Re-Uniting an T206 Orval Overall Blank Back with Three of its Sheetmates

When I saw this Overall Blank Back listed on eBay, I knew I had to win it.  Two years ago, I picked up a Crawford, Griffith, and Konetchy that are unmistakably from the same sheet.  Not only that, but it looks like they were pasted into a scrapbook or album of some kind.  It’s also possible they were pasted into a frame, but I don’t see any signs of fading from exposure to light, so that is less likely.

There are so many T206s out there that it’s incredibly rare to find a group of cards that can be traced back to a single sheet.  Discoveries like this are my favorite thing about collecting T206s.  I love rare backs and nice looking Hall of Famers as much as the next guy, but finding rarities that don’t break the bank is what gets me most excited.

Up until seeing the Overall, I figured my three cards were the only ones from that sheet in the hobby.  Now, I am wondering if there are any more cards from the sheet out there.  If you have seen any others, please contact me and let me know.

Net54 Detectives Uncover Shocking Pattern of “Signed” T206 Forgeries

Editor’s note:  This article is a very brief synopsis of the events that have recently taken place on net54baseball.com.  I wanted to put all of the before and after scans together in one place for easy reference.  If this topic interests you, I highly recommend reading these net54 threads in their entirety:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=262580
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=262673

On 11/25/2018, a Net54 member started a thread titled “Did I buy a Fake Marquard Signed T206?”.  The original poster had purchased the above Marquard from Clean Sweep Auctions for $1,264 on 12/01/2018.  It came with a JSA Certification, but when he sent it into SGC to be put into a holder, they rejected it as “not an authentic example”.

It took less than three hours for another member to post damning evidence that the signature is indeed a forgery.  Using cached ebay sales results from Worthpoint.com, he was able to find proof that the card had sold recently, in a PSA 2.5 holder.

This discovery led to more research, and before long, 15 signed T206s were proven to be forgeries that were produced in the last two or three years.  All 15 were certified as authentic by either JSA, SGC, or PSA.

I have a feeling this story is just beginning.  I will write more about this topic as new information comes out.  Here are the 15 forged signatures:

Fred Parent
Billy Sullivan

Bob Rhoades

Paddy Livingston

Frank Baker

Elmer Flick

Heinie Zimmerman

Wid Conroy

Larry Doyle

Jap Barbeau

Red Murray

Eddie Cicotte


Nap Rucker

Jesse Tannehill

Big Group of T206 Printer’s Scrap and Print Freaks Sell via Love of the Game Auctions

The Fall 2018 Love of the Game Premier Auction ended last night.  As usual, there were tons of amazing cards in the auction.  The auction contained a large group of T206 Printer’s Scrap and oddities.  As a T206 guy, these caught my eye as soon as I logged in to place my initial bids three weeks ago.  One thing that makes T206s so popular and easy to collect is the fact that for the most part, they are bought and sold as commodities.  There is enough supply, and enough sales data that buyers and sellers alike are usually able to agree on prices.  Obviously, it gets tougher with the mid-tier and rare backs as there is less supply than demand, and often a lack of sales data.  As rarity increases, so too does price volatility.

Printer’s Scrap and other T206 oddities are so rare, it can be very tough to ascertain their market value.  Many examples are unique, making an auction the perfect place to figure out what they are worth.  With that in mind, I think we can learn a lot about the current market value for T206 Print Freaks and oddities by taking a look at the prices realized from last night’s auction:

Jordan Mis-cut:  $4,920
Lake with Bender Ghost Image:  $3,075
Knight Printer’s Scrap Missing Color Passes:  $2,583
Brain with Multi-Strike Piedmont back and Piedmont Back Printed on the Front:  $2,214
Huggins with Upside-Down Sweet Caporal back:  $1,107
Overall Piedmont 150 Cylinder Print Ghost:  $861
Moriarty Blank Back:  $861
Graham Printer’s Scrap with Multiple Strike Tolstoi and Piedmont ads on Back:  $800
McIntyre Double-Printed Sweet Caporal Back:  $800
Beck Blank Back:  $615
Krause Portrait with Upside Down Jack White Ghost:  $554
Schlafly Upside-Down Back:  $523
Doolan Upside-Down Back:  $431

Do T206 Blank Backs Get the Respect They Deserve from Back Collectors?

