PDA

View Full Version : Coupon Type 1: Paper Theory


usernamealreadytaken
06-04-2010, 03:04 PM
I struggle with the argument against considering T213-1 part of the T206 family. I won't reiterate all the points on why they should be in, but rather the two reasons they are not:

1.) Cause Burdick said so (though I think he simply lumped them in a series because of subsequent "Coupon" issues. I contend that if Sweet Caporal issued slightly different series' a few years later they would befall the same fate.)

2.) They are thinner. Well, we all know that (mis)classification on this basis is not sound because of American Beauty cards, which are undeniably T206.

To my point: Coupon cards were the "PallMall's" or "USA Gold's" of ATC brands; the cheapies in the product line. Three things point to this:

A.) They were primarily sold in LA (rural south); probably the poorest areas in the US at the time;
B.) The relative "bland"-ness and simplicity of the back design relative to other T206's;
C.) Thinner paper stock for the premiums (cards) was used.

Think about the "toy or prize" in a kid's frozen dinner, cereal box or Happy Meal: the "better" the product, the nicer the premium inside...

Abravefan11
06-04-2010, 05:04 PM
I don't think the Coupons should be considered part of the T206 set for two reasons.

1) Burdick classified them as something different. Unless you're going to create a new classification system that's the way it is.

2) ATC and American Litho had a set of standards that they did not deviate from when printing the T206 issue. Several subsequent sets used the same images for different products but were not part of the T206 issue. They were a different project and had their own set of standards. Paper stock, team and player description color, etc.

usernamealreadytaken
06-04-2010, 05:16 PM
I tire of the "cause Burdick said so" argument. Get past what the series is named, or by who, and get it right.

ATC had standards which they didn't deviate from? Of course SIZE of their cards wasn't one of these standards. Btw, are these standards you speak of found in Burdick's catalogue or are they your tests for t206?

Abravefan11
06-04-2010, 05:24 PM
1) I don't know the standards Burdick used thus I can't question them.

2) These are my observations and my opinion. Yes they deviated on the size of the cards with the American Beauty series but given the timeline and players included it's evident (to me) that these are part of the same group. This is all just my opinion, maybe shared by others, maybe not.

FrankWakefield
06-04-2010, 06:03 PM
I think you misunderstand the origins of Coupon Cigarettes. Duke's Trust was the end result of capitalism gone wild. We all think we support capitalism. Left to its own, the end result would be a monopoly. Without a bit of regulation the big 3 auto companies of my youth would have banged it out until one survived, then that survivor would have a monopoly. Duke started taking over other cigarette producers. Coupon Cigarettes happened to be the name of the company down Louisiana way (can't you hear Corky Laing banging away) that Duke took over. Those ATC brands with which we're all familiar (eg Piedmont, Cycle, "Sweet Caporal", "American Beauty"... ) these were regional brands. These brands were where they were, and had a market, before they were acquired by the ATC. Duke's outfit didn't decide in 1909 to make a lesser quality cigarette, call it Coupon, and sell it down south...

And while similar to T206 cards in design, I'm satisfied and content with Mr. Burdick's separation of the Coupon cards from T206. (not from "other" T206)

fkw
06-04-2010, 07:07 PM
A blind person can tell the difference between a T213-1 and the other 16 T206 brands.

The paper stock is all I need to see/feel for me to know it is not the same series.

Its a separate set that has for many years been collected separately.

No need to change the ACC#, Burdick got it right IMO.

ethicsprof
06-04-2010, 07:19 PM
If someone were willing and capable of creating a new classification system to replace Burdick's, making the Coupon 1 part of whatever T206s are to be called makes sense to me. The arguments for the inclusion of Coupon 1
have been delineated elsewhere numerous times (granted arguments against
have been delineated as well).
The greater issue is convincing any of us to redo the quite masterful work of Burdick which took a great many years of his life ,contributing in part to his
arthritic exhaustion and death some 2 months or so after completion of the task.
Any takers?!

best,
barry

Abravefan11
06-04-2010, 07:29 PM
Barry your thoughts are spot on. What Burdick did decades ago would take a team of people with all the modern resources years to complete.

