I do not think that too many Net54ers will argue with me that Eddie Foster is probably the toughest of the 48 cards in the
Southern League (SL) series. It seems that all SL players were not equally printed.
First, here are the four different SL represented......

1st release......with Brown HINDU, OLD MILL, PIEDMONT backs

South Atlantic League (10 subjects)
Southern League (20 Subjects)
Virginia League (12 Subjects)

2nd release......with OLD MILL, PIEDMONT backs

Texas League (6 Subjects)

Now, a close 2nd in scarcity to Foster is teammate, George Paige. These 2 players were on Charleston of the So. Atl. Lge.
This League had difficulties which resulted in a "split-season". The 1st half of the 1909 season was won by Chattanooga.
On 7/5/09 the Charleston franchise became the Knoxville team. I'd venture to say that this change caused Foster and Paige
to be short-printed.
In addition, Kiernan and Manion were involved in mid-season trades, as a consequence of the changes in this League. These
two are also tougher to find than most of the other SL cards. At the end of the 1909 season Chattanooga and Augusta (the
winner of the 2nd half) played a League Series and Chattanooga won 4 of the 7 game series.



From the Virginia Lge. Revelle is tough to find. He was an outstanding pitcher for Richmond in 1909 with a 29-11 W-L record.

From the Southern League, the three New Orleans guys are quite tough....Breitenstein, Fritz, and Reagan.

To summarize, here is my list of the top 12 tougher SL cards (regardless of backs) in order of scarcity......

Foster
Paige
Fritz
Revelle
Hart (Little Rock)
Manion
Breitenstein
Greminger
Ellam
Reagan
Kiernan
LaFitte

Some of you may differ, and I welcome any debate.


Regarding the very tough Brown HINDU backs (possible on the 1st 42 players in this series). The first 42 SL cards were issued
shortly after the general 150 Series cards were available (Spring of 1909). This fact is confirmed by the date of the Charleston
players mentioned in the above story. The very 1st SL cards were printed with the HINDU backs.

There are 34 of the 42 SL cards that have been confirmed with the HINDU back. The following 8 have not......

Hart (Little Rock)....No Print
Hart (Montgomery).....No Print
King......No Print
Lentz......No Print
Orth.......Possible Print
Rockenfeld......Possible Print
Seitz......Possible Print
Westlake......No Print


TRIVIA quiz......

In this HINDU adv. three SL cards are displayed....one is incorrectly pictured....who will be the 1st one to identify this error ?

And, who is the actual BB subject shown ? ?





TED Z

Ted Breitenstein is incorrectly pictured. The actual card has him throwing in the other direction.

ps- A lot of people also seem to think Persons is a tough SLer.


Edited to add: My guess is Cy Young, bare hand shows, is the BB player shown.

Ted, I thought you swore off this board??

Hi Ted.

Out of your list of 12 toughies, 5 of the guys played the full 1909 season with their pictured team. These 7 did not:



Foster is pictured with Charleston but no one by that name played for Charleston in 1909.


Paige began the season with Charleston and then was traded to New Orleans. His first game with New Orleans was July 18th, but he was probably traded around the beginning of the month, as there were a couple weeks of wrangling over the transaction and the matter went to the National Commission for a ruling.


Fritz began the season with New Orleans and then was traded to Memphis. His last game with New Orleans was June 5th and first with Memphis was June 7th.


Manion began the season with Columbia and then was traded to Jacksonville in early July.


Ellam is pictured with Nashville but actually played the season for Birmingham.


Reagan I believe is actually Steve Reagan and not Ed Reagan. Ed was a utilityman for New Orleans who was released to the Liverpool, Ohio team in early May. Steve played with New Orleans until July 18th. The Sporting Life reports that he was soon thereafter benched for indifferent play, and he didnt appear on the field again for New Orleans in 1909.


Kiernan began the season with Columbia, then went with that team to Knoxville, and then later in the season was traded to Jacksonville.


