T206Resource.com - a new T206 site

[T206.org]

John, the articles don't gush about me finding these errors. They both say the same thing, that they'll be cataloged through my efforts. All that means is that I took the time to bring them to Bob's attention (with multiple follow ups), to have them cataloged.

It clearly states "they have been known among serious T206 collectors for a long time, but they have never been previously cataloged". That's you, among others.

--

Hi Scott, just saw your email. These "errors" have already been debated many times over in existing threads.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by T206.org

John, the articles don't gush about me finding these errors. They both say the same thing, that they'll be cataloged through my efforts. All that means is that I took the time to bring them to Bob's attention (with multiple follow ups), to have them cataloged.

It clearly states "they have been known among serious T206 collectors for a long time, but they have never been previously cataloged". That's you, among others.

--

Hi Scott, just saw your email. These "errors" have already been debated many times over in existing threads.

Okay, since I missed the discussions then, I understand, and they will never again be mentioned.

[T206.org]

No-no, I was just thinking you could dig them up using the search and continue any existing discussions. John even linked one in his post. I do appreciate your consideration to my sales post though!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by T206.org

No-no, I was just thinking you could dig them up using the search and continue any existing discussions. John even linked one in his post. I do appreciate your consideration to my sales post though!

Thanks, and congrats on selling them. The prices were fair, just for the fact that they were anomalies.

[T206.org]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Thanks, and congrats on selling them. The prices were fair, just for the fact that they were anomalies.

Thanks, Scott! In the end, I came down a little over 20% and sold them as a pair.

[Gradedcardman]

I'm happy to have them both. My collection is back heavy but some interesting fronts are fun too. Thanks Trae.

[T206.org]

Thank you too, Adam.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by T206.org

John, the articles don't gush about me finding these errors. They both say the same thing, that they'll be cataloged through my efforts. All that means is that I took the time to bring them to Bob's attention (with multiple follow ups), to have them cataloged.

It clearly states "they have been known among serious T206 collectors for a long time, but they have never been previously cataloged". That's you, among others.

--

Hi Scott, just saw your email. These "errors" have already been debated many times over in existing threads.

Trae, I don’t really care either way that's my whole point here. I know you’re just taking info you found via others and trying to push it forward....to have it added to add to value to your sales of these cards.

The main reason me and other "advanced" T206 collectors aren't chasing Bob on these is there are dozens if not 40-50 of these little things like Randall, Marquard, Lefty in this set. If we added them all we would have a really long checklist with goofy errors a lot of which are nothing more than printing var. that's all.

John

[Jaybird]

I agree. I'm not going to say there is a variation on every pose but there sure are a lot of them. There's a big difference between these variations and legitimate changes that were made to the plates (on purpose) resulting in a wholly different card. Many of the proofs show these changes that were made (i.e., Leon's Matty). You can see many differences (not so subtle) which are readily apparent. Partial G, partial S, and all these that happen during the course of printing are somewhat interesting but more of an insight into the printing process itself rather than the intentions of the printers or the company that made the cards.

I've found a couple over the course of collecting just by putting some of the same cards side by side. Here's one I found. I didn't ascribe any value to it but if others do, so be it.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=135461

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Jaybird

I agree. I'm not going to say there is a variation on every pose but there sure are a lot of them. There's a big difference between these variations and legitimate changes that were made to the plates (on purpose) resulting in a wholly different card. Many of the proofs show these changes that were made (i.e., Leon's Matty). You can see many differences (not so subtle) which are readily apparent. Partial G, partial S, and all these that happen during the course of printing are somewhat interesting but more of an insight into the printing process itself rather than the intentions of the printers or the company that made the cards.

I've found a couple over the course of collecting just by putting some of the same cards side by side. Here's one I found. I didn't ascribe any value to it but if others do, so be it.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=135461

I see the cards you mention as being of three types: 1) errors (such as 'Magie'), 2) intentional variations (possibly the Matty black cap), and 3) poor execution of a design ('nodgrass', the partial 'G' discussed here, the 'red blob' McGraw portrait, the 'comma' Marquard, the partial 'Natl' McGraw that I showed several years ago, Sharpe/Shappe - as John points out, the list is endless and if you are going to include these, you might as well throw in 'Weimer ghost on back' (since there are more than one), and any other odd card that made it into production).

As you would expect, there was a lot of poor execution.

[Jaybird]

You lay it out nicely, Scott. #1: Errors, which were corrected resulting in two different cards, the error card and the corrected card (i.e., Magie). and then #3 Poor Execution.

However, I don't know if I understand the #2: Intentional Variation one. On your Matty Black Cap, are you saying they intentionally were making a different looking card? I'm not sure I agree. I think the quality control was just not quite up to the task or they went about the procedures in a different way to create the card. It's hard for me to believe the printer was looking and trying to make the green background 1/16 of an inch shorter than another card.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Jaybird

You lay it out nicely, Scott. #1: Errors, which were corrected resulting in two different cards, the error card and the corrected card (i.e., Magie). and then #3 Poor Execution.

However, I don't know if I understand the #2: Intentional Variation one. On your Matty Black Cap, are you saying they intentionally were making a different looking card? I'm not sure I agree. I think the quality control was just not quite up to the task or they went about the procedures in a different way to create the card. It's hard for me to believe the printer was looking and trying to make the green background 1/16 of an inch shorter than another card.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.

That's why I said "possibly". I'm not sure it was intentional either; in fact, I'm leaning against it. But we have seen some very minor changes to cards, so it's clear that creative urges were sometimes implemented (Bender 'with/without' trees, chase white/black cap, etc.). The Matty ink color differences might have been unintentional, similar to orange vs red background (I assume that was unintentional) in portraits, or there might be other examples we haven't studied closely enough, where ink differences actually were intentional. I don't know for certain, but I'm not ruling it out.

If it turns out that I'm right about ANYTHING new, I think Eric Angyal deserves the credit - it's important to him, and he was always a decent hobbyist friend.

If it turns out that I'm wrong about something, feel free to rake me over the coals...as usually occurs on this forum

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by Runscott

That's why I said "possibly". I'm not sure it was intentional either; in fact, I'm leaning against it. But we have seen some very minor changes to cards, so it's clear that creative urges were sometimes implemented (Bender 'with/without' trees, chase white/black cap, etc.). The Matty ink color differences might have been unintentional, similar to orange vs red background (I assume that was unintentional) in portraits, or there might be other examples we haven't studied closely enough, where ink differences actually were intentional. I don't know for certain, but I'm not ruling it out.

Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. I need it sometimes (often).

[T206.org]

Cheers, John. Understood.