A New T205 Variation.... It's Official Now.

[Matt E.]

#133 Christy Mathewson (Cycle Back)......... 10.00


Just happened to look at the T205 SGC Master Set Registry this morning and noticed a new variation. I know we have talked about this before on the board, but am wondering when SGC made the final call to make it a variation.

Interesting

previous thread on this topic.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=751541

Matt

[FrankWakefield]

So if SGC says it is so, then that is "official"?

[Matt E.]

I agree with you Frank that what SGC says pretty much goes as the standard, but I am not so willing to agree with our beloved SGC right now. Maybe I will change my mind.

Regarding this new Mathewson Cycle "variation"... Currently the card is found with only one back. It should not be added to the Master Set until a "37-1" example surfaces on a different advertising back........ OR with the correct stats listed on the Cycle back to set a baseline comparison.


Would love to hear thoughts from SGC or Joshua on this one please.

Can someone post a scan of the back of this card?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Matt E.

Regarding this new Mathewson Cycle "variation"... Currently the card is found with only one back. It should not be added to the Master Set until a "37-1" example surfaces on a different advertising back........ OR with the correct stats listed on the Cycle back to set a baseline comparison.

My esteemed fellow Matt - we've discussed this before, but here it goes again. I don't agree that a card must exist with two different versions of the text on the same advertising back to be considered a variation - and there is much precedent against your position, first and foremost that the T206 O'Hara and DeMitt St. Louis, only exist with the PB backs.

Answer me this question - this was clearly an error that was corrected in between the Cycle run and the other backs. You agree that if it was found in the middle of the Cycle run it should count as an official variation, or if it was found after say the Cycle and Hassan runs it should also be counted - why is the fact that they found and corrected the error after only the Cycle run a reason not to count it?

Actually, I'll take issue with SGC on this one as well - it should be listed as "Mathewson (37-1)" as opposed to "Mathewson (Cycle back)."

[FrankWakefield]

Matt, I don't think that at all. Just because SGC says something in no way convinces me that it is right. Same even more so for PSA...

Another ghost to chase around.

Everybody needs to feel important an kudos to who ever found a card with a misprint. The card was never corrected so it is not a variation. Kinda like the Doc White quotes no quotes variation. Only found on polar Bear cards and no corrected version. They should be listed as UER's and not variation's . I guess the other 2 cards mentioned in the DOC WHITE thread as well as the white will be the next 3 variations I give up. Whats next in this long exhausting journey.

I am a little pissed as now I have to explain to my wife I need another card for the set and that now it is going to be another over priced inflated card.

Maybe the new Latham card I have will be a variation also. I mean it has a W ghost printed on a back that is not known to have the W.A. version.

I will Call it the W.A. Latham HLC ghost printed W version. should be worth about $300+ normally but I will take offers of no less than $5000+ I mean it is a POP 1 and there are no others or corrected types.

Crazy there are 4 new variations in an few months

[Tcards-Please]

Matt

I don't necessarily agree with your opinion that a Cycle with "37-11" should be found before listing the cycle as a variation. You seem to accept that Wilhelm "suffe ed" is a variation although it is only found with a piedmont back. I could be wrong, but I've never seen a "suffered" version with a piedmont back.

I'm glad to see that SGC finally listed it on their registry. Here is a copy of mine, although not too clear.

Has anyone else but me noticed that Polar Bear backed cards contain the Most "Variations" Anyone ever think maybe they just wanted to be different???

The Doc white card
The Moran with stray line is found with Polar Bear only.
The T206's Demmitt and O'Hara

I am sure there are more. Feel free to add to the list These are just off the top of my head

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Pup6913

I am a little pissed as now I have to explain to my wife I need another card for the set and that now it is going to be another over priced inflated card.

At least you and Matt E and honest that your opposition to this being called a variation is biased because it means you have to chase another cards for your sets

anyone know the pop report forthe Cycle Mathewson???

Am I going to have to kill someone for the card(if its high enough grade I may think about it)

Or is it like anyother cycle and just waiting to be sold?

What do you think the premiums are going to be?

I may pay a bit more but not 2-10x's like some seller think cycles are worth

[Matt E.]

My friend Matt W.

There is no possible way you know my motives or how many, if any, sit right here beside me on my desk. Pup runs with his own pack.

I bet it was you who called SGC leading the charge on this one. Right?

Either way you got a nice hit from Ebay if I remember correctly.

[Tcards-Please]

Andrew,

I'm not sure what PSA's is, but SGC's pop report shows 11 total.
(2) - 20
(2) - 30
(3) - 40
(2) - 50
(2) - 60

I don't know how many of those 11 were sent to PSA for crossover, but I know that mine was crossed over from PSA.

r/
Frank

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Matt E.

