Hello to all visitors! Please visit the NEW Net54 board at
www.Net54baseball.com
You can directly contact the moderator here if you have any questions or comments. Enjoy!
So acknowledging the Doyle as the hardest by a mile, what are the next 5-10 difficult variations to acquire in the T206 set? Are there some of them that are harder to find in higher grades (or better condition for non-graders)?
I am sure there will be some discrepancies as to what officially counts as a variation, but would like to get some opinions.
I think even tougher are the printing errors such as "Nodgrass", "Murray part A", and "Shappe", not to mention missing colors, most notably "Sweeney no B." Nobody really knows what the surviving population of any of these are. All are pretty hard to find.
Though not a variation, since the Wagner and Plank were mentioned, I think the Cobb/Cobb back deserves mention among T206 rarities. I read that Mastro has a new example to the hobby in the December auction. I'm not sure if that brings the total to 12 or 13. Maybe Hal knows.
JimB
I think that most advanced collectors will agree that the Cobb with Cobb back is not truely part of the t206 set. It has about as much in common with a t206 as a t213 does. It just remains in the t206 checklist because it has been there since the beginning of time. I personally think it should be listed seperately as it's own set. I doubt it will ever happen because everyone is so used to looking for that card in the t206 checklist.
I was going to say the same thing Jay.I know its come up a few times before in the past but it should be mentioned in this thread that alot of people disagree with the Ty Cobb back being a t206.I personally consider it a 1 card "set".
I dont think counting colors missing cards as rare variations in right because im sure if you looked you could find one for almost every player.Also as pointed out by Arts post theres probably a ton of cards out there with some kind of "error/difference" that makes them unique.
I tried to post some scans but for some reason it wasnt working right tonight
I disagree that it should not be considered a part of the T206 set. It was produced by the American Tobacco Company at the same time and with identical characteristics as other T206s except that most known copies have a shallack type gloss over the front. Anyway, this has been discussed extensively on previous threads.
JimB
I am curious as to cards such as the Schulte metnioned, Kleinow, Boston and Smith Chiccago and Boston, can be so tough when they were issued in 2 diffeerent series? How can this be?
Lee,the Schulte tbob referenced is the front view variation of his card which has "chicago" across the front instead of "Cubs" which is always seen.I believe its a unique card and is owned by Keith Olbermann
Cards such as the Alperman no stripes that Art displayed as well as those such as Schulte are proofs and one should expect that proofs would have visible differences. What about the Eddie Collins batting pose, both unique and perhaps the most valuable and famous of all T206 proofs? Also, Mastronet had a group of proofs several years ago that had four players unknown in the set. I think with proofs one should expect differences, and the value may be based on how dramatically different it looks from the card issued for circulation (as well as the rarity, although virtually all are unique or close to unique).
You cannot count Proofs as being part of the set. Proofs are a whole other ballgame. The 206 Proofs come in full color, progressive color and with aligning marks. Also there have been different players and poses in Proofs that never made it to final printing. The final being the rarest of the Proofs. I know that most of the posters on this web site have a bad feeling about Alan Hager but when I meet him in 93 he was a very knowledgable person. He taught me about Proofs and got me collecting them. I think he is still one of a few people that know Proofs. I am sorry that he took a wrong turn down the straight and narrow.
Joseph- you are correct on both counts: proofs should not be considered variations, and Alan Hager definitely took his hobby involvement in the wrong direction. He had the same problems in the coin business, too.
Bob asked...."what are the next 5-10 difficult variations"....
in the T206 set ? Not, color or printing errors, proofs, or
other anamolies that do show up infrequently. So, my initial
response listed some of the true variations in this set. I'll
reiterate and add a few more.
Wagner and Plank (PIEDMONT 150 Subjects) are the Rarest of
the Rare. And, we know that Magie exists only (PIEDMONT 150)
Smith (Chi & Boston)......Matty (White Cap....Chase (Pink)
These are off the top of my head, I know you guys can add
several more. And, now that I have almost completed my 2nd
T206 set; I will join a growng number of T206 collectors, who
are very skeptical regarding the legitimacy of the "Doyle error".
I would not have include Wagner or Plank in my original question, thus wouldnt count them as variations. I was more wondering Doyle, Demmitt, etc, and how easy it is to acquire them or how populus they were. I also would not count proofs and such. What about the Brown, Wash variation, does that go on the list?
Given that only 2 or 3 Wagner or Plank cards exist with a
PIEDMONT 150 Subjects back......
Then....to the original question that was posed, my response
is that a Wagner or a Plank with a PIEDMONT 150 back can be
considered as a "rare variation". And, I feel that such cards
of these two guys should have a higher value than their SWEET
CAPORAL counterparts.
This thinking is along the same vein as the above posted dis-
cussions regarding the significance of TY COBB back in the
T206 set.
If you are calling them variations based on their back advertising, then every Drum, Uzit, and Lenox would be a rare variation. I think we disagree on the terminology.
Why not ? The ultimate T206 collection would consist of all
the Front/Back permutations that are identified in Heitman's
T206 book. While it is "mind-boggling" to even consider such
a vast collection of T206's, it is not an impossibility.
Of course anyone daring enough to engage in such an enormous
challenge should embark on it in his teenage years; and, perhaps
by time he is collecting Soc. Sec. he will have collected every
possible card in the set.
Finally, to me there exists a "mystical" connection between the
Wagner, Plank, and Magie cards in the PIEDMONT 150 series.
Why are these three (with this particular back) several orders of
magnitude more rare than all other T206 cards. I would love to
solve this mystery.
