Opinions Please T206 Scrap or not??

[mrvster]

Hello all!!

I want to thank Adam for adding the Titus to my collection....thanks again Adam

Anyway...I have been on the fence with this card...usually i can sniff out a scrap a mile away...no scan can ever do justice until in hand....scrap characteristics-one red layer missing, offset miscut top to bottom, measures 1/16 inch wider in areas if you look close, top "trimmed", but close to measurements, wavy ct on both sides(rubber banned)....

Am I blind on this card......usually not scraps to me unless they hit me in the face.....curious of opinions on this one.....i know has to be in hand....the front in hand is not as dramatic as the scan looks, but the back has scrap written all over it...

mo

50/50

[atx840]

The back sure looks like it could be, wavy edge, missing color and MC but tough call sir.

Either way neat card and a great pickup!

[steve B]

Not a scrap, send it my way...
Seriously though.

The way it looks on my screen I'd say yes. So many differences.

The P on the jersey looks blue rather than brown over tan.
The bottom of the button area has a pronounced horizontal line where the production one doesn't
The lower left corner has far more blue shading, or the scrap has very little tan shading.


Plus a few smaller things it's hard to be sure of in the scan.
Like the vertical part of the collar on the left side. The lower line on the production card seens to end aiming at the center of the top button while on the other it seems to curve upward.

Steve B

[mrvster]

Thanks Chris and Steve......

I ve been leaning toward scrap.....just need some convincing

[shammus]

I'm not thinking it's scrap, but it's a card that might simply have missed a brown color pass during the original print run. You see a lot of cards like that out of the t206 set.

As for that wavy edge, I'm wondering if that is due to the card being held together with a group of them by a rubber band?

[t206blogcom]

I'd vote no, it's not a scrap. To me, it looks like a well used card a kid probably beat up over the years. Just my opinion.

[mrvster]

This is such a toughie!

I was thinking rubber bands also.....when i received it, the back lead me more towards scrap....ironically, more than the front

I'm stumped on this one....making me want to post some of mine...

[atx840]

If its never been in a pack it must be scrap

All blank backs are handcut, the Abbott is handcut as is the Camnitz.

Scraps almost always have non-factory cut edges due usually to some other printing error that deemed it not worthy of being sent out. Usually missing colors or significant offset registry. But it's not limited to these, blank backs and Brown OM are finished on the front but were hc and not inserted. These are still considered scraps.

The Titus might be a longshot, but the ones posted since where definitely not supposed to leave the printing floor.

[FrankWakefield]

Well it isn't whether they were supposed to leave the printer's...

I can see how a blank back card could have ended up in a pack. It shouldn't have, but it could have. If there was a blank back card in a pack I'd think it would have a factory cut.

Just because a card was hand cut doesn't mean it is scrap. It could have been a sample sheet of some sort. I agree that scrap would most likely be hand cut; I don't agree that everything hand cut or blanked backed is scrap.

Scrap is something that is discarded. And if it's around now then someone retrieved it from the rubbish bin / trash can / scrap pile.

I still think some folks want their misprints to be scrap...

[MVSNYC]

i've been collecting T206 for 20 years, and have owned my fair share of cards (rare errors, high-grade, rare backs, and of course printer's freaks, scraps, color errors, call 'em what you wish). i never really obsessed over whether a printing error card was considered a "scrap" or not. i just appreciated the way they looked. yes, some are more drastic then others, and probably were caught by the printers or the pack stuffers, but i'm sure many slipped thru that weren't supposed to, so it is tuff to know for sure if a card made it into a pack or not.

[mrvster]

Frank,

i could see your point....but Chris nailed it......

anything "not" distributed in packs and is hand cut is considered scrap(catagorically speaking)....

even if it has no defect like brown old mill.... brown om is scrap..scrap prob wasn't always thrown away in ever case, prob the nicer examples were taken home that day , or saved and hand cut later as what im thinking what occured w/ brown om....one man's trash is another man's treasure...could a sheet of blank backs been inserted into packs????the probability is highly unlikely since i don't see the printer hand cutting them, then insertion for distribution, just doesn't seem logical...

blank backs are scraps(there are no known examples of blank back t206 that were factory cut)....maybe super accurate ones that "appear" to measure...but all known examples, i repeat, all known t206 blank back are hand cut(true blank backs)

proofs are scraps also(they have the cross-hatches thats all)....


all these cards that are hand cut, were not inserted...but nothing is 100 percent certain in anything.....the probabilty is almost nill that hand cut cards were inserted into packs....all cards posted above weren't inserted into packs, except Titus who i am on the fence with..

Frank you have a ton of experience in cardboard, but i'm obsessed with these little freaks

[steve B]

I think Scrap will prove to be as hard to get agreement on a defenition as variation.

The Titus does seem to have been factory cut, or very neatly cut. The differences made me think it was possibly early production (Or late of course) or maybe a very late stage proof. But those categories require lots of proof and research. Scrap seemed the safest category for a card that doesn't seem to fit the traits of most production cards but shouldn't be called a proof


Then there are ones like this. Everything is correct about it except the cut.
I wouldn't call it a scrap, but it is hand cut and probably came from a sheet brought home by someone.

Steve B

[Exhibitman]

FWIW, having owned the Titus for some years I think it is an issued misprint/miscut card.

Also FWIW, I am more interested in issued error cards than in printers' scrap. I have both, of course, but I prefer the former. My preferences in order from most preferred to least:

--Ghosts

--Miscut Fronts

--Misprint Fronts

--Miscut Backs

--Wrong Fronts [flipped sheet in the press, aligned to the backs]

--Wrong Backs [flipped sheet in the press, aligned to the fronts]

--Misprint or Blank Backs


Don't get me wrong, scraps can be really interesting, but I like the idea of the mistake getting all the way into the package. I mean, did they not care? Were they lazy that day? Did the pressman have a bad night the previous evening?



Of course I do see the attraction of scraps

[atx840]

Totally agree Frank. I have seen 20 or so blank back scans, only own one, some are quite sloppy and others very cleanly cut but up close and in hand you can tell. The Fromme bb up for auction is a very nice example that looks almost factory cut.

[mrvster]

All great points, i see the student is becoming the master

[Exhibitman]

They're definitely collected. Last night I got beat out of a 1966 Pete Rose miscut.

[mrvster]

Adam,

Love your collection and thanks again for the titus freak.....your great to deal with....

Chris, one day i might be learning from you