How many T207s make a set ??? variations ???

[Archive]

Posted By: S Gross

200 ???? that can't be right, but ....
When ever you see a partial set of T207s auctioned, the title seems always to be "xxx/200" and registries in both PSA and SGC list 200, with no variations needed. How can the variations not be noticed ??? It'd be (at least to me) like saying the T206's only have ~500 cards, "you don't need a Demmitt, O'Hara, Eberfield port., Smith B&C, etc. etc., they're just variations." That wouldn't fly, so why no need for variations in your T207 set ????? (((sadly the answer may be not too may people care)))

But, anyway, I come up with a complete set of T207 having 209 cards:
200 subjects, plus following variations:
1 -- Austin -- with logo on shirt; without logo on shirt.
2 -- Carrigan -- right back; wrong back.
3 -- Davis -- brown C on cap; blue C on cap.
4 -- Fisher -- blue cap; white cap.
5 -- Irv Lewis -- with logo on sleeve, without logo on sleeve.
6 -- Livingston -- Big A on shirt, big C on shirt, small c on shirt.
7 -- Mullin -- with D on cap; without D on cap.
8 -- Wagner -- right back; wrong back.

Nothing new at all, straight out of the book, any checklist you want.
200 + 9 = 209. Just seems to be common sense.
Some may argue for 208, being either Lewis is so tough, one would be enough for completion.

Also would anyone like to comment on rarity between variations. Book "price-wise," they all seem to be comparable to their counterpart (i.e. Austin with vs. Austin without). Price exceptions being either Lewis card, both very scarce, and big A & C Livingston noticeably higher than the seemingly common small c.

Personally (collection at 91/209) I can compare the following:
1 -- both Austin's which I paid similar for both.
4 -- both Fisher's which I paid similar for both.
6 -- Livingston, big A and big C, which I paid similar for both.

Also Davis, brown C, and Mullin, no D.
Neither Carrigan, Wagner, nor Lewis () .....

So in simple terms, how many in your set, and thoughts on variations ......

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

You can quite worrying about Carrigan and Wagner wrong backs, these were anomalies that I thought were going to be delisted. They are simple print run sheet alignment problems, I have other players with wrong backs, most partial OC but they are not part of the set either. That would make a set w/variations at 207 of which I have 207.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

DITTO......to what Scott just said.

I consider my set complete with 207 cards.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

[Good to see you posting again, Ted]

Carrigan/Wagner is a red herring that should have been removed from the lists already. 207 is the number for the T207 master set.

However, I don't see why a given collector couldn't call his or her set complete at 200. I would argue for a distinction between a "set," which I see as a nice broad term that could be defined a lot of different ways by different individuals, and a "master set," which should be used more strictly to designate every known variation.

For me, I don't care that much about tiny variations-- I care about poses. I got copies of both Mullins, Austins, three Livingstons, etc., because it was easy enough to do, but generally if I have all the poses in a set, I'm going to consider it complete for me. If I ever get one Irv Lewis , I suspect I won't be worried much about getting a second one.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Tim- you probably also know that the word "set" has more definitions in the dictionary than any other word in the English language.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Emo has 915 definitions, most in the Urban Dictionary.

I agree with Barry with 464 definitions for Set, in the OED. The Oxford English Dictionary is THE dictionary.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

When I was in college my English professor shared that tidbit with us.

Frank, what is Emo?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Scott is right about the Wagner/Carrigan, it needs to be dropped, I have cards with wrong backs besides these two.
For the last time I am going to plead that the Davis blue "C" be dropped as a true variation. For 20 years no one was able to prove one existed, then I received an email with a scan of a PSA graded Davis which appears to have a faint blue C on the cap. I think it is a printer's error, probably placed on the sheet next to the blue cap Fisher or something but I consider it a printing freak and consider my set complete without it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

I know this has been discussed before but not in quite a while. I'm inclined to agree with Bob that there is really no true Davis variation, but that may be because I've never seen one. Can anybody verify its existence?

Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

I have 2 that are different, however it is a very close call and the "Blue" appears to be just a registry problem where the correct colors are not aligned? I am in the camp that this variation could well be deleted.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

I think you can call her done with 200, but I won't argue against 207.

Barry, here's a link for "emo" but when I tell you it has 915 definitions and you then ask me what it means, am I supposed to tell you all 915 definitions. Truth is I'm so old I barely understand the first definition.

Frank.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=word+with+the+most+definitions

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

That's not a real word...I'm with you, I don't have the patience to go through the list. But thank you.

[Archive]

Posted By: S Gross

Thanks for all the insight --

I've knocked the Carrigan/Wagner wrong backs off the speadsheet, and parenthesis-ed Davis/blue.

I find it amazing that after all these years the T207 "set" still isn't "set."


emo
(dyslexic "end of message")

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

The "wrong-back" pair and the "Blue C" Davis were removed from the T207 listing in the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards a couple of editions back (mostly at TBob's instigation and with considerable input from others on the forum at that time). That excising was the cause of the player-price misalignment that occurred in that edition (I believe it is the 2005-dated book).

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Thanks Bob, good to hear from you.
Bob

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Yes- it's the 2005 edition that's out of kilter.

[Archive]

Posted By: Doug

PSA has listed a Master set of the T207 cards since at least 2003. The set, according to the registry, has 209 cards, including the wrong-backs and the Davis "Blue C."

None of the registrants have the wrong backs, though one has the Davis "Blue C" in a graded form. Surprising that a card that does exist can be taken out of a price guide. Doug

<<When ever you see a partial set of T207s auctioned, the title seems always to be "xxx/200" and registries in both PSA and SGC list 200, with no variations needed. >>

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Well, the question of whether the Davis "does exist" remains, despite the graded copy. After all, it is PSA we're talking about

Seriously, if as Scott B. says, faint color variations in the Davis cap might have been produced by the vagaries of the printing process, then PSA might well have decided, going by the standard price guides at the time, that this card warranted a "blue" designation. That opinion is hardly the final word. I'd be a lot more inclined to go with Bob Lemke's considered opinion--\

Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Now that the Davis blue C has been settled, hopefully someone will get around to dropping the phantom P-2 Sweet Caporal pin variation of Mullin large letters black cap. It doesn't exist, period. There is a black cap small letters and a white cap large letters, but that's it. I think there was a typo many, many years ago and people keep reprinting the list with the error on it. I had an almost complete set of these pins which I sold through Mastro and I spent 5 years looking for a phantom. Scott Mosley who also has a complete set (minus this phantom) steadfastly agrees that this pin is non-existent.
tbob