I just define variation as something that is different on the front of a card, not a different brand name on the back. A Drum of Smith and a Uzit of Smith are the same card manufactured by a different company. So I do not define this as a variation. That's all I meant.
I have known you for over 22 years. We've had a lot of lengthy
discussions over many aspects of this hobby. In this case your
definition of variations in this set applies only to the front of
the cards. My definition covers a much broader aspect of this
set.
Incidently, if a T206 is a Drum or a Uzit (or whatever back), I
believe they were all produced in the same Printing Firm.
Speaking about the printing process, our mutual friend, Tom Faith,
has a theory that the front pictures were printed on a very fine film.
This film was then applied onto a sheet of cardboard whose back
was pre-printed with the particular Tobacco Co. advertisements.
You guys are all over the place on this question. I'll go with saying that I'll stick with what I said in The Monster. I happen to think the Cobb back belongs with T206, but I would also say that I think T206 groups at least several sets together, but we have Jeff Burdick to thank for that. While I mention Burdick and the American Card Catalog, I must say I just have never understood why the later issued T205's weren't given T206 as its number and the earlier issued T206 weren't given the catalog number T205.
No way on the preprinted film theory; I have too many printing errors proving many layers of ink were used on this little lithographs.
Burdick's numbering is all over the place, it is not choronological. Why are T202 and T210 before T204? Why is T205 before T206 but T207 after both? E79 and E80 (boxing) too. Remember, the system is one man's work; it ain't perfect. Think of him as the Dewey of baseball librarians.
The fellow Barry Sloate and I know is a Chemical Engineer who specializes
in all forms of paper restoration. In fact, during the late '80s he did some
card restoration. The quality of his work is unbelievable. His "film" theory
regarding the fronts of the T206 cards is not to be discounted.
Most vintage BB cards are composed of two layers of thin cardboard laminate.
And, indeed the color printing process required 4 - color inking stages.
Pre-printed front sheets were laminated onto pre-printed back sheets of cardboard.
However, the T206 printing process appears to be different. I have had T206
cards whose fronts have disintegrated into small flakes due to aging (sun expo-
sure, heat, etc.). I would say this type of deterioration reinforces this "film"
printing theory.
This message has been edited by tedzan on Nov 11, 2005 10:06 AM
I am familiar with these layers of colors in the process of printing, not only
T206's, but in printing any color picture. Nowadays, it has been refined
to just a 4 - color process. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your information;
it is very worthwhile reviewing.
I have several ORANGE background (normally RED) T206 cards; including a
Ty Cobb. How exactly did this color error result ?
It seems there must have been lighter tint of RED inking prior to the final
RED ink application. This would account for the "orange" printing errors.
For example a PINK tint over the initial YELLOW inking would result in ORANGE.
Hi TED,
I believe the Orange backgrounds were created when the red ink was running low, or was applied lightly. If you look at the faces of the Orange back ground cards you will see that they look pale with very little red in there lips or cheeks versus the normal red back ground cards. Likewise the Boston cards exhibit everything from bright red, to almost No red at all.
Your Ferguson examples appear to reinforce my theory that there had to
be two RED inkings in the printing process. Consider this, there are
cards in the set that have normally ORANGE backgrounds (Steinfeldt comes
to mind). There is no way you could create an Orange color with a just deep
RED ink.
Not to tread on the back and forth going on here, but what happened during the printing of these?
The middle two are mine, and I'd thought the difference in background color maybe correlated to the rosiness of Cassidy's cheeks. Then I found these scans of graded examples -- nearly equally rosy cheeks despite the color differences.
Anybody have any ideas?
You are so right. Burdick's system was his very own and it was all over the place. It was sometimes chronological and sometimes alphabetical, but all the time, it was just his system. How many of you remember Burdick's auctions? They were just as confusing.
you will find if you lay out a few dupes of each player that is very easy to pick ou the 150 series from the front alone, the color is always much bolder and better registered as well. most all 350 series cards will have a slightly washed out or pale look. i imagine they increased production and cranked up the presses, both running low on ink at times and the printing plates probably became worn as well.
It seems to me that I was born collecting T206. I was stricken with polio when I was two (1951) and was quite sickly as a young boy. My family had so many teachers in it and they sent me books. My Mom was a junior high school counselor and teacher and my Dad was a college professor, who collected cards maniacally. The result was that I learned to read before I was in kindergarten. I was sick at home the first half of First Grade and what I did at home was read the backs of these wonderful little pen and ink drawings of baseball players that my Dad was just getting, Callahan Hall of Fame cards. So I was interested most of all in "Old Timers" and that lead me to Old Judges and T206. For the next 20 years, I corresponded with anyone who would tell me about T206's, Obaks, Caramel Cards, Old Judges and Gypsey Queens and anthing else from that era. Mostly I traded cards with these guys that my Dad knew--Burdick, Bray, Wagner, Gammon, Tannenbaum, Goldfaden, Wagner, Taylor and so many more. And I got my hands on thousands upon thousand of T206's. After I left school, I met Lew Lipset, who was just getting into the hobby and he aided my obsession greatly by sending me tons of T206. What I did with the cards was keep them in the order of the checklist published by Charles Bray and later by Richard Eagan and, within that I ordered them by Series 150, 350, 350-460 and Assorted and then alphabetically by the backs. In the late '70's I created a checklist using the same method. I used all of the notes I had taken over the years and the some 3500 different T206 I had accumulated over the years (with a big headstart from my Dad, I must admit) and laid it out in the same manner that The Monster's checklist is laid out, but without anything being blacked out. When I had checked off everything from what I had and the notes I had taken, I noticed that there were undeniable patterns in the checklist. I had already started researching the players and their careers. So I came to some conclusions and started blacking things out. I called Denny Eckes (rest his soul, he was just as responsbile for Beckett publications as my good friend Jim was) to talk about this checklist. He said he thought it could be a book, and, he would publish it if I provided him with all of the cards to be illustrated. I sent it all to him, and he took it from there. The published book has mistakes in it (and I'm not just talking about the Farrah cards that Denny put in without my approval), but my own checklist does not contain those errors. I hope to very soon go over the checklist item by item to find all of the errors. Anyway, that's how The Monster came about. From lots of collecting, accumulating and researching. No computers and no real place to go for information. I did, incidentally, write books on both T205 and T207 using the same methods--my method was reading, collecting and accumulating--but they were never published except in an issue of Baseball Hobby News, which published the T205 book in one of its issues. I hope The Monster has helped all of you in your pursuits of these cardboard treasures.