So of these guys, Paige, Fritz, Manion, and Kiernan changed teams. Reagan was benched and may have been released from the team. And Foster and Ellam were mixups, either with the wrong team designation or the wrong name.



Jamie

Thanks for posting all that info. I'm aware of all these details; however, I thought my post
was long enough. I'm glad you posted all these trades.

And yes, I tried to find Foster in several of my Reach Guides of the 1908-1910 era....he remains a mystery.

Here is my question to you regarding Foster....is the Foster in this set Edward Lee Foster or Edward Cunningham Foster ?

Regards,

TED Z

Ted - Is the Breitenstein card a pic of his teammate, Reagan?

Jamie - Maybe you can help me understand something... How in the Wide World of Sports did Ellam get on a T206 card mfg in 09-11, when he played and managed Nashville in 1916-20 ?

Could Ellam have possibly played for a short time in Nashville in the 09-11 time period (B'Ham is a few hours South) as he did in the 1918 season when he played/managed Nashville after stops in Indianapolis(Amer Assoc) and Pittsburgh (National League)all in the same year?

Something seems off to me... I realize the Ellam picture was taken from an earlier picture I believe from Pennsylvania playing days, possibly Rookie year in any type of organized ball... Could it be that Ellam possibly played for both B'Ham and Nashville during the T206 mfg time period ? I understand this could be a error on his jacket and it should possibly say B'Ham, but I wonder since he came to Nashville a few years later... (These players bounced around, etc..)

Just terribly curious... If we have an entire season of box scores for B'Ham or Nashville, I am sure we could answer this all to important question !

Thanks -

~ Jeremy ~

Ted,
I suspected you already knew all that.
As to which Foster it is...

Edward Lee Foster was 29 years old in 1909. Edward Cunningham Foster was just 22 years old in 1909. To me, the player pictured on the T206 card looks more like a 22-year old than a 29-year old. But, in this case, the appearances are deceiving.

Edward Cunningham Foster never got anywhere near the South Atlantic League:
1906 = Coffeeville (Kansas State League)
1907 = Harrisburg, PA (Tri-State League)
1908 = Williamsport (Tri-State League)
1909 = Jersey City (Eastern League)
1910 = New York (AL)
1911 = Rochester (Eastern League)

But Edward Lee Foster did:
1906 = Columbus and Brunswick (Georgia State League)
1907 = Charleston (South Atlantic League)
1908 = Jacksonville (South Atlantic League) and Cleveland (AL)
1909 = Did not play
1910-1912 = New Haven (Connecticut State League)

So where was Edward Lee in 1909? He went to spring training with Cleveland's regulars and other recruits. But he had injury troubles. The April 10th Sporting Life reports that "Ed Foster of Cleveland is laid up with a very lame pitching arm." A week later comes the news that Foster was among eight players that manager Lajoie was asking waivers on: "Of these, Foster has been sent to Charleston, South Atlantic League."

So there's the answer. It's Edward Lee Foster, who went to Charleston just before the start of the South Atlantic League season, but was injured, so badly, it seems, that he was unable to pitch at any point during the season. Eventually he was recalled to Cleveland, at the beginning of July, perhaps for another tryout to see if his arm was recovered. But he never made it into a game and by the end of the month had been, again according to The Sporting Life, "turned over" to Toledo. But he couldn't get into a game with them either.



Jeremy,
I've looked at those boxscores, and they show that Ellam played from April 15th (opening day in the Southern League) until September 11th, all with Birmingham (141 games). He was then purchased or called up by Cincinnati and made his major league debut on September 18th, finishing the season with ten games played in the NL. I have no idea why he was pictured with Nashville, because you're right, he didn't (so far as I have been able to tell) put on their uniform until 1916. I've always assumed it was just a mistake by the T206 artists that later became a coincidence when Ellam actually joined Nashville.

