1909-11 T206 OR 1983 Galasso T-206 Reprint?

Loyalty32

I bought a small collection and this card was in it...






Is the flip wrong and the card is the original?

-1909-11 T206 #29 Jake Beckley ML $300.00


Is the flip wrong and the card is a reprint?

-1983 Galasso T-206 Reprint #398 Jake Beckley N/A


Maybe the grader put the # of the reprint rather than the number of the original card? Any opinions are appreciated!

Thanks
Craig

vladguerrero

I'm going to say the card number is just wrong

orioles93

Card looks original to me. I would just say the flip is wrong.

vladguerrero

There's two other BVG examples on Ebay and they have the correct flip.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206-Piedmont-Jake-Beckley-BVG-3-5-/200834371755?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item2ec2a950ab

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206-Sweet-Caporal-JAKE-BECKLEY-Beckett-3-VG-Kansas-City-HOF-Player-/360495281595?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item53ef3175bb

Loyalty32

I appreciate the info guys. I was hoping it was an original.

Thanks
Craig

TNP777

Most collectors acquainted with the T206 set likely know the cards are not numbered. All checklists list the players alphabetically and assign a card number based on that list.

Card "398" in the T206 checklist is Dutch Revelle. Jake Beckley is card "29", but #398 in the '83 Renata Galasso "The Monster" reprint set (as the OP noted). Since the other two cards vladguerrero linked do not have any card numbers, I'm wondering why the one the OP picked up has one. From what little I can find regarding the '83 Galasso set, there should be a line at the bottom of the card that says CAPITAL REPRINT, which is missing on the OP's card. I'm leaning towards a mislabel - I can't imagine why anyone would go to the trouble of artificially aging and altering a Jake Beckley card. He is in the HOF, though - didn't know that.



edit: Craig, if you want expert opinions, head on over to the pre WW2 forum on net54 and ask the guys over there. They should be able to tell in a nanosecond.

KbKards

T206's don't have numbers. T206's do have checklists though, and there have been a few different checklists put together with the cards sorted in different ways. The people who made the checklists then numbered them in the sequence they had them sorted by. Beckett and SCD used to have them sorted different ways so the numbers they assigned to them differed. The numbers that collectors might have referred to them varied based on which guide they used. SCD had everything alphabetical regardless of Major, Minor, or Southern League. In the older Beckett guides they put all the Major League players first, then Minor League, then Southern League. This caused most of the cards to have different checklist numbers. Galasso would have used the old Beckett guide so that's why their list had Beckley at 398. In the newer Beckett guides they went to a combined alphabetical guide like SCD and he's 29 now in both Beckett and SCD. I'm not sure if all the numbers line up now though based on how variations are described. Numbers are handy on T206 holders to help make it easier to put cards in order but it would be confusing if you try to look them up in a guide with a different numbering sequences. It looks like the OP's card might have been graded at a time when Beckett put their old numbering on the holders. The number would have been consistent with their old guide but not their new guides. The other two examples linked don't have numbers so they probably scrapped trying to number them.