Category: T206 Research

What I Have Learned from Pat Romolo’s Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch Research: Part One

Pat Romolo’s research on the Piedmont 150 Plate Scratches has produced a number of interesting findings.  It’s really cool to be able to look at a recreated sheet and see how the cards were laid out when printed.  Pat’s initial goal was to put the cards together like a puzzle, but in doing so, he unearthed numerous nuggets of information.

I believe some of the questions I have about the set have been answered by Pat’s work.  In this four-part series, we’ll take a look at a few of the head-scratchers I have noticed over the years and how they can be explained by Pat’s research:

Why were a number of the “150 Only” players pulled from production before being printed with 350 backs, only to be featured on a new pose in the 350-460 Series or 460 Only Series?

This is a question I didn’t ever expect to be answered to my satisfaction.  There are 14 poses from the 150 series that were discontinued prior to printing of 350 backs.  Among them are Honus Wagner and the Sherry Magie error.  These two were pulled from production early on and exist in very small numbers.  The remaining 12 are generally referred to as “The 150-Only Subjects”.  They are as follows:

  • Ames, Red (Hands At Chest)
  • Brown, Mordecai (Cubs On Shirt)
  • Browne, George (Chicago)
  • Burch, Al (Batting)
  • Donlin, Mike (Fielding)
  • Doyle, Larry (Throwing)
  • Evers, Johnny (Cubs On Shirt – Blue Sky)
  • Pattee, Harry
  • Pelty, Barney (Horizontal)
  • Powers, Mike*
  • Reulbach, Ed (Glove Showing)
  • Schulte, Wildfire (Front View)

You’ll notice I have decided to include Schulte (Front View) in the 150 Only group.  There have long been discussions among collectors as to whether Schulte belongs in this group.  He would be a shoe-in if not for the find of a single Piedmont 350-backed specimen.  To read more about that find, check out the article I wrote about it here.

There are obvious reasons why some of the above players were pulled from production, but most didn’t make much sense.  George Browne was selected off waivers by Washington on April 21, 1909.  Donlin left baseball for Vaudeville following the 1908 season and didn’t return until 1911.  On one hand, that might seem like a good reason for his card to be pulled.  On the other hand, his other 150-350 Series pose, Donlin (Seated) was not pulled from production.  It can be found with EPDG, Old Mill and the entire slate of 350 backs.  Harry Pattee played his final game in the Majors in 1908, so it makes sense that he was pulled from future printings.  Mike Powers passed away two weeks into the 1909 season.  His sad and untimely death was likely the reason he was removed from the set early.

There are rational explanations for why Browne, Pattee and Powers were pulled from production.  The same can’t be said of the remaining nine players (although we have a possible rationale for Donlin).  Each of those nine players were pulled, only to be released again with a new pose later in T206 production.  I have read the theory that perhaps a number of the Cubs players were pulled because ATC wanted to quit using “Cubs” on the players’ jerseys, instead replacing it with the “Chicago” that we see on subsequent poses.  That seemed as good a guess as any but didn’t necessarily make complete sense.

This is where the Plate Scratch research comes in.  Pat wrote the following on net54baseball.com on September 9, 2017 (to read the thread, click the link below under Sources:

Another interesting thing about this sheet is most of the 150 only subjects are all together in a horizontal row, they include Evers(Cubs), Doyle (Throwing), Donlin (Fielding), M.Brown (Cubs), Pattee, Reulbach, Burch, Ames, and Schulte who I consider a 150 only subject.

The other 150 only subjects that don’t have confirmed scratches on this sheet are Wagner, Magie (fixed name), G.Browne (team change) and Powers who is the only 150 only subject in the SC150/649 subset and he has confirmed scratches on another plate scratch sheet (the A-B sheet).

The image above is too small to be viewed on most devices, so please click this link to see a larger, zoom-able image

This shows clearly that all of these poses were together on a sheet.  While this doesn’t prove anything with 100 percent certainty, I feel very comfortable drawing a conclusion based on this data.  To me, it seems likely that the printers at ALC wanted to remove Pattee from production, and in the name of convenience, chose to pull an entire row of cards rather than do the work it would have taken to replace Pattee with a different pose.  This is why stars such as Brown, Evers and Reulbach were pulled from production: because it was the easiest way to pull Pattee from production.  If you think about it, it makes sense that the reason would be something like this.  It clearly wasn’t a conscious decision.  There’s just no reason to pull Ames (Hands at Chest) but not Ames (Portrait) and likewise Donlin (Fielding) but not Donlin (Seated).  There’s also no apparent reason to have pulled Brown, Doyle, Evers, Reulbach and Schulte, stars who were soon chosen to be featured again.

*Powers is the only member of the “150-Only” group who does not reside on Sheet 2a2b.  Powers is on Sheet 1a/1b with the other poses that were printed with Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 649 backs.

I’d like to thank Pat Romolo for collaborating with me on this series of articles.  Thanks for answering all my questions, making sure I wasn’t missing anything, and for providing all the scans I kept asking for.

Sources:

Why Was Carl Lundgren (Chicago) Printed With So Few Backs? And What Do Hughie Jennings and Sam Crawford Have to do With it?