As Ted has amply proved elsewhere, the cards of the Southern Leaguers were created and released in 1909. If you look at the Southern Leaguers (meaning Southern, South Atlantic, Virginia, and Texas Leaguers) pictured in the set, aside from the clear mistake (Ellam) every other player is pictured with the team he began the 1909 season with, strongly suggesting that the cards were designed very early in the season. No other league (AL, NL, American Association, or Eastern League) is like that. All of those leagues have at least a few players pictured with a team that they joined after the start of the 1909 season. So the Southern Leaguers were clearly some of the first cards drawn up.

For years, it has seemed to me, that to discern who was in the white border tobacco set, and why, it was necessary to see what was happening in baseball in 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, and 1909.

If that is done, then Beckley, Cravath, and McGinnity are obvious. And there are many more.

And that is why I've always thought that Edward Cunningham Foster was who was intended to be depicted because of being in Jersey City in 1909... that seemed more significant of an event to folks in the greater New York area than Edward Lee Foster's exploits in the South Atlantic League. At least until now.

I now think I've been mistaken. J Hull's explanation is compelling. I'm won over!! That must be Edward Lee Foster. Thanks!!!

Great thread, guys!!

Ted, I guess everyone's personal experience differs, but to me personally, I have got to rank shaughnessy up there as a close 2nd or 3rd to Foster. I have owned all the others, most of them like Lafitte, Ellam, Fritz and Reagan multiple times, all tough, but still to this day and it blows my mind..of all the SL'S the one I have never owned is Shaughnessy. Again...could just be my experience but always felt his cards when I was going after them sold for a premium leading me to think he was as tough as or close to Foster

George




To summarize, here is my list of the top 12 tougher SL cards (regardless of backs) in order of scarcity......

Foster
Paige
Fritz
Revelle
Hart (Little Rock)
Manion
Breitenstein
Greminger
Ellam
Reagan
Kiernan
LaFitte

Years ago Beckett had Shaughnessy and Perdue at slight premiums over the other southern leaguers. So I got a Shaughnessy early on. And without any trouble I picked up a second one... I thought they were easy to get. I sold on several years ago. Sold the other a few months ago. And bought one a few weeks ago. I don't think Shaugnessy ranks up there as one of the more difficult SLers. But I understand that some folks think as George does, above.

Thanks for sharing. Probably just my experience and could be as easy to find as the others. Just felt whenever I won items from auctions houses of southern league lots or searched for sl's on ebay, shaughnessy was never around.

I posted a thread not to long ago on why I thought Shaughnessy was tough. And, it isn't because this
card was short-printed (say as Foster must have been).

Here is the link to that thread......

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1223483635/Why+would+the+T206+Shaughnessy


TED Z

JAMIE H

Thanks for so elaborately resolving the mystery of the Foster card. That is truly some great
research.

ADAM and JEREMY

Yes the Breitenstein card depicted in the HINDU adv. is not the actual picture of him. But, it
is neither CYoung or Reagan.

I see this pix as only one distinct Subject in the T206 set....try again.


OK everyone, let's not forget that we still have 8 cards to be confirmed with HINDU backs in
the Southern League series. Four of which, I think are NO PRINTS......

Hart (Little Rock)
Lentz (Little Rock)
King (Danville)
Westlake (Danville)

And, these 4 are possible PRINTS......

Hart (Montgomery)
Orth
Rockenfeld
Seitz

Does anyone here have any of these with HINDU backs ?

BRIAN W

Pardon me if my SL HINDU No-Print info slightly differs with yours.


TED Z

Thanks, missed that thread the first time around, great info.

Ted et al

From my world, Hart, Hart, Orth, Rockenfeld, Seitz are Piedmonts;
Lentz, King, and Westlake are Old Mills.
No Hindus.

great research, T206 scholars!

best,

barry

My only other guess is McGraw (finger in air). In looking at that image, my focus is on the nose and amount of chin/neck that shows.

Ted, I have only one SLer with a Hindu back, Molesworth, Birmingham. So no help with your list.


George, you're with the majority thinking Shaughnessy is more difficult to locate... he just wasn't for me. Since he was prominent in baseball for many years, folks gathered his cards while the others were subject to being discarded. So that would have put a bit of demand on them, but increased their survivability. One may well offset the other.