Despite being ranked right in the same neighborhood as Broad Leaf 350 and Carolina Brights on back scarcity lists, Blank Backs aren’t viewed in the same light by many collectors.  There are a few obvious reasons for this.  First, Blank Backs were not distributed in tobacco packages like the other T206 backs were.  They are examples of Printer’s Scrap.  The fronts were printed as normal, but for some reason, the sheet was “scrapped” prior to the backs being printed.  Because production on these cards was not completed, every Blank Backed T206 is hand-cut.  Presumably most of the scrapped T206 sheets ended up in the garbage, but the ones that survived were likely either rescued from a dumpster by some neighborhood kids, or brought home by a worker in the American Lithographic Company.  If you’d like a longer, more complete explanation of T206 Printer’s Scrap, check out the link below:

T206 Printer’s Scrap 101

Blank Backs were not released in tobacco products.  As a result, many collectors lump them in with all other types of Printer’s Scrap and prefer to focus on the tougher backs that have an advertisement on them.  Because Blank Backs are all hand-cut, they can’t receive a numerical grade.  For collectors who prefer mid-grade or higher cards, the idea of adding a SGC Auth or PSA Auth T206 Blank Back may not be as appealing as buying a PSA/SGC 4 Carolina Brights back for instance.

Another aspect to people’s hesitancy is that there is incomplete information out there about Blank Banks in comparison to the other backs.  For one thing, Blank Backs were not limited to one series.  There are examples that I am aware of from the 150-350 Series (Proofs), 350 Only Series, and the 350-460 Series.  The Pop Reports are also less helpful when it comes to Blank Backs than the other backs.  SGC has a number of cards labeled as “T206” that are either a card that has a Blank Back, or a card with the back so damaged that they couldn’t tell what it was, and just had to label is with a generic “T206”.

I can totally see why some people shy away from Blank Backs, but I don’t really understand why back collectors don’t embrace them more.  Back collectors generally value scarcity and “the hunt” above all else.  When it comes to scarcity, it doesn’t get much better than Blank Backs.  Not all T206 poses exist with a Blank Back, and the ones that do will generally have only one or two known copies.  In other words, if you are searching for the rarest back for a give pose, there’s a decent chance that you’ll be looking for the Blank Back.  For example, the Crawford above is the only known copy with a Blank Back.  When looked at in that light, Blank Backs seem like a pretty good value.

Another great thing about Blank Backs is that copies in great condition are a great value.  The market value of a really nice looking Blank Back is not that much higher than a copy in rougher shape.  I guess the reason for this is that all Blank Backs are graded “Authentic” and thus all copies look the same on paper.  On one hand, that makes sense, but on the other, not so much.  Obviously there are a good number of “flip collectors”, but for the most part I think collectors are buying the card rather than the holder.  If you follow auctions, you know that cards that are well-centered are fetching record amounts.  Clearly people are buying based on eye appeal, but when it comes to Blank Backs, there seems to be an inefficiency in the market.

The Vast Majority of T206s Marketed as “Missing Red Ink” Actually Aren’t – But This One Might be Legit… Let’s Take a Closer Look

A couple of years ago, I wrote an article warning collectors to be wary of T206s that are marketed as “missing red ink” cards.  The reasons for this are two-fold.  First, red ink seems to be especially prone to fading on T206s.  Secondly, it seems likely that some of the adhesives used 100 years ago caused red ink to fade from the fronts of T206s.  Whether the red ink was altered by a chemical, or simply faded from being exposed to light, there is almost always some paper loss or adhesive residue on the back of the card.