With that said I'm OK with people questioning or debating his classifications but when the conjecture dies down his is still the system we use.

ethicsprof
06-04-2010, 07:51 PM
Thanks, Tim.
The more I read about Burdick, the more i stand in awe of his contributions.
I do wish that this sickly, gnarled, hermit of a man, could know just how much he influenced the generations of vintage card collectors with his incredible dedication, astuteness, perseverance, and scholarship. Yes, i'd like to see a few of the 'errors' fixed, but the 'errors' are tiny specks compared to the unparalleled classification system he gave us.

One of his only friends, perhaps his closest, was the beloved Lionel Carter.
Two Giants. Primus inter pares.

best,
barry

Rob D.
06-04-2010, 08:06 PM
I often wonder whether people who are so quick to dismiss Burdick's work realize his dedication to the hobby and the mind-set he had. It went far beyond checking in on an Internet chat board a few times a day and posting some musings. He dedicated much of his life to collecting and cataloging cards.

That's not to say his work is beyond reproach, but again, I just wonder whether the naysayers realize what/who they're challenging.

canjond
06-04-2010, 08:40 PM
Although this is only my theory, I've questioned whether coupons were printed on thinner stock due to the brand's distribution method. Unlike all of the other t206 brands (exept polar bear) which were packed inside slide and shell boxes of cigarettes, coupon was a soft paper pack that never had a box configuration. Thicker stock may have torn the packaging so a thin stock had to be used. This might also explain the poor condition of cards too. Not only is the paper thinner, but the distribution method did not protect the cards either.

usernamealreadytaken
06-04-2010, 08:52 PM
It sounds like Burdick knew his stuff pretty well and because of his work the cards we collect decades later are still identified by his designations. Guess what? I get that. But the guy came up with a classification system for baseball cards...Not exactly sacred work (sorry). I guess when people dodge real debate on the proper designations and instead ring the "Burdick said so" bell, it shows where this discourse is destined to end.

Back to the debate that "Coupon's" are out because one can feel the difference: how does that address American Beauty? Thanks!

Abravefan11
06-04-2010, 09:13 PM
Although this is only my theory, I've questioned whether coupons were printed on thinner stock due to the brand's distribution method. Unlike all of the other t206 brands (exept polar bear) which were packed inside slide and shell boxes of cigarettes, coupon was a soft paper pack that never had a box configuration. Thicker stock may have torn the packaging so a thin stock had to be used. This might also explain the poor condition of cards too. Not only is the paper thinner, but the distribution method did not protect the cards either.

John I like your theory and think it's a great explanation for the use of thinner stock but I still don't think it's enough to tie these cards to the T206 set.

In my opinion the images were simply reused because it was the most cost effective way of producing a new set. Many of the southern leaguers included in the T213-1 set are the indicator for my opinion.

These southern leaguers are shown in the T213-1 set with the team they started the 1909 season and appeared in the early T206 set yet:

Fritz left New Orleans prior to the end of July 1909.
Persons left Montgomery prior to the end of July 1909.

Hart didn't play for Little Rock in 1910.
Hickman didn't play for Mobile in 1910.
Lentz didn't play for Little Rock in 1910.
Rockenfield didn't play for Montgomery in 1910.
Thornton didn't play for Mobile in 1910.

FrankWakefield
06-04-2010, 10:25 PM
This, in my mind, is similar to the blown call from a couple of nights ago. The past few days, folks I encounter who know of my passion for baseball, will ask me about and opine about the call. Most non-baseball folk want the Commissioner to fix it. To me it is changing a call to achieve a desired outcome. That's contrary to what I do at work... and it seems wrong to me for the Commissioner to do it. I went to a minor league game last night and met up with 2 fellow baseball fanatics. We were 3-0 on it, the call was blown, it's a shame, it was not a perfect game. Leave it alone and move on. They liked my idea of fellow umpires meeting between home and the mound when they perceive a similar bad call, and they wait for their crew-mate to join them, so he'll know to ask for help on the call...

