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

[tedzan]

I'd prefer a "chartreuse green" overprint on those cards. Can you arrange that ?


T-Rex TED

[tedzan]

It's very interesting....how the prior "naysayers" to Demmitt & O'Hara being in the 350-only series have regressed
back into their hiding places.

Their silence is deafening !


T-Rex TED

[Matt]

Ted - I thought you didn't want to argue about this so I left you to your wishes. Coming and taunting me is incredibly mature of you.

If you want to continue, I'd be interested to know how big the finds were and how many duplicates (approximately) were in each. Obviously the size of the "finds" we're considering matters for the statistical analysis.

[tedzan]

Matt

I wasn't specifically addressing you. There were several skeptics....in particular, a Net54 reader who continually emailed me.

My argument with you on this subject is over.....give it up. Wonkaticket's experience is a very valid proof of my contention.
However, in your manner of thinking, I expect that you will consider it an anecdotal "find" that doesn't prove anything.

Well, you don't realize how wrong you are. I've acquired several original T206 collections these past 29 years that I've been
putting together 5 complete sets (- the big 3) and 5 (T-brand) sub-sets. The size of these "finds" have ranged from 200 to
440 cards....and, I have seen certain unmistakable patterns in these T206 finds.

If you were better informed of the 4 successive series that comprise the T206 set, you would not be arguing this point at all.
You see, the 350/460 series subjects are the most prolifically printed T206's with respect to their various T-brand backs. The
61 cards in this series far outnumber the cards of the other three series with respect to their numerous backs. American Litho.
printed these 61 subjects with as many as 24 different tobacco advertising backs.

This fact alone, totally contradicts your suggestion that the St. Louis variations of Demmitt and O'Hara are 350/460 subjects.
Use some common sense, man....they only exist with the POLAR BEAR back.

I suggest you thoroughly read Scot Reader's very informative T206 book. And, if you have read it....then read it again.

Your entire approach to this subject is blurred by your narrow minded zeal to strictly statistically analyze everything. Take it
from a retired Bell Labs EE, who applied statistical analysis many times to design very sophisticated electronic circuitry, there
are more meaningful methods to unraveling the mysteries of the the "T206 Monster".

And, one of those methods is the empirical knowledge gleaned from having looked at 100's of thousands of T206's in one's life-
time.

Regards,

TED Z

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Matt

I wasn't specifically addressing you. There were several skeptics....in particular, a Net54 reader who continually emailed me.

My argument with you on this subject is over.....give it up. Wonkaticket's experience is a very valid proof of my contention.
However, in your manner of thinking, I expect that you will consider it an anecdotal "find" that doesn't prove anything.

Well, you don't realize how wrong you are. I've acquired several original T206 collections these past 29 years that I've been
putting together 5 complete sets (- the big 3) and 5 (T-brand) sub-sets. The size of these "finds" have ranged from 200 to
440 cards....and, I have seen certain unmistakable patterns in these T206 finds.

If you were better informed of the 4 successive series that comprise the T206 set, you would not be arguing this point at all.
You see, the 350/460 series subjects are the most prolifically printed T206's with respect to their various T-brand backs. The
61 cards in this series far outnumber the cards of the other three series with respect to their numerous backs. American Litho.
printed these 61 subjects with as many as 24 different tobacco advertising backs.

This fact alone, totally contradicts your suggestion that the St. Louis variations of Demmitt and O'Hara are 350/460 subjects.
Use some common sense, man....they only exist with the POLAR BEAR back.

I suggest you thoroughly read Scot Reader's very informative T206 book. And, if you have read it....then read it again.

Your entire approach to this subject is blurred by your narrow minded zeal to strictly statistically analyze everything. Take it
from a retired Bell Labs EE, who applied statistical analysis many times to design very sophisticated electronic circuitry, there
are more meaningful methods to unraveling the mysteries of the the "T206 Monster".

And, one of those methods is the empirical knowledge gleaned from having looked at 100's of thousands of T206's in one's life-
time.