The full article can be read by clicking the link below:

Beware of Expensive “Missing Red” T206 cards

As you can probably tell, I am very skeptical of cards that appear to be missing red ink.  However, there are some legit missing red T206s out there, and they are pretty cool.  Ultimately, it comes down the this question:  “Was red ink printed on this card, or not?”  If not, it’s a rare card, and it will often command a premium.  If red ink was printed on the card, but a post-production alteration (either due to chemicals or exposure to light) removed it from the card, that card is not a legitimate “missing red ink” T206.

Recently, I spotted the Frank Chance Red Background Portrait above and had to do a double-take.  The background appears to be a cross between orange, pink, and gray.  In fact, it looks so dissimilar to other Chance Red Background Portraits that the Auction House labeled it as Chance’s Yellow Background Portrait.  At first glance, it looked legit to me, but I wanted to get it in hand to take a closer look.  I put in a bid that was somewhere between what it would be worth if it was a real missing red ink T206, and what it would be worth if it was merely faded, and I won it.  When the card arrived in the mail, the first thing I did was examine the back.  I was looking for any sign of adhesive residue or staining.  As you can see from the scan above, it looks totally clean.

Back damage is usually the tell-tale sign that the front of a card has been altered, either by exposure to light or chemicals.  Even without any evidence of adhesive residue, fading is still possible.  It doesn’t seem very likely, but it’s always possible that a card was left on a window ledge or bookshelf and the red ink faded over time.  However, if the missing red ink was the result of fading, I would expect the front of the card to exhibit other signs of fading.  Luckily, I had another copy of the card with a typical, deep red background handy.  I scanned the two cards side-by-side at low resolution.  The difference is striking.

Next, I wanted to compare the different attributes of each card.  I turned the resolution on my scanner up to 1200 dpi.  First, I looked at the black line around the images, and then the name and team caption.  To my eye, both the black and brown inks look the same on each card.  Next I wanted to compare the green print dots that appear to the right and left of his face.  They are quite faint on each card.  If the card on the left (aka “Orange Chance”) was exposed to light for an extended period of time, I would expect the light green dots to fade along with the red.

Then I shifted my focus to his uniform.  To my eye, the blue on his collar is an identical shade on each card.  If Orange Chance was exposed to light, I would expect the blue on his collar to be dulled, at least to some extent.  To my eye, it looks like the card on the right has some red in the uniform while Orange Chance does not.  Other than that, I don’t see any other differences.

Finally, I focused on the pink shading on his face.  Red Chance not only has pink shading, but a small amount of red ink on his upper lip.  The pink layer on Orange Chance is fainter than Red Chance.  The red ink on his lip is completely missing on Orange Chance.  I would expect the pink layer to be completely gone if Orange Chance had been exposed to a light source.  On the other hand, the fact that the pink layer is lighter on Orange Chance does give me pause.  This is the only difference between the two cards that points toward fading.  It’s possible that Orange Chance could have been exposed to light, which caused the red ink to fade, and the pink layer to partially fade.

Taking all of the available information into consideration, I think it’s quite likely that red ink was never applied to my card.  However, it’s probably impossible to prove either way, and I am certainly biased.  I am hoping to have a friend who is an expert on printing processes used in the early 1900’s take a look at my card and offer his opinion.  If I’m able to make that happen, I will post an update.

T206 Ghosts, Wet Sheet Transfers, and Post-Factory Transfers Explained

There is a lot of confusion and misinformation out there with regard to T206 ghosts.  As a result, collectors are often hesitant to collect them, for fear of being taken advantage of.  It doesn’t help that many sellers misrepresent what they are selling.  So, let’s get into it.