As I came across T206's, I always kept any front/back variety that I didn't already have. After "The Monster" came out, I was surprised to find that some other "Old Timers" had collected pretty much the same way I had. I got some filled out checklists from several of the people whose names appear pretty often in your threads. My own holdings as per my checklist hit somewhere above 4500 and I just stopped counting. I have yet to hear of, or see, a card that breaks the patterns I found to exist.
Nice to see Mr. Heitman contributing to the T206 discussions.
I have only seen (and own) one T206 that breaks the pattern of backs issued within specific series.
All of the 350 series cards with American Beauty 350 backs have frames except:
This is the only exception I have identified in 25 years. I own this example and have seen other Nichols (batting) cards with the same no-frame 350 back.
Please give some insight to the "infamous" Doyle "Nat Lge"
variation. It was not mentioned in your famous book that was
published in 1980 and if I am correct it was an unknown card
at that time. I am sure you had many thousands of T206's by
then but no "Doyle". None of us back then knew it existed.
So, all of a sudden it surfaces and then Fritsch claims he
was hoarding two of them. This is really strange stuff. I am
very skeptical.
Cat,
Art's Nichols card is only availbale in the 350 series, so It should have a frame. The Johnson Pitching pose, is available in both the 350 and 460 series, so it shouldn't have a frame.
Ted- I have never been skeptical of the Doyle variation and believe it is a legitimate rarity. Since there were two Doyles playing in NY at the time- Larry with the Giants and Joe with the Yankess- it would be easy for the typesetter to mix the two up. I believe the error was caught very quickly and instead of changing the typeface to read "Amer Lg", the "Natl Lg" was simply removed from the plate. The fact that it took a long time to discover does not discredit it.
Consider this, over 100,000's T206 cards have been looked at
by collectors the likes of Burdick, Lionel Carter, Frank Nagy,
Bill Heitman, Lew Lipset, Irv Lerner, and even you and I for
decades until 1990.....and no such Doyle was evident. WOW !
That says a lot.
Then, suddenly, 4 or 5 surface; and, not even from one of the
tougher series (I think you'll agree T206's in the 350 series
are most plentiful).
Now, we know that 99 % of the Plank's are from the 350 series.
Perhaps, we can we conclude there is a link between the scarcity
of the Plank and Doyle (var.)? If memory serves me, they are
both SWEET CAPORAL 350 subjects. However, there exists approx.
50 - 75 Plank's and less than 10 Doyle's (correct me if my
numbers are incorrect.
Tell me where my thinking is wrong ?
This message has been edited by tedzan on Nov 12, 2005 9:12 PM
It's not a matter of your thinking being wrong. I'm simply saying just because something was unknown at one time doesn't mean that a few examples can't surface as the hobby has matured. I think you are implying that the known Doyles may be fakes and I just don't think that is true.
Here is the history of the T206 Joe Doyle variation cards from my research of many years ago involving my conversations with Larry Fritsch and Bill Huggins.
1981 - Wisconsin dealer Larry Fritsch is selling T206 team sets (imagine that in todays market!) from his card inventory. One morning while filling an order for a T206 New York team set, he came across a card of Doyle, hands over head, N.Y. Nat’l. At first, he is puzzled by this card and is unable to find any record in his checklists or personal collection. This was the first discovery of the T206 Joe Doyle variation. Larry proceeded to place several ads in hobby magazines offering twice the current value for any T206 Doyle card. The Doyle cards pour in, however none are the Doyle error.
******************************
This is from a conversation that I had with Bill Huggins back in 2001 regarding the first publicly documented T206 Doyle variation in 1987. Hope this is interesting to T206 collectors:
April 14, 2001
Conversation with Bill Huggins
House of Cards, Maryland
by Art Martineau
Topic: T206 Joe Doyle variation card
Bill remembers the May 1987 auction of the T206 Joe Doyle variation card very well. This was the first public offering of the tough variation. Bill got a collection of about 500+ T206 cards from the Richmond, Virginia area. He had a friend in Richmond who sent the owner of these cards to Bill.
When the cards arrived, Bill had one of his workers sort the cards. He told him to get out the big Beckett book and put them in order. When the worker finished, he said "What about this one that’s not in the book?" Bill said to just put it at the bottom of the pile and he would figure it out. He had thought that the worker just couldn’t determine which card it was, but after looking at it closer himself, Bill noticed it was definitely not in the Beckett book.
