T206 group of 350-only Series NO-PRINTS....CB, EPDG, OM, PB

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Nothing but love, Ted! As you know, I deeply value our friendship and hugely appreciate your contributions to the hobby and to this board.

Where am I coming from? It's simple. You said in your post above (#8) that Joe Doyle, Kleinow (catching-N.Y.), Rhoades (arm extended) and Frank Smith (Chicago-white cap) are part of the 350-only series. I saw that comment by you and thought to myself ..... no way, that can't be, because aren't those four cards part of the 350-460 series, given that they all appear with apple green Sovereign 350 backs?

So I put the question to you to make sure I had my facts right. In your latest post above (#27), you confirmed what I initially had thought: all four cards are part of the 350-460 series. And I'm glad we agree on this point, because that resolves the matter in my mind.

I'm still interested in understanding the rationale for why G. Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) and Elberfeld (Washington) should be considered part of the 350-only series. I'm not trying to challenge your conclusions or knowledge base so much as I'm trying to test whether I have my own facts right. You're the godfather on this subject matter. That's why I asked you in response to your posts on this thread.

Huge respect, Ted!

OK, let's back to Post #8 here, in which I have identified the 23 subjects in the 350-only series that are A - B - C - D no-prints.
Three of those guys were printed only with an OLD MILL (besides the usual PIEDMONT, SWEET CAP, and SOVEREIGN backs).......

Browne (Washington).....traded to Washington May 21, 1909
Dahlen (Brooklyn).....traded to Brooklyn Oct 27, 1909
Elberfeld (portrait-Washington).....traded to Washington Dec 14, 1909

These 3 subjects were involved in trades during the early printing of the 350-only series. My guess is this "trade factor" timeframe
coincided with American Lithographic printing them, which resulted in them being Short-Printed.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[HobokenJon]

Thank you, Ted. I'm going to take one more try here -- as always, with huge love and respect!

This still doesn't make sense to me. It's widely believed that the 350-only series began its print run in 1910, sometime after the completion of the 150-350 series. (For instance, SGC on the flips of its holders dates 350-only subjects with Cycle 350 or AB 350 backs as "1910.") We don't know which month in 1910 that the 150-350 series ended and which month the 350-only series began -- unless you know something I don't -- but my impression is it's well established that the print run for the 350-only series began and ended sometime in 1910.

Given that these three subjects switched teams in 1909 -- in Dahlen's case, Brooklyn announced in October 1909 that he would be its manager for the 1910 season -- I don't understand why the printing of their cards with their new teams would have been delayed until after the completion of the 150-350 series. It would've made all the sense in the world for the printer to have replaced Dahlen's Boston card with his Brooklyn card, and the G. Brown Chicago card with the G. Brown Washington card, and the Elberfeld N.Y. card with the Elberfeld Washington card -- on the very same sheet, in the very same spot as the originals.

Likewise, it doesn't make sense to me that the new-team variations for these three subjects would have been printed in the same series on the same sheets as 350-only subjects such as Marquard portrait or Bresnahan batting. Especially the G. Brown card. To me that May 1909 trade date for him helps explain why the number of confirmed Old Mill backs for the Washington variation is so low -- consistent with the typical low pops for 150-350 Old Mill backs. (The pops for Old Mill backs in subsequent series tend to be much higher, as you know, except for the 460-only Exclusive 12.) You also said "these three subjects were involved in trades during the early printing of the 350-only series." However, heretofore, I haven't seen anyone else assert that the 350-only series began its print run as early as May 1909.

And then there's the fact (as Pat pointed out in post #24) that there are known copies of Dahlen Brooklyn with the large factory 30.

Mainly what I'd like to be sure of here is that our disagreement is really between competing theories and opinions -- your theory/guess vs. my theory/guess -- as opposed to a disagreement over established facts. I haven't seen any hard facts that definitively establish these three cards were printed as part of the 350-only series.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Thank you, Ted. I'm going to take one more try here -- as always, with huge love and respect!

This still doesn't make sense to me. It's widely believed that the 350-only series began its print run in 1910, sometime after the completion of the 150-350 series. (For instance, SGC on the flips of its holders dates 350-only subjects with Cycle 350 or AB 350 backs as "1910.") We don't know which month in 1910 that the 150-350 series ended and which month the 350-only series began -- unless you know something I don't -- but my impression is it's well established that the print run for the 350-only series began and ended sometime in 1910.

