Are new T206's an impossibility???

[ksabet]

I was having a conversation with a friend the other day and we wondered if at this point given the amount of fraudulent activity in the hobby, would it be impossible for a rare backed Wagner or other previously uncatalogued T206 with a rarer back to surface and pass the challenge of acceptance in an ever increasingly skeptical public eye?

The question is, for argument's sake: If an old lady in a rural area was discovered to own a Wagner Polar Bear or Cycle back, even if it was legit with science behind it, would we ever accept it as the real deal?

I have seen the hell some have gone through to prove legitimacy.

Just a curious thought.

[FrankWakefield]

A white border Wagner with a Cycle or Polar Bear back would be met with steadfast incredulity. Even if it got slabbed by someone.

[hunterdutchess]

I think you would have a better chance of finding Noah's Ark or the Holy Grail before finding an original Polar Bear Wagner. I did see a Polar Bear Wagner sell on ebay awhile back but it was one of thoes "unknown" found in uncles atic auctions, I think it went for $200.

[Rob D.]

I think, given a certain amount of credible evidence, some people would at least have an open mind to a new discovery. Not immediately accept it, mind you, but at least be willing to consider it. (Whether a slab is involved would have little to do with it. Just because some people collect graded cards doesn't mean they let professional grading companies do their thinking for them.)

Other people, no matter what the facts, would not even consider it. You see that happen almostly monthly on this board.

A similar scenario to the one you describe sort of played out with the discovery of the T206 Doyle N.Y. Nat'l variation. As the late Joe P. posted on Net54, there were experienced T206 collectors who for many years refused to acknowledge the rarity. They eventually changed their minds, Joe enjoyed pointing out.

[ksabet]

I will admit that after being mostly a lurker on this board I myself would even be skeptical and most likely dismiss someone who claimed to have found a newly discovered variation.

It's funny because I think in other arenas such as coins, currency stamps and especially art, new discoveries seem to be welcomed with a more open minded attitude. Not sure why (and I am one of the skeptics) with vintage cardboard there is a narrower line for discovery.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by ksabet

I will admit that after being mostly a lurker on this board I myself would even be skeptical and most likely dismiss someone who claimed to have found a newly discovered variation.

It's funny because I think in other arenas such as coins, currency stamps and especially art, new discoveries seem to be welcomed with a more open minded attitude. Not sure why (and I am one of the skeptics) with vintage cardboard there is a narrower line for discovery.

Kiya,

It's because vintage cardboardists don't have any social skills

[toppcat]

A new Wagner would have to be consistent with a 150 Series back, no?

[frohme]

On a smaller (than Wagnerian) scale, the "known lists" of the various front/back combos are still somewhat incomplete in the eyes of this board, even for some of the more common backs.

Ted's "n of 14" threads with commentary, additions, clarifications and corrections are an example of the ongoing effort to establish - for T206 - just what those bounds are. Given the relative rarity of some of the backs, we may not ever really know if the lists are complete. Even "simpler" ones - like his mentions of the pending Sweet Cap "Factory 25" checklists - will be interesting when they come out and get extended.

New backs for existing front poses will certainly be viewed with less skepticism than ones that fall outside perceived or accepted patterns. Breaking a "rule" like the Uzit/Red Hindu exclusivity would raise eyebrows, hackles, and general mayhem, but likely less than a Powers with an SC 460/25 back.

A Cobb throwing, now that'd be a horse of a different color.

[ksabet]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Kiya,

It's because vintage cardboardists don't have any social skills

James,

I have been to some shows and vintage guys can socialize with the best of them. And by socialize you do mean sitting and eating Arby's all day while complaining about everything and ignoring potential customers right?

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by ksabet

James,

I have been to some shows and vintage guys can socialize with the best of them. And by socialize you do mean sitting and eating Arby's all day while complaining about everything and ignoring potential customers right?

Kiya,

Happened half a dozen times at the National to me....at it was only Wednesday! By the way, let's do Arby's when you make it back up to Maryland.

James

[ksabet]

Originally Posted by frohme

On a smaller (than Wagnerian) scale, the "known lists" of the various front/back combos are still somewhat incomplete in the eyes of this board, even for some of the more common backs.

