Net 54 Vintage Baseball Card Forum
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!
 


  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Top of page | Bottom of page | Main Index  

Brian Weisner
(Login BRIANKW)

Re: Why the scarcity of certain T206 Southern Leaguers ?

December 16 2008, 7:16 PM 


Hi Ted,
The T211's were on my list, but on the next page... My brain is fried from work today, but I will get back to my post. You and Jamie feel free to finish up, as I think we are on the same path....

Talk to you soon. Be well Brian

 
 

Jeremy
(Login nashvols)

Hey John - Nice Example !

December 16 2008, 8:46 PM 

So real and life like... That Bay jumps out at me almost as if I am holding the card right now...What a Beauty!

happy.gif

~ Jeremy ~

 
 
Ted Zanidakis
(Login tedzan)

T206 & T211 Southern Leaguers

December 16 2008, 10:18 PM 

The T211 (Red Sun) cards were also produced by American Lithographic. As seen here with the
Greminger cards the same photo was used for the front images in the T206 and the T211 sets.


[linked image]
[linked image]



TED Z


 
 

Jeremy
(Login nashvols)

Re : Why the scarcity of certain T206 Southern Leaguers ?

December 16 2008, 11:22 PM 

Ted - I find it interesting that most images were shadowed from T206 to T210 and T211... Such as Greminger, or even the Harry Bay example, John uses above...

Why the difference in photo's for such players as Sid Smith of Atlanta ? His T206 and T210/T211 images are different : Timeline on when they were produced ? Was there more time in between Sid's cards as opposed to Greminger's ?? Or was there simply another available image to utilize ?

[linked image]
[linked image]
[linked image]

 
 
Ted Zanidakis
(Login tedzan)

JEREMY

December 17 2008, 10:58 AM 

The Smith image in the T206 set was drawn in early 1909 when American Litho. had a photo of Smith
in a fielding pose.

By sometime in the Summer of 1910 they had a batting photo of him and used it, instead of the fielding
image. No different than what they did with many of the repeated Subjects in the T206 set as each
subsequent Series was designed.

I don't have many T210's and T211's to compare with T206's....it would be interesting to note the dif-
ferences. Since, the T206 images are artwork and the other two set's images are black & white photos.


TED Z



    
This message has been edited by tedzan on Dec 17, 2008 8:01 PM


 
 
Scot
(Login sreader3)

Re: Why the scarcity of certain T206 Southern Leaguers ?

December 17 2008, 7:30 PM 


Jamie,

In my mind the scarcity ranking data that you cite show strong evidence of linkage between Hindu no-prints and relative abundance. My guess is that the up-to-eight SAL, SA and VL subjects that are Hindu no-prints were released contemporaneously with the six TL subjects (which of course are also Hindu no-prints) some time in late 1909 or early 1910--after completion of the Brown Hindu print run--and experienced a longer print with Piedmont 350 and possibly Old Mill Southern than their roughly 34 earlier-launched SAL, SA and VL brethren. If true, this would explain the relative abundance of these up-to-eight SAL, SA, VL subjects.

An analogy can be made to 150/350 and 350-only subjects. Brown Hindu is a 150 series back and thus the roughly 34 SAL, SA and VL subjects that appear with Brown Hindu are akin to 150/350 subjects that were shortprinted with 350 series backs (i.e. Piedmont 350 and Old Mill Southern). The up-to-eight SAL, SA and VL subjects (and the six TL subjects) that do not appear with Brown Hindu are akin to 350-only subjects that received a full print run with 350 series backs (i.e. Piedmont 350 and Old Mill Southern). Since the Brown Hindu back is much scarcer than the Piedmont 350 and Old Mill Southern backs, the latter 8 + 6 = 14 SL subjects are more abundant overall.

Scot

 
 

Dave Hornish
(Login dsh46)

Re: Why the scarcity of certain T206 Southern Leaguers ?

December 17 2008, 8:09 PM 

This is a great thread but I was told there would be no math on the quiz.....

 
 

Brian Weisner
(Login BRIANKW)

Re: Why the scarcity of certain T206 Southern Leaguers ?

December 17 2008, 8:29 PM 


Hi Dave,
I agree.... That darn Reader gets a little crazy sometimes... I think he's a consultant on Numbers....smiley. I finished my companies projections today, helped my daughter with homework, and come here for peace and I get more Math..........

Scot Smalls.... "you're killing me...."


Be well Brian

PS The Smalls reference comes from the movie "The Sandlot"... a classic

 
 
Frank Wakefield
(Login Greatwake)
Registered Users

Re: Why the scarcity of certain T206 Southern Leaguers ?

December 17 2008, 9:30 PM 

Scot, that is one fine analytical explanation. It reminds me of tree rings. And the Brown Hindu ring is a thin one, jammed in there...