Carl Lundgren’s Chicago T206 is one of the more sought-after cards in the set.  Lundgren was a very good starting pitcher for the Cubs from 1904 to 1907 (he also turned in solid seasons in 1902 and ’03), but that doesn’t have anything to do with the popularity of his Cubs card.

Here’s What We Know:

Lundgren (Chicago) was pulled early in the 350 portion of 150-350 Series Production.  It was printed with El Principe de Gales and Piedmont 350 backs before being pulled from production.  Lundgren (Chicago) fits nicely in the “Elite Eleven*” group with other poses that were pulled after being printed with EPDG backs and a small amount of Piedmont 350 backs.

The decision to discontinue the pose makes a lot of sense.  In 1907, he went 18-7 with a 1.17 ERA.  It was his fourth straight standout campaign.  However, in 1908, his innings pitched dropped to 138.2 and he posted a record of just 6-9 to go with an ERA of 4.42.  In 1909, when Lundgren (Chi) was printed with Piedmont 150 backs, he appeared in just 2 games before being sold to Toronto of the Eastern League.

We also know Lundgren was not printed with Hindu, Sovereign 150, or Sweet Caporal 150 backs.  His is the only pose in the 150-350 Series that was not printed with any Sweet Caporal backs.  Let that sink in for a second.  That’s just weird.  In fact, the only other non Southern Leaguers that weren’t printed with any Sweet Caporal backs are the Demmitt and O’Hara St. Louis cards, which were printed only with Polar Bear backs*.

And Here’s What We Don’t Know:

It’s not known why Lundgren (Chicago) was left off the Hindu, Sovereign 150 and Sweet Caporal print-runs.  I do have a theory, but it doesn’t explain everything.  Awhile back, I wrote an article about Hughie Jennings (Portrait) and Sam Crawford (Throwing) (which can be read here).  Those two poses were also left off the Hindu and Sovereign 150 print-runs.  In fact, there are only five poses in the 150-350 Series that appear with Piedmont 150 backs but not with Brown Hindu or Sovereign 150 backs:

Crawford (Throwing)
Jennings (Portrait)
Lundgren (Chicago)
Plank
Wagner, Honus

I theorize that Lundgren is somehow related to Jennings (Portrait) and Crawford (Throwing), both of which were added to the Piedmont 150 and Sweet Caporal 150/30 print runs after production of the 150-350 Series had already started.  Both Crawford and Jennings were left off the Brown Hindu and Sovereign 150 print runs (like Lundgren).  Both Crawford and Jennings were printed with SC 150/30 backs, but left off the SC 150/25 print run.**  The fact that Lundgren was not printed with an SC 150/30 back makes the connection somewhat tenuous, but the three poses do have a lot in common.

Like Lundgren, Jennings was printed with an EPDG back, although Crawford was not.  All three poses were printed with Piedmont 350 backs, although Lundgren was pulled early and the others were not.  Jennings and Crawford went on to be printed with Old Mill, Sovereign 350, Sweet Caporal 350/25, and Sweet Caporal 350/30 backs.

In my earlier article about Jennings (Portrait) and Crawford (Throwing), I put forth the idea that those two poses could have replaced Plank and Wagner when they were pulled from further production.  There’s no way to know for sure, but it does make some sense given the late arrivals of Jennings and Crawford.  Where Lundgren might fit into that scenario is not immediately clear.

The biggest unanswered question surrounding this pose is why Lundgren (Chicago) was not printed with Sweet Caporal 150 backs.  That he wasn’t is one of the more interesting T206 mysteries.  I don’t imagine that question will ever be answered to my satisfaction, but if I come up with the answer, or even a crazy theory, I’ll be sure to let you guys know.

*Southern Leaguers were printed with Old Mill Southern League backs, Piedmont 350 backs, and 34/48 players were printed with a Brown Hindu back.

**Crawford is listed as confirmed with SC 150/25 back on T206resource.com, but I know of a few people who have been looking for one for a few years (if not longer).  It either exists in extremely low quantities, or does not exist at all.  If one surfaces, it will add a very interesting wrinkle to this puzzle, but for now I am going to assume it was not printed.

Why was George Mullin (Throwing) Pulled From T206 Production Early?

We know that George Mullin’s horizontal (or throwing) pose was pulled early in the Piedmont 350 print run and subsequently left off the print runs of Sovereign 350 and Old Mill entirely.  What we don’t know is why.  Mullin Throwing is a member of the “Elite 11” subset.  The Poses in this subset share the same characteristics:

  • They were printed with El Principe de Gales backs.  In my opinion it is likely that most, if not all of the Elite 11 poses were printed for the entire EPDG print run.  That is debatable though, and some collectors feel these poses were pulled early from the EPDG print run.
  • They were all certainly pulled early from Piedmont 350 production
  • None of the 11 poses were printed with Sovereign 350, Sweet Caporal 350, or Old Mill backs

Many T206 back collectors have memorized the list below.  Something I don’t think many people have considered is, “Why is Mullin included in this group?”  All the other poses make sense, but Mullin sticks out like a sore thumb.

