Show your T206 card(s) that are more scarce than the JOE DOYLE NAT'L card

[Bigb13]

image.jpg

[mrvster]

be an AWESOME thread.............

[Bigb13]

image.jpg

[bn2cardz]

When it is referred to as the rarest t206 that is a reference to the front variations only. If the t206 set was broke out by backs then the different combos would be worth using as a comparison, but since a t206 set collector isn't typically a master set collector there statement of "rarest t206" is only in regards to the front. If it didn't than even the Wagner and Plank Piedmonts would be considered rarer than the Doyle.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

When it is referred to as the rarest t206 that is a reference to the front variations only. If the t206 set was broke out by backs then the different combos would be worth using as a comparison, but since a t206 set collector isn't typically a master set collector there statement of "rarest t206" is only in regards to the front. If it didn't than even the Wagner and Plank Piedmonts would be considered rarer than the Doyle.

I appreciate what you are saying; however, by your definition this Ambrose Puttman card can be considered the "rarest"....as it's back is irrelevant.

Furthermore, you refer to a "typical" T206 collector....it's been my experience dealing with many T206 collectors for the past 33 years....that after they have put together a
near complete T206 set....it doesn't stop there.

The Monster has you "addicted". Many collectors will continue the hunt for player sub-sets with all their possible backs. Or, team sets of players with all their possible backs.







TED Z

.

[mrvster]

I was waiting for it!!!!!!! send that to the resource proof gallery

[Bigb13]

As fronts variation this is 1 of 1image.jpg

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I appreciate what you are saying; however, by your definition this Ambrose Puttman card can be considered the "rarest"....as it's back is irrelevant.







TED Z

.

No by my definition that still wouldn't qualify. That is clearly a t206 proof, not a t206 that was to be mass produced but changed in the process (Like the Doyle and Magie).

[QUOTE=tedzan;1363972]

Furthermore, you refer to a "typical" T206 collector....it's been my experience dealing with many T206 collectors for the past 33 years....that after they have put together a
near complete T206 set....it doesn't stop there.

The Monster has you "addicted". Many collectors will continue the hunt for player sub-sets with all their possible backs. Or, team sets of players with all their possible backs.

TED Z

I didn't refer to a "typical" t206 collector. I referred to a typcial t206 set collector. In which case the set is defined by one of each front with exclusion to what is on the back. There are tough front/back combos but they come into play for other subsets, in which case new "rarities" are defined. For instance if you are trying to build a set of just the backs, you may say the Old Mill Brown is the rarest, and Piedmont 350 is the easiest to find even though a Shaw Piedmont 350 isn't easy. So you are mixing two thought processes.

Your original statement about the rarest t206 being the Doyle is made in reference to building a front set not in regards to a full Master Set with all the front and back combos.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

No by my definition that still wouldn't qualify. That is clearly a t206 proof, not a t206 that was to be mass produced but changed in the process (Like the Doyle and Magie).


I didn't refer to a "typical" t206 collector. I referred to a typcial t206 set collector. In which case the set is defined by one of each front with exclusion to what is on the back.

Andy

"RARITY" .... is a function of a market driven phenomena. Therefore, it is collector based. And, there are a fair number of T206 collectors that seek certain front / back combos,
printing flaws, and yes...Proofs. I think you will agree that not all collectors strive to complete a 520-card (or whatever) T206 set.

Secondly, Sports and Non-Sports Sets since the 19th Century that are comprised of cards that have printing on their fronts and backs are defined by both factors. They cannot
be considered separate entities [i.e. Set A (fronts), Set B (backs)].


I do not want to get into a semantics discussion here. That's not the purpose of this thread. It was intended to have some fun showing off Net54er's various scarce T206 cards.


TED Z
.

[tedzan]

1 of only 2 graded (Highest graded)
.









.



TED Z
.