I bet it was you who called SGC leading the charge on this one. Right?

Not I; as I said - if it was up to me, it should be labeled "Mathewson 37-1" just as Wilhelm is labeled "Wilhelm suffered"

[marcdelpercio]

Originally Posted by Matt

Answer me this question - this was clearly an error that was corrected in between the Cycle run and the other backs. You agree that if it was found in the middle of the Cycle run it should count as an official variation, or if it was found after say the Cycle and Hassan runs it should also be counted - why is the fact that they found and corrected the error after only the Cycle run a reason not to count it?

I have yet to see anybody who claims that the Mathewson and White cards are not variations offer an answer to the above question that Matt posed. I have also not seen an answer to whether they consider the T206 Demmitt and O'Hara cards to be variations. I have ALSO not seen an answer to the question that I posed in the thread I started about the T205 Doc White regarding what cards in the T205 set they DO consider to be variations as the majority of the widely accepted variations in the set DO NOT feature both versions with the same advertising back. It seems to me that somebody who genuinely believes that these cards are not variations should be able to easily answer these questions and offer some logical reasoning for their answers. Anybody?

I also find it interesting that some of the people who claim that these are not variations, in their following posts, lament the fact that they will now have to collect them for their sets.

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

I also find it interesting that some of the people who claim that these are not variations, in their following posts, lament the fact that they will now have to collect them for their sets.

Well if its part of the master set you have to get it to be 100% complete. I do not agree with it but thats how it is. Same way with the White. If it gets recognized then I guess It's another for the collection. From my guess there should be about 3 more variations to arise.

[BCD]

yes Frank! they get paid for that!

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

I find this discussion kind of amazing since we each make a decision as a collector of what we are going to collect and how we are going to collect it. If you collect the T205 set with all the front variations is that not a complete set? I believe that is the desired intent of the producers.

Now if you as a collector think you need to get each card with each variation does that not include all back variations including the advertising?

So to me if you are trying to collect a T205 "master set" you will need a Matty Cycle back whether it has a 37 -11 or a 37 - 1 record.

I owned 3 different Matty Cycles and noticed the 37-1 record with the first one. I brought it up to many will respected hobby people and it was always dismissed because it only came in the Cycle back and no 37-11 was known.

Now all it really takes it a few collectors to decide that they are something special and are willing to pay a premium for them, and be over hyped in an auction. To me all comes down to collectors preferences. We all have our own way of collecting and I don't understand why some people are offended with others collecting habits.

Lee

[Matt]

Lee - it's certainly entirely your call what you want to collect; that said, when we start talking about what should be SCD cataloged (or in this case what should be defined in a registry set) it's a different discussion. You may be of the opinion that if you have all front variations in a set you are complete or if you have all the text the manufacturer intended to issue you are complete, but for the T205 issue neither of those are the already established definition for cataloging or set registry. "the desired intent of the producers" is certainly a valid way of collecting (as is any other method) but it is clearly established that checklists/catalogs/registries list errors/corrected version as variations.

[marcdelpercio]

I haven't gotten the impression (at least in this thread) that anybody is "offended" by the way that anybody else collects. I do think this is a very valid debate however as this is a widely collected set and whether a card is considered an addition to the checklist as opposed to simply a different ad back will affect how a number of people collect.

Obviously a card will only have increased value if there is an increased demand for it. I don't think that this is really a discussion about value so much as it is about set completeness. I have not seen anybody, including myself who originally posted about it, claim that the Doc White variation will have a significantly higher value as it is a common player with the variation appearing on a common back. The Mathewson variation commands a premium because he is a top level HOF player and the variation appears only with a scarcer back.

I think the term "master set" is sometimes misused in this discussion. No true master set will ever exist as that would have to include all Drum, Hindu, Broad Leaf, etc. As I said in the other thread, when somebody says, "I have a complete set of T205's", I don't think anybody would take that to mean that they have every possible front/back combination of every card in the set. What that person means is that they have one of every front/back DESIGN in the set. By definition, this would have to include the Doc White, Matty, and any other such variations.

It seems that the people who do believe that these cards are variations offer identical widely accepted examples from this set and others and present a logical analysis as to why they feel these should be variations. I still have not seen any answers to these points by those who disagree.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

Matt, why then are the different ad backs not considered variations to the set? to me with your reasoning they should be included as a variation. I do not believe there is any so called complete set of T206s that has a back variation because other than the advertising there is no back diferences.

One other question, These cards were not all manufactured at the same time and same place, so the theory about correct a printing after a certain back is produced does not seem like a good arguement to me.