He called another friend/collector in Maryland to ask about the card, but his friend had never seen or heard of this variation. Another call, this time to Lew Lipset, resulted in the same response.
Larry Fritsch had owned the only known example of this Doyle variation since 1980, and had regularly teased Lew Lipset that he had a T206 card nobody had ever seen!
Bill Huggins decided to sell this unknown variation in a Sports Collectors Digest auction in 1987. Lew Lipset advised Bill that he would either get $300 or $3,000 for the card.
The auction began, and the first bid to come in was $2,000. Bill sat back and smiled, knowing that he had a valuable card. There were 3 bidders going after the card up to the $7,000 level. One dropped out at $7,000, but Larry Fritsch and Dan Flanagan continued to go back and forth. Larry was the first bidder to get to $10,000. Dan called to check on the card and was told that he had been outbid at $10,000. Dan put in another bid, this one for $10,500. A couple minutes later, Dan called Bill back and decided to withdraw his last bid and let the other bidder win the card for $10,000. Dan said, "I don’t want to go there" meaning past the $10,000 level and not knowing where this might end. Larry had an advantage over Dan in the bidding because Larry already owned a Doyle variation and no other collector had never seen or heard of it before. Bill Huggins then called Larry Fritsch to congratulate him on winning the T206 Joe Doyle variation for $10,000. Larry now owned the only 2 known copies of this rare card.
Hi Ted,
The Doyle error is only found with the Piedmont 350 back, while the Plank can be found with the Sweet Cap 150 or 350, and there are a lot more 150's than 350's. Also 2 or 3 Piedmont Planks have surfaced, but I believe all are hand cut. One is a proof or printers scrap, the others may have come from the same sheet as the Wagner.
Who knows? But, I doubt we are thru discovering variations in the Monster. Be well Brian
"American Beauty 350's are found with or without an ornamental type of border surrounding the advertisement on the rear." T206 The Monster, 1980, page 11 (pictures page 8)
Brian
I stand corrected on Doyle's tobacco adv. back....thanks.
Art M
You related the Fritsch/Huggins stories perfectly. I remember
them well. Now, let's think about this entire scenerio, why
in 1981 a single Doyle variation suddenly surfaces after how
many 100's of thousands of T206 cards spread over many various
collections over many decades ?
Then just 6 years later a 2nd card appears. This whole scenerio
defies all the laws of probability. And, being an engineer, I
fully appreciate statistics and probability. And, how many more
have been found since 1987....not too many....about a handful.
And, then the really strange coincidence of two "walk-ins" a
few years ago at the show in downtown Phila. A real Doyle that
was acquired at this show by Levi Bleam. A fake one that was
acquired by Alan Rosen (but it was graded, nonetheless).
Then Rosen sells it to Olbermann. And, Keith turns around and
sues Rosen.
Hey guys, you can't make up this stuff....its surreal.
Sorry, this entire scenerio these past 25 years regarding the
Doyle variation is just to "mysterious" for me. I was content
to consider my 1st T206 set complete without Doyle. Now, that
I am only 18 cards short of completing a 2nd set, Mr. Doyle is
definitely not on my wantlist.
Ted- the statistical odds of winning the lottery are several million to one, but usually there is a winner. Your theory of improbability does not convince me at all.
Hi Ted,
I understand your skepticism about the Doyle, because it's tough to believe it took so many years for the card to surface, but to be fair the Hobby didn't really explode until the 80's. If we can agree that the Hobby really started picking up steam in the mid to late 70's, then It didn't take that long(1980) before one was found. Then 7 years, with only one person looking, to find another. Are there a few fake Doyle's out there, probably so, but I do believe it's a real card, because too many of the Hobby's best have held the Doyle and believe it to be authenticate. Would I like to hold one and see for myself, absolutely, but I probably won't get a chance until I make time to head to the National.
It's also interesting to remember that until shows became more popular during the roaring 80's, many collectors rarely came across cards which were not distributed in there region of the country. I can remember getting exited about the 1975 topps Mini's at a show in Charlotte in the late 70's, because they were never distributed in the South. But, head to Michigan and they were a dime a dozen. The same goes for T206's, not many Northern collectors had Southern Leaguers in there collections, but they did have all the Wagners(ESPECIALLY IN NY City.) I started collecting T206's in 1975 here in North Carolina, and rarely saw T206's without a Piedmont, Old Mill , Sweet Caporal, or Polar Bear back. I owned a few Hindu's, Tolstoi's, and Sovereigns, but never saw Drums, Uzit's or Lenox backs until the early 80's. Sorry for rambling on, but I think the growth of National shows and the advent of auctions made many more cards available to collectors, spurring a boom in the Hobby that brought about many of our greatest discoveries. Be well Brian
This message has been edited by BRIANKW on Nov 13, 2005 11:48 AM This message has been edited by BRIANKW on Nov 13, 2005 11:47 AM
I agree with Brian that because the card is so valuable some counterfeits have entered the marketplace, but the original ones found are surely the real thing. And nobody was looking that hard until post-1980; look how many other previously unknown cards have been discovered in the last 25 years.
I really appreciate your comments regarding the "Slow" Joe Doyle card.
And, I think several here might be mis-undertsanding my stand on this
card. First, of all I'm open to all kinds of inputs; and I would like to
say that perhaps I am acting like Socrates (2500 yrs ago) where he
questioned certain "dubious" practices or idealogies amongst his con-
tempories (I'm also a Greek). Consider these undeniable facts:
(1) Until 1987, Beckett (and other catalogs) listed all Doyles in the set
as Larry Doyle.
