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

[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.

[Rob D.]

Ted,

Thank you so much for posting the link to the Dunn thread from 2008. It clearly illustrates the very points Jim made in this post regarding your attitude toward anyone you deem unworthy of questioning your knowledge of a 100-year-old baseball card set. I realize your reading comprehension apparently isn't what it once was, but go back and slowly digest the content of the 2008 thread you posted. You might learn something.

I had a long response typed and ready to post in regards to your somewhat incoherent diatribe above before I realized there's very little point. Anyone who clicks on the link you provided will see that your boorish behavior in this thread is nothing new.

You'll have the last word here because, honestly, you're not worth the trouble of responding to anymore.

[tedzan]

Summarizing these two subjects.

.............Demmitt.............................. ......O'Hara

Major League
1909.....NY Amer....123 games............NY NL......115 games
1910.....St L AL.......10 games............St L NL........9 games
Eastern League
1910.....Montreal....130 games...........Toronto....122 games
1911.....Montreal....153 games...........Toronto....147 games
Major League
1914-15 Chi AL.......155 games

Initially, both players are featured in the 350-only series (as NY players) and are found with a limited
number of T-brand backs, than most other subjects in the 350-only series. Demmitt can be found with
P350, SC 350/30, Carolina Brights, EPDG, and Tolstoi.
O'Hara can be found with P350, SC 350/30, Sov 350, and Cycle 350.

Note....no Polar Bear backs.

In the Spring of 1910 American Litho. started their initial press run for the POLAR BEAR chewing tobacco
brand. By then both these guys had been traded to their respective St. Louis teams. They played only a
few games and were reassigned to the Minors. Therefore, the T206 designers did not extend these two
subjects into any of the subsequent press runs.

The Polar Bear exclusivity of these 2 scarce variations is simply just a matter of timing. I would estimate
that there are probably some where between 300 - 400 of each of these two variations in circulation.

Subsequently, both Demmitt and O'Hara are printed in the 1912 Canadian Imperial Tob. Co. (C46) set.
O'Hara continues playing for Toronto (his hometown) till the end of the 1915 season.




Demmitt re-appears in the 1914 T-213 (Coupon Tobacco) set. American Litho. used the artwork of Dem-
mitt with St Louis on his uniform, but his team caption is Chicago American.

Demmitt has a 2nd card in the T213 set with his team captioned as NY.


TED Z

[tedzan]

You stated......
"I have no idea what you're rambling on about Ted. I don't believe I posted anywhere in the thread you linked.

I didn't say you did.


You stated......
"If you have a problem with Rob, feel free to take it up with him."

I already have.


You stated......
"As far your post to Matt, I'm not trying to distract. I was as direct as can be."

Are you Matt's lawyer ?


You stated......
"It just means they don't understand and/or don't agree with you. It's you who then goes on the personal attack."

Matt and I exchanged at least 24 emails and net54 posts between us trying to resolve our differences regarding
Demmitt & O'Hara.

So, what the hell are you talking about ?
What do you really know ? ? All you have is a kneejerk rush to judgement....without knowing what transpired be-
tween Matt and I.


You stated......
"I also have no problems with Frank Wakefield or Joe P. Again, you're making stuff up. I anxiously await your
apology."

Perhaps, I'll apologize to you when you first apologize to me regarding your sarcastic comments to me in a recent
thread......
"Sorry if that attempt at humor sailed right over your head. I'll try to keep it more lowbrow going forward."


Look, we are just talking past each other. You totally disregard what I am telling you. And, I don't really under-
stand where you are coming from.

At least we have one thing in common......we are NY Yankees fans. So, let's leave it at that.


TED Z

[tedzan]

Rob D

These words of yours......" you're not worth the trouble of responding to anymore. "

You made my day.

[Jim VB]

You stated......
"I have no idea what you're rambling on about Ted. I don't believe I posted anywhere in the thread you linked.

I didn't say you did.

You said Rob and/or I interject the T206 Dunn into unrelated threads. I don't recall ever doing that.


You stated......
"If you have a problem with Rob, feel free to take it up with him."

I already have.

Good. Then leave me out of it.

You stated......
"As far your post to Matt, I'm not trying to distract. I was as direct as can be."

Are you Matt's lawyer ?

That makes no sense at all. Most lawyers are more circumspect than direct. I was merely pointing out you had been rude to Matt on the board.


You stated......
"It just means they don't understand and/or don't agree with you. It's you who then goes on the personal attack."

Matt and I exchanged at least 24 emails and net54 posts between us trying to resolve our differences regarding
Demmitt & O'Hara.

