T205 A Latham or W.A. Latham

I am looking for pics of A.Latham backs. Any and all for comparison to the Honest back.

[Wite3]

Interesting...

I do know these were printed with movable type.

So, two theories...first one is that the W. broke on the type face. It happened a couple of times on the T206 set with the front lettering. So this might cause a ghost to appear before the W. was removed from the box.

Theory #2 is that someone tried to add or remove the w. later on to cash in on the rarity (which there really is none).

I have to say that the W.A. Latham is seen with less back advertising but the numbers of samples are close. I would say that the W.A. card is about 1 1/2 to 2 times as rare as the A. Latham card.

Joshua

Curious to see any other examples of this card with a high res. scan of the HLC back.

[FrankWakefield]

With movable type, it could shift during the printing process. And the printers could shift it back where it belonged. This faint 'W' card could be from where that letter had worked a bit loose, but still faintly transferred a bit of ink. Evidently it eventually shifted to where it didn't strike the paper at all, or it broke and wasn't replaced. That faint 'W' looks complete, just faint, so it doesn't look broken to me. So I think it shifted, but didn't break.

[egbeachley]

Looks like an M to me.

Is it true that the W.A. version is only found on Sweet Cap. Backs. The SGC pop report has many listings but only one labeled W.A.

I called them today and they want to see the card again. Want to make sure it is not a stray type error. Even after seeing pics of it. I hope so cause that would make it the W.A. version hopefully.