Comparison of checklists for T215-1 RED CROSS set vs "PIRATE" set

[RCMcKenzie]

The lists that I am familiar with show 90 known examples. All of the ones Tim has up there except for a second Doolan and the Manning. I guess the Doolan and Manning are recent discoveries. I always have assumed the set has 100 designs like it says on the card.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I guess the Doolan and Manning are recent discoveries.

They were in "The Louisiana Find" from 2010. REA auctioned them in 2011.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

This is the T215-1 checklist I have and some additional information for the discussion.

32 Howard Chicago Nat'l
33 Huggins (Portrait) St. Louis Nat'l
34 Huggins (Hands at Mouth) St. Louis Nat'l <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ?
35 Hummel Brooklyn

Tim

Huggins (Hands at Mouth) is actually Cincinnati....I have seen this card. Furthermore, a Net54 member that collects T215-1 RED CROSS cards (40% complete set)
has this Huggins (Cinci).

So, is the card you listed a variation, or what ?

I have never seen this Huggins with a St Louis caption. And, the above mentioned Net 54 collector has not either.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Tim

Huggins (Hands at Mouth) is actually Cincinnati....I have seen this card. Furthermore, a Net54 member that collects T215-1 RED CROSS cards (40% complete set)
has this Huggins (Cinci).

So, is the card you listed a variation, or what ?

I have never seen this Huggins with a St Louis caption. And, the above mentioned Net 54 collector has not either.


TED Z

It seems out of place for the Huggins team caption to be Cincinnati and goes against anything I have seen, but I guess anything is possible. If your friend owns the card with the Huggins Cincinnati caption, they should be able to answer this definitively for you. Nothing I could post would be more proof than the card itself.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

It seems out of place for the Huggins team caption to be Cincinnati and goes against anything I have seen, but I guess anything is possible. If your friend owns the card with the Huggins Cincinnati caption, they should be able to answer this definitively for you. Nothing I could post would be more proof than the card itself.

Tim

I stated that I have seen this card....but, in your usual self-centered attitude, you are obviously dismissing my input. And, I really resent this.

Furthermore, you are questioning the guy who actually owns this card in his T215 collection. He is a long-time, well-known guy on this forum;
and, lately he very seldom posts. As, he doesn't care for the immature confrontations that have transpired on this forum this past year (or so).


I don't find the difference in team identification on the two Huggins' cards at all going against anything I have noticed about the RED CROSS set.
One group of the cards were printed in 1910 and a 2nd series of cards were printed in the Spring of 1912.

But, if you are content to maintain an inaccurate list, that's your business. You claim to welcome new inputs in your data; but, when given you
choose not accept them !

C'est la vie


TED Z

[RCMcKenzie]

t215-2hugginsport.jpgt215hugginsb.jpg




Here is the T215-2 HUGGINS PORT I have. I mostly collect only series 2, but have handled 10-12 type 1 cards without seeing a type 1 Huggins. My checklist was the 15th edition scd which does not list team variations. Lipset's encyclopedia has teams, but does not mention the cincy.

I am assuming this is the type one collection listed on the SGC registry, which is an astounding collection of cards. These cards appear so infrequently that they are almost impossible to fully checklist.

[Abravefan11]

Rob - I'm not sure if when you say you haven't seen a Type 1 Huggins you mean the Hands at Mouth pose or both it and the portrait. Here's a link to the portrait in case you haven't seen it.

This cards team designation is St. Louis, the same as all other cards from the issues in question I have seen.

Ted - Nothing about my post was disrespectful to you in anyway. As I said, a Cincinnati variation seems to contradict everything else about the set in my opinion. So starting from that position I think most people would understand why I would like to see a scan. I'd love for this longtime member to post one. Perhaps you could post it for him?

[RCMcKenzie]

Tim,

Thanks for the link to the H&S auction. That was a great card. What's funny is that they sent me that catalog and it is here in my office somewhere, but I never looked at it because I was on a collecting hiatus in 2009.

I had not seen the T215-1 Huggins port until now, and I have not seen a T215-1 Huggins HM.


.............

Ted Z,

If you could get a scan from the T215-1 collector, then that would be great. I would like to see it also. If not, thanks for the update anyway.