I had a near set of 512... and when I was gathering them, I decided that I needed to go for the SLers early on. Hart Little Rock was the 41st one I obtained, Archie Persons was the 42nd, LaFitte was the 43rd, Helm was the 44th, Foster the 45th, McCauley the 46th, Cranston the 47th, and Lipe was the 48th. I had found other Lipe cards that were either in too good of a condition for me to collect, or much too worn.

I tried to find Revelle and Breitenstein early on, so I gathered those two before I tried to get the SLers complete. Both had interesting careers. So maybe they're among the more difficult...

I think Persons and Foster are among the most difficult.

You got it....it is McGraw (finger in air) pix with the Breitenstein caption on it.

This advertisement ran in the Summer of 1909, so I wonder why the mix-up ?


TED Z

Hi Guys,

I disgaree... Its Breitenstein with a flipped image.... McGraw's head isn't tilted enough and the collar isn't wide enough. Besides his head is way to far away from the border. Breitenstein's hat with stripe and part of "NO", as well as the nose and facial features all fit...



Be well Brian

Here's some background on a few more players who have been mentioned as difficult cards.

Ted's covered Shaughnessy

Frank mentioned:
Perdue -- was with Nashville from the opening to the end of the season, so no discernible reason why he should have been printed in fewer quantities.

Persons -- was with Montgomery until July 24th and then put on waivers, picked up by Little Rock and first played for them on August 1st.

Helm -- began the season with Columbus and then at some point was traded to Chattanooga (I don't have the date for the trade).

McCauley -- actually spent the preseason exhibition period with Jersey City but then was cut and ended up catching on with Portsmouth and was with that team on the opening day of the Virginia League season. Later in the season he was traded to Norfolk (dont have the date).

Cranston -- spent all season with Memphis, so no reason why he should have had fewer cards printed.

Lipe -- managed Richmond all season, so again no reason for scarcity.


While we're thinking about guys that are tough, why is it that these guys are not tougher than they are?

Orth -- was manager of Lynchburg but resigned and left the club on July 15th.
Carey and Violat both had midseason team changes, but are among the most easily-found Southern Leaguers.

Jamie

I agree it is Breitenstein with a reverse negative.

Great Thread,

Lee

Jamie,
very helpful and interesting delineation.

many thanks,

best,
barry

Jamie...


I don't think Perdue was short printed.


I do think there was a bit of a hunt for Perdue cards after he went up to the major leagues... He was an extremely interesting fellow. Best game he ever pitched in the major leagues was opening day against Mr. McGraw's Giants, Mathewson pitched. Hub Perdue pitched a 3 hit shutout as Boston beat the Giants. It was April 15, 1912. But did Hub get great headlines the next day in the newspaper? No. The papers were full of stuff about a possible shipwreck at sea... the Titanic.

Hub started the 1914 season in Boston. The team lost more than they won. Manager Stallings arrives, and Boston starts winning. Stallings trades Hub to St. Louis, and Hub was mad as hell for years, because he was traded away from a share of all of that 1914 World Series money.


Hub would board a train in Gallatin each year to go to spring training. He'd arrive back by train in October, usually broke. His dad, a frugal fellow, could not believe that Hub spent all of those big baseball dollars and had nothing saved for winter. So one season, just before Hub departs, his dad tells him that when he comes home at season's end his dad will match, dollar for dollar, each dollar Hub has saved. The season goes by, Hub rides the train home, and is broke. In town, before going home, he stops by the bank and borrows $2000 from a banker friend. Hub goes home and greats his dad. Eventually dad asks Hub if he saved anything, and without a word out comes the $2000 onto the table. Dad goes to a tin and counts out the matching $2000. Hub eventually tells dad the truth and returns the money.