The “Elite 11”
  • Dahlen (Boston)
  • Ewing
  • Ganley
  • Jones, Tom
  • Karger
  • Lindaman
  • Lundgren Chicago
  • Mullin horizontal
  • Schaefer (Detroit)
  • Shaw, Al
  • Spencer

I’ll give a quick rundown of the reasons American Tobacco Company would have had for pulling each of the other 10 members of the “Elite 11” from Piedmont 350 production early.  After that, we’ll take a look at why Mullin’s early exit from the Piedmont 350 print run is particularly curious.

Bill Dahlen 
Released by the Boston Doves on October 23, 1909 and joined Brooklyn the following year.  The artwork on his card was changed to reflect his new team and Dahlen (Brooklyn) took the place of Dahlen (Boston) for the remainder of the Piedmont 350 print run and SC 350 Sov350 and Old Mill print runs.

Bob Ewing
Traded from Cincinnati to the Philadelphia Phillies on January 20, 1910.

Bob Ganley
Selected off waivers by the Philadelphia Athletics on May 18, 1909.

Tom Jones
Traded to the Detroit Tigers on August 20, 1909.

Ed Karger
Purchased by St. Paul on June 9, 1909.  He was then traded to the Boston Red Sox on July 26, 1909.

Vive Lineman
Played his final game in the Major Leagues in 1909.

Carl Lundgren
Played his final game in the Majors in 1909.

Germany Schaefer
Traded from Detroit to Washington on August 13, 1909.

Al Shaw
Played his last Major League game in 1909.

Tubby Spencer
Played just 28 games with the Boston Red Sox in 1909 and did not play in the Majors in 1910.

As you can see, there is a clear reason behind the early exit of each of the other 10 members of the “Elite 11” from the Piedmont 350 print run.  But what about Mullin?  He doesn’t share any characteristics with the 10 players above.

In 1909, he was at the top of his game.  He appeared in 40 games, compiling a record of 29-8 to go with a 2.22 ERA.  He led the American League in both Wins and Win Percentage.  In the 1909 World Series, he appeared in four  games, posting a record of 2-1 to go with a 2.25 ERA.

In 1910, he turned in another strong campaign, appearing in 38 games with a record of 21-12 and an ERA of 2.87.

Unlike the other 10 players, there is no obvious reason why ATC would have pulled Mullin’s (Throwing) pose from production.  In fact, shortly after pulling this pose, they began printing his (Portrait) in the 350 Only Series and followed that with his (With Bat) pose soon after as part of the 350-460 Series.

Mullin’s (Portrait) features his name spelled as “Mullen”.  One possible explanation for the early exit of his (Throwing) pose is ALC thought it had spelled his name wrong on the (Throwing) pose.  This scenario makes some sense, as ALC spelled his name “Mullen” just months after pulling the (Throwing) pose from production prematurely.  Not too long after that, they began producing his (With Bat) pose and again spelled his name “Mullin”, so I’m not sure we can say anything definitively about ALC’s thoughts with regard to the spelling of his name.  In addition, there is precedent for ALC making a minor name change when dealing with a star player’s card (Sherry Magee’s “Magie” card).  I would think George Mullin would have qualified as a star in the same way Magee did in 1910.

When I first got the idea to write this article, I hoped that Pat Romolo’s Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch research would shed some light on the topic.  The Plate Scratch sheets that Pat recreated explain why the “150 Only” subjects were pulled from production early.  I hoped I’d find something similar when I looked for Mullin (Throwing) on Pat’s Plate Scratch sheets.  Unfortunately, the recreated sheet doesn’t offer any clues.  Mullin (Throwing) is located in the top left corner of the sheet above.  The image above is too small to show detail, so please click on the link below:

Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch “Sheet 3” featuring Mullin (Throwing)

The graphic below shows a small section of the sheet where Mullin is located.  As you can see, Schaefer (Detroit) is located two to the left of Mullin.  When I first saw Schaefer, I thought there might be a pattern.  However, those hopes were quickly dashed by Mullin’s proximity to Donlin (Seated) and L. Tannehill, which were not pulled from production.

We may never know the exact reason for Mullin’s early exit, but like so many pieces of the T206 puzzle, it’s fun to try and piece it together.

Pat Romolo’s T206 Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch Project (Part 2/2)

On February 6th 2016, Pat posted a thread on net54 titled “I Believe This Could Be A Complete Horizontal Layout For This T206 Sheet”.  In it, he goes into great detail about how he re-created a Piedmont 150 sheet by connecting the Plate Scratches on the backs of the cards.

In Part One of this article, I posted a Cliffs Notes version of Pat’s net54 thread. You can read Part One by clicking the link below:

Pat Romolo’s T206 Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch Project (Part 1/2)

Piedmont 150 Bull Durham with dark plate scratch on the back

For Part Two, I wanted to dive in a little deeper.  Pat was kind enough to work with me by providing scans and answering all the questions I had.  Our conversation is below:

Q: How long have you been collecting T206?

A:  I purchased my first T206s at the 2003 National in Atlantic City.  I don’t remember exactly how many, but it was around ten raw Fair-to-VG commons that included a couple of Sovereigns and a Jennings (One Hand) in a PSA 5 holder.

