A New T205 Variation.... It's Official Now.

[Matt E.]

I agree with you Frank that what SGC says pretty much goes as the standard, but I am not so willing to agree with our beloved SGC right now. Maybe I will change my mind.

Regarding this new Mathewson Cycle "variation"... Currently the card is found with only one back. It should not be added to the Master Set until a "37-1" example surfaces on a different advertising back........ OR with the correct stats listed on the Cycle back to set a baseline comparison.


Would love to hear thoughts from SGC or Joshua on this one please.

Can someone post a scan of the back of this card?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Matt E.

Regarding this new Mathewson Cycle "variation"... Currently the card is found with only one back. It should not be added to the Master Set until a "37-1" example surfaces on a different advertising back........ OR with the correct stats listed on the Cycle back to set a baseline comparison.

My esteemed fellow Matt - we've discussed this before, but here it goes again. I don't agree that a card must exist with two different versions of the text on the same advertising back to be considered a variation - and there is much precedent against your position, first and foremost that the T206 O'Hara and DeMitt St. Louis, only exist with the PB backs.

Answer me this question - this was clearly an error that was corrected in between the Cycle run and the other backs. You agree that if it was found in the middle of the Cycle run it should count as an official variation, or if it was found after say the Cycle and Hassan runs it should also be counted - why is the fact that they found and corrected the error after only the Cycle run a reason not to count it?

Actually, I'll take issue with SGC on this one as well - it should be listed as "Mathewson (37-1)" as opposed to "Mathewson (Cycle back)."

[FrankWakefield]

Matt, I don't think that at all. Just because SGC says something in no way convinces me that it is right. Same even more so for PSA...

[Tcards-Please]

Matt

I don't necessarily agree with your opinion that a Cycle with "37-11" should be found before listing the cycle as a variation. You seem to accept that Wilhelm "suffe ed" is a variation although it is only found with a piedmont back. I could be wrong, but I've never seen a "suffered" version with a piedmont back.

I'm glad to see that SGC finally listed it on their registry. Here is a copy of mine, although not too clear.

Another ghost to chase around.

Everybody needs to feel important an kudos to who ever found a card with a misprint. The card was never corrected so it is not a variation. Kinda like the Doc White quotes no quotes variation. Only found on polar Bear cards and no corrected version. They should be listed as UER's and not variation's . I guess the other 2 cards mentioned in the DOC WHITE thread as well as the white will be the next 3 variations I give up. Whats next in this long exhausting journey.

I am a little pissed as now I have to explain to my wife I need another card for the set and that now it is going to be another over priced inflated card.

Maybe the new Latham card I have will be a variation also. I mean it has a W ghost printed on a back that is not known to have the W.A. version.

I will Call it the W.A. Latham HLC ghost printed W version. should be worth about $300+ normally but I will take offers of no less than $5000+ I mean it is a POP 1 and there are no others or corrected types.

Crazy there are 4 new variations in an few months

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Pup6913

I am a little pissed as now I have to explain to my wife I need another card for the set and that now it is going to be another over priced inflated card.

At least you and Matt E and honest that your opposition to this being called a variation is biased because it means you have to chase another cards for your sets

anyone know the pop report forthe Cycle Mathewson???

Am I going to have to kill someone for the card(if its high enough grade I may think about it)

Or is it like anyother cycle and just waiting to be sold?

What do you think the premiums are going to be?

I may pay a bit more but not 2-10x's like some seller think cycles are worth

[Matt E.]

My friend Matt W.

There is no possible way you know my motives or how many, if any, sit right here beside me on my desk. Pup runs with his own pack.

I bet it was you who called SGC leading the charge on this one. Right?

Either way you got a nice hit from Ebay if I remember correctly.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Matt E.

I bet it was you who called SGC leading the charge on this one. Right?

Not I; as I said - if it was up to me, it should be labeled "Mathewson 37-1" just as Wilhelm is labeled "Wilhelm suffered"

[Tcards-Please]

Andrew,

I'm not sure what PSA's is, but SGC's pop report shows 11 total.
(2) - 20
(2) - 30
(3) - 40
(2) - 50
(2) - 60

I don't know how many of those 11 were sent to PSA for crossover, but I know that mine was crossed over from PSA.

r/
Frank

[marcdelpercio]

Originally Posted by Matt

Answer me this question - this was clearly an error that was corrected in between the Cycle run and the other backs. You agree that if it was found in the middle of the Cycle run it should count as an official variation, or if it was found after say the Cycle and Hassan runs it should also be counted - why is the fact that they found and corrected the error after only the Cycle run a reason not to count it?

I have yet to see anybody who claims that the Mathewson and White cards are not variations offer an answer to the above question that Matt posed. I have also not seen an answer to whether they consider the T206 Demmitt and O'Hara cards to be variations. I have ALSO not seen an answer to the question that I posed in the thread I started about the T205 Doc White regarding what cards in the T205 set they DO consider to be variations as the majority of the widely accepted variations in the set DO NOT feature both versions with the same advertising back. It seems to me that somebody who genuinely believes that these cards are not variations should be able to easily answer these questions and offer some logical reasoning for their answers. Anybody?

I also find it interesting that some of the people who claim that these are not variations, in their following posts, lament the fact that they will now have to collect them for their sets.

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

I also find it interesting that some of the people who claim that these are not variations, in their following posts, lament the fact that they will now have to collect them for their sets.