(2) Now, Larry Doyle played 2B for the NY Giants (1907-15)
(3) Joe Doyle was a Pitcher for the NY Highlanders (1906-10)
and traded to Cinc. in 1910.....he was NEVER on the GIANTS !
So, I want someone to tell me how this Joe Doyle card gets tagged with
the New York "Nat'L" identification ?
Now, if you tell me that the printing firm back in 1910 made an "ERROR"
and printed a handful or two such cards, I could possibly concede this
T206 anamoly is an original card....However, it is not a true VARIATION
it is simply another printing error from this set that does not deserve
all the "hype" it has received. I certainly can understand this hype, given
that Larry Fritsch is the source of this entire scenerio back in the '80s.
Guys, I am not the sole skeptic in the hobby regarding this card. Many fel-
low collectors of T206 sets that I have known and traded with over the years
entertain their reservations on this Doyle card. I guess I am the more out-
spoken one. I'd still like to hear from Bill Heitman on this subject.
Hi Ted,
I think you put the nail on the head. I do believe the American Lithograph Co. made an error on the Doyle card. I believe the printers assumed that the pitching card was just another pose of Larry and added the NAT'L to the card. After all there were 5 cards of Chase, 4 Cobb's, 3 of Camnitz, and the list goes on. In fact, it appears that one of Camnitz's poses may have been one of his brothers, and not Howie, so I can see how this could have happened. Besides how many caramel cards depict the wrong player with the wrong picture? Quite a few, if memory serves. Besides, it's not like anybody would recognize Larry Doyle, much less Slow Joe.
The real question to me, is when they corrected there mistake, why they failed to add NY AMERICAN to the card? Be well Brian
This message has been edited by BRIANKW on Nov 13, 2005 12:57 PM This message has been edited by BRIANKW on Nov 13, 2005 12:56 PM
That was my theory which I posited in an earlier post that Joe and Larry were confused. I think it was easy for them to just delete the word NAT'L from the printing plate but more time consuming to take it apart and replace it with AMER. And you know printing baseball cards is a business and businesses do have deadlines. Maybe it was no more than a shortcut to save time and effort.
And Ted- you have in the past proven that certain cards never existed such as the 1949 Bowman Pesky NOF, or pesky Mr. Pesky as you used to say, with an ironclad theory that noone could dispute. But you haven't given us anything concrete to explain why you think the Doyle isn't legitimate.
Barry
Boy, you are going back to 1981 about the 1949 Bowmans. But,
more significant was my resolving the mystery of the 12 vari-
ations in that set; which up until then had everyone confused.
After some extensive research, Ralph Triplette and I, identified
these 12 cards as being printed on the last Hi# sheet comprising
36 cards which included the Paige, Snider, and Doby Rookies.
De-bunking the existence of the Pesky controversy was just an
incidental by-product.
1981, what a year for ERROR & VARIATION collectors in this hobby.
Unfortunately, we were deprived in 1981 of the most significant "find"
in this category, namely the first Joe Doyle "error/variation" card.
Now tell me, if you (or anyone else) discovered such a unique card
wouldn't you shout it through out the land ? You bet you would.
You would be ecstatic. Yet, Fritsch chose not to share his find with
the rest of us. Perhaps, he wanted a 2nd source. And, indeed he
got that in 1987; however, I find this behavior sort of cryptic.
You see, my problem is, after going thru approx. 4000 - T206 cards
and studying them very closely, I am amazed how the designers of
these cards were very accurate in updating player trades during
their production (1909-11). Excellent examples of this are Browne,
Dahlen, Demmitt, Elberfeld, Kleinow, O'Hara, etc.
And, the point I'm driving at here is I really cannot believe they
made the mistake of adding "NAT'L" to a known American League
player.
If anything was to be modified with the initial Joe Doyle card
they would have reflected the fact that he was traded to Cinc.
in 1910. Again, considering that there are 523 cards in this set
and the fact that they was issued over several series, it is virtually
error-free in its accuracy. This tells me a lot of diligence went
into producing these cards; so, I find it very difficult to accept
this "strange" Joe Doyle card. It just doesn't fit the pattern.
Ah--Doyle. The T206 Doyle, N.Y. American, card. This card was always a mystery. Why would that be the only card that carried no league desgnation in cities where there were both a National League and American League team? From the time I started hoarding T206, that question has been repeatedly discussed among those of us who cared about the set, or sets. I must say that I expected to one day find a Doyle that carried the American League designation. But after having hundreds of thousands of these cards in my hands, I had kind of given up. Back when I first developed my checklist which was in late 1978 through early 1979, I sent a blank one to Larry Fritsch who mailed it back to me with the cards checked off that he had. He made no mention, at that time, of a no. 105 Doyle with any league identification. It would seem that, at that time, Larry went through his cards pretty thoroughly. He did check off about 4000 cards.
If an error was made early on and the Doyle, by mistake, was listed in the National League, why not correct it if the error was caught? Sherry Magee was corrected. Just leaving the league off of the Doyle card is not consistent with what the card proofers did with T206. To me, the no. 105 Doyle with the National League designation is a mystery, but I would say the failure to correct it is a bigger mystery.
As has been said, it seems the makers of T206 were pretty meticulous about the accuracy of the cards, but it is just as obvious to me that quality control was awfully bad in the printing of the cards. Poor printing and poor quality control accounts for so much in T206 that is being discussed as errors and variations. The orange background discussion and the miscuts discussion come to mind.