Q:  Before beginning to collect the P150 Plate Scratches, how did you collect the set?
A:  I never really had a strategy, but early on I did have a phase when I was collecting non-Piedmonts and Sweet Caporals (like many T206 collectors, I wish I had stayed with that longer).
Q:  How did you first become interested in the plate scratches?
A:  When Steve Birmingham started the thread on Net54 about the plate scratches, he was looking for scans.  So I checked my collection and found that I had one.  I started tracking ebay and past sales looking for scans to send Steve.  Each one I found motivated me to search for more, hoping he would be able to come up with a sheet layout from them.
Q:  Do you remember the first card you owned that had a plate scratch?
A:  It was a Shipke scratch that I had in my collection and, coincidentally it matched up next to one of the Cobb scans that Steve had.
Q:  What gave you the idea to try and re-create an entire sheet of Piedmont 150s using the plate scratches?
A:  Once again, all the credit goes to Steve.  Steve and I were emailing back and forth.  I was sending him scans of the scratches I found and he was working on trying to piece a sheet together.  At the time it seemed like he was gaining the most traction around the Cobb, but in a couple of our emails he stated he didn’t have much free time to work on it.  I don’t think anyone was sure if there was more than one sheet involved, but I decided to try and see what I could come up with from a Seymour I had with a double scratch on it.
The circled pink mark offers more evidence that Seymour and Cicotte were neighbors on this Piedmont 150 sheet

Q:  Can you share any breakthroughs that you have had while working on it?

A:  There have been several, but I would say three of the main ones are:

  1. The first time I found an unconfirmed scratch using a template I made off the Seymour scratch.
  2. Finding a Seymour with a print mark on the front that connected to a mark on the front of a Cicotte (Seymour and Cicotte have several different scratches on the back that link them together).
  3. Filling the last missing slot on what I call the “A-B sheet”.

Q:  Have you had any missing pieces to the puzzle that have taken you a very long time to find?

A:  There are still a few that I think should exist and probably a lot more I don’t know about.  I think the A-B Sheet is complete minus a second subject that matches O’Leary, but I can’t say for sure.  It took me four years to find a Gibson that filled the Gibson/Bresnahan slot in the A-B Sheet.  A month or two later, I found the Bresnahan.  Also, Steve had sent me a scan of a Powell scratch that I could never find another scan of until one was listed on ebay about a month ago.  Coincidentally, another one popped up a couple weeks later.  So it took me almost five years to find one, and then two showed up within weeks of each other.

Q:  Do you try to own a copy of each scratch, or are you generally happy to just save scans?  
A:  In the very beginning I was just saving scans, but I purchased a couple of the cheaper ones when I saw them on ebay.  I found when I had them in hand I could glean more information from them.  I have a few that had a second scratch on them that I didn’t notice until I had them.  I have also picked up a few that only had front scans in the listing but I knew they were plate scratches because of a flaw on the front.  I have at least one copy of the majority of them, but I do lack most of the expensive ones.  There are four different Cobb (Bat on) scratches, two Cobb (Green Portrait), three Johnson (Portrait), three Mathewson (White Cap) and one Mathewson (Portrait).  I do have one of the Cobb (Bat On), but the rest are too expensive for me.
Q:  Is there anything I didn’t think to ask that you have learned from your work on this project?
A:  On a side note, the mystery surrounding the Plank continues over to the Plate Scratches.  There are only a few (all hand-cut) Piedmont 150 Planks, but two of them have the same Plate Scratch.  The Plate Scratch on the Plank goes almost straight across.   All of the other Plate Scratches are on a few different angles, so the Plank doesn’t match up with any of them.
I do have a theory about why this might be.  Awhile back someone mentioned that the scratches could have been caused by a nail or something on a shelf they were stored on.  I have seen pictures of the stones on shelves and also on pallets.
If a worker taking one of the stones off the shelf or pallet slid it back and turned it to grab one of the corners, it would create a straight scratch for a couple of inches and an angled scratch across the rest of the stones.  If Plank was on the end of a sheet, that would cause the straight scratch that’s seen on the two examples.

Pat Romolo’s T206 Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch Project (Part 1/2)

On February 6th, 2016, Pat Romolo posted a thread on net54 titled “I Believe This Could Be A Complete Horizontal Layout For This T206 Sheet”.  In it, he goes into great detail on how he put together a complete Piedmont 150 sheet, using Plate Scratches on the backs of the cards.  I asked Pat to explain his Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch project, and this is what he said,

At some point, damage occurred to a few of the stones used for the Piedmont 150 back plates. The damage might have been caused by something between the stones or  something on a shelf or pallet that they were stored on. It’s also possible that it could have been caused by cracks in the limestone, but I’m leaning more towards the scratches.

This two part series is meant to be a companion piece to Pat’s net54 thread.  Think of them as a Cliffs Notes of sorts.  I’ve done my best to summarize the most significant discoveries Pat has made, but I strongly urge you to follow this link and read the net54 thread in its entirety:

I Believe This Could Be A Complete Horizontal Layout For This T206 Sheet

In Part One, we’ll take a look at some of the most important posts from the thread:

Post #2

Pat unveils the complete sheet, which he has re-created.  This particular sheet is composed of 17 different poses from left to right and each pose is repeated 12 times vertically (the image at the top of this article).