Lee

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bowlingshoegiverouterguy

Matt, why then are the different ad backs not considered variations to the set? to me with your reasoning they should be included as a variation. I do not believe there is any so called complete set of T206s that has a back variation because other than the advertising there is no back diferences.

You actually answered your own question; just as for the majority of those collecting a T206 set, different advertising backs aren't considered variations needed for a set, so it is with the T205 set. And just like with the T206 set textual variations pertaining to the specific player on the card are considered variations, so too it has been with T205. Those are the established criterion for the checklists. You said you only count frontal text variations in your checklist, which is certainly your call, but Wilhelm, Latham, etc. have long established that textual variations that pertain to specific players count as variations, even if on the back.

I did not understand your second point above.

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

I haven't gotten the impression (at least in this thread) that anybody is "offended" by the way that anybody else collects. I do think this is a very valid debate however as this is a widely collected set and whether a card is considered an addition to the checklist as opposed to simply a different ad back will affect how a number of people collect.

Obviously a card will only have increased value if there is an increased demand for it. I don't think that this is really a discussion about value so much as it is about set completeness. I have not seen anybody, including myself who originally posted about it, claim that the Doc White variation will have a significantly higher value as it is a common player with the variation appearing on a common back. The Mathewson variation commands a premium because he is a top level HOF player and the variation appears only with a scarcer back.

I think the term "master set" is sometimes misused in this discussion. No true master set will ever exist as that would have to include all Drum, Hindu, Broad Leaf, etc. As I said in the other thread, when somebody says, "I have a complete set of T205's", I don't think anybody would take that to mean that they have every possible front/back combination of every card in the set. What that person means is that they have one of every front/back DESIGN in the set. By definition, this would have to include the Doc White, Matty, and any other such variations.

It seems that the people who do believe that these cards are variations offer identical widely accepted examples from this set and others and present a logical analysis as to why they feel these should be variations. I still have not seen any answers to these points by those who disagree.

I have to agree with marc. I know for a fact that i own 3-4 cards with certain backs that I will never sell. These cards are the only ones graded with those backs and every one I see I buy just for that reason. It is impossible to complete a master set with all front and back variations. But it is not impossible to complete a master set with print variations.

Now with that being said all we need to do is stop staring at the damn cards so long to find these variations and just buy them. I was nearing the 1/2 way point after about 1 yr on this set. I still have most the big guys to go but it is easier to fall a tree sometimes when you start with smaller wacks and then swing away at the end.

Just some FYI. I think certain back companies may have chose to print certain cards the way they did. Like the Piedmont Blackburne in Bold letters Why is it that way? The WA lathams in Sweet Cap only(soon to have HLC included) Doc white Polar bear quotes and no quotes, The Germany Shaffer Quotes no quotes. I mean come on how nit picky does it have to be.

BTW there was an explanation to the T206 Polar bear backed Demmitt and Ohara's in the thread Marc started about the White "Variation".

Originally Posted by bowlingshoegiverouterguy

I do not believe there is any so called complete set of T206s that has a back variation because other than the advertising there is no back diferences.

Ab framed and not framed, Sweet Caporal overprints, AB apple colored, Sovereign apple colored, Old mill brown ink, OLD MILL BLACK BAR OVERPRINT(LOL. Sorry couldn't resist that one).

There are more I am sure but these are off the top of my head and I don't mess with the Monster to much. Farmore variations to collect than the T205's thank god but none the less most of these are sought after by back collectors and not set builders.

[Wite3]

Hi all,
The Matty is a variation to me. Not so much because the the stats are off but because it is a Cycle back. All my research points to these cards being printed by the same company in the same location. Several different print runs were produced within 1911 with several different backs.

Maybe we could call them parallels instead since that seems to be a more accurate description to me.

Also, the correction you think was made may never have happened. As others and I have discussed these were most likely printed with movable types and the other "1" in 11 could have been there to begin with and then broken. In fact, it could have broken on the first printing and there may be only one T205 Matty with the correct stats! Wouldn't that be something. I do think that it was a missed number and corrected in later printings but you never know.

Should there be a premium on this card. Absolutely!! The premium should be the same as for any other Cycle card in the set. Nothing more, nothing less. There seem to be as many Cycle Mattys as any other Cycle card and he was not short printed. No extra premium should be attached.

As many have also said...collect what you enjoy.

Joshua

Well said Josh

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

Thanks Josh for your insight and I agree totally about the Matty. A few other questions:

How are the stray lines and added lines explained? and why the different factory numbers? were they just for the tobacco and had nothing to do with where they were printed? Is it possible they had to reset the typesets with each factory and color and thus causing our problems? Why 2 colors of American Beauty's?

If these questioned are answered elsewhere please direct me.

