were involved in trades during the early printing of the 350-only series." However, heretofore, I haven't seen anyone else assert that the 350-only series began its print run as early as May 1909.

And then there's the fact (as Pat pointed out in post #24) that there are known copies of Dahlen Brooklyn with the large factory 30.

Mainly what I'd like to be sure of here is that our disagreement is really between competing theories and opinions -- your theory/guess vs. my theory/guess -- as opposed to a disagreement over established facts. I haven't seen any hard facts that definitively establish these three cards were printed as part of the 350-only series.

Jon

As I'm sure you know, the large Factory 30 (or Factory 25) notation simply differentiates which SWEET CAP factory the cards on a given sheet (when cut up) will be shipped to.
Hints of the #25 or #30 notation has been found on cards across the 5 series. I don't see what that notation has to do with anything in this matter.

Call me a "traditionalist" (as that best describes my personality regarding many aspects of life), I consider these 3 subjects (especially Dahlen and Elberfeld) as 350-only guys.

Pardon my superfluousness.....but, where are their PIEDMONT 150....or SOVEREIGN 150....or SWEET CAPORAL 150 cards ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Thank you, Ted. I'm going to take one more try here -- as always, with huge love and respect!

This still doesn't make sense to me. It's widely believed that the 350-only series began its print run in 1910, sometime after the completion of the 150-350 series. (For instance, SGC on the flips of its holders dates 350-only subjects with Cycle 350 or AB 350 backs as "1910.") We don't know which month in 1910 that the 150-350 series ended and which month the 350-only series began -- unless you know something I don't -- but my impression is it's well established that the print run for the 350-only series began and ended sometime in 1910.

Given that these three subjects switched teams in 1909 -- in Dahlen's case, Brooklyn announced in October 1909 that he would be its manager for the 1910 season -- I don't understand why the printing of their cards with their new teams would have been delayed until after the completion of the 150-350 series. It would've made all the sense in the world for the printer to have replaced Dahlen's Boston card with his Brooklyn card, and the G. Brown Chicago card with the G. Brown Washington card, and the Elberfeld N.Y. card with the Elberfeld Washington card -- on the very same sheet, in the very same spot as the originals.

Likewise, it doesn't make sense to me that the new-team variations for these three subjects would have been printed in the same series on the same sheets as 350-only subjects such as Marquard portrait or Bresnahan batting. Especially the G. Brown card. To me that May 1909 trade date for him helps explain why the number of confirmed Old Mill backs for the Washington variation is so low -- consistent with the typical low pops for 150-350 Old Mill backs. (The pops for Old Mill backs in subsequent series tend to be much higher, as you know, except for the 460-only Exclusive 12.) You also said "these three subjects were involved in trades during the early printing of the 350-only series." However, heretofore, I haven't seen anyone else assert that the 350-only series began its print run as early as May 1909.

And then there's the fact (as Pat pointed out in post #24) that there are known copies of Dahlen Brooklyn with the large factory 30.

Mainly what I'd like to be sure of here is that our disagreement is really between competing theories and opinions -- your theory/guess vs. my theory/guess -- as opposed to a disagreement over established facts. I haven't seen any hard facts that definitively establish these three cards were printed as part of the 350-only series.

We know from the ledger pages that the packing and shipping of the 350 only subjects was in June/July 1910.

ATC American Beauty Ledger page - Copy.jpg

ATC Cycle Ledger page - Copy.jpg

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Ted, if you're looking at pop-report data as a guide, I would encourage you to check out the numbers for George Brown (Washington), in particular. PSA shows a total pop of 4 for the Old Mill back. SGC shows a total pop of 2. Those numbers are more consistent with the Old Mill pops for 150-350 cards than for the subsequent series, where Old Mill pops tend to be significiantly higher (except for the Exclusive 12 in 350-460 that you've chronicled extensively).

The same line of thinking that you outlined above would lead me to conclude that George Brown (Washington) was part of the 150-350 series. Its pop-report data is ultra-low, just like so many of the other 150-350 Old Mill backs.

It would be much easier to answer the question at hand if any of these three subjects (Browne-Washington, Dahlen-Brooklyn, or Elberfeld-Washington) came with backs that clearly excluded them from membership in the 150-350 series. That's the case, for instance, with the Lundgren (Kansas City) variation, which comes with a Carolina Brights back. Absent a clear-cut data point such as that, I don't see evidence they're part of the 350-only series. But I'm willing to keep an open mind.

Perchance, has anyone out there ever seen a miscut George Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) or Elberfeld (Washington) with a different player's name printed on top? If such a card existed, that likely would settle the question.

There are no two name cards with those three subjects on them that I know of but there are 28 subjects found with the large factory 30's on them and all of them are 150/350 subjects and Dahlen Brooklyn is one of them.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...=160236&page=3

Also the three blue Old Mills are Walsh, Powell and Elberfeld Washington portrait.

[HobokenJon]

Originally Posted by Pat R

There are no two name cards with those three subjects on them that I know of but there are 28 subjects found with the large factory 30's on them and all of them are 150/350 subjects and Dahlen Brooklyn is one of them.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...=160236&page=3

Also the three blue Old Mills are Walsh, Powell and Elberfeld Washington portrait.

Oooooh, that's good stuff!

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Luke

If one of you guys' Rossman Coupons went to auction, there would be some serious fireworks.

I've given that some thought.....I like "fireworks".

As a side-light, note the faint impression of an EPDG back on the front of my Rossman card. I darkened the scan so it's more visible.

Perhaps this EPDG impression may enhance the already high value of this card, or diminishes it....Whatever ?

In any event, Rossman is not going anywhere too soon. I only have 12 cards from this 1910 set, therefore they are keepers for now.







TED Z

T206 Reference
.