In the June 14, 1959, issue of "The Card Collector", there was an article on T206 Wagner. It stated that only 6 examples were known and two were not in circulation. I was still four months shy of 10 years old. At the time I wrote The Monster, there were somewhere between 40 and 50 known. Irv Lerner and I once at a show made a count of just the ones he and I knew of. That number was at 42 if I remember correctly. More have been found since. So the one thing I can guarantee is that if the Doyles found to date are real, there will be more and more found over the years.
I only had one brief look at one of these Doyle cards that have been "found". It was brief and I couldn't draw any conclusions from it. I would have liked to compare it to the seven different no. 105's I had checked off my checklist. I would have to say that, at the time of the "discovery", I had had in my possession at least 150 examples of that card, and maybe as many as 250. And I dealt with quite a few old time T206 collectors who combed through many, many no. 105's trying to find one that had the league designation on it. Of course those numbers sound astounding, but remember that lots of us have had the very same cards as others at one time or another.
First, I hope my addressing you, Bill, is alright ? I feel like
I have known you for many years as I have read, and referred to
your book many times. Thanks for your story on the Doyle card
which both of us refer to as a "mystery".
And, while the Beckett and SCD guides for years had the basic
Doyle card (NY - American Lge) confused with Larry Doyle, your
book was always the correct checklist that I relied on.
Thanks Ted. I tried Honus for awhile but it never did stick. Please call me Bill.
I was hired to authenticate a Wagner with a Piedmont 350-460 back. Interestly, I knew of some reprints that had made this error. Now, if someone doesn't know T206 and wants to fake a Wagner,
isn't that the kind of mistake they could make? Anyway, the card was not authentic.
Going back many years, there were collectors who had access to what seemed like old stock paper and spent many an hour faking cards they used as fill-ins. I don't really have much of an opinion on the Doyle. Doesn't it seem possible that someone wanting to fake a league designation on the Doyle might not realize that the card is of Joe Doyle, American Leaguer, and believing it's Larry, might fake it as a Doyle, National League. I can't rell you how many collectors I've known who didn't think this Doyle card should be checklisted with the New York Americans. I'd want to really look this over. What dealers do you know who deal heavily in reprints?
Are you suggesting or just speculating that the "Nat'L" version
of the Joe Doyle card could be an elaborate "fake" that was
perpetrated by someone who didn't really know the cards in
the T206 set; and therefore, confused Joe with Larry Doyle
of the Giants. Hence...."Nat'L".
And, this certainly is very plausible as most checklists and
price guides prior to 1987 listed the four Doyles without their
first names, or in some instances as all four being Larry Doyle.
Or are you saying that is was an honest mistake that occured
back in 1910 and this card is really an original.
This message has been edited by tedzan on Nov 14, 2005 9:31 PM
The only way that I could form a real opinion about the Doyle card is to have the card in my hands. I consider it a possible scenario. I've collected T206 for more than 50 years. I never confused Joe with Larry. The Monster listed it correctly and my checklist always had Joe on the New York American League team. The checklist I used as a boy had it correct. That was a T Card checklist published by Charles Bray.
As much as I tend to doubt the legitimacy of some recently discovered "novelties" in the T206 Series, I question whether the proper technology existed to fake such a card in the early (or even late) 1980s. Today, graphic arts and printing have advanced to such a degree that with some practice, one could easily render the proper font in Adobe Illustrator and quite possibly print "Nat'l." with an almost identical ink onto a ready and waiting Joe Doyle. Could it fool the vast majority of collectors and hobbyists? I sure think so. Could it fool someone trained in printing and experienced in grading vintage cards? Probably not. Bill's point is a valid one -- only a close examination of all Doyle variations by those knowledgeable enough to know what they're looking for could produce a definitive answer on authenticity.
Let's take the next Joe Doyle "Nat'L" that surfaces (before its slabbed)
and take it to a Carbon Dating Test Lab. And, 1st test the picture of the
card to verify it is 95 years old. Then, test the name and especially the
"Nat'L" lettering and see what age the Carbon test comes up with.
A crazy thought....but, I have to inject some humor on this subject.
perhaps if the card was faked 30 years ago it was not done using the current technology but using 60 year old technology. is this a possibility? were there printers around that still were using lithography technology from the turn of the century?
Lithographic printing is not the factor here. Since the original Joe Doyle
card does not have a League affilation printed on it, what some are
speculating is that the lettering "Nat'L" was simply added next to the
existing "DOYLE N. Y." caption.
Of course it was not that simple, it had to have been expertly printed so
that it closely matched the name and team lettering.
that is what i was getting at. i was not implying that the entire card was faked but just the Nat'l was added at a later time using the original methods
I have handled 2 different examples of the Doyle Nat'l Variation. The first card was purchased from a man in the Richmond VA area who inherited his father's collection and had no knowledge of the card or any of the other 1000+ T cards that he newly owned. I do not beleive there is any way the card could have ever been altered or "faked" into the variation. The card later graded a 3 with PSA. The second copy is a higher grade example that also came straight from an original collection where again, the owner considered the card a common T206 and had no idea of it's value.
While PSA has made errors in the past (haven't we all) I would like to think that with regard to the few Doyles they have graded, they spent the extra time needed and used a black light at the least to make absolutely sure they got it right. That of course doesn't explain the fiasco with the one graded by SGC, and to this day I can't explain how that happened. Therefore, I will stand by what I have been saying all along: the Doyle variation is a legitimate error that was made at the time of issue and quickly corrected. I respect those who question its authenticity, but I politely disagree.