Post #13

Erick Summers responds to an earlier question by pointing out that to date, no Piedmont 150 backed “two-namer” card has been found with a plate scratch.  The sheet that Pat re-created has the same subjects repeated vertically.  We know that some sheets had more than one player in a vertical column because a number of “two-namer” cards like the Hinchman-Stovall below have been found.  The fact that no “two-namers” have been found with a plate scratch means the sheet layouts were changed over time.  Before Pat put this sheet together, I think most T206 collectors (at least the ones who are really into the minutiae) believed that most sheets were 17 poses wide and featured at least 2 subjects repeated vertically.*

T206 Hinchman/Stovall Piedmont 150 “two namer”

Post #34

In response to a comment made by a member who was having trouble understanding the significance of the project, Pat posted an additional bit of supporting evidence.  Seymour (Batting) and Cicotte appear next to each other on the re-created sheet because the Plate Scratches on the back show that they were neighbors.  Pat posted front scans of each pose sharing a pink mark on the front that confirms they were right next to each other.

Post #45

Pat posts a scan of a mis-cut Sheckard (No Glove Showing) with Goode showing on the right side with a Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 30 back.  One of the missing spots in Pat’s template was next to Goode.  Pat had looked for a Sheckard with Plate Scratch for awhile with no luck until finding one that fit the template the day he made this post.

T206 Sheckard Goode SW Cap 150 Fact 30

Post #47

Pat posts:

I was pretty sure before but now I’m positive this sheet mirrors a SC150/649
sheet and I think this is one of two 649 sheets that were printed.

This is a huge discovery.  I had wondered in the past how the 34 poses in the Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 649 subset were chosen.  The players chosen never made much sense to me.  Pat has proven they were selected pretty much at random.  The printers just used two sheets that they had handy.

Post #50

Pat posts a summary of what he has learned up to that point.

This 3 card section shows the scratches up close

*The 460 Only series is an exception to this loose rule of thumb.  To date, we haven’t found any “two-namers” from the 460 Only Series, leading us to believe that vertical rows most likely featured only one pose.

T206 Carolina Brights Overview

This week we’re going to take a look at one of the truly rare backs of the T206 set.  Carolina Brights backs hold a special place in the hearts and minds of T206 collectors because of their combination of visual appeal and scarcity.  Attempting to rank T206 backs in terms of scarcity can often lead to disagreements among collectors.  However, when it comes to ranking Carolina Brights along the spectrum of T206 back scarcity, there doesn’t seem to be any argument.

Carolina Brights backs are clearly scarcer than the trio of Tier One Mid-Tier Backs (Cycle 460, American Beauty 460, and Piedmont 350-460 Factory 42) and more plentiful than Broad Leaf 350.  This allows us to slot them in on the bottom rung of the “Rare Back” ladder.

Leaving out the backs that were never intended to be released to the public in packs of tobacco/cigarettes, these are the “Rare Backs” in order from scarcest to most plentiful*

  1. Broad Leaf 460
  2. Drum
  3. Uzit
  4. Hindu (Red)
  5. Lenox (Black)
  6. Red Cross Type 1**
  7. Broad Leaf 350
  8. Coupon Type 1**
  9. Carolina Brights

T206resource.com lists 127 confirmed poses with Carolina Brights backs and four remaining poses that have not been confirmed, but are suspected to exist.  The four unconfirmed poses are Art Fromme, Hunky Shaw, Ed Willett (bat), and Lucky Wright.  All but six of the poses in the Carolina Brights Subset are from the 350 Series (Print Group 2).  The other six are the “Super Prints”****

Here is the complete checklist, courtesy of T206resource.com

Though Carolina Brights backs are rare, most poses that were printed with Carolina Brights back were also printed with Drum 350 and/or Broad Leaf 350 backs.  As a result, Carolina Brights is seldom the rarest back for a given player or pose.  Take for instance, Topsy Hartsel.  He was printed with Drum 350, Broad Leaf 350, and Carolina Brights backs.  The Drum is the scarcest, followed by the Broad Leaf 350, with Carolina Brights coming in a somewhat distant third in terms of scarcity.

However there are some poses for which that pattern doesn’t hold.  The following players/poses have not been found with a Broad Leaf 350 or Drum 350 back.  In other words, for these poses, Carolina Brights is the scarcest known back.

  • Barger, Cy
  • Collins, Eddie
  • Collins, Jimmy
  • Demmitt, Ray (New York)
  • Evans, Steve
  • Gray, Dolly
  • Groom, Bob
  • Lundgren, Carl (Kansas City)
  • Mattern, Al
  • McLean, Larry
  • Puttman, Ambrose
  • Shannon, Spike

Carolina Brights backs tend to sell for slightly less than Broad Leaf 350s and quite a bit more than any of the Mid-Tier backs.

Stay tuned for next week’s article Carolina Brights Power Rankings: The Top Ten Combos.

