In all the T206 back discussions I've never seen this question

Sean · #1 03-03-2017, 12:07 PM

I have a couple of them with Sov 150 backs, but none with a Sov 350.

HobokenJon · #2 03-03-2017, 12:31 PM

Regarding Pastorius . . . I think we can rule out that one in a Sov 350 back. But his card's example does underscore the point that T206 Resource sometimes posts erroneous, and even conflicting, data. (They're only human.)

Pastorius is listed as confirmed on the site's "T206 White Borders Master Checklist." But on both his player checklist and the Sov 350 (forest green) checklist, the card is listed as a "probable no print."

This is similar to the situation with Fred Clarke's portrait card. T206 Resource classifies it as a "probable no print" on its Sov 350 (forest green) checklist, but "confirmed" with a Sov 350 (forest green) back on its checklist for that individual card. One of those lists obviously is wrong. As previously discussed, neither PSA nor SGC has any record of grading a Sov 350 Clarke (portrait), making it a "no pop."

Could someone from T206 Resource please respond? Who runs that website anyway?

See the Clarke (portrait) player checklist and the Sov 350 (forest green) checklist here:

http://www.t206resource.com/Checklis...ToDetails=True

http://www.t206resource.com/Sovereig...Checklist.html

HobokenJon · #3 03-03-2017, 12:37 PM

Apologies for accidentally publishing that last post twice. I've erased the duplicate post.

Luke · #4 03-03-2017, 12:47 PM

It looks like maybe the master hasn't been updated in awhile. I scrolled through the Old Mills (just because I know them best) and found 10 or so that are listed as unconfirmed, but do exist and are documented.

HobokenJon · #5 03-03-2017, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke

It looks like maybe the master hasn't been updated in awhile. I scrolled through the Old Mills (just because I know them best) and found 10 or so that are listed as unconfirmed, but do exist and are documented.

Agreed. But the difference with this situation is there are "pop zero" cards listed as "confirmed" that probably shouldn't be.

It's fun to find cards that are listed as "possible, not confirmed." It's maddening to try and find cards that are listed authoritatively as "confirmed" when they don't actually exist.

Pat R · #6 03-03-2017, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Agreed. But the difference with this situation is there are "pop zero" cards listed as "confirmed" that probably shouldn't be.

It's fun to find cards that are listed as "possible, not confirmed." It's maddening to try and find cards that are listed authoritatively as "confirmed" when they don't actually exist.

A card doesn't have to be in the pop reports to be confirmed. In the beginning
PSA didn't put the backs on the flips and/or there could be only raw examples
of a confirmed card.

I picked up this Maloney Broadleaf 350 back in 2012 Raw. At the time it was
already confirmed by t206resource but there were none listed in the pop reports until this one was graded and sold in this years fall REA auction.
Maloney Broadleaf 350.jpg

HobokenJon · #7 03-03-2017, 06:35 PM

What you say is true. However, when we know that T206 Resource has posted conflicting data about whether a card is confirmed, that undermines the credibility of all supposed confirmations on the site where the existence of the card hasn't been independently verified by other third parties. Make sense?

Pat R · #8 03-03-2017, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

What you say is true. However, when we know that T206 Resource has posted conflicting data about whether a card is confirmed, that undermines the credibility of all supposed confirmations on the site where the existence of the card hasn't been independently verified by other third parties. Make sense?

No not really. I don't know if the Cards you pointed out exist or if they're data entry errors but even if they are with the thousands of entries a couple of mistakes doesn't
undermine the credibility of all the confirmations in my eyes. I have confirmed several cards with Tim And Jim (for transparency purposes Jim is a friend of mine)
and they have always asked for front and back scans of the card(s) before confirming them.

When dealing with high volume data I don't believe error free
is a feasible expectation. The pop reports are full of errors.
img059.jpg

Sean · #9 03-03-2017, 12:47 PM

The owners of T206resource,com are Tim Cathey and Jim Rivera; both are members here. You can also contact them through the T206resource website.

HobokenJon · #10 03-03-2017, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

The owners of T206resource,com are Tim Cathey and Jim Rivera; both are members here. You can also contact them through the T206resource website.

I have tried to ask questions of the site owners on other occasions before, using the T206 Resource "contact form" page. But I didn't get any responses the last couple of times I did so. So this time I'm crowdsourcing instead. I hope they see this thread and respond for the benefit of everyone in the T206-collecting community.

HobokenJon · #11 03-03-2017, 01:41 PM

And I sure would like to hear back again from Ted, too.

Hey Ted, are you out there?

trdcrdkid · #12 03-03-2017, 03:46 PM

I have Killian pitching in Sovereign 150, but not 350.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
T206 back question	KingFisk	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	11	07-13-2016 09:54 PM
Where do I go for discussions about 1948 Bowman basketball cards?	larrie804	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	1	07-09-2013 05:47 PM
T206 Back Question.	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	04-18-2006 08:00 PM
T206 back question	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	01-25-2006 09:10 PM
T206 Back Question	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	06-07-2005 12:46 AM