T206 Paper Stock

[Leon]

I have owned a few one-off "thin" paper cards from other series, but have never heard about one for T206.
.
One I used to own...

[Lobo Aullando]

Are the HR Kisses generally the same stock as Zee-Nuts and/or anything else that Collins McCarthy distributed?

Originally Posted by Leon

I have owned a few one-off "thin" paper cards from other series, but have never heard about one for T206.
.
One I used to own...

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

I ask because in my experiences I have found that there seems to be T206s that have firmer paper stock and some that seem to have a bit smoother finish than other that have been fine.

Lee

[jingram058]

I find that there are differences in every set ever made. Some of it is how the cards were produced, and some of it is how the cards were kept over the years/decades. It just is what it is. It used to bug me, not anymore. I just accept it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I find that there are differences in every set ever made. Some of it is how the cards were produced, and some of it is how the cards were kept over the years/decades. It just is what it is. It used to bug me, not anymore. I just accept it.

There is a colossal difference between the former, how the cards were produced and if they were made on multiple stocks creating actual variations, and the latter, how they were stored and wear/aging/toning that is damage and not a variation.

There are absolutely not legitimate differences in “every set ever made”.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by G1911

There is a colossal difference between the former, how the cards were produced and if they were made on multiple stocks creating actual variations, and the latter, how they were stored and wear/aging/toning that is damage and not a variation.

There are absolutely not legitimate differences in “every set ever made”.

Every set I have EVER come across going back to when I was 9 years old, 55 years, have had legitimate differences in gloss, no gloss, printing issues, back differences, thickness differences, you name it. It's disposable cardboard. Trying to go all anal retentive over these things is silly geek nonsense. There absolutely ARE legitimate differences.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Every set I have EVER come across going back to when I was 9 years old, 55 years, have had legitimate differences in gloss, no gloss, printing issues, back differences, thickness differences, you name it. It's disposable cardboard. Trying to go all anal retentive over these things is silly geek nonsense. There absolutely ARE legitimate differences.

Yes, some cards lose gloss over time. Yes some cards have printing issues. I do not see how we could reasonably say that damage and variations are the same thing. They are different. There are not legitimate stock differences in every set ever made. This is obviously and plainly false.

It may well be that variation collectors, which is most people in the hobby (anyone want to trade me a Drum back for the same card with a Piedmont back? No?), are anal retentive silly geeks. It’s an awfully silly, stupid and hypocritical insult to make from one collector to another though… we’re all silly geeks paying good money for pictures of dead dudes.