“Ghosts”

A “ghost” is a card that has one or more layers of ink printed out of registration in a way that creates a “ghost-like” effect.  The McBride above has a ghost printed in light black ink slightly above and to the left of the main image.  The Hoblitzell below has the ghost off to the right of the main image.  You’ll also notice part of the card that was printed to the left of Hoblitzell is also visible.  These are the most fun types of ghosts to find, as it tells you which player was printed next door to Hoblitzell.  In this case, Hoblitzell’s sheet-mate is Art Fromme.

Ghosts can occur on either the front or back of a T206, though the front is much more common because there were a number of color passes that could possibly get out of alignment.  Some front ghosts (like Hoblitzell) were factory-cut, while others (like McBride) were scrapped at the factory, and later hand-cut from a sheet.

Ghosts that appear on the back of the card are referred to as “Cylinder Print Ghosts”.  There was at least one sheet of Piedmont 150s where a black outline ghost of the image on the front was mistakenly printed on the back.  You can check out the article by clicking the link below:

The T206 Piedmont 150 “Cylinder Print Ghosts”

Cylinder print ghosts usually sell in the $1000 plus range.   Front ghosts like the McBride and Hoblitzell shown sell for a premium as well, but nowhere near as much as the cylinder prints.  Though the market for “T206 Print Freaks” can be volatile, I would expect McBride and Hoblitzell to sell for at least $200.

The one thing all ghosts have in common is the “ghost” was printed on the card in the factory.  This is an important distinction because I constantly see sellers trying to sell a card that merely has a transfer on it as a ghost.  The purpose of this article is to help you understand the difference.

Piedmont 150 with Cylinder Print Ghost

Wet Sheet Transfers

Wet sheet transfers (also commonly referred to as WST) are different from ghosts in that they are not printed directly on the card.  Rather, they are a transfer of ink from one card to another.  When T206s were printed, an entire sheet of fronts was printed, then put onto the stack of completed sheets.  Then the next sheet was printed and added to the stack.  The vast majority of sheets were completely dry before being added to the stack, but occasionally the ink hadn’t quite dried.  This led to a transfer of ink from one sheet to the other.  Because the sheets were stacked, a transfer was only possible from the back of one card to the front of the card on the adjacent sheet, or vice versa.

WSTs occurred most often with black ink, and specifically black ink from the back advertisements.  My guess is the black ink took longer to dry, leading to transfers when the fresh sheet of backs was placed on top of the stack.  As a result, the vast majority of wet sheet transfers out there are Cycle, Old Mill, or Tolstoi backs which have WST of the back advertisement on the front.  These transfers vary in intensity.  Some are very faint and hard to see, and some are very dark and obvious.

This Topsy Hartsel T206 has a Sweet Caporal Wet Sheet Transfer

The other type of WST is a transfer of ink from the front of a card onto the back.  These are often pretty faint and tend to be a vague outline of the front of the card.  The back of the Joss Portrait below is an example of such a WST.  Typically, WSTs on the back of a card are not very impressive, just like this one.

It’s important to understand that wet sheet transfers are not ghosts.  Ghosts are much more rare and valuable.  They are also more impressive and interesting to look at.  Sadly, there are sellers who try to pass WSTs off as ghosts.  You’ll occasionally see a WST listed on eBay as a ghost and priced at some insane price.  Hopefully, as people become more educated about this subject, those type of listings will start to go away.  Unlike ghosts, WSTs do not command much of a premium (if any) when they sell.

Post-Factory Transfers

The third type of transfer is one that happens after the card leaves the factory.  Typically this type of transfer is caused by some sort of moisture damage.  I’ve seen cards that were clearly in a stack that got soaked in water.  Many cards with post-factory transfers will also have paper loss as a result of the cards being stuck together and then separated.  These post-factory transfers will usually be faint and not at all precise.  A wet sheet transfer of an Old Mill back is a precise transfer of the back onto the front of the card.  Post-factory transfers are not like that.  There is a lot of color bleed in a post-factory transfer.  The Seymour below is a good example.  It has the tell-tale paper loss on the back, and the transfer of the Sweet Caporal ad onto the front is faint and indistinct.  It kind of looks like a watercolor copy of the ink of the back of the adjacent card in the stack.  Though post-factory transfers are fairly uncommon, they don’t usually command any premium when they sell.

