T205 Minor League Replacement Research

[marcdelpercio]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

If it is true that the SP's were replaced by the ML's then why isn't there any of the SP's found with PB backs or the ML's found with a larger amount of PB backs since the run was large? I know it's far fetched but I think the below list of cards were printed first, the ML's then replaced those cards, and the SP's replaced the ML's.
___________

Good research Andrew. I think that your theory is definitely plausible. I am curious though what you meant by the above quote regarding SP's not found with PB backs...or am I just misreading that? Which cards are you considering SP's as there are many that are generally regarded as such that are found with PB backs?

As others have said, it's good to see some T205 discussions!

[T205 GB]

Marc I have a thread from before naming only 12 true SP's in the set. All of these are only found with 3 backs being Pied 25, Hassan 30, and Cycles. Examples such as Bresnahan mouth open, Dahlen, Raymond, Joss, Donohue, Grant, and so on.

Yes there is some dispute as to what is considered a SP but I only count 12 true SP's and then there are toughies (5-7backs), commons (7-9backs), and super prints (11 backs). I would be more than happy to list them later (kinda busy with work and my list is packed away right now)

If you add the list of SP's and the ML's it matches the Toughies with 5 backs and most of them match all 5 backs found on them. The argument can be pop reports (which aren't that accurate) but realistically we don't know anything about print quantities yet.

[marcdelpercio]

I'd be really interested to see your lists again or a link to that thread as I'm having a tough time finding it for some reason.

Assuming that the 12 cards you listed in your original post were the ones that were replaced by the ML's and then the SP's, wouldn't you theorize that these cards would likely appear in much more limited quantities as well? Aside from the Wallace (no cap) and, to a far lesser extent the Titus, I would say that the other 10 cards on that list are some of the most commonly found in the entire set. I agree that population reports and such can often be misleading but from my own experience, I'd say that cards like Camnitz, Kroh, Oldring, and Smith, for example, are among the most common of the commons.

That said...very interesting theory and discussion!

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

I'd be really interested to see your lists again or a link to that thread as I'm having a tough time finding it for some reason.

Assuming that the 12 cards you listed in your original post were the ones that were replaced by the ML's and then the SP's, wouldn't you theorize that these cards would likely appear in much more limited quantities as well? Aside from the Wallace (no cap) and, to a far lesser extent the Titus, I would say that the other 10 cards on that list are some of the most commonly found in the entire set. I agree that population reports and such can often be misleading but from my own experience, I'd say that cards like Camnitz, Kroh, Oldring, and Smith, for example, are among the most common of the commons.

That said...very interesting theory and discussion!

Marc you might want to look at my old forum name Pup6913. If you search for threads by that it will pop up.

[Wite3]

Marc,
I can answer that...When I started my research, I focused on the rarer cards as replacements for the minor league cards but when you start to look at the back matrix, it just did not really add up.

The commons that Andrew listed (including Wallace when put together with the capped version which in my opinion is one of the easiest cards in the set) fit the back pattern nicely.

Here is a theory...lets say American Litho printed 500 sheets of the commons and then substituted the minor league cards later for a smaller run of 100 sheets. That would account for the relative ease of some and toughness of others.

The only thing I have not done yet is go through the cards Andrew listed and looked at the stats and write-ups yet to try to get a better handle on the dates of issue.

The minor leaguers were almost certainly issued in early 1912 just by reading the backs and looking at the times when the players played for the teams listed (not to mention the design change).

Joshua

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by Wite3

Marc,
I can answer that...When I started my research, I focused on the rarer cards as replacements for the minor league cards but when you start to look at the back matrix, it just did not really add up.

The commons that Andrew listed (including Wallace when put together with the capped version which in my opinion is one of the easiest cards in the set) fit the back pattern nicely.

Here is a theory...lets say American Litho printed 500 sheets of the commons and then substituted the minor league cards later for a smaller run of 100 sheets. That would account for the relative ease of some and toughness of others.

The only thing I have not done yet is go through the cards Andrew listed and looked at the stats and write-ups yet to try to get a better handle on the dates of issue.

The minor leaguers were almost certainly issued in early 1912 just by reading the backs and looking at the times when the players played for the teams listed (not to mention the design change).

Joshua

Josh it's based off the Wallace no cap with both variations. Wallace with cap has its own run of backs.