![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Here is something Tbob texted me a couple of weeks ago...Jerry
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I am aware of the Tinker and have read about it in the past, but I have never seen one. I would agree that it’s more of a variation than a printing error or anomaly, which would make it more like Doyle/Magie than Nodress, etc. But until/unless a huge swell of support develops and is supported by TPGs and auction houses, which I doubt will happen, the Tinker variation will not be considered #525.
The Schulte Proof/variation is awesome! Here is the Mathewson proof listed above; it certainly has increased in value! Last edited by Rhotchkiss; 07-19-2023 at 06:21 PM. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The first link in the post to the PDF doesn't work for me, but here are some Net54 threads on the subject:
2011: https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=135053 2013: https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=176468 REA example in 2012: https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=21868 REA example in 2013: https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=27434 Steve |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for the input. Clearly i missed this, but i'm surprised it didn't cause a bigger stir. It certainly seems like a legit card (3 copies) all graded now....and doesn't appear to be a proof of any kind. Its not a stray printers mark, its clearly a previous version (like schulte proof) that has "Chicago" not completely blanked out. So clearly it was an early version that was a mistake and corrected. How is this any diff than Doyle? There's maybe 10-15 doyles right? I might guess there are 10 of these out there hiding in plain sight.
Last edited by parkerj33; 07-19-2023 at 08:19 PM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think the Tinker should be listed as a separate card.
But I have doubts it actually will be. If it is.... Well, there's a whole bunch of stuff that would also qualify. Like - Tinker also exists with the "Chicago" sort of visible, as well as the ones where it's not there at all. Some 350 series come without the bright red. The one I always think of is Dygert, where the effect is lipstick or none... And both are far too common for it to be anything but deliberate. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Thanks for the links Steve...those were cool old threads...Jerry
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jerry, wild vintage Proof Price List!
Ryan, I never get ties of seeing that Matty Proof! Last edited by MVSNYC; 07-19-2023 at 09:51 PM. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTB: t206 tinker | IgnatiusJReilly | T206 cards B/S/T | 0 | 05-15-2021 09:47 PM |
FS: T206 Tinker Portrait SGC 60, rare orange variation! **SOLD** | CMIZ5290 | T206 cards B/S/T | 19 | 01-19-2018 06:10 PM |
WTB T206 Tinker Bat On & Bat Off | wolf441 | T206 cards B/S/T | 0 | 04-04-2014 09:36 PM |
FS: T206 Joe Tinker (bat off) PSA 4.5 | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 1 | 04-08-2009 09:36 PM |
For sale T206 Tinker portrait color variation card orange | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 03-26-2007 07:44 AM |