Blue Old Mill T206 Walsh at Chantilly Show - My Opinion Has Changed

[t206blogcom]

Yes, it'll be in the December auction. I think they said the starting bid will be around $15k.

[g_vezina_c55]

Originally Posted by t206blogcom

Yes, it'll be in the December auction. I think they said the starting bid will be around $15k.

Impatient to see the result.

[prewarsports]

A $200-$300 card being worth 100X the value because the black ink may have faded into a bluish color on the back is (in my opinion) the absolute dumbest thing I have seen in 25 years of prewar card collecting.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

A $200-$300 card being worth 100X the value because the black ink may have faded into a bluish color on the back is (in my opinion) the absolute dumbest thing I have seen in 25 years of prewar card collecting.

+10!

[E93]

The nearly universal opinion of many T206 experts and veteran hobbyists who saw the card in person at the National was that it was real, unaltered, and blue (not faded black). To my knowledge Jason was the first person who has actually seen the card in person to suggest otherwise and he mentioned that lighting may have been the cause. One can see from the photos that it is a different color than the black Old Mills. He did not question the authenticity or unaltered status of the card.
JimB

[prewarsports]

OK

So why are there no differences between front color variances? We know that ALL T206 cards can have color variations where the blue is darker on some cards than others or the red is orange on some cards etc. Why is this considered normal color variations on the card fronts but a slight color variance (so slight that people who see it in person cant even agree) but on the back it is 100X more valuable?

[CW]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

OK

So why are there no differences between front color variances? We know that ALL T206 cards can have color variations where the blue is darker on some cards than others or the red is orange on some cards etc. Why is this considered normal color variations on the card fronts but a slight color variance (so slight that people who see it in person cant even agree) but on the back it is 100X more valuable?

This is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it may actually be true... back collectors are, simply put, crazy. They are an entirely different breed. Have you seen some of their collages? They're obsessed with the backs of cards, of all things!

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by CW

This is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it may actually be true... back collectors are, simply put, crazy. They are an entirely different breed. Have you seen some of their collages? They're obsessed with the backs of cards, of all things!

Good point.

If anyone wants to pay exorbitantly for a print flaw please buy one of mine; I can use the cash

[ctownboy]

"A $200-$300 card being worth 100X the value because the black ink may have faded into a bluish color on the back is (in my opinion) the absolute dumbest thing I have seen in 25 years of prewar card collecting."

I prefer to collect rare cards (Star Player Candy, Curtis Ireland, etc) and things that are off the beaten track BUT after having read so much about this card, if I owned it and someone had offered me $30,000 in cash for it, I wouldn't have been able to get my hand out fast enough to say "done deal".

This card might be real and it might have come from the printer 100 years ago just as it is, however, for 30 large, I would let someone else be on the hook for that gamble and let them worry about it not being real. That way, if for some reason it isn't what it is reported to be, THEY can get the lawyers involved and fight with the TPG over reimbursement.....

David

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

OK

So why are there no differences between front color variances? We know that ALL T206 cards can have color variations where the blue is darker on some cards than others or the red is orange on some cards etc. Why is this considered normal color variations on the card fronts but a slight color variance (so slight that people who see it in person cant even agree) but on the back it is 100X more valuable?

Once again Rhys has nailed it. There are endless front color variations that garner several hundred dollars. But when the ink on the back reveals a slightly bluish tint, why is it worth well into five figures? Many of us are baffled by it.

I've never seen the card in person, but I've never questioned the expertise of those who did. I do believe it is original and unaltered and that the ink is at minimum a bluish black color. But nobody has a clue how it got that way- it's possible it was due to some chemical reaction to the black ink long after printing. And I realize some feel that is impossible but there still are variables that we don't even know about.

I think the card is nothing more than an interesting anomaly. That said, I expect a few guys with a lot of extra cash to run the bidding up into the tens of thousands of dollars. More power to them.

[Leon]

"Lighting" definitely makes a difference on how the color looks. At least it did to me.