* This leaves out the Ty Cobb back, Brown Old Mill Southern League back, Brown Lenox, and Blank Backs.

** Catalogued as T215 Type 1, this back probably ought to be considered a T206.  Because it was catalogued differently many years ago, most collectors view it as its own set.

*** Catalogued as T213 Type 1, this back should probably also be considered a T206 back.

****The “Super Prints” are the following six poses:

  • Chance, Frank (Portrait – Yellow)
  • Chase, Hal (Portrait – Blue)
  • Chase, Hal (Black Cap)
  • Cobb, Ty (Portrait – Red)
  • Evers, Johnny (Chicago On Shirt – Yellow Sky)
  • Mathewson, Christy (Dark Cap)

The Nuns’ T206 Honus Wagner

In 2009, the School Sisters of Notre Dame received a most unexpected donation.  The School Sisters are a worldwide religious institute of Roman Catholic Sisters.  On February 3rd, 2009, a man (who’s name the nuns have decided to keep confidential) with close ties to the organization passed away at the age of  85 and bequeathed his estate to the order.  The nuns were not surprised to be benefactors of the man’s will.  His sister had belonged to the order, and he had never married or had children.  Besides leaving his home to the nuns, he also willed the contents of his safe deposit box.

When the nuns opened the box, they were surprised to find this T206 Wagner with an attached typewritten note that said,

“Although damaged, the value of this baseball card should increase exponentially throughout the 21st century!”

After picking up the baseball card, Sister Virginia Muller, the order’s former treasurer, searched the Internet to determine its worth. When she saw the value of other Wagner cards, her jaw dropped.

“I very carefully put it into the back of my files,” she said, laughing. “Then quickly insured it.”

-New York Times January 31, 2011

All of the news stories written about the card at the time have noted that the man acquired the card in 1936, though there is no mention of how that was ascertained.  There is also no mention of him owning any other sports cards or collectibles.

“I wish I knew more of the story, like where he got the card or why he kept it, But I guess it will remain a mystery.”

-Sister Virginia Muller in the January 31st 2011 issue of the New York Times

When the nuns were ready to sell the Wagner, they chose Heritage Auctions to handle the sale.  The card was featured in Heritage’s “November 2010 Signature Collectibles Auction” which closed over a two-day period on November 4th and 5th.  When the auction clocked ticked down the zero, the winning bid (including the juice) was $262,900.  Unfortunately, the winning bidder never paid for the card.

Heritage reached out to collector Dr. Nicholas DePace, who agreed to buy the card for $220,000.  According to the New York Times story, Heritage declined to take a commission on the sale, sending all $220,000 to the School Sisters of Notre Dame.  I don’t know whether or not Heritage was able to collect a full or partial commission from the winning bidder, but regardless it was a really classy move by Heritage to send the full $220,000 to the charitable group.

Dr. DePace

The story doesn’t quite end there.  Two days later, Dr. DePace received a call from someone at Heritage asking him if he’d like to make a quick $60,000 profit by selling the card to another interested party.

“I said, ‘What’s the matter with you guys?  It’s no longer just a baseball card; it’s become a religious relic, a St. Jude of memorabilia. I’m keeping it.”

-Dr. Nichlas DePace in the January 31st 2011 issue of the New York Times

Dr. DePace said he intended to feature the card in a non-profit sports museum he planned to open in Collingwood, New Jersey.

Sources:

Cycle 460: Overlooked and Undervalued (Part Four): Cycle 460 v.s. American Beauty 460

For the last installment of this series, we’re going to take a look at how the the Cycle 460 Subset compares to the American Beauty 460 Subset in terms of scarcity.  There are 75* poses in the American Beauty 460 Subset and 109 in the Cycle 460 Subset.  All 75* poses in the American Beauty 460 Subset were also printed with Cycle 460 backs.  Because of this, we have a nice large sample of poses to use for comparison.

Checklists for each back, courtesy of T206resource.com:

Cycle 460

American Beauty 460

My Hypothesis:

Before beginning to research the Pop Reports, I had the following expectation:  I thought that overall, there would be more American Beauty 460s in the PSA Pop Report than Cycle 460s.  The main reason for this is the “Exclusive 12”.  These 12 poses are quite plentiful with American Beauty 460, in stark contrast to the other poses in the subset.  Part of the reason I wanted to publish this series of articles was to show people how Cycle 460s are definitively scarcer than American Beauty 460 in an aggregate sense.  However, I knew certain American Beauty 460 poses are near impossible to find, while the average Cycle 460 pose is scarce, but not bordering on unique.  I was expecting to find if I removed the Exclusive 12 poses from the data, the remaining American Beauty 460s would have a lower Pop than the Cycle 460s.  Let’s take a look at the data I compiled below.

Explanation of Research**:

19 of the 75 poses in the American Beauty 460 Subset were also printed with an American Beauty 350 No Frame back.  Because PSA used a generic “American Beauty” label for a number of years, there’s no way to differentiate between American Beauty 350 No Frame and American Beauty 460 for those 19 poses.  Which that left me with 56 poses to research.  I began by creating a table with all 56 poses, located below.  The “Exclusive 12” poses are highlighted in yellow.

