Monogamously T206?

[Potomac Yank]

Originally Posted by Chesbro41

For the last year I've collected T206 exclusively. I'm a little over 100 all SGC Graded 40-50 and it's been a lot of fun as I've gotten most of the HOF Portraits. But I'm slowing a bit. I'm going to complete T207 & T205 Yankees sets now in addition.

Also I'm not a stickler about the big 4. I consider a master set complete without them.
What master set? ... we're talking about the accepted check list of the set.

I don't believe the Doyle or Magie errors should be considered a part of the set.
We're talking about two man made check listed errors.
1. A name error, Magie, instead of Magee.
2. A League designation error, Nat'l, instead of Amer. ... a committed error.
While we're at it, let's add an error of omission ... they didn't replace Nat'l with Amer.

Why isn't the no "B" Sweeney then?
The No "B" Sweeney is an Ink Printing Misstep.

Is an ink missing card that much different than a swapped plate?
YES!


Wagner and Plank have a bit more consideration because they were intended to be a part of the set,
Are you saying that the Magee/Magie, and the Slow Joe Doyle/Nat'l/Amer, were NOT intended to be part of the set?

but then shouldn't the Proof Cards that never made it also be considered? Is a card that was pulled in the initial press that much different than an unissued proof? So much grey area. These guys were not precise back in the day for sure.
They were better than some of today's guys.

I think there should be designation of a master set and an advanced master set that contains all variations and short prints.

They do have it ... It's called a check list ... look up Lipset, and look up Heitman.

[Chesbro41]

Originally Posted by Potomac Yank

They do have it ... It's called a check list ... look up Lipset, and look up Heitman.

My opinion is just that, my own. I'm sorry for sharing it. I feel like your post back to me has a condescending tone though.