[Pat R]

..

[glynparson]

I love both Jeff and Barry's posts. I agree with Barry's and Jeff's really made me laugh. Not that Jeff's probably isnt correct as well. I love cards always have but I wouldn't pay 15k for the card if I had Bill Gates's money but to each his own.

[iwantitiwinit]

With

Originally Posted by barrysloate

+10!

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

A $200-$300 card being worth 100X the value because the black ink may have faded into a bluish color on the back is (in my opinion) the absolute dumbest thing I have seen in 25 years of prewar card collecting.

Post of the day.

[tbob]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

A $200-$300 card being worth 100X the value because the black ink may have faded into a bluish color on the back is (in my opinion) the absolute dumbest thing I have seen in 25 years of prewar card collecting.

Thank you!
+1

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by t206blogcom

Yes, it'll be in the December auction. I think they said the starting bid will be around $15k.

I wish the seller the best and I hope he gets what he’s looking for. I will say that I’m a bit surprised how much the card has fallen off. I think the hype surrounding and the timing was the perfect storm for the seller to maximize.

Actually I was one of the fools that you guys speak of. I know it has been hinted a few times that somebody made a solid offer of 30-35k on the card at the national. In fact I was the person who offered Dave that for the card. In a way I’m glad he didn’t take it because I do think a bit of national fever had me caught up and valuing the card about twice what I would pay today. Even 15k I think is a bit generous given that there are no other known examples. Which in the end hurts this card IMO.

As for the card itself it looked blue to me. There were some odd things going on via the front but nothing major. Part of the deal was Dave to except my offer was that I got to crack the card in the presence of SGC and look it over raw myself. Had that happened I could say 100% yay or nay for what that’s worth. However in the holder it looked ok for me to gamble.

Also I’m not sure who is really left out there to buy on this type of anomaly. I know Dave ran this up the ladders of the usual suspects of which all passed. I know I made a solid offer and now it’s in Huggins & Scott. Hopefully Huggins can get new bidders to the table and get the card across the finish line of what Dave is looking for.

For transparency I will not be bidding either I will wait till a second example pops up.

Cheers,

John

[mrvster]

I think you made a great decision in all due respect to seller

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by mrvster

I think you made a great decision in all due respect to seller

Kinda confused...what great decision are you talking about?

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

Kinda confused...what great decision are you talking about?

I believe he is referring to John's decision on not buying the card.

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

I believe he is referring to John's decision on not buying the card.

If I'm reading it correctly, John offered 30k+ for the card and the guy didn't take it? That would take the decision out of John's hand and into the seller...that's where the confusion is.

John stated that he was glad the guy didn't take his offer because he got kinda caught up into the moment.

Unless everyone is saying he IS making a great decision on the sale of the card now...in that case, it is a great decision!

[mrvster]

Jake and Chris nailed it exactly.....if Wonks wanted this card, he would have got it,.....its a matter how "comfy" he feels...... seller imo was getting a tad greedy in all due respect, of course seller wants to maximize the cards value....but getting , imo , "insane" prices on a "non" scrap.....the ball was all in John's court(and usually is) .......john came to his senses and decided not to buy for possibly 3 or 4 x the "actual" market perception........the probability of more surfacing is slim imo....this examplemight be a lone anomaly.....if that is the case than holds the value lower....much lower imho....exactly as the other collectors stated...

if this card was "hand cut" like authentic scrap, id say you d have something really insane....

i hate to be the negative nelly, but the blue variant doesnt excite me....it just "lacks" the x factor

my humble opinion....i'm a little fish and can not afford cards like this(maybe one day).....so im not trying to skew opinion either way....i have not held the card, so its really not fair to give it a fair shake...


one thing i am truly certain....t206 mystique will never die...

the set continues to intrigue us and amaze us....100 +_ years later....gotta love the sxxt


i beleive t206 rarities are the future of collecting this set for the truly advanced collector...(i'm just nuts maybe)(lol)


peace

johnny