This Seymour has a post-factory transfer
The back has the tell-tale signs of a post-factory transfer

T206 Art Devlin with Old Mill Back Confirmed to Exist

Back on September 20, 2018, the above card sold as part of Heritage Auctions’ massive “Highest Graded” T206 set.  Clearly Heritage did not realize this is the only graded copy of Devlin with an Old Mill back.  Such an oversight is easy to understand given how the auction contained hundreds of cards that ultimately sold for more than this one.  Another odd wrinkle is that this card does not appear in the PSA Population Report.  At first I thought it might be because it has just been graded (back when I first looked at the auction around the 1st of September).  However, it still has not been added to the Pop Report two months later.  Now I’m guessing the reason it didn’t get added is due to the fact that the label was printed in a strange way.  The label should read: “T206 Old Mill / Art Devlin.”  Instead, it says: “1909-1911 Old Mill / Art Devlin.  It seems likely that it wasn’t catalogued correctly as a result.

I don’t always write an article specifically dedicated to new T206 front/back confirmations, but I definitely wanted to single this one out.  Typically a new confirmation will have a rare back.  When a new Broad Leaf 350 is found, it’s cool, but hardly surprising.  Many Broad Leaf 350 poses have only one or two graded copies, so finding a new one is to be expected once in a while.  Finding a new Old Mill is a different thing altogether.  For most poses, Old Mill backs are relatively plentiful.  150-350 Series Old Mills are much tougher to find, but very few poses are so rare as to lead you to believe that other unconfirmed poses are out there somewhere.  In hindsight it’s not shocking, as there are a handful of extremely Low Pop Old Mills.  Nonetheless, this is the first new Old Mill confirmation I can recall seeing in the last five or six years I have been paying attention to such things.

Prior to seeing this Devlin, I figured some 150-350 Series poses were left off the Old Mill print run in the same way that some were left off the El Principe de Gales and Sovereign 350 print runs.  Now that we know Devlin was printed, I wonder if the other unconfirmed 150-350 Series poses will eventually show up with an Old Mill back.  These are the four 150-350 Series poses who have not been found with an Old Mill back, though in theory they could be in the future:

  • Criger
  • Donohue
  • Dooin
  • Seymour (Batting)

*Seymour (Batting) appears in the SGC Pop Report with a Pop of 1.  It could exist, or it could just be a data entry error.

Link to the auction listing:
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-cards/singles-pre-1930-/1909-11-t206-old-mill-art-devlin-psa-nm-7-pop-eight-two-higher-/a/50008-50126.s

Two T206 Uzit Backs Found at Flea Market in York, Pennsylvania

Back in June, two T206 Uzit backs turned up at the Morningstar market in York, Pennsylvania.  These two cards, Steinfeldt (with Bat), and Latham were previously unknown to the hobby.  A savvy buyer recognized their value and got a great deal on them.  He then brought them to the National Convention in Cleveland in August and got them graded by PSA.  About a week after the National, they appeared on eBay one night, where they quickly sold.

This article is a little different than most hobby news stories I write.  Typically I am just summarizing something that has happened, or re-telling an old hobby story.  In this case, however, I am part of the story because I was the eBay buyer!  Once I received the cards in the mail, I asked the seller a few follow-up questions.  I wanted to know the backstory, as it’s not everyday that a random eBay account (he hadn’t sold anything in the past year on eBay, though he did have a feedback rating in the 3000s) lists two rare T206s and nothing else.