Regards,

TED Z

Ted,

First, let me start by saying that I have the highest respect for the research you have done, and the knowledge you have accumulated and shared, in regards to T206 (and other sets.) However, your last couple of posts are far out of line, especially toward Matt.

The tone of your responses ("If you were better informed...", "Your entire approach to this subject is blurred by your narrow minded zeal...", "I suggest you thoroughly read Scot Reader's very informative T206 book. And, if you have read it....then read it again.") is demeaning, at best.

Have your opinion. Share it with others, if you're so inclined. Listen to their opinions and thoughts, and rebut them if necessary.

But calling out to the "naysayers" isn't necessary. And ridiculing them when they reply is totally uncalled for.

But this thread, and the silly one on Dunn, are asking questions about a baseball card set issued 100 years ago. Seeing the cards, touching the cards and studying the cards, answers some questions but leaves many others open to discussion.

Don't attack those who attempt to have that discussion.

[tedzan]

Jim VB

I...."didn't start this fire"....Billy Joel, 1989

You make me laugh.....your cohort (Rob D) started this back in July 2008, when I posted an informative thread of Jack Dunn
discovering Babe Ruth. It was a very interesting discussion until your buddy Rob interjected with his totally OFF-TOPIC posts.
Thread's link......

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ight=jack+dunn


Since then, Rob and/or you will interject the "T206 Dunn" into totally unrelated threads of mine in order to distract from the
subject of that thread. This has been a recurring tactic of Rob's; and, it has become quite stale. A wise-a$$ remark may be
initially entertaining....but, when it is repeated as often as this Dunn "gimmick" has been, that is the sign of a diabolical mind.

But, I guess I should be "honored" to be the target of you guys. I join the ranks of Frank Wakefield, Potomac Joe, etc., etc.
Where do you guys draw the line ? ?

Both you & Matt are leaping to unwarranted assumptions. I did not address Matt in my post (#45). You are guilty of raising
a big "stink" here, over your imagined criticism by me. As I said, Matt was not the only one shooting flak at me on this topic.

Your quote of my comments....
"The tone of your responses ("If you were better informed...", "Your entire approach to this subject is blurred by your narrow
minded zeal..."

Why did you leave out my key words that followed...."to strictly statistically analyze everything." That's the crux of the mat-
ter with Matt. He tries to super-analyze this situation and when I provide him supporting data for my argument he goes off on
another tangent. And, mind you this continued via emails. Believe me, one cannot appreciate the various aspects of the T206
series subtleties by simply analyzing them statistically. I think you'll agree with this, that many years of experience collecting
T206's are needed to fully understand the Monster.


I'll end this by repeating to you (and Rob) your own final words with my modifications......

"don't attack"....DISTRACT...."those whoSE THREADS attempt to have (that) MEANINGFUL discussion"......

WITH YOUR WISE-A$$ TACTICS THAT TEND TO DIGRESS THE INTENT OF THE ONE'S DISCUSSION ON THIS FORUM.


Regards,

TED Z

[Jim VB]

I have no idea what you're rambling on about Ted. I don't believe I posted anywhere in the thread you linked. I'm not sure I have ever posted in any of the several Dunn threads. Yet somehow you accuse me of derailing your threads. I didn't even vote in the poll. Reason? I don't know what was the intent of the artist for that card.

If you have a problem with Rob, feel free to take it up with him. Leave me out of it.

I also have no problems with Frank Wakefield or Joe P. Again, you're making stuff up. I anxiously await your apology. I won't hold my breath.


As far your post to Matt, I'm not trying to distract. I was as direct as can be. Although you said your post about "naysayers" wasn't specifically addressed to Matt, you then went on, for several paragraphs, explaining how, and why, he's not as smart as you. It was demeaning and you owe him an apology also.

Lastly, just because someone asks a question or two, or even if they disagree with you, that doesn't mean they are "shooting flak at you." It just means they don't understand and/or don't agree with you. It's you who then goes on the personal attack.