Given that these three subjects switched teams in 1909 -- in Dahlen's case, Brooklyn announced in October 1909 that he would be its manager for the 1910 season -- I don't understand why the printing of their cards with their new teams would have been delayed until after the completion of the 150-350 series. It would've made all the sense in the world for the printer to have replaced Dahlen's Boston card with his Brooklyn card, and the G. Brown Chicago card with the G. Brown Washington card, and the Elberfeld N.Y. card with the Elberfeld Washington card -- on the very same sheet, in the very same spot as the originals.

Likewise, it doesn't make sense to me that the new-team variations for these three subjects would have been printed in the same series on the same sheets as 350-only subjects such as Marquard portrait or Bresnahan batting. Especially the G. Brown card. To me that May 1909 trade date for him helps explain why the number of confirmed Old Mill backs for the Washington variation is so low -- consistent with the typical low pops for 150-350 Old Mill backs. (The pops for Old Mill backs in subsequent series tend to be much higher, as you know, except for the 460-only Exclusive 12.) You also said "these three subjects were involved in trades during the early printing of the 350-only series." However, heretofore, I haven't seen anyone else assert that the 350-only series began its print run as early as May 1909.

And then there's the fact (as Pat pointed out in post #24) that there are known copies of Dahlen Brooklyn with the large factory 30.

Mainly what I'd like to be sure of here is that our disagreement is really between competing theories and opinions -- your theory/guess vs. my theory/guess -- as opposed to a disagreement over established facts. I haven't seen any hard facts that definitively establish these three cards were printed as part of the 350-only series.

Jon

As I'm sure you know, the large Factory 30 (or Factory 25) notation simply differentiates which SWEET CAP factory the cards on a given sheet (when cut up) will be shipped to.
Hints of the #25 or #30 notation has been found on cards across the 5 series. I don't see what that notation has to do with anything in this matter.

Call me a "traditionalist" (as that best describes my personality regarding many aspects of life), I consider these 3 subjects (especially Dahlen and Elberfeld) as 350-only guys.

Pardon my superfluousness.....but, where are their PIEDMONT 150....or SOVEREIGN 150....or SWEET CAPORAL 150 cards ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Jon

As I'm sure you know, the large Factory 30 (or Factory 25) notation simply differentiates which SWEET CAP factory the cards on a given sheet (when cut up) will be shipped to.
Hints of the #25 or #30 notation has been found on cards across the 5 series. I don't see what that notation has to do with anything in this matter.

Call me a "traditionalist" (as that best describes my personality regarding many aspects of life), I consider these 3 subjects (especially Dahlen and Elberfeld) as 350-only guys.

Pardon my superfluousness.....but, where are their PIEDMONT 150....or SOVEREIGN 150....or SWEET CAPORAL 150 cards ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

No the have not they've only been found on Sweet Caporal 350/30 150/350 subjects and a couple of Sweet Caporal 350/25 150/350 subjects.

I have been tracking and collecting these for 8 years and currently have 17 of the 28 subjects.

[IMG][/IMG]

Here's the Dahlen
Dahlen Fact #30.jpg

George Brown Wahington, Dahlen Brooklyn and Elberfeld (portrait) Washington were printed with the 150/350 subjects
and that's one of the reasons understanding the print groups is essential in T206 research.

[HobokenJon]

Ted, my view is (1) the 150 backs for these three variation cards exist on the original versions of the cards showing their former teams, and (2) some 150-350 subjects -- i.e., these three -- aren't found with 150 backs, just as the cards from the 150-only series aren't found with 350 backs.

It also is worth nothing that G. Brown (Chicago) is part of the 150-only series, unlike Dahlen (Boston) and Elberfeld portrait (N.Y.).

But as I think we've established, a lot of this is just theory. The cards weren't issued with a checklist or a printing schedule. The mystery and the mystique are part of what makes the Monster so much fun to collect, talk about, and even vigorously debate!

Per Dahlen Brooklyn, it looks like you and Pat might have a disagreement on facts. I previously wasn't aware of either (1) what Pat said above in post #24, or (2) what you said above in post #31 regarding the notation being found on cards across the five series. I'm not in a position yet to draw a conclusion on this question.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Ted, my view is (1) the 150 backs for these three variation cards exist on the original versions of the cards showing their former teams, and (2) some 150-350 subjects -- i.e., these three -- aren't found with 150 backs, just as the cards from the 150-only series aren't found with 350 backs.

It also is worth nothing that G. Brown (Chicago) is part of the 150-only series, unlike Dahlen (Boston) and Elberfeld portrait (N.Y.).