I was excited to learn that the two cards came from the same place, and that the seller at the flea market did not realize the significance of the Uzit backs.  The fact that these cards were found together, and sold for the price of a common-backed T206 made me think it was likely Latham and Steinfeldt had been together for a very long time.  Perhaps ever since they were pulled from packs of Uzit Cigarettes.

At that point, I felt pretty strongly about my hypothesis but didn’t expect any additional supporting evidence to surface.  To my surprise, in September, I got an email from the eBay seller asking me if I knew anything about the value of the three cards below:

I had seen scans of cards from this set on net54 a few times in the past, but I had no idea what they were worth.  My first thought when I saw the pictures he sent was, these three have to be from the same find as my Steinfeldt and Latham.  I told him I didn’t know what they were worth, but if they came from the same place as my T206 Uzits, I wanted to buy them.  He confirmed that he’d them from the same flea market booth as the T206s.

I couldn’t remember what the set was called, so I did a quick google search and found that the set is referred to as the 1910 T80 Military Series.  I suggested that I could post the pictures on net54 and ask for help with their values.  He was happy with that, so I went ahead and posted.  I also got a couple emails from friends about their potential value.  Later in the day, the seller reached out to me via email with a very fair price, and a deal was struck.

Besides being super stoked to re-unite them with the T206s, I was excited about the implications of five Uzit backs being found together out in the wild.  In my opinion, it’s a virtual certainty that these five cards were pulled from Uzit packs and put away somewhere, where they remained together for over 100 years.  Obviously there’s no way of proving that, but it’s the narrative that makes the most sense (at least to me).

Before I was aware of the T80 Uzits, I was hoping to keep both Latham and Steinfeldt, but there was a chance I was going to sell one of them for the simple reason that they were expensive, and I wasn’t sure if I’d be able to sell enough other cards from my collection to be able to afford them.  However, after acquiring the T80s, I decided there was no way I was parting with either of the T206s.  Besides being a really cool hobby story, these five Uzit backs are now a centerpiece of my collection.

The Highest Graded T206 Set Sells for Over $8 Million Dollars!

On September 20, 2018 the highest graded T206 set in existence sold via Heritage Auctions.  Each card was offered as a stand-alone lot.  The combined sales price was staggering.  I couldn’t find the exact figure, but PSA CEO Joe Orlando posted that total was over $8,000,000.  The set boasted an unheard of thirteen PSA 10s, McGraw (Finger in Air) being the lone Hall of Fame PSA 10.  Twenty-four of the Hall Of Famers were graded PSA 9.

You can check out the auction in it’s entirety by following the link below.  In order to see the realized sale prices, you’ll have to log in, or create an account if you haven’t yet.

2018 September 20 1909-11 T206 PSA Set Registry Catalog Auction

There were dozens of cards in this auction that would have headlined most other auctions.  The cards were below were the highlights of the auction in terms of realized sale price, but I urge to to follow the link above and check out the rest of the auction.

Plank PSA 7 – $690,000

Magie PSA 8 – $660,000

Cobb Greeb Portrait Old Mill PSA 8 – $360,000

Mathewson White Cap PSA 9 – $264,000

Cobb Red Portrait PSA 8 – $192,000

McGraw Finger in Air PSA 10 – $192,000

Young Bare Hand Shows PSA 9 – $168,000

Johnson Hands at Chest PSA 9 – $156,000

Cobb Bat on Shoulder PSA 8 – $144,000

Mathewson Dark Cap PSA 8.5 – $120,000

Johnson Portrait PSA 9 – $114,000

Young Portrait PSA 8 – $114,000

Cobb Bat off Shoulder PSA 8 – $102,000

O’Hara St. Louis PSA 7 – $96,000

T206 Collecting Tips for Beginners: Spend More Time Reading and Studying Than Buying

Anytime you get excited about a new hobby, it’s only natural to jump into it headfirst.  However, with a hobby like collecting baseball cards, jumping in too fast can lead to some costly mistakes.  I’ve made a ton of such mistakes throughout my collecting journey.  I’m sure I’ll make more in the future, but it’s important to try and keep them to a minimum.