Lee

[marcdelpercio]

I think the bottom line is that, when these cards were printed, the front design and the back text were intended to be identical regardless of the advertisement. There are really only two conceivable ways that a person can collect a complete T205 set:

1. A true master set which would include every possible front/back combination of every card. We may never even have a checklist of such a set, and certainly never anything approaching an actual complete set.

2. A set of all front/back DESIGNS regardless of advertisement. This is the method of the vast majority of set collectors and thus the way these sets are nearly always checklisted.

Either way, both of these cards must be listed separately. If you are attempting option number one, the text variation is incidental and irrelevant. If you are attempting option number two, the ad is incidental and irrelevant. However, there can be no definition of a "complete set" that does not list these cards separately, either by design variation or by ad variation.

[Matt E.]

Joshua,

Thank you for your explanation. Very helpful.

Originally Posted by bowlingshoegiverouterguy

Why 2 colors of American Beauty's?

I know this thread is not drawing alot of T206 collectors but you could ask CFC1909. I know for a fact he collects AB backed cards and knows about the color difference. There was also a thread about the sovergeins a bit back. I have notices a few color vaiency with some of my AB backed T205's. I am hoping they were printed about the same time the T206's were and that maybe a flawed ink was to blame for it all. Are they valuable to me?? No but on a T206 they could be

[Potomac Yank]

SGC/PSA, and their interchanging Master Set Registries, have replaced the Lipset Encyclopedias, the Heitman "Monster" and All Other Scholarly Researched Information.

Also, we mustn't forget to keep checking the interchanging PSA/SGC pop reports.

[tedzan]

Andrew

I think you are alluding to the various green colored backs of the T206 SOVEREIGN issue.

I currently have a thread here regarding these variations, titled......

"New evidence of T206 expanded 350/460 series cards".

I elaborate on the significance of the different colored backs.



TED Z

[Mrc32]

I just hope I can get any kind of Matty for my set. It is my favorite card in the whole darn set, and yet my chase continues. I only need 3 more HOFers with Matty being one.

I have some of the variations, but not all. Will I chase all the Hobby stat variations? Probably if I can find them for cheap. Will I chase the Moran stray line? Probably if I can find them cheap. Neither are likely- but a few years ago, I never though you could get Terry Turner or Ray Fischer for cheap, yet recent prices on the SPs have plummeted.

It all comes down to how much $$ you want to spend to feel 100% complete. The Matty w/ Cycle variation will always go for massive $$. My guess is if and when another one comes up for auction that it will become the second most expensive variation.

To me I know I will never get to 100% on the master set because of the Hobby no stats so I really won't lose any sleep over it.

If anyone has a Doc White variation PM me

Ditto on the White variation as well as the Schaffer.

Ted the Bowling shoe guy is the on inquiring about the color variation. I understand it but its not in my set now so I am not really into it that much. Great thread though. Love the info in it.

[martin neal]

Not mine anymore.

Originally Posted by martin neal

Not mine anymore.

Last one I seen on Ebay raw was a sweet caporal. This deffinitally throws a wrench into where they were made and when or how they were printed

I hope Josh can figure this out

[Wite3]

Okay...here is what I have...

First off, the factory numbers had nothing to do with where the cards were printed. Most likely they were printed in New York. The factory numbers are the designations that go along with where the tobacco was packed and distributed. T205s were printed in sheets and the backs were printed with movable type. I feel that some of the type (like the advertising) was one piece of type that was custom made and then the other lettering was created using movable type (different fonts, missing letters, and stray lines help bolster this theory).

Inks...for years I was convinced that American Beauty and Sovereign had two separate green variations. One seems to be brighter like on t206s. I feel that this was possibly the ink fading or changing due to light, water, fading, card conditions etc. I am now rethinking this as Ted's research comes out. The problem is that the T206 greens are very different. The darker is much darker. The T205s do not show that much variation.

I own a Moran Piedmont stray and a Polar Bear stray line. The stray line of type is from the Mattern card. Since it was movable type, someone just left the last line in from the previous run. They noticed and corrected it. The T205 sheets were probably printed with at least two front configurations. They had to change the backs after each run.

THEORY ALERT...there are far more Polar Bear strays than Piedmont. I think that they printed a full run of Polar Bear with the line and started Piedmont before someone noticed.

Over the years, I have only documented a handful of Piedmont Moran with the stray line. I have never seen any other back. I suspect the Sweet Cap. was not a stray line, a reprint, or a fake. I would have to see a very good scan or hold it in my hands before I was convinced otherwise. In my notes, I have a rumor of a Cycle one years back as well but never confirmed.

Joshua

Josh are there polar Bear cards with out they stray line???

[Wite3]

Yes,
Many...Polar Bear is probably the second most common advertiser and had at least 3 different print runs.

Joshua