But as I think we've established, a lot of this is just theory. The cards weren't issued with a checklist or a printing schedule. The mystery and the mystique are part of what makes the Monster so much fun to collect, talk about, and even vigorously debate!

Per Dahlen Brooklyn, it looks like you and Pat might have a disagreement on facts. I previously wasn't aware of either (1) what Pat said above in post #24, or (2) what you said above in post #31 regarding the notation being found on cards across the five series. I'm not in a position yet to draw a conclusion on this question.

Jon

Back in 2011, a Net54 member posted Rhoades (right arm extended) SWEET CAP card with the hint of large Factory # on its edge. This card is strictly a 350-only subject.

And, there are more out there. I've been collecting T206's since 1981, and trust me, I have had and have seen over 50,000 of them.

I will see if I can come up with more like the above mentioned one in the 350-only series (or 350/460 series, or the 460-only series).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[HobokenJon]

Ted . . . OK, but you showed in post #27 that Rhoades (arm extended) is part of the 350-460 series and that it has an apple green Sovereign 350 back. For the avoidance of doubt, you think it's actually part of the 350-only series? If that were the case, shouldn't it have a forest green Sovereign 350 back like other 350-only subjects, instead of apple green?

I thought we both agreed that subjects with apple green Sovereign 350 backs are part of the 350-460 series, no?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Ted . . . OK, but you showed in post #27 that Rhoades (arm extended) is part of the 350-460 series and that it has an apple green Sovereign 350 back. For the avoidance of doubt, you think it's actually part of the 350-only series? If that were the case, shouldn't it have a forest green Sovereign 350 back like other 350-only subjects, instead of apple green?

I thought we both agreed that subjects with apple green Sovereign 350 backs are part of the 350-460 series, no?

Jon

American Litho's original design intention appears to have been 66 subjects to be extended from the 350 Series to the 350/460 Series....as illustrated in my simulated sheet:


v.................................... Six super-prints ....................................v








However, three of the subjects' careers ended (bold lettering); therefore, these guys were not continued into the 350/460 Series ......

Joe Doyle........................traded to Cinci.(May 1910); career ends June 25, 1910
Red Kleinow (NY)..............traded to Boston May 1910
Simon Nicholls (bat)..........traded to Clev (spring 1910); career ends May 1910
Bob Rhoades (right arm extended)......career ends Summer of 1909
Frank Smith (white cap).....traded to Boston in the Summer of 1910.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Jon

Back in 2011, a Net54 member posted Rhoades (right arm extended) SWEET CAP card with the hint of large Factory # on its edge. This card is strictly a 350-only subject.

And, there are more out there. I've been collecting T206's since 1981, and trust me, I have had and have seen over 50,000 of them.

I will see if I can come up with more like the above mentioned one in the 350-only series (or 350/460 series, or the 460-only series).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

First of all the Rhoades mark is on the side of the card Ted and second it's not a factory number it's some other print defect that so far has only been found on Rhoades.

It's different than the factory numbers even if it was there should be part of the second number showing.

01b.jpg

01b - Copy.jpg

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Jon

Back in 2011, a Net54 member posted Rhoades (right arm extended) SWEET CAP card with the hint of large Factory # on its edge. This card is strictly a 350-only subject.

And, there are more out there. I've been collecting T206's since 1981, and trust me, I have had and have seen over 50,000 of them.

I will see if I can come up with more like the above mentioned one in the 350-only series (or 350/460 series, or the 460-only series).
.

Pat

Earlier in this thread, I noted that a T206 Rhoades (right arm extended) was discovered with a large Factory # on the edge of it's back. This subject is STRICTLY a 350 series card.

And, you called me a "liar".


Hey, the rest of you guys reading this now, check-out this thread posted in 2011..... https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=129855

Is Pat the one the here who is the "liar", when he tells us that no other T206 (350-only, 350/460, 460-only) series cards exhibit these large SWEET CAPORAL Factory #'s ?

I'm sick and tired of this dude acting as if Net54 is just another "trashy social media" site.


TED Z
.

[Luke]

Ted,

You're misunderstanding what Pat said. Yes, Rhoades arm extended has been found with a mark on the back at the right edge. But that is not what we're talking about here. The mark on Rhoades seems to be unique in that it's the only pose for which the side mark has been discovered.

Pat is referring to the "Big Factory 30" marks found at the bottom of the back on some Print Group 1 poses. There has also been one "Big Factory 25" found (Ames Portrait). Pat, if there are any other 25s, please correct me.

