Maybe I'm a T206 "purist"......or, just an old "dinosaur". But, I have never understood why anyone
would pay 1000's of $$$$ for any of these four trivial printing flaws (DOPNER, MURR'Y, SHAPPE, or
'NODGRASS). They just happen to be missing a SERIF (or two) due to a worn type set....they are
not true variations !

The MAGIE and JOE DOYLE error cards are by initial design; and therefore, true variations. In to-
day's market they command "big $$$$$", and deservedly so. There are only 100-200 MAGIE cards
in circulation. There are only 6 cards of the Joe DOYLE Nat'l variation that are confirmed to be le-
gitimate (based on their history).





Recently, we have discovered what I refer to as a "poor man's" Joe Doyle error card. Shown below
is the printer's mark (remnant from the letter "N") when American Lithographic initially (and hastily)
erased their mistake (Nat'l) in Joe Doyle card's caption.
To qualify as an "abbreviated" Joe Doyle error, this card must have a Piedmont 350 back (similar to
the real error card). The Piedmont cards of Joe Doyle have become quite tough to find; and further-
more, only a few of them are found with this Printer's Mark.

So, let's have some relative consistency with these 4 other printing flaws, I think there ought to be
a higher value on this particular Joe Doyle "semi-error" card. Either that, or the above mentioned 4
printing flaws are way overpriced; and, I predict that down the road they will not hold their current
(exaggerated) market price. One of the main reasons for this, is that more "fakes" will continue to
emerge, and this will scare away collectors from buying them. And, as we have seen, Graded copies
do not guarantee an authentic card.

What are your thoughts on this subject ?



PRINTER's MARK.................................../\



T-Rex TED

I think all of these print errors are overrated. I too am shocked at the value placed on them.

I really don’t have any issue with what anyone pays for such oddballs, as long as these oddballs don’t get added to the checklist..LOL

To me the only thing that bothers me is the inconsistency that surrounds these cards why Murr’y & Shappe for example bring big bucks while other cards which have been well documented and well known bring little more than a few dollars extra if lucky. Such as is the case of the Randall Milwaukef card below I have 2 of these. After all that entire card has had the same unfortunate printing error happen that any of the above had happen. I have always viewed these cards like clothes they come in and out of fashion.

Once someone discusses the card enough or one sells to one collector for a significant sum, then the other examples have a windfall of epic proportion added to their value.



Now as for the Doyle “dot” card been watching this one for a long time I have about 3 now all Piedmont 350 however I have seen a Sovereign and Sweet Caporal that have the same mark, any thoughts on those Ted?

If you really look hard enough there are all sorts of oddballs in this set part of the fun of T206 IMO. Partial letters on jerseys, reverse commas, oddball ink bleeds, missing font letters etc. I have dozens of them..why some are worth more than others who knows?



All I’m ever really sure of anymore is what I’m willing to pay and that changes every day for me at least.

John- the more of these printing glitches that come to light, the less they will be coveted. The fact is there are many cards that have similar ink problems as the Shappe and Murray.

I wholeheartedly agree,TRex, with a bit of a nuance as I offered long ago.
I say have an errata section for the 206s--sort of the way the ole text critics do it in academia--and place these in the errata section:
Dopner Murr'y Shappe 'Nodgrass Randall Milwaukef Doyle error mark
and the Magie and Doyle N Y Nat'l(the last 2 being designated error by
initial design). Those in the errata section would be interesting anomalies
but not part of the checklist.
I know i've pushed this before and only ole JimB came on board a wee bit so i will now go back to the honeydo list before I get caught in here.
always great to hear your research,Ted

best,
barry

You asked.....
"....however I have seen a Sovereign and Sweet Caporal that have the same mark, any thoughts on those Ted?"

1st, I haven't seen a Sovereign with this Printer's Mark....are you sure about this ? The Sovereign press runs were later
than the other T-brands; and, by then Amer. Litho. had completely wiped off this Mark from their printing plate. Sweet
Caporal, Polar Bear & Old Mill Doyle's are also found with this Mark (but, to a much lesser degree than Piedmont).

I base this data on my sampling of 142 Joe Doyle cards which also included a few EPDG and Tolstoi backs.

TED Z

A more complete answer to your question.....The printing of Joe Doyle cards went through 3 phases.....

1st....Piedmont 350 run with "Nat'l"....this error was caught very quickly (less than a dozen in circulation).

2nd....Hastily, Amer. Litho. Co. (ALC) erased "Nat'l" from their plate, leaving a remnant of the "N"......then
printed Joe Doyle with Piedmont, Sweet Caporal (Fac. 30), Polar Bear, and Old Mill cards with this Mark.

3rd....ALC erased this Mark, printed Joe Doyle with EPDG, Old Mill, Piedmont, Polar Bear, Sovereign, Sweet
Caporal and Tolstoi backs.

Here's a my data on the Joe Doyle "printer's Mark" as a function of T-brands (142 samples)......

T-brand.............Mark....No-Mark

Piedmont 350........7.........41

Sweet Cap 350......4.........55

Polar Bear.............2.........22

EPDG....................0..........1

Old Mill..................1..........5

Sovereign 350........0..........2

Tolstoi..................0..........2

____________________________

Totals.................14........128


TED Z

I'm not sure anybody needs to understand why other people want to collect something. You're either into them, or you're not. You have to understand a little based on your study and promotion of the Poor Man's Doyle. It's very much like the miscut back Cy Young that was just discussed. You're either into that sort of thing or you're not. A lot of collectors would value the card lower than a normal looking card. Some wouldn't want it, others would pay a big premium.

Nodgrass wasn't a broken plate, a PA guy makes them. All kidding aside, I must agree with Ted for once as much as it hurts me to. I much rather argue with him. Dan.

Currently, on ebay is a SHAPPE error with an EPDG back (it's a BIN....lest the usual suspects accuse me of "outing" this lot).
Is this T206 printing flaw compatible with an EPDG back ?

T-Rex TED

First I have seen with that back but the newly discovered Murr'y on a Piedmont back took the cake for me so God knows. I also here there is a Nodgrass catching pose. Oops! bad joke.

We should have documented all the known backs on these four T206 printing "freaks" in order that we can determine if these cards
are for real......or a phony. It has become apparent that we cannot trust the grading companies to authenticate these errors. PSA
has screwed up and so has SGC.

The T206museum site provides some back info on three of these printing flaws, but not enough. And, no back info on SHAPPE.

It's going to be a "crap shoot" for any one willing to spend a lot of $$$$ to get any of these 4 cards.....buyer beware !

T-Rex TED

"It has become apparent that we cannot trust the grading companies to authenticate these errors. PSA has screwed up and so has SGC."


I can tell...since I can make them. Even know the tricks used to hide or blend the alterations, if they went that far. Would be more than glad to join forces and help out.

Kevin


------------------------------

www.AlteredCards.com - in-depth education on advanced card doctoring techniques & detection with detailed examples

I have offered my services for years for free and I never get a call or an email from a grading company for help. I am quite sure I can tell any and all fakes. But you have me beat in 1 department, I can't make them nor would I. Dan.

They seem to minor and too easy to fake (as we've seen). Give me missing ink, bad registration or a miscut and we're talking!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some of us love the printing flaws; others don't. Just a matter of taste. To each his own, I say.

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

Adam..like you, I like to collect the print errors. I can't get enough of those miscuts or flaws. I also like to show which one's can be faked or altered. The best way to do this is to try and perfect the alteration process. Might I add, your colletion is looking great!

Dan, I wasn't talking about offering my services to grading companies for this (although I do gratis work for a couple of them) because it would be ignored. I was simply offering to verfiy collectors card(s), as Ted mentioned, to find out if these things are real or phony...or a little of both and get to the bottom of this. I'm quite sure I can spot a doctored t206 variation every time but would call on Ted for his front/back expertise.

Kevin



------------------------------

www.AlteredCards.com - in-depth education on advanced card doctoring techniques & detection with detailed examples