T206 Demmitt & O'Hara....are they 350-only Series cards ?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by tedzan

In response to several requests, I'm listing here all the players in the T206 set whose trades or reassignments are
reflected in their repeated cards with respect to each series.

The list I'm interested in is which players did not have their trades or reassignments reflected? i.e. they were printed in a series after their trade or reassignment and the change was not made to their repeated cards.

[tedzan]

Matt

The above post is in response to several Net54 reader's requests....I was able to provide this info
off the top of my head.


It's not in response to your request. Your's will require some time to completely research.


TED Z

[jimonym]

Matt,

I'll have to double-check my totals, but with respect to the 350-only series cards...

202 different players are pictured.
Nearly all had their artwork/card designed during the late summer or fall of 1909. We know that because there were so many team changes that occurred throughout 1909, during the offseason, and following the spring training transactions.

By the opening of the 1910 season, somewhere around 60 of those 202 fellows were no longer with the team their 350-series T206 card shows them with.

Of those, only Demmitt and O'Hara were updated to show their new team.

I can post the list if anyone's interested.

[tedzan]

Hey ole buddy

My response to your...."But unequivocal verifiability breathes better in logic and epistemology classes, and even has trouble
'BREATHING' there."

.....certainly, understanding The Monster can be an ongoing elusive adventure. However, in my book I have no doubts that
the St Louis variations of Demmitt and O'Hara are 350 series cards.

As you very well know, the 350 series was the most prolific of all the series in the T206 issue. There is no debating this fact.
The 216 subjects printed in the 350 series enjoyed a long run. This series was initially released in late 1909 and continued to
the Summer/Fall of 1910. Furthermore, 6 subjects (super-prints) were extended into the 460 series run.

I have posted here constructive facts supporting my contention. For the most part, I've seen skeptical replies. But, no hard
facts dispelling my contention. I realize it is tough for someone to prove a negative. So, I wont hold my "BREATH" waiting for
such to occur.


T-Rex TED

[Matt]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I have posted here constructive facts supporting my contention. For the most part, I've seen skeptical replies. But, no hard
facts dispelling my contention. I realize it is tough for someone to prove a negative. So, I wont hold my "BREATH" waiting for such to occur.

Ted - my contention is that I haven't seen anything that proves your original assertion that "The St Louis variations of Demmitt & O'Hara were printed
in the initial PB press run. Subsequent PB press runs did not include these St Louis cards of Demmitt & O'Hara". I don't need to prove they are 350/460 to support my contention; all I need to do is point out why your arguments aren't conclusive. I'll give it up since it seems you think I'm bothering you somehow and I think I've exposed that all we know is that it seems somewhat more likely then not, that they were 350 only.

[ethicsprof]

Ted,
Thanks for the response.
You have indeed posted constructive facts supporting your contentions, and,
as i said in the earlier post, you have offered the best answer that i've seen.
I was simply wanting to help you save your house by reminding you that your having the best answer in no way means you have proven your contention unequivocally.
Certainly, if there are no hard facts dispelling your contentions, your best answer continues to rise brightly. But you are wise not to hold your 'breath' for someone to prove the negative and you would be just as wise not to hold your 'breath' believing you have proven your contentions herein. I simply mention this as I note your saying that 'in your book you have no doubts...'.
I for one am pleased to take a breath or two, my friend, and salute you and the brightness continuing to surround your best answer---but not a proven answer.

(On another topic, if you'll send me your address again, Ted, I have a T206 related item that i'd like to send to you as a response to our fabulous Drum transaction.)
best,
Barry

[tedzan]

Barry A

Thank you for your kind comments; and, I appreciate your residual skepticism. Can we prove my expressed contention that the
St Louis vars. of Demmitt & O'Hara are 350-only subjects, 100 years later ?....Not with 100% certainty.

However, we can refer back to actual T206 "finds" that will reinforce this contention. One such "find" has come to my attention.
And, a forthcoming post here, regarding this "find", I think should quite well settle this matter.


T-Rex TED