Well if its part of the master set you have to get it to be 100% complete. I do not agree with it but thats how it is. Same way with the White. If it gets recognized then I guess It's another for the collection. From my guess there should be about 3 more variations to arise.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

I find this discussion kind of amazing since we each make a decision as a collector of what we are going to collect and how we are going to collect it. If you collect the T205 set with all the front variations is that not a complete set? I believe that is the desired intent of the producers.

Now if you as a collector think you need to get each card with each variation does that not include all back variations including the advertising?

So to me if you are trying to collect a T205 "master set" you will need a Matty Cycle back whether it has a 37 -11 or a 37 - 1 record.

I owned 3 different Matty Cycles and noticed the 37-1 record with the first one. I brought it up to many will respected hobby people and it was always dismissed because it only came in the Cycle back and no 37-11 was known.

Now all it really takes it a few collectors to decide that they are something special and are willing to pay a premium for them, and be over hyped in an auction. To me all comes down to collectors preferences. We all have our own way of collecting and I don't understand why some people are offended with others collecting habits.

Lee

[Matt]

Lee - it's certainly entirely your call what you want to collect; that said, when we start talking about what should be SCD cataloged (or in this case what should be defined in a registry set) it's a different discussion. You may be of the opinion that if you have all front variations in a set you are complete or if you have all the text the manufacturer intended to issue you are complete, but for the T205 issue neither of those are the already established definition for cataloging or set registry. "the desired intent of the producers" is certainly a valid way of collecting (as is any other method) but it is clearly established that checklists/catalogs/registries list errors/corrected version as variations.

[marcdelpercio]

I haven't gotten the impression (at least in this thread) that anybody is "offended" by the way that anybody else collects. I do think this is a very valid debate however as this is a widely collected set and whether a card is considered an addition to the checklist as opposed to simply a different ad back will affect how a number of people collect.

Obviously a card will only have increased value if there is an increased demand for it. I don't think that this is really a discussion about value so much as it is about set completeness. I have not seen anybody, including myself who originally posted about it, claim that the Doc White variation will have a significantly higher value as it is a common player with the variation appearing on a common back. The Mathewson variation commands a premium because he is a top level HOF player and the variation appears only with a scarcer back.

I think the term "master set" is sometimes misused in this discussion. No true master set will ever exist as that would have to include all Drum, Hindu, Broad Leaf, etc. As I said in the other thread, when somebody says, "I have a complete set of T205's", I don't think anybody would take that to mean that they have every possible front/back combination of every card in the set. What that person means is that they have one of every front/back DESIGN in the set. By definition, this would have to include the Doc White, Matty, and any other such variations.

It seems that the people who do believe that these cards are variations offer identical widely accepted examples from this set and others and present a logical analysis as to why they feel these should be variations. I still have not seen any answers to these points by those who disagree.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

Matt, why then are the different ad backs not considered variations to the set? to me with your reasoning they should be included as a variation. I do not believe there is any so called complete set of T206s that has a back variation because other than the advertising there is no back diferences.

One other question, These cards were not all manufactured at the same time and same place, so the theory about correct a printing after a certain back is produced does not seem like a good arguement to me.

Lee

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

I haven't gotten the impression (at least in this thread) that anybody is "offended" by the way that anybody else collects. I do think this is a very valid debate however as this is a widely collected set and whether a card is considered an addition to the checklist as opposed to simply a different ad back will affect how a number of people collect.

Obviously a card will only have increased value if there is an increased demand for it. I don't think that this is really a discussion about value so much as it is about set completeness. I have not seen anybody, including myself who originally posted about it, claim that the Doc White variation will have a significantly higher value as it is a common player with the variation appearing on a common back. The Mathewson variation commands a premium because he is a top level HOF player and the variation appears only with a scarcer back.

I think the term "master set" is sometimes misused in this discussion. No true master set will ever exist as that would have to include all Drum, Hindu, Broad Leaf, etc. As I said in the other thread, when somebody says, "I have a complete set of T205's", I don't think anybody would take that to mean that they have every possible front/back combination of every card in the set. What that person means is that they have one of every front/back DESIGN in the set. By definition, this would have to include the Doc White, Matty, and any other such variations.

It seems that the people who do believe that these cards are variations offer identical widely accepted examples from this set and others and present a logical analysis as to why they feel these should be variations. I still have not seen any answers to these points by those who disagree.

I have to agree with marc. I know for a fact that i own 3-4 cards with certain backs that I will never sell. These cards are the only ones graded with those backs and every one I see I buy just for that reason. It is impossible to complete a master set with all front and back variations. But it is not impossible to complete a master set with print variations.

Now with that being said all we need to do is stop staring at the damn cards so long to find these variations and just buy them. I was nearing the 1/2 way point after about 1 yr on this set. I still have most the big guys to go but it is easier to fall a tree sometimes when you start with smaller wacks and then swing away at the end.

Just some FYI. I think certain back companies may have chose to print certain cards the way they did. Like the Piedmont Blackburne in Bold letters Why is it that way? The WA lathams in Sweet Cap only(soon to have HLC included) Doc white Polar bear quotes and no quotes, The Germany Shaffer Quotes no quotes. I mean come on how nit picky does it have to be.

BTW there was an explanation to the T206 Polar bear backed Demmitt and Ohara's in the thread Marc started about the White "Variation".