I think some Hub cards were gathered because he was with that Boston team in 1914. He had a long career, mainly with Nashville, so folks would have been more likely to keep his card. I think these are reasons why there should be more of them, not fewer. I think guys who left baseball and forgotten about were more likely to have their cards discarded. After baseball Hub was in local politics, and was elected County Clerk of Sumner County Tennessee (Gallatin is the county seat) several times. Maybe that put a demand on his card that got them out of collectors hands and into the hands of locals. I don't believe that, but Dr. Beckett must have had a reason for tweeking the price of his cards.

Believe it or not....my 1st thought on the Breitenstein pix was that they reversed the image.

But, then I had 2nd thoughts....one should always listen to his 1st thought.

TRIVIA quiz....what remarkable event is Ted Breitenstein in the record books for ?





TED Z

Ted - Breit's No Hitter in 1st Major League start, right ?!?... But from a Minor League perspective I think he might be most famous for having his best year pitching in 1908 for NO only to lose the last game of the season to the Nashville Vols 0-1 and his team lose the Southern Association Crown by winning percentage of .571 to .573 --

Hi Jeremy,
Great answer, but wrong...smiley...
His claim to fame.... He coached TedZ in Little League....


Be well Brian... I'm laughing out loud in the parking lot and people are watching...

You almost got me Brian ! You know, I was going to answer that way, but Ted mentioned "in the record books," so I deferred to the more commonly known No-Hitter in 1st major league start, since Ted and Breit probably did not make the record books! See Smiley man, below...



Be well Jeremy

You are the TRIVIA King......

Ted Breitenstein pitched a No-Hitter in his 1st Major League start on October 4, 1891 with the
St Louis Browns.

TED Z

Funny....but, do you realize how close you are to truth with that "funny" ?

Here is Frank O'Rourke (from the 1933 Goudey set). Frank and Ted Breitenstein probably crossed
paths in the Minors.

Frank was a utility infielder for six Major Lge. teams from 1912-1931. I think he has the record for
being the youngest starting BB player (at age 17) in the NL.

When he retired from BB he became a NY Yankees scout, and lived in NJ. During 1954-1957, Frank
was our High School BB coach....there was no Little League then in our town.

....HA....HA....the last laugh is mine....





TED Z

"I think he has the record for
being the youngest starting BB player (at age 17) in the NL."

Wasn't Joe Nuxhall 16 when he debuted?

Hi Ted,
I was wondering when you were going to laugh....

Have a great day. Be well Brian


PS He must have been a good teacher, as you made it to the Majors on your T206 card...

Nuxhall was 15 years, 316 days old when he made his major-league debut.

I was the star Rightfielder in HS.....big on defense, short on offense (except a well-placed bunt
and hit many Triples to the opposite field).

My arm was my big advantage....I could accurately throw a BB 250+ feet on a line; thus, I had
many PutOuts; and saved a few games at that.

However, not good enough for the local semi-pro league.

Be good ole buddy,

TED Z

Very interesting thread.

Any theories on why KING and WESTLAKE are the easiest southern leaguers to obtain?

Any connection to the fact that they are both depicted with Danville?

(I checked and Danville did not win the VL championship in 1908 or 1909--so that would not seem to account for it).

Any connection to the fact that they are two of only a handful of Hindu no-prints among the 42 South Atlantic League, Southern Association and Virginia League subjects?

Could it be that these two were released along with the six Texas Leaguers in the 350 series--and thus (along with the six Texas Leaguers) experienced an extended print run in that series?

Jamie, Ted, Brian--anyone?

EDITED IN SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE WINDOW SIZE

Thanks for returning this thread on topic. Lets examine the list of (so far) unconfirmed HINDU Southern
Leaguers (SL)......

Hart (Little Rock)
Lentz (Little Rock)
King (Danville)
Westlake (Danville)

I'm almost certain that Danville and Little Rock players were not printed with Hindu backs. I think Brian W
will disagree with me regarding King. And, Brian is certainly our expert on this category; perhaps, he will
chime in on this.

And, these 2 also fall into the No-PRINT category.

Hart (Montgomery)
Orth


So, that leaves us with these two........