So, what the hell are you talking about ?
What do you really know ? ? All you have is a kneejerk rush to judgement....without knowing what transpired be-
tween Matt and I.

What I'm talking about is that you are a bully. You carry a discussion to a certain point then you want to end it by citing your experience and implying that anyone who disagrees with you isn't very sharp. Matt didn't need my help, but I felt like calling you on it.

You stated......
"I also have no problems with Frank Wakefield or Joe P. Again, you're making stuff up. I anxiously await your
apology."

Perhaps, I'll apologize to you when you first apologize to me regarding your sarcastic comments to me in a recent
thread......
"Sorry if that attempt at humor sailed right over your head. I'll try to keep it more lowbrow going forward."

My "sarcastic comment to you only came after you interjected yourself into a discussion I was having with another board member. You referred derogatorialy, to the "Ohio/Texas dudes". You were so focused on the fact that I made a comment that you didn't even notice that I WAS ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT YOU WERE. You didn't get my humor. It went over your head and you shot back.


Look, we are just talking past each other. You totally disregard what I am telling you. And, I don't really under-
stand where you are coming from.


I disregard what you're telling me? That's rich, coming from you. You disregard everything that everyone tells you, unless it fits neatly into thta packet of "what you already know."


I started on this discussion by trying to be as polite and respectful to you as possible. I certainly respect all you have done for the hobby in the way of research, but you reduce your reputation when you go on the attack with anyone who dares to ask too many questions or, God forbid, disagrees with your conclusions.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Matt and I exchanged at least 24 emails and net54 posts between us trying to resolve our differences regarding
Demmitt & O'Hara.

So, what the hell are you talking about ?
What do you really know ? ? All you have is a kneejerk rush to judgement....without knowing what transpired be-
tween Matt and I.

I'm only chiming in here to correct the implication that something happened off-line that somehow warrants your post above. I sent you maybe 2 emails a few weeks back on the topic and both were completely civil discussions as best I can recall. If you have them saved, feel free to post any part of them that you feel was not civil.


Edited to add: Just found the two messages I sent. Here they are:
"Ted - I'm not sure our public discussion is of much use to others, but if you are relying on his clarification we should discuss because his logic is badly flawed. I'm happy to continue offline if you think there is value there. Without the survey results in hand, I can 't say for certain, but my guess of of what you have shared is that the statistics may show an 80% likelihood that they are 350 series cards. We already have enough info to know that it is certainly not anything like 95%+.

kind regards,
-Matt"

"Hey Ted - if your premise is that it's more likely then not that they were 350 only series, then I certainly agree. However, your original post which started this stated as fact that we know they are 350 only series and that I don't support. I also don't think it is "very highly likely" as you said in your most recent post, but those are subjective words so maybe you meant 70% to which I do agree.

As far as the team IDs - I did respond in the thread. How is my answer not viable? If it was done for other players why should they be any different?

kind regards,
-Matt"

[FrankWakefield]

When the meteors kill the dinosaurs off of this board, that will be a day the board moves into a new epoch... a time when the collective knowledge has been significantly diminished. A bit more civility and deference would postpone that day.

Maybe instead we'd be better off with an additional alternative site, 'net54 Classic', with old dinosaur opinions and wisdom, no slab or registry stuff... Ted, Dan, and I would fit right in... and a few others.

Peace, guys. Come on!!!!


Polar Bear cards don't depict 150 or 460 series subjects. They depict 350 series subjects. The minor league cards are only in the 350 series, the minor league cards are found with Polar Bear backs. Instead of reading old posts, read Mr. Lipset's article on the white border tobacco cards, then read Scot Reader's work. After that, please return to this... I have difficulty believing that we're talking about Demmitt and O'Hara not being 350 cards. Maybe I'm missing something...

[tedzan]

We continued our discussion off-Net54 via your 3 emails and my 3 email replies to you. They all pertained
to statistical data regarding T206 mid series cards.

Prior to and after these emails we exchanged info posts on this thread....they can be read in the following
posts......

Matt...... #8, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 29

Ted....... #13, 19, 24, 26

As is evident in these posts, there is nothing but meaningful exchanges of information regarding T206 cards
conveyed in these exchanges between Matt and I.

So, all this conjured up crap by the likes of Jim VB, that started in his #48 post here, is imagined sheer B##S.
Simply, intended to instigate disruption in an otherwise very interesting and informative thread.

This is just the latest in a continuing game Rob D and Jim VB have played in recent years on selected threads
on Net54.



TED Z