T207....indeed a strange set....let' talk about it ?

[timn1]

Hi Ron,

I see what you mean: holding back that many stars from the initial offerings of a set would be pretty unusual-- but not inconceivable.

However, in terms of raw numbers, I don't see why they couldn't have come up with at least 50 more MLB players, possibly 100 more.

If I am right that the scarcer Recruits and -- clearly --the players found with Broadleaf backs were issued in series of 50 at a later date than the first 100, I can imagine that one or possibly two more series of 50 were envisioned for the following season.

200 players/16 ML teams is 12.5 players per team. Given how many marginal players are among the 200, I can certainly see 6 more players per team being issued, which would make another 100. We could even go through 1912-13 rosters and come up with a likely list of possibilities.

Re Mitchell: not sure why you feel that the two Mitchell cards picture the same player. One is in a Cleveland uni, one in a Cincy uni. Even if they screwed up the writeups, it still seems like two different players, no?

Tim