Here, it seems the desired goal is to have those series 1 Coupon cards called T206. I have GREAT respect for Mr. Burdick's work on the American Card Catalog. I have a hardbound copy. And I have a copy of a postcard work he published. It's more than "he said so". He knew so, too. And it's what my fellow Frank said up there, you can sort 'em out by hand with your eyes closed. I can discern American Beauty cards from other T206s when looking at their fronts. But I can't by holding them one at a time with my eyes closed. I can sort 1914 Cracker Jacks from 1915 Cracker Jacks with my eyes closed. And everyone here could, too, after they'd held a few for a few minutes. The AB's are from identical card stock, cut slightly less wide. The Coupon card is on entirely different stock, but happens to be the same size... (same size as a T205, maybe that's what they really are). The Coupon's don't mention 'series' or '150' or '350'.... They're different. Just like Mr. Burdick said. Different, even if you want 'em to be alike.

teetwoohsix
06-05-2010, 05:10 AM
It is amazing how this subject keeps popping up. There is a lot more to it than "Burdick said so"- Frank, Tim, and Frank gave great examples of why it is classified the way it is. To me, it goes with it's series.T213-1, T213-2,and last but not least,T213-3.

Yes, there are similarities with T206. So what? T202's have similarities with T205's. Should those be re-classified? Should T210's be called T206's because they share some T206 images and have an almost identical Old Mill back (except for the series# at the top)? I'm semi-kidding (:D).........but really, it's just a classification system, and it's not "wrong", so why try to fix it if it's not broken?

Clayton

usernamealreadytaken
06-05-2010, 07:14 AM
I will push forward in my excersize in futility.
Erroneus contention 1: 1910 Coupons are not in the T206 series because T206's all share the same physical characteristics. However, there are t206 cards (AB) that vary in physical characteristics (size) from others in the series. Therefore, the argument that a variation in physical properties is a litmus test for inclusion does not stand up to scrutiny.

Erroneus contention 2: 1910 Coupons do not reference a number or scope of the series. However, there are t206 cards (EPDG) that do not reference a number or scope of the series either. So this argument cannot be the sole basis for inclusion or not.

FrankWakefield
06-05-2010, 08:45 AM
We could forgo the numbers and just lump all together as T cards. T for twentieth century... not T for tobacco.

Again, you commence with a premise you want to facilitate reaching a desired outcome, it seems to me. Start with Piedmont 150's, the first cards of T206. Seet Caporal and Sovereign, both 150s. They weren't without the numbers... Those Coupon cards come along at that time, without a series, and with quotes, on different card stock. Piedmont and all progress to the 350 series and brands are added. Some mention series 350, some assorted. All the same style fronts, captions and brown ink fonts. And later the 460s, and they stop. I agree the AB's are trimmed down a fraction of an inch narrower, but it is still the same card stock, subjects, captions and fonts and ink, and series. Those Coupon cards don't have that. Coupon cards seem to have been updated and issued long after T206 card distribution ended. T206s came to a halt at one point in time, T213s at a much different time. T213-3s much later, T213-1s much earlier. T206s all stopped about the same time.

I think most folks sort T206s alphabetically, as they're listed in the modern catalogs. I don't, but then I'm quite contrary. I like them sorted the way the collectors did 30, 40, 50, and 100 years ago did... by team. I sort them into teams, then alphabetically. And it is neat to spread a team out, by series, then alphabetically. That way you can see "Cubs" across the shirts on the first run of Cubs cards, and "Chicago" down the shirt later on. I mention this because it's fine with me if you shuffle your Coupon cards in there amongst the white border T206s. I'm amused by the eBay listings where someone mistakenly lists a card as a T206 when it has a Coupon back. Someone doing a T213 search misses it... For me T213-1s are just that, and shouldn't be in with T206s. Mr. Burdick got quite a bit right. Again, I thank him.

usernamealreadytaken
06-05-2010, 09:12 AM
We will agree to reasonably disagree reasonably.

Here is a quote I found from an earlier thread (which I began) re: the Cobb back not being a T206:

"...Put another way, "T206" have a list of backs included; it does not enumerate a set of criteria for being a T206 for us to then catagorize cards. Even if the smoking gun (an advertisement or legal document) conclusively puts Cobb at a later date or different distribution vehicle, it is a T206 because a "T206" is a "T206"..."