Rockenfeld
Seitz......led the Virginia League in batting in 1909 with a BA = .328

All this, if true, neatly conforms to a basic common denominator of six Subjects in the printing process
of the SL cards. Consider the Texas Lge. Subjects, there are only 6. Therefore, we can expect that 36
Subjects were printed with HINDU backs.


TED Z

Hi Ted,
Actually.... I now believe that only 34 Southern Leaguers were printed with Hindu backs...

Harry Bay Nashville
Bill Bernhard Nashville
Ted Breitenstein New Orleans
Scoops Carey Memphis
Cad Coles Augusta
Bill Cranston Memphis
Roy Ellam Nashville
Ed Foster Charleston
Charlie Fritz New Orleans
Ed Greminger Montgomery
Tom Guiheen Portsmouth
J. Ross Helm Columbus
Gordon Hickman Mobile
Bock Hooker Lynchburg
Ernie Howard Savannah
A. O. (Dutch) Jordan Atlanta
J.F. Kiernan Columbia
James Lafitte Macon
Perry Lipe Richmond
George Manion Columbia
Pat McCauley Portsmouth
Carlton Molesworth Birmingham
Dom Mullaney Jacksonville
William Otey Norfolk
George Paige Charleston
Hub Perdue Nashville
Arch Persons Montgomery
Ed Reagan New Orleans
Dutch Revelle Richmond
Ray Ryan Roanoke
Shag Shaughnessy Roanoke
Sid Smith Atlanta
Woodie Thornton Mobile
Juan Violat Jacksonville

These 4 were thought to exist:
Frank King Danville
Charles Seitz Norfolk
Ike Rockenfeld Montgomery
James Westlake Danville

But in my opinion do not.... I thought I saw a Rockenfeld a few years ago on EBay, but after doing a bit of research think I was mistaken.

Be well Brian

PS Ted T206's are never neat and tidy.... 36 would be so much easier than 34.......

Scot,

You might be on to something. It may very well be that the eight Hindu no-prints and the commonness of King and Westlake are related.

If I can use your data from the 3rd edition of Inside T206 to make the case...

Here are the eight no-print candidates and their rank in terms of commonness among the 42 Southern, Virginia, and South Atlantic Leaguers:

Westlake = 1/42 (easiest to find out of the 42 cards)
Seitz = 3/42
Rockenfeld = 4/42
Hart (Montgomery) = 5/42
Orth = 7/42
King = 8/42
Lentz = 17/42
Hart (Little Rock) = 37/42 (sixth most difficult to find)


Lentz and Hart (LR) are outliers here, but it's rather interesting, I think, that Westlake, Seitz, Rockenfeld, Hart (M), Orth, and King are all among the eight easiest cards to find. Which cards are most common or most scarce is a bit fuzzy to figure out, but there's at least a sense that the easiest to find also happen to not have been printed with Hindu backs. In general. The Texas Leaguers aren't so neat though, and if there's a connection between these eight cards and the six Texas Leaguers, their relative commonness doesn't seem to be part of it.

As I mentioned somewhere above, Orth left his team in mid July, so it would seem odd that his card would be a holdover for a longer print run. But T206 is full of bigger oddities.

Jamie

Hi Jamie, Scot, and Ted,
I have always believed that the upcoming release of the T210 series had quite a bit to do with the shortage of many of the Southern League cards. I haven't had time to track every card, but when you consider that the 8 Southern League "proofs" were almost all issued in the T210 series it seems to make sense. Of the 8 proofs, 6 of these guys were star players in 1909, making them a shoe in for the T210 set, but a little late for inclusion in the T206 set that consisted of mostly poses and players from the 1908 season.
Let's take a closer look at the 8 "proofs":
Alcock Chattanooga
Meek Chattanooga
Lee Jacksonville
Roth Jacksonville
Dwyer Jacksonville
Osteen Montgomery
Pepe Montgomery
Mayberry Danville


The Chattanooga team which entered the South Atlantic Association in 1909 is probably the best example; they dominated the first half of 1909 with a 45-16 record, but aren't represented in the T206 set at all. Obviously, the proofs of Alcock, who batted .349 in 1909 finishing 2nd in the League to Joe Jackson, and Meek another Chattanooga slugger would have been excellent choices for a "second SL series".

