Possible newly discovered T205 variation

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

Since this was brought back up, I have a question to pose to all that think that any of the variations that show up only on one specific back.

Please explain your argument as to why these should be stand out variations with no correction to the back and why every back variation should not be listed.

The argument I see from you folks is that if an error was made on back, (Matty 37-1, only verified Cycle) than that justifies it being listed. But the matty with Piedmont has correct text with a Piedmont ad variation, why is this not listed? The Matty Sweet Cap has correct text but different than Cycle and Piedmont, thus a variation. This goes on with all different ad backs.

I think we all want continuity in the listing and by adding variation with errors specific to one back is doing an injustice to not listing each ad back variation for a card.

The Demmit and O'hara seem to be your only argument, to me it also could be list as Polar Bear backs but it sure is easier to make them St. louis vartiations because people tens to read the front much more and more easily identified.

Will the believers please answer the question, without using the Demmitt O'Hare as an example. Just because something is written it doesn't always make it right and sometimes through time evidience is found to change things. Bob lemke is constantly updating the SCD with new evidence (The Matty Cycle has always been known, just not so publically noticed with the 37-1 back).


Please explain your argument as to why these should be stand out variations with no correction to the back and why every back variation should not be listed.

I really want to hear a good explaination on my question,

Lee