You know who authored this?...Me. After posting my theory and getting the same kind of beating, I came to this conclusion on Cobb and still do. However, this does not mean educated discourse should be abandoned. As for me, 1910 Coupons are welcome in my "T206" stack. Thank you.

FrankWakefield
06-05-2010, 09:38 AM
I understand the first bunch of coupons, and that Cobb/Cobb card look like T206s. The former is on thin paper and I'm satisfied it doesn't belong bunched with T206s. Similarly, the Cobb card has a glossy front, it doesn't belong in with T206s either. Neither are T206s.

Might as well haggle about the Lajoie Goudey card. It's numbered 106 so it fits into that gap that was in the 1933 issue. I used to think it was a 1933 card. But there were 239 different cards printed for that 1933 set. They skipped #106. Kids wrote in, and some were mailed a card #106 of Napoleon Lajoie, who wasn't even playing then. The background on the card is consistent with 1934 cards. The card is from 1934. I'm now content with the idea that the 1933 Goudey set is complete at 239 cards. And that card #106 is a nice card to have, but isn't part of the 1933 set. Golly, if they printed card #241 today, would that also make it part of the 1933 set? No.

Still, as long as folks are cogitating about it all, that's a good thing. No matter which camp of thought they embrace. Hang in there.

teetwoohsix
06-05-2010, 01:07 PM
I think it's easier to place the Cobb/Cobb card (IMO) with the classification of T206 because it is a sole card, rather than a whole series of cards.1 card (Cobb/Cobb) versus 68-70 cards (T213-1),,,,I don't know the final count on the series, I hope I'm in the ballpark.

You can place a one card set with what it resembles the most-or not. But when you have a set of cards with three distinct series involved, and just decide that because one series closely resembles another set, so lets re-classify it..............doesn't make sense to me. But to each their own- I do see the similarities, and feel if there wasn't a series 2 & 3 that the series 1 may well have been included into T206. The frame around the back Coupon add is identical to the Broad Leaf, American Beauty (frame) and Cycle.

More mysteries than answers with these tobacco cards :D

Sincerely,Clayton

tbob
06-05-2010, 01:23 PM
I think most folks sort T206s alphabetically, as they're listed in the modern catalogs. I don't, but then I'm quite contrary. I like them sorted the way the collectors did 30, 40, 50, and 100 years ago did... by team. I sort them into teams, then alphabetically. And it is neat to spread a team out, by series, then alphabetically.

Frank, I sort them that way also, so there's at least two of us contrarians :)

Abravefan11
06-05-2010, 02:16 PM
Forgive my remedial question but what evidence is there for when these cards were printed or distributed other than the connection to the T206 350 series?

FrankWakefield
06-05-2010, 02:46 PM
If you look at the players and their teams for the -1 cards, it matches up fairly well with 1910 and T206's series 350... both the team designations as well as the artwork. Johnny Evers is with Chicago and Hub Perdue is with Nashville. Hub doesn't appear in the -2 Coupons, Evers does with a Boston caption, his new team. List the players in -1, look at the teams with which they're depicted, then look at what the captions say for the -2 cards, and you'll see that -1 Coupons are issued after T206s got started, about in the middle of the 350 series. The -2s are produced 2 or 3 years after that. And the -3s half a dozen years or more. My recollection is that the thinking was among old collectors was that -3s were part of a regional pricing strategy, that was eventually abandoned, around WW I.

Abravefan11
06-05-2010, 03:12 PM
Thank you Frank. So given the cards are like the 350 set is there anything beside the commonality that could lead us to conclude they were printed in 1910? Conceivable could the same images have been used with the same team designations later than that and prior to the T213-2's?

FrankWakefield
06-05-2010, 09:39 PM
Yes.

In addition to comparing the pose and player/team similarities with series 350; additionally look just at the player and team designations, especially where someone hadn't been with the particular team all that long.

You have in mind the idea that today you and I could print a Willie Mays card showing him with the San Francisco Giants. That doesn't mean our card was printed back in the late 50's or the 60's, but it would be logical that it couldn't have been printed in the late 1940s. Some folks lose their grip on that logic, and it hampers card dating.

Abravefan11
06-05-2010, 09:52 PM
Thanks for the follow up. I understand what you're saying about dating sets and agree that it is the best method that we have. It isn't an exact science for the lack of a better term and the best we can try and do is book end so to speak, narrow down a time frame, and with certain details determine what's most reasonable.

I just didn't know of any other information besides the connection to the 350 series and was wondering if there was something additional I was missing.

tedzan
06-06-2010, 01:07 AM
Several factors connect the T213-1 set to being printed (and most likely issued) in the Summer of 1910.
Before I get into these factors, this picture illustrates this fact better than words can describe. The iden-
tical back designs of these 5 backs were drawn by the same artist. Therefore, it is a fair conclusion that
all 5 of these brands were issued within a narrow time frame.

<img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/at206quintuplicatedesign.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

We have documentation dating the issue of the American Beauty 350 (frame) cards to the Summer of 1910.
I would say there is a very high probability that this Coupon set (68 cards) was issued in the timeframe of
the Summer/Fall 1910.

A 2nd factor is the quotes surrounding COUPON. ATC acquired the Coupon tobacco company circa 1909-1910.
At the time of the T213-1 printing, the ATC Copyright was still pending (hence "COUPON").

A 3rd factor is evident in the make up of the 20 Southern Leaguer's (SL) in the T213-1 set. Since these cards
were destined for Louisiana, most of the SL that were selected are from the Southern Association. Now if you
examine this closer, you will see a mix of players from the 150 series SL and from the 350-only series SL.

All 48 Major Leaguer's in this set are from the 350-only series of the T206 set. The 350-only series (216 cards)
were printed in several phases from late 1909 to the Fall of 1910.



TED Z

marcdelpercio
06-06-2010, 02:06 PM
To me, I think the simple question is, what is a T206? If your answer is "whatever Burdick said" (which technically is correct) then Coupons are not and never will be. I certainly understand the arguments against inclusion but in my opinion, a T206 is as follows:

A card released during 1909-1911 by an ATC brand that shares the same artwork, design, production, and distribution methods.

In my mind, Coupon Type 1's clearly fit this description and should be considered as a part of this collective set, whatever you wish to call it. The only arguments against inclusion seem to be the thinner paper stock and the lack of series/number designation on the back. However there are other examples discussed above of widely accepted T206 brands which also feature variations in these things. The use of a different paper stock is irrelevant to me as even with a thinner stock, these cards still share the same artwork, design, production and distribution as all other T206 brands. There are many possible reasons a thinner stock may have been used...some already discussed and probably some that nobody has yet thought of.

I don't think we can compare the Coupon Type 2's and Type 3's as these were created after the ATC breakup by Liggett and Myers which was no longer an ATC brand. Though they share some similarities with the Type 1's and T206's, they do not meet the standard of the same artwork and design (and were released by what was then a different company) so should be considered an entirely separate set.

FrankWakefield
06-06-2010, 03:36 PM
Chris, Marc,...

Have you guys actually held a T213-1 Coupon and a T206 white border tobacco card in your hand? I'm not talking about slabs, the real cards in your hand?

marcdelpercio
06-06-2010, 04:12 PM
Frank,
Yes, I have...quite a few in fact. I am not at all disputing that the paper stock is noticeably thinner. What I am saying is that I don't consider this a reason to exclude these from being part of this set. Regardless of the stock, Coupon Type 1's share the same manufacturer, timeline, artwork, design, production, and distribution methods as all other T206 brands. To me these are the common threads that make a card a "T206". Others may disagree (Burdick obviously did) but there really is no right answer. All we can do is try to define common characteristics of the several different subsets of cards that we group together under the name of T206. To me, any card that fits the criteria I stated belongs under this heading.

tiger8mush
06-06-2010, 04:29 PM
1914 Cracker Jacks are noticably thinner than their 1915 counterparts, yet both reside under ACC designation E145. 1914s = E145-1, 1915s = E145-2

Weren't the distribution methods for the two years slightly different too, as 1914s could ONLY be found in boxes of candy, whereas the 1915s could ALSO be sent in for via mail?

Rob
:)

marcdelpercio
06-06-2010, 05:34 PM
Rob,
Yes, and that is another good example of the occasional inconsistency of this classification system. Coupon Type 1's are significantly different artistically than Type 2's and Type 3's yet are all classified as T213's simply because of the Coupon brand. Cracker Jacks were distributed and advertised differently between 1914 and 1915 sets yet are both E145's simply because of the Cracker Jack brand. However, you then have a single set like T206 that is a conglomeration of many different brands and series over multiple years.

I have a TREMENDOUS amount of respect and appreciation for Burdick's work. I think his system is well-designed and user friendly in many ways. However, the fact remains that it is an arbitrary system created by a human being and as such, contains many inconsistencies. I think there is nothing wrong with continuing to update and add to Burdick's generally outstanding work as new information and theories emerge over the decades.

FrankWakefield
06-06-2010, 05:40 PM
If I had a stack of T206s and T213-1's, then I jumbled them up on a table, anyone sitting down to sort them could see the ballplayers on the fronts, the various brands on the backs, and would quickly see that the Coupon cards were printed on paper while the rest were on card stock. To refer to the Coupon material as thin paper stock is fine. But saying thinner is a bit of a stretch. One is on card stock. The other on paper. It isn't that one is thin and the other thinner... at least it isn't to me. One is paper, one is card. Maybe if Coupons hadn't been continued half a dozen years later then Mr. Burdick would have been less likely to sort them separately.

I'm working on a list of the -1 players, their teams, and when they joined. I can already see a problem with Ellam. Roy Ellam was with Birmingham 1909 through 1915; he joined the Nashville Vols in 1916, where he hit .278 in 138 games as he played and was the team's only manager. The "Nashville" designation is on his T206, too. That was a mistake in team designation back in 1910 with the T206s, and with the T213-1's. Someone one day may try to date all of the cards to 1916, and we know (or we should know) that that isn't correct.

I'll finish the list one day and try to get it posted here.

marcdelpercio
06-06-2010, 06:18 PM
If I was the production manager in charge of the printing of the various T206 brands, it seems perfectly reasonable that I would alter some aspects of the card/paper stock or appearance to be better suited to the product into which the card would be inserted. For a Polar Bear loose tobacco pouch, I might order a solid dark blue back to help hide some of the inevitable tobacco staining. For a narrower American Beauty pack, I might order that the cards be cut a fraction slimmer to fit properly. For a paper thin Coupon pack as opposed to a sturdier slide and shell pack, I might order a paper thin card stock for a lighter weight and to avoid damaging the pack.

However, despite these obvious differences which are unique to each of the aforementioned brands, all of these cards share the same timeline, manufacturer, artwork style, design, production and distribution methods and all should therefore be considered T206's.

FrankWakefield
06-06-2010, 08:44 PM
And for a Fatima box I'd alter the T206s so they fit the box, and have photo fronts if that's what Fatima wanted... let's call those T206's, too.

Reminds me of something I think Bill James wrote about the Hall of Fame and letting Rose and or Jackson in.... had to to with letting hundreds of .240 hitting middle infielders in, letting everyone in, then it doesn't matter any more so we could hold our noses and let Pete and Joe in.

E93
06-06-2010, 09:16 PM
Give me an American Beauty and any other T206 and I can tell you which is the AB with my eyes closed.
JimB

marcdelpercio
06-06-2010, 09:39 PM
Frank,
A Fatima card would not meet any of the criteria I mentioned for a T206. They were manufactured by a different company (Liggett & Myers, post-breakup), released in a different timeframe (1914), feature entirely different artwork and design (glossy photo fronts and completely different back designs) and were produced differently (not lithographs, significantly different size). Coupon Type 1's, however, meet all of the criteria I mentioned for a T206. I am not in any way advocating including sets that do not meet these criteria, only those that do.

My point is that there are several accepted T206 brands (EPDG, Polar Bear, AB) that feature different unique characteristics not found on any other brand. Yet all of these brands still meet the criteria I suggested, as do Coupon Type 1's.

caramelcard
06-06-2010, 09:45 PM
T206 are not T206.

They're different brands of tobacco premiums issued over a period of three years. The issue that we know as T213-1 also fits into that model.


Hi Frank. Is the only reason you disagree because of the paper difference?

Do you also think E97 black and whites should be called something different?
How about the two different E107 types? Both have clearly different paper types (one thinner). I'm sure we can think of some more.

The really funny thing about the thin paper argument is that TYPE 1 COUPONS ARE ALSO THINNER THAN TYPE 2 AND TYPE 3! They have more in common with several T206 brands then with the other coupon brands.

I don't really care to tell you truth if "T213-1" is known as "T206." Those labels shouldn't really mean much to folks that collect the cards in my opinion.

By the way, I've "held" a couple dozen type 1s. I like em!

Happy collecting everyone.

Rob

FrankWakefield
06-06-2010, 09:46 PM
E93, can you do that while holding one card at a time???

drdduet
06-07-2010, 08:54 AM
A blind man can tell T213-1 from T213-2 and -3 as well. A blind man can tell a T206 piedmont from a t206 AB just as well.....I am also working on evidence that all T206 brand cardboard may have had differences in cardboard stock--thickness, density, composition, etc....

judsonhamlin
06-07-2010, 10:46 AM
I come in on the side of T213-1 being part of T206. I believe that the overwhelming number of similarities outweighs the one difference that seems to exist. The obverse design is a 100% match. The border, font, framing and inking are identical. Not one T213-1 used a photo that was not used in T206, nor are there any cropping differences that I am aware of. The odds of that seem slim. Ted Z. has already posted the backs; the designs of which speak for themselves. And, Coupon was an ATC brand at the time.
That leaves the card's stock. It seems that Amer. Litho. stopped the presses (literally) and fed new, thin stock for the Coupon print run and then returned to the thicker stock for the rest of the T206 run. Did this represent a print run "between" the 150 and 350 series of T206? Was it an experiment by ALC for the ATC that was discontinued? Was it, as was suggested above, a matter of economy? Whatever the answer (and I don't mean that list to be exhaustive) the facts lead one to believe that T213-1 was printed at the same time as T206 by the same company, for the same company. Those facts lead me to the conclusion that Burdick may have erred. Hey, even Cope put the Elasmosaur's head at the wrong end - great expertise does not equate with infallibility.

rman444
06-07-2010, 11:09 AM
Give me an American Beauty and any other T206 and I can tell you which is the AB with my eyes closed.
JimB

Give me one of Jim's E93s and anyone else's E93 and I can tell you which one is Jim's with my eyes closed.

usernamealreadytaken
06-08-2010, 07:33 AM
It seemed for awhile that I was alone in this thread, but am heartened to see the calvary coming! Keeping my earlier posts in mind, here is the template for how the T206/1910 Coupon argument generally goes:

Person A: 1910 Coupons are not T206 because the paper they are printed on is thinner and I could pick them out among T206's blindfolded.

Person B:That reasoning is flawed as this is also true of American Beauty cards which are classified as T206.

Person A: ...well...Burdick said 1910 Coupons are not T206.

judsonhamlin
06-08-2010, 08:21 AM
Chris - While I agree with you, I'm not sure that the American Beauty argument is the most persuasive. I think the best points are:

1) Made by the same company;
2) For the same ecompany;
3) At the same time; and
4) Using the exact same obverse and reverse designs as accepted T206 cards.

There is a good analogy to the E92/E101/E102 set here also.

teetwoohsix
06-09-2010, 03:29 PM
Would Factory designation on the T213-1's have played a role in Burdick's decision to not include them into the T206 classification (amongst other reasons) ?

Clayton

judsonhamlin
06-09-2010, 03:57 PM
Would Factory designation on the T213-1's have played a role in Burdick's decision to not include them into the T206 classification (amongst other reasons) ?

Clayton

I don't think so - Polar Bear and El Principe are also oddball factory designations (with "oddball" designs) and they are in the set.

teetwoohsix
06-09-2010, 05:14 PM
Hi judsonhamlin-

I thought of those also, but EPDG Factory 17 was still out of VA, and it seems like a lot of the T206's were coming out of VA (and NY).

Polar Bear Factory 6 I'm pretty sure was coming out of Ohio, therefore still being located more on the East Coast........

But Factory 3 LA is way down South, and I thought the regional thing could've played into why Burdick excluded T213-1's from the T206 classification (amongst his other reasons).

Clayton