![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Chesbro41, you are absolutely correct and I agree with you. Thats the best part about collecting. Its all subjective. This set has a lot of depth to it and there is still more to be discovered about it.
I think anyone who attempts to put this set together should make their own checklist. Not one that someone else deems "the correct checklist". Honestly, its an endless debate. Jantz |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
"Is an ink missing card that much different than a swapped plate? YES!"
Why? Because one was "man made" and the other was ...er.... uh.... made in nature? While I draw my line the same as you -- Magie yes; Sweeney no -- that particular line is drawn in the sand.
__________________
Galleries and Articles about T206 Player Autographs www.SignedT206.com www.instagram.com/signedT206/ @SignedT206 Last edited by T206Collector; 06-24-2009 at 02:35 PM. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Very interesting. Even with Wags,Doyle, Magie and all the fronts-NOT COMPLETE-The MONSTER is all about the backs-RARE BACKS. I love this set and will collect it all my life -trying to get every front with every back possible.
![]() I started with 10 examples of each back and then 20 and now 50. I have gathered 75 of the possible 117 Baltimore combos. I am working on the Giants with the sweaters and the HOFers and the commons and it just goes on and on. I have also gathered the Baltimore issues from the other sets in the same era-T213,T214,T216,e106,C46,CJs,OJs,d303. I also have gathered examples of Es from e90 to e106-don't have a e107 yet. Also started T210s-have about 100 of them. I am a T206 guy at heart but have branched out and I am totaly addicted to collecting little pieces of cardboard. Man I am glad this isn't crack.. ![]() ![]()
__________________
T206Resource.com Last edited by cfc1909; 06-24-2009 at 02:53 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It's an endless debate. Here's the real question...
If Wagner and Plank are never pulled. How does history treat this set? How does history treat all Wagner cards? |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I agree with the previous post about the Monster being the door to vintage- I started with T206, picked up about 75, fell in love with other stuff as I was more exposed to it, and now I have all the Yankees in T206 and am done. It became harder and harder to justify spending money on cards I wasn't crazy about (so much of the set is gorgeous, but one day instead of buying the Dutch Jordan I set out to buy, I picked up an E101 Kleinow and found myself all over the place for about 2 years. Now, finally, I have toned it down and am exclusively collecting any pre-war Yankee. Leaves a lot of wiggle room to buy what I want when I want it. I liked the idea of exclusively collecting The Monster, but after a while I started not liking the idea of self-imposed limits.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
"Cobb/Cobb back was considered a part of the set until recently from what I recall.
Source please." Regardless of whether you consider the Cobb/Cobb card a T206 card, it is hardly controversial to only collect a set based on the images on the front. I have never found any particular thrill in collecting T206 backs. While I recognize the values of the different backs, when I put my first (only) set together, I used to trade rarer backed cards to get more front backed cards.
__________________
Galleries and Articles about T206 Player Autographs www.SignedT206.com www.instagram.com/signedT206/ @SignedT206 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
HELLO ALL!!
i only collect t206 freaks!!as u prob know = ) |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|