Printing Errors.. Why aren't they all valuable?

[cfc1909]

Just checked through some notes on the set that are from the mid 90s-identified are around 200 different examples that have a slight change from the original card. Be it a partial S or E or a ' or a , or a ; instead of a , or 2 ll instead of a u or a large , instead of a small , or no O or CREF instead of CREE and the list goes on and on. The Wiltse & Lundgren examples are also identified. Also there are some background changes not just captions...

I would think the scene/background differences are more interesting than the caption or letter changes.

Try this-buy 10 to 20 examples of the same card. Lay them out next to each other and see a variation come to life. Also look at Nat'l from every card.

The reason some are valuable and others are not is because the valuable ones were noticed and checklisted by collectors 50 plus years ago. If this Lundgren was noted and checklisted it probably would bring the same coin as Murray, Sharp and Snodgrass. They are really only valuable because collectors are willing to pay for them.

Just last year we noticed the different color green on the Sovereign 350/460 cards. These are not any more valuable than the other Sovereigns but definately a different color. This set is endless-the longer you collect it th emore you will notice.

[jimonym]

I think Jim's right. There are hundreds of different nuanced variations. I think for most folks whether the card has some punch (in terms of unusualness and visual impact) is what affects monetary value. Leon's card clearly has that. For some people, part of a missing E does. For others it doesn't. Here are two of my favorites (not appearing anytime soon on BST). I think they have some punch. Others may disagree. It's no big deal; I collect what I like.

One of the consequences of the way most T206s were printed (vertical columns of the same card) is that there are lots of the "same" variation out there. By lots I mean a handful, at least. It's amazing how many cards seem like they could be one-offs, and several more are lurking out there somewhere.

[Jantz]

I have to agree with Jim R on this one. The more time spent looking or collecting, even more variances will appear & probably more Ludgrens too.


What are the backs on all of these "Ludgrens"?


Jantz

[ethicsprof]

Jim R is as wise and astute as always.
Time will bring us many for the ERRATA section of T206 but few--and probably only a couple--will survive as key critical errors.
Still, 'tis fun seeing the various 'new ones' along the way.

best,
barry

[Captainhask]

Originally Posted by Jantz

I have to agree with Jim R on this one. The more time spent looking or collecting, even more variances will appear & probably more Ludgrens too.


What are the backs on all of these "Ludgrens"?


Jantz

Mine is a "Chicago" Piedmont 150 Fac 25

[iggyman]

Piedmont 150, Factory 25 Va.

"There real, and they're spectacular!"

please substitute the word "There" with "The T206 Lundgren Cubs variation is......" in the above phrase. Thank you!

Oh, and a big thanks to Blunder as well!

Lovely Day...

[Jantz]

Captainhask & Iggyman - Thank you for posting the back info.

Looks like these "Ludgrens" may all have the same back or series.

Jantz

[Blunder19]

Mine is also a Pied 150 fact 25...

Cant wait to see more turn up...

[Exhibitman]

I have Hoblitzell very similar to that Paskert. The red ink ran out. That happens on Cincy T206s.



I also have a Thomas (A's) missing most of the red in the sky. And this Titus is missing its red ink:



Those sorts of printing anomalies can carry a nice premium from a specialist but you need a really botched card to pull the big bucks



Funny thing is, you'd think modern technology would avoid most of that sort of stuff, but it doesn't: