Nicholls SC150 649 OP CONTROVERSY

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

This card with the SWEET CAPORAL 150 Factory 649 (overprint) back is on my list since it has been seen. Scot Reader's T206 survey of over 14,000 cards indicates that this card exists. I have said it exists; however, certain skeptics here choose not to believe me.

Nobody is arguing that one (1) Nicholls 649 was noted on Scot’s survey. But as Jim said there’s only 1 confirmed out of 14,000 entries and could have been a bad scan or mistake in the entry.

I personally have contacted Ted with several entries on the lists that were impossible front/back combinations and all of them were eventually removed. Those cards were entered as being seen indicating that they existed just like the Nicholls but were determined to not be correct and removed.

The difference in this situation and those cards that were removed is that Ted didn’t claim to own any of those.

Ultimately what anyone owns or claims to own doesn’t matter, the most important thing is putting out the most accurate and honest information we can for those that rely on it. This set is too complex and too difficult to have collectors chasing known bad information.

I find it hard to believe that I’m the only one disappointed by this.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Nobody is arguing that one (1) Nicholls 649 was noted on Scot’s survey. But as Jim said there’s only 1 confirmed out of 14,000 entries and could
have been a bad scan or mistake in the entry.

That same 14,000 card survey has the following data on these SWEET CAP 150 (factory 649) cards......

1 ...... Ewing
1 ...... Gilbert
1 ...... McIntyre
1 ...... Nicholls
1 ...... O'Leary
0 ...... Schlei
0 ...... Spencer
1 ...... Wagner

While guys like G. Davis, Johnson, Marquard, Matty, and Powers have 5-6 samples each.


P.S. Jim is attempting to rationalize his skepticism. But, he has no proof that this Nicholls entry is NOT valid.
Jim....of all people....knows that there exists a high probability of unique T206 front/back combos......e.g. 150 series Schulte with a PIEDMONT 350
back (as only one has been accounted for).

TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

That same 14,000 card survey has the following data on these SWEET CAP 150 (factory 649) cards......

1 ...... Ewing
1 ...... Gilbert
1 ...... McIntyre
1 ...... Nicholls
1 ...... O'Leary
0 ...... Schlei
0 ...... Spencer
1 ...... Wagner



TED Z

I own all of those cards with a 649 back on that list with the exception of Nicholls. I have seen all of the 34 come to market within a 4 month period and all but one multiple times.

Those exist and I can prove it with scans. I have looked for the Nicholls long before I started collecting the subset and I have never seen one. No one else has ever seen one. You haven't produced any proof of one.

Do you see why I'm skeptical?

New front/back combinations still happen from time to time, but this is a common back where every other example shows up with regularity. They were printed the same in the same quantities. Nicholls would show up if it existed.

[Abravefan11]

Also you continue when pushed into a corner to point to Scot and his work when his list is a survey and he never claimed to own the card.

You're the only person that has claimed to own this card. Stop shirking that responsibility.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Interesting question of burden of proof. Is the burden to show it does exist, or to show that it does not exist?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Interesting question of burden of proof. Is the burden to show it does exist, or to show that it does not exist?

Peter - When it comes to putting cards on a list of "confirmed" examples and publishing those list to the hobby to be used as credible information the burden absolutely falls on proving the card does exist.

The lists I use have a tremendous amount of cards on them that are listed as "possible" but not confirmed.

It's difficult to say with any certainty that a front/back combo will not show up but it is possible, but great care should be take when making those claims and you should be open to the idea you could be proven wrong someday.

Again when claiming the card as "confirmed" as in this case, the burden of proof falls on proving it does exist.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Peter - When it comes to putting cards on a list of "confirmed" examples and publishing those list to the hobby to be used as credible information the burden absolutely falls on proving the card does exist.

The lists I use have a tremendous amount of cards on them that are listed as "possible" but not confirmed.

It's difficult to say with any certainty that a front/back combo will not show up but it is possible, but great care should be take when making those claims and you should be open to the idea you could be proven wrong someday.

Again when claiming the card as "confirmed" as in this case, the burden of proof falls on proving it does exist.

OK, but to continue the legal analogy, why isn't the confirmation on the 14,000 card survey and Ted's stating that he owned the card enough to meet his burden or, in legal terms, to shift the burden to the people claiming it does not exist?

[marcdelpercio]

It is really impossible to prove that a card does NOT exist. I could claim that I own several previously uncatalogued T206 cards and nobody could prove that I don't. Logically, it would seem that anybody (especially one who truly wishes to research and document this set) who did own such an elusive card would be very eager to display it frequently or at least verify its existence.

It would be the equivalent of a prominent biologist who claimed to have captured a Yeti, but then refused to show the rest of the scientific community any evidence.

[wonkaticket]

I too own most of those cards or have owned them as I gave one Wagner away recently.



Funny though never seen a Nichols or owned one...only person I know who has ever claimed to own one is Ted.

Maybe ted has never owned it and this whole story along with others is just another elaborate test by Ted to see if we are worthy to talk T206’s.

Funny in just a handful of collectors I was able to confirm the Wagner above which is a tougher Sweet Cap 649…but not one person has seen a Nicholls besides the entry on Scot’s list and this phantom card of Teds.

Cheers,

John

P.S. If anyone can produce a real not re-backed, fake scan etc. Nicholls Sweet Cap 649 OP I’ll pay you cash to see it. If it’s in decent shape I’d say I’ll trade you a VG Green Cobb for the card but my extras are P150 so their OC to the top as 95% of them all are unless they are Hindu.