T206: What About Front Scarcity?

[quinnsryche]

After all the recent posts dedicated to T206 back scarcity I have a question. What about front scarcity? What I mean is, are certain players, regardless of the advertising on the back, just tougher to come across than others? Is a Bender portrait more difficult to find than a Wallace portrait (for example)? Do you see more Merkle portraits than Merkle throwing (for example)? Has a study ever been done (and available) that discusses how much tougher certain cards are to find (NOT Southern Leaguers) than others? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[tedzan]

You cannot really separate T206 fronts from their backs for such a survey. Cards like Dahlen (Brooklyn), Demmitt
and O'Hara (St Louis versions), Elberfeld (portrait-Washington), and Lundgren (Cubs) are scarce just because of
the limited number of backs that these cards were printed with.

While all other T206's (not including Wagner, Plank, Magie, Doyle error) vary from easy to tough as a function of
the number of different backs they were printed with.....the more backs, the easier to find that particular front.


TED Z

[scottglevy]

Tony,

I'd strongly recommend a read of Scot Reader's book on T206's. I probably have an electronic copy somewhere as I'm sure many other Net54 guys do. It provides an excellent summary of the relative scarcity of various cards -- and also includes some neat info about the set and its production as well.

Regards,
Scott

[quinnsryche]

Ted & Scott, thanks for the insights. I guess my next question would be, do we know the print runs for any given card? Say for example, does anyone know for sure how many Powers with a Piedmont 150 back there actually were printed as opposed to another variety back. My point being, just because there are only X known Drum backs that doesn't mean there weren't 10's of thousands printed right. I use Drum strictly as an example since it is so rare. I may be talking in circles but I am trying to get my mind straight on this as one collector might say "boy that Hummel was a tough one to find for my set" and another might say "Geez, I've seen 20 this year alone". That's kind of where I was going with the original question of the thread. If I sound like an idiot, please tell me to pipe down!
Thanks again!

[Bosox Blair]

Hi Tony,

Others here have more expertise on T206 than I do, but I second the recommendation that you download a copy of Scot's publication on T206. It has a list he created of the scarcity of T206 subjects. He used grading pop reports to extrapolate and create his list.

I am certainly not aware of any available info on original print numbers. I'm sure we would have heard about it if anyone had such a thing.

Cheers,
Blair

[Potomac Yank]

1. No one knows the printed numbers of any given card.

2. Outside of the ultra super tough cards in the set, (Doyle/Wagner etc) toughness of a card is equal to the luck of the draw in a poker game.

3. Using a graders pop report can be deceiving, and inaccurate.
Do they keep tabs of the crossovers?

Tony you're not an idiot, those are good questions ... you just have to use the search engine a little bit more.

Stay well,
Joe P.

[tedzan]

Scot Reader estimates that approx. 1.5 Million T206's have survived in these past 100 years. This is probably a fairly
accurate number. Divide 1.5 Million by 500 subjects = 3000 cards on average per each T206 subject.

Players like Dahlen (Brooklyn), Demmitt & O'Hara (St. Louis versions), Elberfeld (portrait-Washington), Lundgren (Cubs),
Magie, Plank, Wagner were printed in significantly less numbers (100 to 500 each). Also, certain Southern Leaguers are
quite short of this "3000" number. And, only 8 cards of the Doyle error are known.

One more once, all indications (from several surveys) are that the Red Cobb is a DOUBLE PRINT....its population ranges
from 5000 - 6000 cards.

So, here in a "nutshell" you have a fairly accurate picture of the T206 population.


TED Z