As you can see, American Beauty 460 backs outnumber Cycle 460s by a fairly large margin.  But take a look at the highlighted entries.  The “Exclusive 12” have skewed the data so much that it looks like Cycle 460 is the scarcer back.  And it doesn’t look close.  In an aggregate sense, Cycle 460 is the scarcer back.  Cycle 460 should be ranked above American Beauty 460 on a Back Scarcity Ranking list.  But, if we remove the outliers (the Exclusive 12 poses) from the data, is Cycle 460 still the scarcer back?

This table consists of 44 poses (the 56 poses above, minus the Exclusive 12 poses).  It gives us a much clearer picture of the situation.  It appears from this set of data that the remaining American Beauty 460 poses are scarcer than the remaining Cycle 460 poses.  Because the totals are so close, these results don’t necessarily prove anything.  However, I think it’s safe to conclude that Exclusive 12 poses aside, American Beauty 460 and Cycle 460 poses exist in very similar quantities.

*At the moment, there is some question as to whether Ames Hands Above Head actually exists with American Beauty 460 back.  For now, it is in the checklist, and I included the pose in the research.  In the future I could see it being removed from the checklist if no collectors are able to find one.

**Throughout this series of articles, I have used only the PSA Pop Reports to test the hypothesis.  I chose to do this for a couple different reasons.  First, the PSA Pop Report is a little easier (and quicker) to use when checking a number of different players with the same back.  Secondly, there can be some confusion on the SGC Pop Reports when a player has one pose that was printed with a Brown Hindu back and another pose that was printed with a Red Hindu back.  The same holds true for American Beauty 350 With Frame & American Beauty 350 No Frame.  I wanted to have data that was completely uniform and I didn’t want to use any entry that included any ambiguity.

Cycle 460: Overlooked and Undervalued (Part Three): Cycle 460 v.s. American Beauty 350 No Frame

This week I’m going to be taking a look at how the Cycle 460 subset compares to the American Beauty 350 No Frame subset.  T206resource.com has American Beauty 350 No Frame as the 15th scarcest back in the T206 set, and Cycle 460 as the 17th.  It’s important to remember that back scarcity lists such as the one posted on T206resource.com are an attempt to list the backs in order of aggregate scarcity.  In other words, this list is simply saying less American Beauty 350 No Frame backs exist than Cycle 460 backs.

Attempting to compare the overall populations of these two backs is a little bit tricky because the checklists are of such dissimliar size.  As mentioned in Part Two of this series, the Cycle 460 Subset consists of 109 different poses, while there are only 37 poses in the American Beauty 350 No Frame checklist.  What this means is that there are 2.95 times (but I’ll round it up to 3x for simplicity’s sake) more poses in the Cycle 460 subset than in the American Beauty 350 No Frame Subset.  So, in order for these two backs to have a similar total population, the average individual American Beauty 350 No Frame pose would have to be about 3 times as plentiful as the average Cycle 460 pose.

My Hypothesis:

That 3:1 ratio actually sounded about right to me before I began to research the Pop Report.  I expecting to find a ratio at or around 3:1 and it wouldn’t have surprised me to find that it was even higher (meaning that Cycle 460 backs are scarcer than American Beauty 350 No Frame).  Let’s take a look at the table below to see what the actual results look like.

Links to checklists, courtesy of t206resource.com:

Cycle 460

American Beauty 350 No Frame

Explanation of Research*:

In Part Two of this series, when comparing Brown Hindu Populations to Cycle 460 Populations, I had to use two different poses of the same player.  This is because there is no crossover between poses in the Brown Hindu and Cycle 460 subsets.  Brown Hindu backs were printed exclusively on 150-350 Series subjects in 1909 while Cycle 460 backs were printed in 1911 and feature only poses from the 350-460 Series, 460 Only Series, and the Super Prints.

The research for this article is a bit more straightforward, because we can look at a single pose rather than two different poses featuring the same player.  36 of the 37 poses in the American Beauty 350 No Frame Subset were also printed with a Cycle 460 back**.  Unfortunately I wasn’t able to use PSA Pop Report data for all 36 poses.  Most of the poses that were printed with an American Beauty 350 No Frame back were also printed with an American Beauty 460 back.  Because PSA used a generic “American Beauty” label for a number of years, it’s impossible to get reliable Pop Report data for the players who were printed with both backs***.  This meant I had to use just the poses in the American Beauty 350 No Frame Subset that were not also printed with an American Beauty 460 back.  That left me with the 15 poses in the table below.

As you can see, the PSA Population of American Beauty 350 No Frames outnumber Cycle 460s 148 to 65, for a ratio of 2.28:1.  This falls short of the 3:1 ratio required for the total Populations of each back to be roughly equal.  I was expecting to find the Cycle 460 Population marginally scarcer than American Beauty 350 No Frame. However, the results strongly indicate that American Beauty 350 No Frame backs are indeed scarcer than Cycle 460 backs.

