New T206 Error - kidding

[GoldenAge50s]

Just cked mine & I have a P150 w/ perfect SULL--no mistake on mine!

[Jaybird]

I checked with a loupe and it's definitely a printing error and not a paper flake.

Interestingly enough, I was searching and found a thread from March of last year regarding Lundgren with similar type of error. I guess this comes up every year or so (or more often).

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ognized&page=4

Jim R had an interesting response where I believe he is mentioning the two LLs rather than a U from a bunch of notes back in the 90s. I wonder if that is referring to this card.

Originally Posted by 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.

[Pat R]

I picked up this Sullivan print flaw, first I want to say I don't consider flaws
like this variations I think of them as multi example print flaws. I will pay
a small premium for these because I find them interesting and I think
they are helpful in the research side of the set.

One of the areas I feel they can be helpful in is trying to establish how many verticals of each subject might have been on a sheet. Most research on these
type of flaws put them in the 8%-10% range which is in line with the 9 or possibly higher same subject verticals that the plate scratch sheets indicate.

[pbspelly]

No offense, but unless it's an inverted Jenny, I find most printing mistakes uninteresting, and never really understand why they are touted as more valuable cards. Seems kind of contradictory to me, when other cards are often severely downgraded for being slightly off-center, weak colors, or having some barely noticeable flaw. Sometimes I almost feel that collectors are looking to create a new thing to collect and value, and latch on to printing errors just for that reason. But I recognize that a lot of people don't share my view.

[mybuddyinc]

Cool, got'ta name it, I suggest:

"Silllivan" error