From reading the comments and putting two and two together, one thing seems clear. There's going to be a lot more Doyles found with the league designation. Only time I know of that T206 corrected an error with another error?
There was a fairly notorious case in the early 80s regarding a 20-something California dealer who created a lot of fake Pete Rose Topps rookie cards. Rose cards were hot then as he chased and surpassed Cobb's lifetime hits record. He (the forger, not Rose) was arrested, charged & convicted, as I recall, but I don't know what sentence he might have served. I remember being shown one of the fakes along side a real one and I thought it was pretty convincing. I realize that Topps cards are not T206 but I think that the technology to create fake T206s probably existed in the early 80s. Having said that, and further stating that I am in no way a T206 expert, I think that some sort of mishap or mistake in 1910 or thereabouts possibly could have created a real rarity. Or not. It's an interesting story in either case.
I remember the 63 Rose counterfeits and eventually all those that were recovered were stamped "counterfeit" or something to that affect in red ink.
And Bill, why do you say T206 corrected an error with another error? Once the league designation was removed, it simply read "Doyle N.Y." That may not be specific, but it is correct.
We both have agreed that it certainly appears that the designers of
the T206 set were very meticulous in keeping up with player trades,
correcting errors, and even quickly responding to Wagner's request to
drop his picture from the very first series.
Look how immediately they corrected the Magee error. So quick that the
initial "Magie" card didn't get past the very 1st series, PIEDMONT 150.
The O'Hara card was quickly reprinted to reflect his trade to St. Louis.
O'Hara the following year was sent down to the Minors, never to return to
the Majors.
Smith (Chicago) is then traded to Boston, so they reprint him with both
teams on his card. I could go on and on, you know these little subtleties
much better than I.
As a student of many BB card sets and their flaws, it utterly amazes me
how well designed and virtually flawless the cards of the T206 set are.
So, 1st....I cannot accept that they incorrectly labelled the Joe Doyle card.
And, 2nd....If they did, they would have immediately corrected it.
Hence. we would have a 3rd - Joe Doyle card with "N.Y. AL" on it.
So Ted, now I have to take you to task. You are clearly implying that all the Doyles are fakes. Now I need you to supply your proof. A hunch isn't good enough; we need documentation.
Hi Ted,
While I agree the printers did a good job correcting some of the team changes which occured during the printing of the series , they did a poor job of correcting spelling errors. Out of the 24 misspelled cards in the set, they corrected only one Magee/Magie.
I wonder why he was the only spelling correction? Did he complain? Did the Delahnty's not? Or Harry Sentz???
That's why I love the set, more questions than answers. Be well Brian
Barry, I said they corrected an error with another error because Doyle with no league is the only card in the set that didn't have the league desgnation where the city had a team in both leagues. I think of it is error in many ways, while I don't consider it an "error card." You have to have a correct card in the set to have another be an error. Joe Doyle never got a correct card.
I agree it is not consistent with any other cards featuring a player from a city with two teams, such as NY, Chicago, St. Louis, or Philadelphia. Fair enough.
This message has been edited by barrysloate on Nov 16, 2005 7:56 AM
This one is a good one.
Regardless of some of the speculation, assumptions, supposition, conjecture, and anything else derivative to a fertile mind --
We all seem to agree that the printers of that period, and anyone else connected to producing the cards, weren't all that bad.
In fact, they were very good.
The only problem is that they were human, and thus subject to human error.
The Magie error was caught fast, and the Slow Joe error, - faster.
This message has been edited by tobacco-r-us on Nov 19, 2005 3:25 PM
This thread is a good one, and I nominate Barry Sloate for the first Congressional Medal of Frustration.
Before I go any further I must say, that I only have the highest respect for Ted Z.
When it comes to the 1948 Bowman fooball set, he's da man, he was my Guru, he wrote the book.
He stated numbers, and the numbers were factual.
Reading his take on the 1948 Bowman FB set, was like walking and talking with God.
Anyone that thinks that I'm elaborating, or exaggerating, really doesn't understand what I'm going through.
You think it's easy?
You think I can just shrug this off just like that?
This is a tough ordeal.
From the Bowman Mt Olympus, to the world of T206.
From facts to ... conjecture, assumptions, suppositions, and speculations. ..... not a shred of any kind of facts.
The God that failed.
I can see Barry's face turning blue with frustration.
He pleaded and begged to be listened to, but to no avail.
Actually, he shouldn't feel like a failure, because many others tried to explain and reason with the Bowman Olympian.
Ted is still my hero when it comes to the 1948 Bowman FB set, but Barry gets my vote for the first Congressional Medal of Frustration.
Listen Joe- I still have no idea what your beef is with me, but I must request that you stop talking about me in any context. Everyone on the board knows that you suffer from some form of mental illness, and you need to take care of it. You can't just go on the board and continue attacking me for no reason whatsoever. The next time you refer to me negatively, I will be calling my attorney and we will start a defamation lawsuit against you. I have a business and a reputation to protect and I can't allow people to defame it in any way. Get yourself some help Joe, because you have the voice of a sick and desperate soul.
This message has been edited by barrysloate on Feb 7, 2006 10:27 AM
You may continue to post on the board but you may not ever mention Barry's name in a post again, or make reference to him, however slight it might be, or you will be banned. This is in keeping with the board rules on personal issues.....thanks much....moderator dude
Next time you earn yourself a few scheckels, go out and buy youself a sense of humor.
If you had any intelligence, instead of being a fragile sensitive wimp.
You would see that I was giving YOU credit for knowing what you were talking about.
Schmuck, ..... I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU.
