unissued t206 eddie collins (pic)

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sorry for the b&w picture,this is from a 1978 bb memoribilia bk.(the cards pictured in the book were the property of 6 very well known collectors,so i'm not sure who owned it,buck barker,ed budnick,dick dobbins,barry halper,don steinbach and pat quinn(sports collectors store in lagrange)pretty sure it wasn't halpers or barkers since i don't remember it in their auctions.gotta believe it is authentic with this group!anyway, not much info on this card, any info or your thoughts on this one.i've never remember any discussion about it on this site?

[Archive]

Posted By: daryle

Doesn't Olbermann own this one now?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill K@sel

I think it's Keith's. Before that I thought Charlie Sheen owned it....could be wrong though.

Great card either way!

Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: LK

Interesting. Your Collins look diff than what t206museum has. Your is NNOF and no proofcrosses.

http://www.t206museum.com/page/ga_proofscollins.html

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

I think the picture above had the name and crosshairs edited out. You can see part of one crosshair on the top border.

[Archive]

Posted By: robert a

Love that pose.

I would assume there were other alternate poses that are lost forever.
Perhaps Collins survived because he was so popular.

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

About 6 months ago I posted my theory why the T206 Eddie Plank is scarce. This theory included Eddie Collins,
and most of the Philadelphia A's that were not in the 1st (150) Series of the T206 set. It is a quite involved
scenario in which the American Caramel Company (of Philadelphia) in 1909 forced ATC to withdraw their cards
depicting A's players since Am. Car. Co. had 1st portrayed them in their E90-1 set.

And, your Collins was one of the cards intended to be issued in the 1st series of the T206 set. Of course Plank
was issued....but, had to be withdrawn by ATC due to this dispute.

Although, I have speculated a lot here, if you do a search and find my Plank thread, I logically explain my theory.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

Ted,

Any theory why Jack Coombs doesn't appear in any series in the set?

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

I find it interesting that this pose also didn't make it into any of the subsequent issues based on the T206 design (T213 coupons, T215 red cross, etc.) or are the T213 and T215 issues just based on one series (150?) of T206?

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

Barry Sloate asked me the same question when I posted my Plank theory. Jack Coombs, who as you know was
a pitcher for Connie Mack's A's for many years....1910 was his best....31-9. And, for the same reasons that I
gave for the missing A's players in the 1st T206 series, also applies to Coombs.

But, Coombs was not in the E90-1 set, either. However, he did appear in subsequent E-type sets.

I plan to post a follow-up thread on this theory (Am.Car. Co. vs ATC) regarding the A's players some time soon.

Thanks for an excellent question,
TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

I don't know the answer to why they didn't eventually use the bat pose for Collins, other than it's not the most
flattering pix of him. Of course when the 350 Series of T206's were issued in 1910, Eddie Collins (and many of
the A's) are depicted. And, I think you'll agree that the 350 series portrait of Collins is much better pix.

Here is the link to my original theory on Plank and regarding the lack of A's players in the 150 Series of the T206 set....

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1166484149/My+T206+Plank+theory>....


TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: robert a

Richard,

I believe t213s and t215s all correspond with 350 series subjects.

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

Ted,

Thanks for the response. As a followup, are there any glaring omissions in the 150 series (or for that matter in the entire set) of any Philadelphia National League players? If your theory is correct, and in my view it's as good an explanation as I have heard for the omission of Athletic players, one would think the logic would extend to the Philadelphia National League team as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Another great question; and, the simple answer is ....NO.

The dispute, as I theorize (based on my research) was between the owner of American Caramel Co. (ACC)....
David Franklin Lafean (who paid Hershey a Million dollars for the caramel division of Hershey's candy empire)
and the American Tobacco Co. (ATC).

You see, Lafean and Connie Mack were very close friends. Prior to owning ACC, Lafean was the Director of
Gettysburg College, during the time when Eddie Plank was the star pitcher for this school's BB team. This is
were this story begins and developes into an intriguing series of events that leads, not only the discontinuance
of the T206 Plank card....but, the absence of most of the A's in the 1st series of T206's. This story is more
involved than my brief synopsis here that I am relating to you.

So, to summarize.....the dispute between ACC and ATC only involved the Philadelphia A's players for the
following 5 reasons.....

1....ACC was based in Philadelphia

2....Lafean and Mack were very close friends

3....ACC issued the 1st Series (in 1908) of their 120-card BB set (E90-1) before ATC issued their T206 cards.
The E90-1 issue included most of its A's cards in this 1st series.

4....The A's during those years (1901-1911) with Mack's management were the AL team to beat. Philadelphians
were really excited with the A's; and, marketing of any A's related premiums was a tremendous boost.

5....The Phillies during those years were overshadowed by powerful teams like the Cubs, Giants, and Pittsburgh;
and therefore, were certainly not the hometown favorites.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

Ted,

Thanks for the response. Your explanation makes a lot of sense, as does your theory.