T205 Minor League Replacement Research

[T205 GB]

Anyone else have opinions or thoughts on this. Would like more feedback or questions

[steve B]

I haven't looked at the population numbers for T205s.

But for what it might be worth, I have been looking at the numbers for T206 in as much detail as I can.

What I've found is that each individual HOF card is approximately double the population of a particular common. Not precisely since there's a lot of variance, but if a common in say P150 has 40 examples most HOFers with the same back will be around 80 examples. Some of the known rarities are more skewed towards being graded, for SGC the Magie is very nearly as common as Magee.

I'd think that the 2:1 ratio for HOF vs common would hold for T205 as well, and I'd expect the SPs and other tough cards to be graded much more often, depending on the percieved difficulty and value.

The replacement theory you have sounds entirely plausible. I haven't looked at the lists etc to be able to comment beyond that.

Steve B

[Rob D.]

Nevermind. Better to let the experts hash this out.

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Nevermind. Better to let the experts hash this out.

Rob you can PM me if you want.

[obcmac]

I still don't buy the list with Wallace no cap on there. Here are the population totals (PSA I believe) from the last time I looked:

1. Barger Full B (158)
2. Bender (227)
3. Bresnahan Mouth Closed (220)
4. Camnitz (124)
5. Cobb (456)
6. Kroh (116)
7. Oldring (116)
8. Smith (124)
9. Street (136)
10. Titus (145)
11. Wallace No Cap** (combined 72/60)...(note 1 line is much harder, so 1:1 ratio probably indicates either regrading or biased sampling)
12. Wilson

 (116)

Before you dismiss population numbers, you will see that the total range of cards that are known to be printed together (ML'ers)...show remarkable similarity in population numbers (79-95 in my sample)

Now, if you look at potential pose variations, you see the following:
Barger (partial) 78
Bresnahan (open) 86
Collins (open) 110
Harmon (left) 74
Ford (black/white) 83/85
Shean/Graham variations also fall within the range.

So we have the pose variations line up nicely...so the question is...does the Wallace belong with the other group based on back analysis alone, or should it belong with the pose variation group? When you consider HOF bias in grading, as well as some variation bias, inflated relative population of the 1 line back, I think the combined population of the Wallace no cap is most similar to the pose variations group.

I believe that when you consider the populations, known relative difficulties, and stylistic matching, it's much more likely that the Wallace no cap should be grouped with pose variations rather that the group proposed by Andrew.

Would any dedicated T205 guy suggest a Bresnahan Mouth closed is in the same class as the Wallace based on experience?

The problem with back analysis is that any grouping of sheets can be printed with any back. The ultra rare seemingly common backs suggest that leftover sheets were used when changing the back advertising...resulting in just a few cards with these particular backs. Overall I feel like the evidence on the front of the cards is more convincing for this reason...though I enjoy hearing the theory on why the backs suggest another theory.

Mac

[T205 GB]

The Wallace no cap we know was an error that was corrected at some point in the run. It could very well be the case that Wallace was printed in lesser quantities. Your arguement that Wallace's pop numbers hold no water when you have Cobb at nearly 2X the amount of all the others. If you add the one line and two line together the numbers match. It's the same card just one was a corrected error.

Bresnahan to Wallace is all opinion!

[Zach Wheat]

I think this directly relates to the fact that Factory #649 was in the process of being shut down and located closer to NYC. There has been a lot of research done on this issue as Factory #649 seemingly disappeared for a couple of year. Ultimately it would be moved to Brooklyn at the area that later became known as the House of Mecca.

I think this also explains why we see some of the same anomalies in other sets like T201, T206 etc. I do not have access to my notes as I am out of the country, but can look up when I get back.

z Wheat

[obcmac]

Cobb very possibly was double or triple printed...and the survival and grading rates might be higher. My point isn't that all the other cards on your list are from the same category, but that there is evidence to suggest Wallace is different from the others. I would guess Cobb is too, but that is purely a numbers argument without corroborating front evidence.

Originally Posted by T205 GB

The Wallace no cap we know was an error that was corrected at some point in the run. It could very well be the case that Wallace was printed in lesser quantities. Your arguement that Wallace's pop numbers hold no water when you have Cobb at nearly 2X the amount of all the others. If you add the one line and two line together the numbers match. It's the same card just one was a corrected error.

Bresnahan to Wallace is all opinion!

[Wite3]

I don't have my notes in front of me because I am at work but I used to think that the short prints were the substitutions but Andrews research is sound on this if the wallace cards are combined.

It is important to note that cards like joss sweeney collins open etc were printed multiple times on one sheet they are still rare...the print runs for those sheets were probably much smaller than the other more common ones.

[T205 GB]

Error correction about the Collins mouth open: It is a side by side like Joss and not a quad block print.

Just found the card and wanted to clarify it. Either way its neat to find this stuff to help determine layouts and printing quantities with enough info and research

[EvilKing00]

love all this info on the T205s!