Just what is a "complete" T205 set?

[Leon]

If I were a master set collector then #1 makes sense and #2 would never make sense to me.

Originally Posted by swarmee

Could be:
1) Nobody working on the set asked for them to be added.
2) They were requested to be added, but they put it to a vote and the people currently collecting the set decided not to include them.

Those are the normal steps.

[Promethius88]

Sorry to jump in here but I'm a complete novice at this set but picked up a couple 205's the last couple weeks just to have. My question is on the backs... did they all come with different backs, like 206's and does the 205 collector go for different variations of backs? Are there certain backs that are more scarce than others? I see that PSA doesn't label them with the back variations. These are pretty confusing to me. Here are the 3 I picked up today. I am pretty sure they are all commons and of course, low grade. Just wasn't sure if any of the backs were better than others.
Thanks guys!
Tim

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Leon

If I were a master set collector then #1 makes sense and #2 would never make sense to me.

This is a basic set. For master sets, PSA will add them without worry about whether or not the other people going for the set agree (unless they made 3 or less of the card in the first place). That mostly applies to player registries, where if they put 1/1 and #/3 cards in the player master set, only one or a few people could get them and make it harder for other collectors to compete.

To Tim, yes, the backs can greatly vary the value of a T205. Kind of dated, but it probably hasn't changed that much in the last 12 years:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/net5...ty-t18631.html
And PSA should definitely specify the backs, but for some reason, are unwilling to.

[gonzo]

www.t205resource.com used to have a list of card + back combos, but that site is not accessible right now.

You can see a version from a few years ago at
https://web.archive.org/web/20150906...stsmaster.html

Though there are a few combos that have been discovered since then, that list covers the great majority of them.


This thread also has some great information:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...230355&page=10

[Promethius88]

Thanks everyone! Skimmed thru and just that was very helpful. Still have a lot of reading to do!

[steve B]

Originally Posted by swarmee

This is a basic set. For master sets, PSA will add them without worry about whether or not the other people going for the set agree (unless they made 3 or less of the card in the first place). That mostly applies to player registries, where if they put 1/1 and #/3 cards in the player master set, only one or a few people could get them and make it harder for other collectors to compete.

To Tim, yes, the backs can greatly vary the value of a T205. Kind of dated, but it probably hasn't changed that much in the last 12 years:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/net5...ty-t18631.html
And PSA should definitely specify the backs, but for some reason, are unwilling to.

To me that seems even stranger, those aren't simple variations like missing punctuation, but totally different cards. Without checking a book, I believe both were checklisted long before PSA existed. It seems odd that they would leave them out.

[eliotdeutsch]

Does anyone have any info on the Wallace 1 Line?
Is this card an error similar to Moran or closer to a variation like Graham or Shean?

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by eliotdeutsch

Does anyone have any info on the Wallace 1 Line?
Is this card an error similar to Moran or closer to a variation like Graham or Shean?

There are two basic Wallace cards - with cap and without cap, the latter having two variations - 1-line and 2-lines of 1910 stats.

It’s actually the more common 2-lines variation that was a mistake. The second 1910 line is carried over from John Miller (which is kind of interesting, since that’s a National League card). So yes, very much like Moran or Grey.