When I talk about jumping in too fast, I am referring to spending money before you really understand the value of what you are buying.  Now obviously if you’re spending your money on a product, it means that you are happy with the value you are getting in return.  So in the short term, you are probably going to be happy with your purchase.  In the long-term however, it could be a different story.  The reality is that most T206 collectors don’t hang onto their cards forever.  People sell for a number of different reasons.  Some decide the T206 set just isn’t for them.  Others realize after a while that they prefer higher (or lower) eye appeal cards, so they sell the cards they bought initially in order to buy cards that fit their new collecting vision.  Some collectors realize they enjoy both buying and selling and end up turning over their collections multiple times.  If, in the future, you find yourself selling the T206s that you bought when you first got into the hobby, you’ll be a lot happier if you paid fair prices for them than if you overpaid.

Luckily, there is a wealth of information available at your fingertips.  When I began collecting T206s in 2010, I started by joining net54baseball.com.  I spent dozens of hours poring over every T206 thread I could find, and combing through eBay listings.  It’s pretty crazy to say this, but when I first began buying T206s, I don’t think I made a single ill-advised purchase.  I spent a lot a time reading, researching, and learning before I spent any money on T206s, but it wasn’t because I have superhuman amounts of willpower.  Looking back, the reason I held off on buying any cards until I had a good idea of the market was simple.  When I started researching the set, I was merely interested in it.  I hadn’t decided whether I wanted to collect it or not.  I didn’t have my eye on a certain card I “had to have” or a wad of money burning a hole in my pocket.  That approach served me well, but I haven’t been able to replicate it with other sets that I have become enamored with over the ensuing years.

I lost money on the first handful of T205s, T207s, E135s, M101-4/5s, and Cracker Jacks that I bought.  Like most T206 collectors who end up collecting backs, I started out just collecting fronts.  The first back I really fell in love with was Brown Hindu.  I decided I wanted to have a stack of Hall of Famers with Brown Hindu backs.  I sold off my partial lower grade T206 set (with common backs), and the first cards I bought with the money were lower grade copies of Willis Portrait, both Clarke poses, Waddell Portrait, and Flick with Hindu backs.  The only one I still own is the Flick, and I lost money on each of the other four when I went to sell them.  I don’t really regret those buying decisions because I learned from each of them.  However, I feel a lot smarter about the way I began my T206 collection than the way I jumped in too fast with my T206 back collecting and my forays into other pre-war sets.

Luckily, finding information and sales data is easier now than ever.  Because the T206 set is so widely collected, and the cards are readily available, eBay is the go-to place for sales data.  Thousands of T206s sell on eBay each month.  Using the “Sold Items” tab, you can search the last three months of completed sales on eBay.  When you are collecting T206s based on the player on the front, rather than worrying about backs, eBay’s sold items archive is often all you need to learn about current market values.  When you are just starting out, I don’t think you need any other resources.  At a certain point, you may find it helpful to check out vintagecardprices.com, or “VCP”.  VCP is a pay site which offers access to a large archive of sales data.  Subscriptions are sold either by the year ($180), the month ($18), or the day ($4).  At $4, the 24 hour pass is a nice tool for a beginning collector.  I used it a handful of times when I was first learning about the T206 market.  I would keep a list of cards I wanted to look up.  When I had a day where I could devote a few hours to price research, I would pay the $4 and look up tons of cards and take notes.

Paying a little too much here and there is pretty much inevitable when you first begin collecting T206s (or anything, really).  However, a little patience and preparation will go a long way toward keeping those mistakes to a minimum.  When those inevitable mistakes happen, try not to be too hard on yourself.  If you keep at it, and refine your knowledge, your understanding of the T206 marketplace will pay dividends.  Over time, the undervalued cards you find will outweigh the ones that you overspent on in the beginning of your collecting journey.