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

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Luke

That wouldn't surprise me at all. I know many people in the hobby who like you a lot. All I wanted to say is I wish we could all work together and get along a little better.

I've never seen Pat post something that he couldn't prove, so if he points out something, that shouldn't be cause for an argument. If you post a checklist that has say 35 poses on it, and Pat points out that one pose is on the list in error, that's a good thing. The whole point of making one of your posts on net54 is you are giving collectors a reference they can learn from. If you go to all the trouble of making the post and putting together the list and then Pat points one error out and now the list is perfect, that's a great result isn't it? That thread will be a great help to collectors in the future.

Luke

Look at the title of this thread....I posted this information for the benefit of avid T206 collectors, in order to make it easier for any one of them working on their T206 runs.
Yet, not much conversation has been devoted to it's importance.

Pat (more or less) "hi-jacks" this thread with his comments in post #13. He does this often, even with his petty remarks. A perfect example of this is when I posted a very
interesting and popular thread regarding the "Brothers Delahanty". Pat interjects that I spelled their name incorrectly. He said it should be "Delehanty". Well Pat was WRONG.
And, that kind of petty interruption side-tracked the import of that thread. I could provide you with many more such examples, but I'll leave it at that.

You have NOT responded to the 2011 thread which clearly reports the discovery of a Rhoades (a 350 series) card with a large Factory # on its back.

Can we talk about this Rhoades card ? Also, the probability of other such cards in the subsequent series following the 150/350 series ? ?

SWEET CAPORAL cards with Factory #s 25 and 30 were also printed in the 350-only....350/460....460-only Series; therefore, there is no logical reason for the sheets of those
cards NOT having Factory #s 25 or 30 identification on them.

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Luke
You have NOT responded to the 2011 thread which clearly reports the discovery of a Rhoades (a 350 series) card with a large Factory # on its back.

Can we talk about this Rhoades card ? Also, the probability of other such cards in the subsequent series following the 150/350 series ? ?

TED Z

.

Luke did respond about the Rhoades card:

Originally Posted by 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.

The marking (on the right side of the back of the) Rhoades can in no way be mistaken for the "big" factory number markings at the bottom of the cards referenced in that thread. Please see these scans... a Rhoades, an Ames and then the two together with the Rhoades marking rotated 90 degrees. These aren't the same markings.

[HobokenJon]

Here's a link to scans of the Rhoades front and back, posted by Chris Browne in 2013.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...6&postcount=51

[HobokenJon]

For what it's worth, it looks like the Rhoades card posted by Chris in 2013 is a different copy than the one posted above by Erick. I find it interesting that we know of at least two examples of this print mark -- or whatever the mark is -- on Rhoades (arm extended).

On Erick's copy the print mark sits between the lines "The Standard" and "for Years," and off to the side. On Chris's copy, the print mark sits directly to the side of "The Standard" line.

Erick, perchance, do you have a front scan of that Rhoades (or a link to it) that you can post?

I would've pasted the scans of Chris's copy directly into this message, except I'm a fuddy-duddy and can't figure out how to do it. Maybe one of you can teach me someday.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Erick, perchance, do you have a front scan of that Rhoades (or a link to it) that you can post?

Here are the two different posts that I found images:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...&postcount=120

https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...&postcount=148

[HobokenJon]

Sweet. Thanks, Erick. Do we know for sure that the print mark on those two Rhoades cards is part of a factory number?

On the Print Group 1 (150-350) cards, I can clearly make out that the marks are from the top of a number "30."

I'm not sure I can make that same leap just by looking at the print marks on the side of the Rhoades cards.

[Pat R]

I've seen several of the Rhoades with the mark there was one with a sliver of the mark in a recent REA auction they are definitely not factory numbers.

I don't know why the factory numbers are only found on print group 1 subjects but the T206's were printed for close to two years so I'm sure there were changes and maybe
they came up with a different method of identifying the factory's on the sheets if that's what the numbers were for.

here's the one that was in REA, I bid on it but I wasn't willing to pay a premium for it because of how little of the mark was present.

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=96739

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Luke

Look at the title of this thread....I posted this information for the benefit of avid T206 collectors, in order to make it easier for any one of them working on their T206 runs.
Yet, not much conversation has been devoted to it's importance.

Pat (more or less) "hi-jacks" this thread with his comments in post #13. He does this often, even with his petty remarks. A perfect example of this is when I posted a very
interesting and popular thread regarding the "Brothers Delahanty". Pat interjects that I spelled their name incorrectly. He said it should be "Delehanty". Well Pat was WRONG.
And, that kind of petty interruption side-tracked the import of that thread. I could provide you with many more such examples, but I'll leave it at that.

You have NOT responded to the 2011 thread which clearly reports the discovery of a Rhoades (a 350 series) card with a large Factory # on its back.

Can we talk about this Rhoades card ? Also, the probability of other such cards in the subsequent series following the 150/350 series ? ?

SWEET CAPORAL cards with Factory #s 25 and 30 were also printed in the 350-only....350/460....460-only Series; therefore, there is no logical reason for the sheets of those
cards NOT having Factory #s 25 or 30 identification on them.

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

See Ted you're making things up again to make me look bad first of all it was Brian's thread and second I didn't say you were wrong.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ight=Delehanty

Originally Posted by tedzan

PSA says DELEHANTY.....and, I say DELAHANTY. I am right, they are wrong !





TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Originally Posted by Pat R

It's spelled wrong on the t206 and a lot of the newspapers from when he played spelled it Delehanty too.

You have three Delahanty threads and this is the only thing I posted in any of them.

Poted 2-10-22

I can't read what Brendan posted either is it similar to this? starting on page 311

https://books.google.com/books?id=B-...0books&f=false