The Jacksonville club dominated the league in 1908 and thus have many players included in the T206 set, but in early 1909 many of the stars were traded and the club fell to 7th place. The only remaining veterans from the Jacksonville squad in 1909 were Lee, Roth, and Dwyer who were probably also slated for a "second SL series"...

I don't have time to finish my thoughts on the other 3, but will try to get around to it this afternoon.
Anyone interested, should read Olbermann's article in the December 2000 issue of VCBC, as it is a wealth of information.

Be well Brian

I think you are onto to something here with the 1910 OLD MILL Series. And, if you don't mind, I'll add the
1910 RED SUN (T211) Series into this mix.

I think you will find it interesting that the Senator Russell original T-card collection (on display at the Univ.
of Georgia) includes a huge amount of T210's (besides his 497-card T206 set which includes a Joe Doyle
error card and the Ty Cobb back card).

The 75 Subjects in the Red Sun set include many of the So. Lgers in the T210 Series 8 issue....neither of
these sets include the following:

Hart (Little Rock)
King (Danville)
Lentz (Little Rock)
Orth (Lynchburg)
Rockenfeld (Montgomery )
Westlake (Danville)

Very interesting....however, Seitz is in these sets....I still think there is a possibility of finding Seitz with
a HINDU back.

Great stuff, Brian.

TED Z

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

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



~ Jeremy ~

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.







TED Z

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 ?

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

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

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

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

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!!

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



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

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

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

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

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

Ted,

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

Scot

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

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

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...

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

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

Brian,
That makes good sense.
Scot

Looking again at the data I posted this morning, if you sort the list by the highest total sum (Piedmont + Old Mill) these are the "easiest" Southern Leaguers:

Orth = 75
Bastian = 73
Thebo = 72
Westlake = 70
Lentz = 68
Rockenfeld = 68
White = 65
Miller = 63
Smith (Shreveport) = 61
Hart (Little Rock) = 61
Hart (Montgomery) = 61
King = 60
Stark = 59
Seitz = 58
And then the 34 others.

And, yep, neat as can be, there are our 8 Hindu no-prints and 6 Texas Leaguers. I guess pop reports are good for something.

So, to Brian and others,
I think we can see the effect of the T210 set elsewhere as well. I hadn't made the connection until reading this thread, but consider this as well:

The 350-only series contains 124 American and National League cards. Only about 40%-45% of those 124 have been confirmed with Old Mill backs. For reference, that's roughly the same percentage as have been confirmed with Drum backs. And Drum and Old Mill have the lowest number of confirmed cards available among all the brands.

Among the 86 American Association and Eastern League cards only about 35%-40% have been confirmed with Old Mill backs. Drum has the same percentage. Again, Drum and Old Mill have the lowest percentage of confirmed cards of any brands.

So it seems to me that not only were Southern Leaguers pulled to make way for T210s, but all T206s were pulled. Since the 350-460 series T206 cards have all or almost all been confirmed with Old Mill backs, it seems like the timeline of T206 production included a hiatus with regard to Old Mill lasting from sometime early in the 350-only series until sometime after the beginning of the 350-460 series.

Jamie

Jamie,

Wow! 14-for-14. Rarely are data that clean.

This thread has made an important contribution to the T206 knowledge base.

Scot

Hi Jamie,
Nice work... But we aren't done yet... Ted, Scot, and a few others will help us complete the cycle...

I'm watching Tyler break the Tarheels scoring record tonight, but will be in touch tomorrow.

Be well Brian

PS too many people forget about the popularity and distribution of the brands...

PS 2 Barry... I'm typing really fast... so expect lots of errors...

I think our combined efforts in this thread have resulted in proving that your SL-HINDU subset
is complete with 34 cards.

Congratulations, guy......tis quite an achievement. Certainly greater than any of my short-set
sub-sets.