You appear to be a nice guy, but you're turning out to be the lamest dumbest New Yorker that I ever met.
I'm ashame to call you a fellow New Yorker.
Have you ever looked at a Doyle error card real up close?
Who the hell put the card in your delicate little hands at the Willow Grove show?
There you have it little one.
Now see if you can tell the difference between someone having a little fun in YOUR favor, ..... and someone attacking you?
Don't ever leave your apartment, ... it's a jungle out there. PUNK!
As regulars on this board are aware Joe Palaez seems to have it in for me, and to this day he has never explained why. He claims that his post to me was a compliment. I invite other board members to please read that post and tell me if it sounds like a compliment to you. If it is, it went straight over my head. Joe just got himself permanently banned so I want to make certain I understood yet another one of his hopelessly convoluted posts.
This message has been edited by barrysloate on Feb 7, 2006 11:05 AM
I thought he shouldve been banned a long time ago but he seemed to be in hiding for awhile so all was well.I wouldnt worry about it Barry,its obvious from the past that hes had something against you and theres no way a compliment can be taken from what he wrote before.If he cant follow simple instructions as to not not mentioning your name or he will be banned,he obviously doesnt care if he can post or not and we dont need people like that around here
Barry no need to worry these people always seem to show there true colors and if a reader can't figure that out it is someone you don't need to deal with. The personal bashing tends to come from people that have little or nothing to contribute to the actual context of the forum.
Thanks to all who have been supportive on this thread. I don't know if anyone noticed, but the last response before Joe's was three months ago. What compelled him to drag this old business up to start bashing me again? It's unfathomable. He's a man with a serious problem and I'm not even sure he knows what it is.
I personally am nearly 100% confident the Doyle variation is legitimate. I feel this way because I worked for LEvi when he inadvertantly purchased the copy of the card he owned. He purchased the card at the 1998 Sportsfest from Joe Esposito in a huge binder full of T206 cards. The binder was originally purchased by Alan Rosen in Dave Zubas (sp) shop in western PA. The binder was then sold to Esposito. Joe first offered the binder to Jimmy, who looked through it then passed. As he was walking the floor it struck him that the Doyle error was in that binder. He quickly proceeded back to Joe's table where he was informed that Levi had purchased the binder. In the meantime Levi had brought the binder back to the table and handed it to me to put in the back. Jimmy came over and asked if Levi was by with a binder of T206s I showed it to him. We went through the binder and there it was. I must state that the card though 100% real in both our minds appeared to be hand cut not really that uncommon for a T206. Before Levi came back and Jimmy could tell him what he had purchased, I had already told Steve Novella and Kris Keppler of the find. Word spread quickly through the hall. Rosen was angry and felt Levi should give Joe more money since such a valuable card had been found in ther binder, Levi declined and Joe stated it was on him Levi did not owe him a thing. Then a day or two later the other supposed Doyle came in and Merkle slabbed it for SGC. Rosen attempted to sell this card first to Craig Roehrig who was buying tons from Rosen at this time. Craig showed Jimmy and I the card and we laughed hysterically as it was an obvious fake variation and we told Craig that we felt it was fake, so he passed. Levi in the meantime had PSA slab his card as authentic, possiblty the first card to be slabbed as Authentic, I heard it has since received a number grade though I can niether confirm or deny this fact. This story is to my recollection 100% accurate and I stand by my statements.
Hello,
I'm glad that this thread resurfaced. I just read it from beginning to end, and it is fascinating. I enjoy the stories from the collectors who have been collecting T206's for many years. Thank you Ted, Barry, Bill and the others who shared their T206 knowledge.
Hey guys, that was about 2 years ago and back then I was sort of skeptical about the Joe Doyle error;
and, I was just throwing out some thought-provoking stuff.
This card (the few that have been found), exists only with a Piedmont 350 back....and, that reinforces
my "Piedmont Primacy" theory. So, I am fully convinced it is an original T206 issue.
And, in a recent thread, I posted a subtle Mark (shown here) that exists on some Joe Doyle cards....
that appears to be a remnant of the "Nat'l" lettering......that we can only assume the T206 printer's
inadvertently left remaining when they erased the "Nat'l" lettering on the printing plate (or stone).
My doubts 1st started when I heard about where many of the Doyle's, that Fritsch bought up in the 1980's, ended
up. And more recently, when a fake (graded) Joe Doyle error card showed up, it understandbly made me skeptical.
But, about 1 1/2 years ago when I 1st came up with my "PIEDMONT first" theory, I realized just like the Magie error,
the Joe Doyle error card fit perfectly into my Piedmont theory.
And, then I started noticing the "Printer's Mark" on some regular Joe Doyle cards....and, I did a study on it.
Assuming this Mark reflects the prior presence of the "Nat'l" lettering (as I certainly do), then I am fully convinced.
I just wish a few more of these Joe Doyle error cards would show up.
I wouldn't mind finding one or two....in an antique shop in the Great Smokies. I'd keep one..show them both to Ted, and sell Michael one...everybody ends up happy.
joe- you obviously haven't read too many of my posts. i am true collector, who has been obsessed with T206 rare variations for the last 15+ years...the majority of my posts focus on collecting such rarities, and that is also where my main area of knowledge is...from time to time, i might reference value or "supply & demand", but that is usually mentioned to give a point of reference for scarcity...ask anyone who knows me on this board, and they will tell you that i am a very passionate T206 collector.
ted- i totally get your point, and as i have mentioned previously, i give you huge kudos for unearthing this very subtle, yet very cool variation!