We've been following these for 10 years in this thread:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ht=big+factory

If you found even one card with a large factory # at the bottom from a series other than the 150-350 Series, that would be huge news. I'd be absolutely shocked if there are any. If you do have evidence that a Big Factory 25 or 30 exists for a pose not in Print Group 1, please share it.

I wish you wanted these threads you post to be more collaborative. You post a lot of good information, but whenever someone politely points out an error you made, you always get upset. We should all work together to further the collective knowledge of the group. I've written a lot about the set myself, and people have pointed out a mistake in my work a few times. I've always said "thank you" and fixed it. And if there was a learning opportunity there for me, I would take it.

Pat is a very smart, level-headed guy. He has contributed a ton to the communal knowledge about the set. If he presents a fact, it's because he has evidence to back up that statement. If he puts forward a theory, it's because he has evidence that logically supports his conclusion. If you find yourself arguing with Pat, it's either because you didn't understand what he posted, or you just don't want to work together and learn from anyone else.

What you are perceiving as a personal attack against you is really just a step in the process of building our collective knowledge as T206 historians. If any of us make a post that contains errors, another member should come in and point out the mistakes so we can all learn together.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Pat

Earlier in this thread, I noted that a T206 Rhoades (right arm extended) was discovered with a large Factory # on the edge of it's back. This subject is STRICTLY a 350 series card.

And, you called me a "liar".


Hey, the rest of you guys reading this now, check-out this thread posted in 2011..... https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=129855

Is Pat the one the here who is the "liar", when he tells us that no other T206 (350-only, 350/460, 460-only) series cards exhibit these large SWEET CAPORAL Factory #'s ?

I'm sick and tired of this dude acting as if Net54 is just another "trashy social media" site.


TED Z
.

This is quite an ironic statement Ted when in this thread alone you have called me a liar, made fictitious claims backed up by inaccurate information and when proven wrong you don't acknowledge it or apologize.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Thank you, Ted. I'm going to take one more try here -- as always, with huge love and respect!

This still doesn't make sense to me. It's widely believed that the 350-only series began its print run in 1910, sometime after the completion of the 150-350 series. (For instance, SGC on the flips of its holders dates 350-only subjects with Cycle 350 or AB 350 backs as "1910.") We don't know which month in 1910 that the 150-350 series ended and which month the 350-only series began -- unless you know something I don't -- but my impression is it's well established that the print run for the 350-only series began and ended sometime in 1910.

Given that these three subjects switched teams in 1909 -- in Dahlen's case, Brooklyn announced in October 1909 that he would be its manager for the 1910 season -- I don't understand why the printing of their cards with their new teams would have been delayed until after the completion of the 150-350 series. It would've made all the sense in the world for the printer to have replaced Dahlen's Boston card with his Brooklyn card, and the G. Brown Chicago card with the G. Brown Washington card, and the Elberfeld N.Y. card with the Elberfeld Washington card -- on the very same sheet, in the very same spot as the originals.

Likewise, it doesn't make sense to me that the new-team variations for these three subjects would have been printed in the same series on the same sheets as 350-only subjects such as Marquard portrait or Bresnahan batting. Especially the G. Brown card. To me that May 1909 trade date for him helps explain why the number of confirmed Old Mill backs for the Washington variation is so low -- consistent with the typical low pops for 150-350 Old Mill backs. (The pops for Old Mill backs in subsequent series tend to be much higher, as you know, except for the 460-only Exclusive 12.) You also said "these three subjects were involved in trades during the early printing of the 350-only series." However, heretofore, I haven't seen anyone else assert that the 350-only series began its print run as early as May 1909.

And then there's the fact (as Pat pointed out in post #24) that there are known copies of Dahlen Brooklyn with the large factory 30.

Mainly what I'd like to be sure of here is that our disagreement is really between competing theories and opinions -- your theory/guess vs. my theory/guess -- as opposed to a disagreement over established facts. I haven't seen any hard facts that definitively establish these three cards were printed as part of the 350-only series.

We know from the ledger pages that the packing and shipping of the 350 only subjects was in June/July 1910.

ATC American Beauty Ledger page - Copy.jpg

ATC Cycle Ledger page - Copy.jpg

[HobokenJon]

That's beautiful, Pat. I'm curious about your interpretation of those date stamps.

Do they pinpoint the exact month in 1910 when the 350-only series began?

Or do they tell us only that the 350-only series had begun by June 1910 at the very latest (per the first ledger page with the AB 350 Willett and the June date), but possibly before?

And perhaps some 350-only backs began before or after others (per the second ledger page with the Cycle 350 Dygert and the July date)?