Ted's "n of 14" threads with commentary, additions, clarifications and corrections are an example of the ongoing effort to establish - for T206 - just what those bounds are. Given the relative rarity of some of the backs, we may not ever really know if the lists are complete. Even "simpler" ones - like his mentions of the pending Sweet Cap "Factory 25" checklists - will be interesting when they come out and get extended.

New backs for existing front poses will certainly be viewed with less skepticism than ones that fall outside perceived or accepted patterns. Breaking a "rule" like the Uzit/Red Hindu exclusivity would raise eyebrows, hackles, and general mayhem, but likely less than a Powers with an SC 460/25 back.

A Cobb throwing, now that'd be a horse of a different color.

Thanks Mike nice clarification. Do you know if Ted or someone else will be putting all the threads into one place for easier reading?

[ksabet]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Kiya,

Happened half a dozen times at the National to me....at it was only Wednesday! By the way, let's do Arby's when you make it back up to Maryland.

James

Definitely, but only if we can complain about how crappy the food is even though we chose to eat there.

[rhettyeakley]

I'm still holding out for the Hustler T206 back to someday show up!
-Rhett

[2dueces]

A Cobb throwing, now that'd be a horse of a different color.

One the same note. Is it possible that a new T206 front could surface after all these years? I know that the odds are incredibly small. Uncataloged cards surface every year but usually not from a set so highly collected as T206's. Fun to think of the possibility.

[buymycards]

Rhett, I always wondered about that too. Recruit, Hustler, Pan Handle, Scrap Iron, Sub Rosa - all of these companies made T206 size non sports cards. All of these companies issued cards in the 1910-1913 time frame. Will a baseball player from one of these brands come to light?

Rick

[E93]

I think you raise an important question about the nature of over-zealous skepticism, one that has largely been ignored in the responses. I'm sure there are people who won't post any scans on here because they have seen what has happened in the past. This forum has been an excellent hobby watchdog at times, but there have also been times when people are so anxious to find something wrong that off-base, uninformed, and misplaced claims have denigrated perfectly good cards. A middle way is most appropriate in my opinion.
JimB

[rhettyeakley]

Rick, the Hustler brand was actually carried on the very earliest lists ever made of the different T206 backs. It was likely just an error, where soomeone had mistakenly listed Hustler w/ the possible T206 backs instead of T59. BUT it would be pretty cool if a find of legit Hustler T206 were to surface someday!

[cfc1909]

Hustler.jpg!BPS+r9!!mk~$(KGrHgoH-CwEjlLlwwEDBJy8Vc3Lhw~~_1[1].jpg

don't worry about the Flags of all Nations on the Hustler back...

[ksabet]

Originally Posted by E93

I think you raise an important question about the nature of over-zealous skepticism, one that has largely been ignored in the responses. I'm sure there are people who won't post any scans on here because they have seen what has happened in the past. This forum has been an excellent hobby watchdog at times, but there have also been times when people are so anxious to find something wrong that off-base, uninformed, and misplaced claims have denigrated perfectly good cards. A middle way is most appropriate in my opinion.
JimB

Thanks Jim, I guess that is what I was getting at. I am surprised that some auction houses still get away with the "newly discovered" tag with some cards and memorabilia. with lesser known items it still flies. That is why I was wondering what the response would be if a new back for an existing player were to surface or God forbid a new player from a set like the monster.

By the way after starting this thread coincidentally I just found a Joe Jackson Sweet Cap in my Grandfathers attic.

[GoldenAge50s]

By the way after starting this thread coincidentally I just found a Joe Jackson Sweet Cap in my Grandfathers attic.

Is it the "stirrup" or "no-stirrup" version?

[FUBAR]

.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Rick, the Hustler brand was actually carried on the very earliest lists ever made of the different T206 backs. It was likely just an error, where soomeone had mistakenly listed Hustler w/ the possible T206 backs instead of T59. BUT it would be pretty cool if a find of legit Hustler T206 were to surface someday!

It was in the 1939 US Card Catalog as a T206 back as well: http://www.network54.com/Forum/52660...Burdick+images

[usernamealreadytaken]

I am keeping my eye out for a T206 Joe Jackson (sliding) with a Drum back...

[ksabet]

Originally Posted by usernamealreadytaken

I am keeping my eye out for a T206 Joe Jackson (sliding) with a Drum back...

I think my great grandfather had one. They found it buried in an old chest inside an attic wall.