Some time ago I used to think that there were fewer TL cards because none of them came with Hindu backs... I figured there were equal amounts of Piedmonts and Old Mills. Obviously, such an idea is incorrect.

Thanks!!

 
 

Dave Hornish
(Login dsh46)

Re: Why the scarcity of certain T206 Southern Leaguers ?

December 17 2008, 11:15 PM 

Heh heh, I kid because I love.....



Actually, this IS a great thread, one of the best in a while.


    
This message has been edited by dsh46 on Dec 17, 2008 11:15 PM


 
 

J Hull
(Login jimonym)

Re: Why the scarcity of certain T206 Southern Leaguers ?

December 18 2008, 10:58 AM 

Hi Scot,
I think that you're right. There's clearly a connection between the 8 Hindu no-prints and the 6 Texas League subjects. Population reports are somewhat sketchy, but I think theyre ok for showing trends. I compared some numbers in SGC's pop reports and came up with a pretty interesting one.

The first number is population of Piedmont-backed examples, and the second number is the population of Old Mill-backed examples. I've then listed the difference.

Revelle = 17/37 = Old Mill +20
Helm = 16/35 = +19
Carey = 23/34 = +11
Foster = 18/28 = +10
Manion = 19/29 = +10
Mullaney = 21/31 = +10
Shaughnessy = 20/29 = +9
Coles = 19/26 = +7
Ellam = 16/23 = +7
Hickman = 21/28 = +7
Cranston = 23/29 = +6
Hooker = 21/27 = +6
Howard = 26/32 = +6
McCauley = 18/24 = +6
Paige = 19/24 = +5
Reagan = 22/27 = +5
Greminger = 24/28 = +4
Bernhard = 24/27 = +3
Kiernan = 26/29 = +3
Smith (Atlanta) = 23/26 = +3
Guiheen = 26/28 = +2
Thornton = 25/27 = +2
Jordan = 26/27 = +1
Lipe = 25/26 = +1
Ryan = 24/25 = +1
Perdue = 21/21 = 0


Breitenstein = 27/26 = Piedmont +1
Otey = 26/25 = +1
Violat = 25/24 = +1
Fritz = 25/23 = +2
Hart (Montgomery) = 32/29 = +3 Hindu no-print
Lafitte = 26/23 = +3
Bay = 26/21 = +5
Persons = 30/22 = +8
Hart (Little Rock) = 36/25 = +11 Hindu no-print
Miller = 38/25 = +13 Texas Leaguer
Stark = 36/23 = +13 Texas Leaguer
Molesworth = 35/19 = +16
Bastian = 45/28 = +17 Texas Leaguer
Seitz = 38/20 = +18 Hindu no-print
Orth = 47/28 = +19 Hindu no-print
Smith (Shreveport) = 40/21 = +19 Texas Leaguer
White = 42/23 = +19 Texas Leaguer
King = 40/20 = +20 Hindu no-print
Thebo = 46/26 = +20 Texas Leaguer
Westlake = 45/25 = +20 Hindu no-print
Rockenfeld = 45/23 = +22 Hindu no-print
Lentz (Sentz) = 50/18 = +32 Hindu no-print

I think this fairly clearly suggests that the Texas leaguers and Hindu no-prints were printed together. Not only do they lack Hindu backs, but their proportion of Piedmont to Old Mill distinguishes them from other Southern Leaguer cards.

That's all I have time for now, but I'll post some other ideas later.

Jamie

 
 

peter ullman
(Login ullmandds)

Re: Why the scarcity of certain T206 Southern Leaguers ?

December 18 2008, 11:06 AM 

has anyone seen any type of relationship between availability of SL'ers vs presence in coupon type I set?

 
 
Scot
(Login sreader3)

Re: Why the scarcity of certain T206 Southern Leaguers ?

December 18 2008, 11:47 AM 

Jamie,



Thanks for the additional data. What strikes me is that the number of Old Mill Southerns remains relatively constant across Hindu yes-prints and Hindu no-prints, while the number of Piedmont 350s is much larger for the Hindu no-prints. This suggests that the Hindu no-prints experienced a longer print run with the Piedmont 350 back--but NOT with the Old Mill Southern back.

So it looks like we have the following distribution:

Subject Group . . . Brown Hindu . . . Old Mill S . . . . Piedmont 350

34 SAL/SA/VL . . . . Full print . . . . . Full print . . . . . Short print

8 SAL/SA/VL . . . . . No print . . . . . Full print . . . . . . Full print
+ 6 TL Subjects

A couple of notes:

1. The Southern Leaguer Paradox: The former 34 subjects were printed with a larger number of backs than the latter 14 subjects, but are less abundant. As Frank W. noted above, this is a paradoxical result. It is explained by the fact that the Piedmont 350 print run dwarfed the Hindu print run in sheer volume.