*Throughout this series of articles, I have used only the PSA Pop Reports to test the hypothesis.  I chose to do this for a couple different reasons.  First, the PSA Pop Report is a little easier (and quicker) to use when checking a number of different players with the same back.  Secondly, there can be some confusion on the SGC Pop Reports when a player has one pose that was printed with a Brown Hindu back and another pose that was printed with a Red Hindu back.  The same holds true for American Beauty 350 With Frame & American Beauty 350 No Frame.  I wanted to have data that was completely uniform and I didn’t want to use any entry that included any ambiguity.

**The lone exception is Simon Nichols batting, which was pulled from production before Cycle 460 backs were printed.

***In a previous article entitled “Understanding the American Beauty backs: T206 American Beauty 350 no frame (Part 3/4)“, I used both the PSA and SGC Pop Reports in order to make an educated guess at the total graded population of each pose in the American Beauty 350 No Frame subset.

Cycle 460: Overlooked and Undervalued (Part Two): Cycle 460 v.s. Brown Hindu

The Brown Hindu subset holds a special place in the hearts of many T206 collectors.  Brown Hindu backs are always in high demand for a few reasons.  For one thing, they feature a very unique and visually appealing design.  In addition, they offer some back variety in the 150-350 Series, which does not offer many options for back collectors.  Brown Hindus are the most valuable of all 150-350 Series backs, and the same holds true with regard to Southern Leaguers.

The Cycle 460 subset, on the other hand, tends to fly under the radar, despite a similar level of scarcity.  A couple of possible reasons for this come to mind.  First, the Cycle back is not unique to the 460 Series.  Cycle 350 backs are one of the more plentiful “Mid-Tier” backs, and this may contribute to the lukewarm demand for Cycle 460 backs.  Collectors may think to themselves something along the lines of, “I already have a Cycle 350, so I’m not in any hurry to get a Cycle 460 back.”  Secondly, Cycle 460 is a scarce back, but it is never the most valuable back for a given pose like Brown Hindu is.  If you want the most valuable back for the Mordecai Brown Portrait, you know you need to get a copy with a Brown Hindu back.  The same can’t be said for Cycle 460.  If you want the scarcest back for Mordecai Brown’s Chicago on shirt pose, you are going to want a Broad Leaf 460, Red Hindu, or Lenox.  A Cycle 460 might be a nice alternative as those other three backs would be near impossible to track down, but it wouldn’t be your first choice.

The Cycle 460 checklist features 109 Major Leaguers from Print Groups 3, 4 & 5 (350-460, 460 Only, Super Prints).  The Brown Hindu subset features a total of 136 poses, 102 of which are Major Leaguers from Print Group 1 (the 150-350 Series) The other 34 poses are Southern Leaguers.  For the purposes of this article, I’ll be focusing on just the Major Leaguers.  Because the two checklists have a very similar number of Major Leaguers, these two backs lend themselves to comparison quite well.

Checklists for each back, courtesy of the fine folks at T206resource.com:

Brown Hindu
Cycle 460

My Hypothesis:

These two backs tend to sell for very similar prices.  However, it is my contention that Cycle 460s are undervalued relative to Brown Hindu because Cycle 460s are much scarcer.  I conducted the research below to see if the reality matched my hypothesis.

Explanation of Research:

In an attempt to compare two similar sets of data, I began by finding all of the players in the T206 set who have a pose in both the Brown Hindu subset and the Cycle 460 subset.

Throughout this series of articles, I have used only the PSA Pop Reports to test the hypothesis.  I chose to do this for a couple different reasons.  First, the PSA Pop Report is a little easier (and quicker) to use when checking a number of different players with the same back.  Secondly, there can be some confusion on the SGC Pop Reports when a player has one pose that was printed with a Brown Hindu back and another pose that was printed with a Red Hindu back.  The same holds true for American Beauty 350 With Frame & American Beauty 350 No Frame.  I wanted to have data that was completely uniform and I didn’t want to use any entry that included any ambiguity.

There are 44 players who have at least one pose in both the Brown Hindu and Cycle 460 subsets.  Tinker has two poses in each subset.  This brings us to a total of 45 pairs of front/back combos.  However, there are two pairs we won’t be able to use.  Both Evers Yellow Sky and Mathewson Dark Cap were printed with both a Cycle 350 and a Cycle 460 back.  Because PSA used a generic “Cycle” label for a few years, the Pop Report data for these two cards is not as accurate as the other Cycle 460s in this group.  Which leaves us with a total of 43 players with matched Brown Hindu and Cycle 460 poses.  Check out the table below to see how much scarcer Cycle 460s are than their Brown Hindu counterparts.

As you can see, there is quite a significant gap is Population between the two samples.  Granted there will be a certain margin of error for this sample since it does not include the entire Population of graded Brown Hindu and Cycle 460 backs from both PSA and SGC.  However, it is a pretty significant sample size, and the results don’t leave much question of which back is scarcer.

In addition, my research doesn’t include the 34 Southern Leaguers who were printed with Brown Hindu backs.  When you add those in, it’s likely that Brown Hindu backs actually outnumber Cycle 460 backs by a 3:1 ratio.

In conclusion, Brown Hindu and Cycle 460 backs may sell for very similar prices, but it is clear Cycle 460 backs are by far the scarcer back.