TED Z

Hi Ted,

Thanks... But I don't see one being more impressive than the other...

We chose different sets and focused on acquiring the cards... We are both persistent, so we were bound to finish at some point.... But I don't think either one of us cares about such a small victory, we want to prove the big picture. And Buddy we aren't far away.



Talk to you soon. Brian



PS Tyler broke the record tonight and I have 30 people in the "man cave" down stairs so I have to go....

Wow!
Congratulations,fellows.

Leon, this one belongs in the Net 54 Archive Center.


best,

Barry

This thread is somewhat reminiscent of your famous EPDG thread. The posts on this thread are not as
numerous as your EPDG; nevertheless, these posts are very illuminating regarding the HINDU mysteries
and their relation to the availability of certain T206 Southern Leaguers.

The "taming" of the Monster continues.



TED Z

Hi Jamie, Scot or Ted,
Check the Polar Bear data on the 350 cards when you have a chance and see what it looks like.... I would, but I'm looking after six kids right now....Help.............. Be well Brian

Ha Brian. Sounds like fun.
I'm sitting in a mostly empty office watching a blizzard, so here you go.
P.S. This data's a couple months out of date, so could be missing a few. And/or someone else may have more complete numbers...


All 350-only cards (AL + NL + AA + EL):
210 cards / 143 confirmed with Polar Bear backs (68%)

American and National Leaguers:
72 out of 124 confirmed to have Polar Bear backs (58%)

American Association:
36 out of 39 confirmed to have Polar Bear backs (92%)

Eastern League:
35 out of 47 confirmed to have Polar Bear backs (74%)

I'm not sure how we got sidetracked to accounting for Polar Bear (PB) backs; however, I find it very
interesting that all 61 Subjects (incl. 6 super-prints) in the 350/460 Series and all 48 Subjects in the
460-only Series were printed with PB backs. Yet, in the 350-only Series there appears to be 67 No-
Prints (subject to revision).

Scot and I discussed this recently, and my observation is that in anticipation of the ATC divestiture
(circa early 1911) the Polar Bear brand was assigned to the Lorillard Co. Then there appears to have
been a significant increase in production of Polar Bear tobacco, as reflected by the fact that not only
all 109 of these cards are found with the PB backs; but, more so than other brands.

For example, both Cobb's in the 350/460 series and Kleinow (Boston) and Smith (Chi & Bos) are found
with a greater ratio of PB backs than with the other brands.

Perhaps someone can confirm this observation with pop. report data.

TED Z

Thanks Jamie,
Stay warm and safe in the storm...


Hi Ted,
I wasn't trying to get off topic, but confirm some thoughts I've had on the distribution of certain brands with certain leagues.


Be well Brian

PS The kids are going to the Nutcracker all day, so I'm free to post away.
Now I need some Diet coke to wake up my brain.

Hey guy....I welcome more analysis of these cards....what do you think of my thoughts of POLAR BEAR's being printed
in much larger numbers for the 460 series cards ?

This includes the 460 versions of the 350/460 series group.


TED Z

P.S.....drink the real Coke (or Pepsi)....that diet stuff is deleterious to your system.

Hi Ted,
I think you are probably right, but I haven't really studied the data on Polar Bears in awhile. I'll take a look when the brain wakes up....

Talk to you soon. Be well Brian


PS I got off of Caffeine for two years and felt better than I ever have... Then I got married, went through four pregnancies and have two busy children, so I started back. I don't eat any sweats... no cakes, pies, ice cream, candy or sugar of any kind, so Diet Coke is the only way to go for me... I working on switching to Cranberry juice, but it hasn't worked yet.

Ted Z,
Many thanks for the EPDG memories!! The 'taming' of the Monster is well on its way, thanks to many, but particularly to those who have done the
great research on this thread!

Merry Christmas, ole friend

Barry

Wishing you and Margarite a very MERRY CHRISTMAS....my dear friend.


TED Z

I hope I spelled your lovely wife's name correctly.