2. The 150/350 v. 350-Only Analogy: The former 34 subjects were released in 150 series, and therefore short-printed with the Piedmont 350 back--much like the 150/350 subjects were short-printed with 350 series backs. The latter 14 subjects were released in the 350 series, and therefore received a full print with the Piedmont 350 back--much like the 350-only subjects.

3. Piedmont 350 v. Old Mill Timing: The fact that all 48 subjects received a full print with the Old Mill Southern back but the former 34 subjects were short-printed with the Piedmont 350 back suggests that the Piedmont 350 print outlasted the Old Mill Southern print. For example, the Piedmont 350 print perhaps lasted until August 1910 whereas the Old Mill Southern print was terminated in May 1910, with the former 34 subjects being pulled from print in June 1910 but the latter 14 subjects continuing to be printed through August 1910. (These dates are just for the sake of argument).

Scot


    
This message has been edited by sreader3 on Dec 18, 2008 12:08 PM


 
 
Ted Zanidakis
(Login tedzan)

Scarcity of certain T206 Southern Leaguers ?

December 18 2008, 11:54 AM 

JAMIE and SCOT

For comparison's sake, when I broke up my 2nd T206 set in order to put together my all-PIEDMONT
set, these 12 Southern Leaguers (SL) were initially OLD MILL or HINDU's in my former set.

I had a heck of a time finding Piedmont's to replace these 12 cards listed below.

Guys, I know this is anectdotal; however, it is compararable with your data ?

I guess my point here is, that in the 3rd printing (Piedmont run) of the 48 - SL cards, they were not
all printed equally.

This is now obvious to us.

All this data shows that the Texas Leaguers are more available with the Piedmont brand (by a factor
of 2/1) over the Old Mill brand. And, now we know that at least Hart (Little Rock), King, Lentz, Orth,
Rockenfeld and Seitz appear to be more available with the Piedmont brand.

Southern Leaguers that were tougher for me to find with the Piedmont brand......

Breitenstein
Coles
Foster
Fritz
Greminger
Guiheen
Helm
Hickman
Hooker
Manion
Paige
Revelle
Ryan



TED Z



    
This message has been edited by tedzan on Dec 19, 2008 4:00 PM


 
 
Scot
(Login sreader3)

Re: Why the scarcity of certain T206 Southern Leaguers ?

December 18 2008, 12:12 PM 


Ted,

Sounds like your extensive set-building experience is consistent with the above data and theories.

Scot

 
 
Scot
(Login sreader3)

Re: Why the scarcity of certain T206 Southern Leaguers ?

December 18 2008, 12:17 PM 


Hi Brian,

The only math I see in my earlier post is 8 + 6 = 14.

I thought you could handle that one (smiley).

Best,

Scot

 
 
Ted Zanidakis
(Login tedzan)

SCOT

December 18 2008, 12:32 PM 

An original T206 collection (from So. Car.) that I acquired back in 2005 consisted of 404 cards.

Of which 378 were all PIEDMONT (150 & 350) cards; and, there were 26 diff. SL cards (all OLD MILL's).
There were no P460 cards, indicating that the original collector must of stopped collecting early in 1910.

I'll try to find my list of these SL cards. I do remember that Shaughnessy was one of the 26....his card
always stands out.


To be continued.


TED Z



    
This message has been edited by tedzan on Dec 19, 2008 4:06 PM


 
 

Brian Weisner
(Login BRIANKW)

Re: Why the scarcity of certain T206 Southern Leaguers ?

December 18 2008, 12:52 PM 


Hi Scot,
I was having a little fun with Dave last night and I guess you missed the humor... Be well Brian


PS My daughter and I can only count that high if we use pennies...

 
 
Scot
(Login sreader3)

Re: Why the scarcity of certain T206 Southern Leaguers ?

December 18 2008, 1:10 PM 


The humor was not lost; just having a little fun back . . . .

 
 

Brian Weisner
(Login BRIANKW)

Re: Why the scarcity of certain T206 Southern Leaguers ?

December 18 2008, 1:20 PM 


Hi Scot,

I'm pretty sure the Old Mill Southern League run was discontinued to make way for the T210 set which was released sometime in the spring of 1910....

3. Piedmont 350 v. Old Mill Timing: The fact that all 48 subjects received a full print with the Old Mill Southern back but the former 34 subjects were short-printed with the Piedmont 350 back suggests that the Piedmont 350 print outlasted the Old Mill Southern print. For example, the Piedmont 350 print perhaps lasted until August 1910 whereas the Old Mill Southern print was terminated in May 1910, with the former 34 subjects being pulled from print in June 1910 but the latter 14 subjects continuing to be printed through August 1910. (These dates are just for the sake of argument).

Be well Brian


 
 
 
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Top of page | Bottom of page | Main Index  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement