Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?

[tedzan]

An often repeated excuse from the naysayers...."It's the thinner cardboard stock which the 1910 COUPON cards were printed on that disqualifies
them from being considered T206's." This thinking is really ridiculous. My question to you naysayers is this....Then how come you don't DISCARD
the AMERICAN BEAUTY (AB) cards, since their card dimensions are inconsistent with all the other T206's ? ?

Well of course that is as ridiculous as the above comment regarding the 1910 COUPON's. It's all the same difference. Both AB and 1910 COUPON
cards differ from the other T206's due to Cigarette pack factors. American Lithographic trimmed the AB cards in anticipation of ATC's intention of
narrowing down AB cigarette packs (however, this never occurred). And, the 1910 COUPON cards were never meant to be used as cigarette pack
stiffeners. Since this new brand (introduced circa 1909-1910) was packaged as loose cigarettes in 200-count cartons labelled COUPON Cigarettes.
Such a cigarette carton is seen in Jeremy's 2016 thread (post #37)….. http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=218967&highlight=1910+COUPON&page=4

Incidentally, no standard cigarette pack of that era has ever been reported that would have contained 1910 COUPON cards. And, I do not expect
that one will ever surface.
Therefore, my theory is that 1910 COUPON cards were either placed inside these 200-count cartons....or were pasted on these cartons. The latter
case would certainly explain the recurring paper loss found on quite a number of these cards' backs.

Here are some examples from my 1910 COUPON collection, which have the typical "glue spot" paper loss on the upper part of the backs (possibly
due to the cards having been pasted on cartons)......


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910couponcobb50x.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910COUPONredCobb75xb.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910COUPONchasedkcap38x.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910COUPONdkcapChase50b.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910CouponTed%20Breitenstein.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910CouponTed%20BreitensteinB.jpg




P.S. Jeff Burdick's accomplishments in our hobby (Sportscards & Non-Sportscards) are amazing. And, if he had the benefit of the Internet,
I have no doubt that the 1910 COUPON cards would have been catalogued alongwith the 15 other basic T-brands in the T206 set.



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Cozumeleno]

P.S.[/B] Jeff Burdick's accomplishments in our hobby (Sportscards & Non-Sportscards) are amazing. And, if he had the benefit of the Internet,
I have no doubt that the 1910 COUPON cards would have been catalogued alongwith the 15 other basic T-brands in the T206 set.

I agree, Ted. I won't rehash all of the points I made previously but, in summary, same fronts, same font, same back ad design as others. Burdick noted in his book that the Coupons were printed in 1914-15. Had he known that the T213-1s were printed earlier, I don't really see a reason why he wouldn't have classified them as T206.

I suppose there could be an argument that he thought it was more important to keep them grouped with the other Coupons since they shared the same fronts as T213-2 and T213-3. But I also wonder if he might have reconsidered had he realized T213-1 was printed earlier during the T206 time frame.

[Leon]

Until the American Card Catalog is rewritten they will remain T213-1. It doesn't matter what anyone says, it is what it is. Some things in the English language don't make perfect sense either. Maybe Burdick should have made them T206s but he clearly didn't. They are simply T213-1, Coupons.

[DeanH3]

Put me in the they are T206's camp. There's just too many similarities for them not to be.

[RCMcKenzie]

Hi, Ted, Happy Holidays. This topic reminds me of standing before a Shakespeare class and explaining that 'Shakespeare' is just a pen name. It makes the crowd upset.

My only concern in this post is the theory about paper loss on the back. I have not noticed a pattern of paper loss on the ones I have. Take care, all.

[tedzan]

I agree, Ted. I won't rehash all of the points I made previously but, in summary, same fronts, same font, same back ad design as others. Burdick noted in his book that the Coupons were printed in 1914-15. Had he known that the T213-1s were printed earlier, I don't really see a reason why he wouldn't have classified them as T206.

I suppose there could be an argument that he thought it was more important to keep them grouped with the other Coupons since they shared the same fronts as T213-2 and T213-3. But I also wonder if he might have reconsidered had he realized T213-1 was printed earlier during the T206 time frame.

Cozumeleno

I appreciate your very concise response regarding this matter of the 1910 COUPON cards.

Thanks,

TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[RedsFan1941]

no they are not t206s

but always fun to discuss for the fiftieth time

[Leon]

no they are not t206s

Of course they aren't. Burdick looked at the cards, they all had similar fronts but not exact and had the same brand of cigarette on the back. No other T206 ad back group has the characteristics of the T213 Coupon set. Or show me one with a blue caption or on paper stock. :)

This is a quote from Burdick on the series, and found in the ACC-
"T213- Baseball Series. Coupon Cigarettes, designs of T206. 2 types, names in brown as NO. T206 or name in blue. On card or heavy paper. Issued 1914-1915 and includes Federal League. Many team changes. Name in blue value .35"

He knew they were similar but didn't make them T206, it really is as easy as that. They shoulda, woulda, coulda have been something else. But alas, they aren't

.

[ullmandds]

Of course they aren't. Burdick looked at the cards, they all had similar fronts but not exact and had the same brand of cigarette on the back. No other T206 ad back group has the characteristics of the T213 Coupon set. Or show me one with a blue caption or on paper stock. :)

This is a quote from Burdick on the series, and found in the ACC-
"T213- Baseball Series. Coupon Cigarettes, designs of T206. 2 types, names in brown as NO. T206 or name in blue. On card or heavy paper. Issued 1914-1915 and includes Federal League. Many team changes. Name in blue value .35"

He knew they were similar but didn't make them T206, it really is as easy as that. They shoulda, woulda, coulda have been something else. But alas, they aren't

.

Yet Burdick only mentioned two types when in reality there are three so he made a mistake regarding this as well! We all now recognize that there are 3 types of coupons...there is no dispute! Mistakes are made and what's important is that they are corrected.

[tedzan]

Hi, Ted, Happy Holidays. This topic reminds me of standing before a Shakespeare class and explaining that 'Shakespeare' is just a pen name. It makes the crowd upset.

My only concern in this post is the theory about paper loss on the back. I have not noticed a pattern of paper loss on the ones I have. Take care, all.


Rob

Happy Holidays to you....and, I got a :) over your "Shakespeare" analogy.

Here is another one of my cards with a back problem. This one, though, only has cardboard residue on it from being pasted on a cigarette carton.
Which I'd say proves my theory that some of these 1910 COUPON cards were pasted on the COUPON Cigarette cartons.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910COUPONDoolan.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910COUPONDoolanB.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[tedzan]

Of course they aren't. Burdick looked at the cards, they all had similar fronts but not exact and had the same brand of cigarette on the back. No other T206 ad back group has the characteristics of the T213 Coupon set.


With all due respect Leon...…I'm not quite sure I understand this statement of your's ?


Anyhow, it's obvious to me that the American Litho (ALC) artist designed these 5 backs (which include the 1910 COUPON back) during the T206 timeline (circa Spring/Summer 1910).



A - B - C - C - D connection
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/T206ChaseQuintuplcate75x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/ChaseABxBLxCOxCYx25.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/T206DRUMx50bx.jpg




And, at some later date another ALC artist designed these COUPON backs for the T213-2 (circa 1914-1916) and T213-3 (circa 1916-1919) sets...…

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1914COUPONChaseBuffalo50x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/T213x2x3blueChase50.jpg

. . . . . . . . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/ChaseBuffaloT213x25b.jpg . . . . . . . . . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/T213x2x3blueChase50b.jpg



So, please explain your comment.....because I don't get it ?


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[RedsFan1941]

please explain how you ‘know’ the doolan was pasted to a carton?

[Leon]

Hey Ted
Nothing personal just fun debate.
Just like I said, there is no other T206 brand on paper like stock and no T206 brand with cards with blue, as well as brown, captions. I am not sure how anyone can't see that Burdick took T206 into account when giving Coupons their T213 designation.

[buymycards]

I am always a little curious when someone is questioning another person about something, and the answer is "Just because it was always done that way".

We have much more information about these early cards than Burdick had available to him. If we can show that Burdick was wrong, then maybe his info should be corrected. I'm not sure how to go about updating the ACC, but there should be a way to make it happen. I'm sure there are other mistakes that Burdick made, and there are also inconsistencies with the set designations. I posted this is another thread:

Since I collect Coupons, I have always wondered why the Coupons are listed as 1910-1919, Types 1, 2, and 3. Using that logic, shouldn't Goudey's be listed as 1933 through 1941 Types 1, 2, etc.? Playball 1939-1941 Types 1, 2, and 3?

Burdick isn't the only one who has some errors in their information. If you look at Lew Lipset's Encyclopedia and carefully look at the New Orleans cards, you will see some minor errors.

The designation of the T213-1's really doesn't matter, but it is fun, and interesting to read other peoples opinions. :)

Rick

[ullmandds]

Also of the t216's...one of the three is printed on thin paper...yet it's still a T216 Kotton?

[Luke]

I feel like they belong in a T206 collection. The thin paper is obviously a big difference, but so is the width of American Beautys. One thing that gives me pause is the limited checklist. There aren't any other T206 backs that were printed with 350 only series fronts but left so many poses off the checklist. The combination of Southern Leaguers, Super Prints and 350 Only poses is interesting given that the overall checklist only consists of 68 players.

Since threads are more fun with scans, here is my Engle-Willett ghost:

[insidethewrapper]

Three separate sets produced over a 10 year period and we call them all T213's ? Type 1, 2 & 3. I don't get it. This needs to be corrected first. Each should have it's designation. Then review all the data concerning if Type 1 is part of the T206 set.

As more data is collected and researched sometimes things need to be changed like: Columbus discovering America, Doubleday inventing baseball etc.

[Rhotchkiss]

Nice card Luke ;) - too bad I can’t post my Tinker Bat Off no-print in this thread.

As I mentioned once before, I don’t know if they should be t206s, but any self respecting t206 back run should include t213-1, if such an example exists.

[Jersey City Giants]

Burdick clearly made mistakes with other issues so why can't we question his assumptions all these years later with better information? I collect T209 first series. They are labeled a 1910 set but are clearly from 1909 (only four of the 16 players in the set played for the team pictured in 1910). 15 out of 16 played for their teams pictured in 1909 (the lone exception is the mystery card that is less of a mystery now but won't get into that one). Just proving that he made mistakes and people just use his data. All major grading companies blindly call the T209 first series a 1910 card set.

[tedzan]

Hey guys

Illustrated here is my simulated uncut sheet of the Major Leaguers (48) in the 1910 COUPON set. My theory is that American Lithographic
printed up this COUPON set during an early print run of their 350 Series (circa Spring 1910). And, they used the same printing plates that
were in operation while printing up the 1000's of T206's.



1910 COUPON (T213-1) Major League (48) subjects

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1stQuad350seriesSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/2ndQuad350seriesSheet12xxx.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/3rdQuad350seriesSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/4thQuad350serieSheet12xx.jpg





Shown here are the " Six Super Prints " which were just 350 Series subjects when the 1910 COUPON cards were produced. It was not
until later in the game that American Litho selected these 6 subjects to be Super-Prints when they started printing the SOVEREIGN 460
cards. Scot Reader accurately identified these six T206's in his book titled "Inside T206".

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910couponcobb50x.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910COUPONredCobb75xb.jpg



http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910CouponChance.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910CouponChanceBx.jpg



http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910couponmattyeverschase.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910couponmattyeverschase25xb.jpg



http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910COUPONchasedkcap38x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910COUPONdkcapChase50b.jpg



Major Leaguer's (48 subjects) checklist

Becker......Boston NL
Bender (trees)......A's
Byrne......St Louis NL
Campbell......Cincinnati
Chance (portrait-yellow)......Chicago NL
Charles......St Louis NL
Chase (blue portrait)......New York AL
Chase (dark cap)......New York AL
Cobb (red portrait).......Detroit
Cree......New York AL
Donovan (throwing)......Detroit
Doolan (fielding)......Phillies
Dubuc......Cincinnati
Dunn.......Brooklyn
Engle.......New York AL
Evers (bat-yellow sky)......Chicago NL
Fletcher.....New York NL
Hartsel......A's
Hoffman......St Louis AL
Howell (portrait)......St Louis AL

Huggins (portrait).....Cincinnati
Huggins (hands at mouth)......Cincinnati
Hunter......Brooklyn
Killian (portrait)......Detroit
Knabe......Phillies
LaPorte......New York AL
Lennox........Brooklyn
Marquard (portrait)......New York NL
Mathewson (dark cap)......New York NL
Marshall.......Brooklyn
McBride......Washington
McElveen......Brooklyn
McIntyre.......Detroit
Mitchell.......Cincinnati
Mowery.......Cincinnati
Myers (bat)......New York NL
Myers (fielding)......New York NL
Paskert.......Cincinnati
Rhodes......Cleveland
Rossman......Detroit

Schmidt (portrait)......Detroit
Starr......Boston NL
Street (portrait)......Washington
Summers......Detroit
Sweeney......Boston NL
Thomas......A's
Willett......Detroit
Wilson......Pittsburg


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[T205 GB]

I say yes the Coupon Type 1's are part of the T206 set. The Type 2&3's are part of a completely different company. I have explained below how I came up with this "crazy" notion.

The ATC owned the rights to the Type 1 Coupons and were printed as part of the T206 set in mid 1910 approximately. The cards were made by the ATC as part of their advertising campaign in cigarettes, and they were printed with all the same inks and designs. Nothing we have can disprove this theory. The thin paper argument can be explained in part to moisture. The thinner paper stocks that were made in the southern areas was likely due to the decrease in mold or mildew issues due to high humidity. Many southern advertisements have been found with the thinner paper stocks from that time frame. Thinner paper stock holds way less moisture and therefore will not be destroyed a fast as heavier card stock that has the ability to absorb and hold moisture from the air.

The ATC was divide into several sections when it was split up on May 29, 1911 ; Liggett & Myers(LM) being the main focus of my post. LM was given control of the W. R. Irby, New Orleans factory #3. This factory more than likely was forced to change the designs of the subjects that they once printed under the ATC banner due to Copyrights. The change in design had to be significant enough to not violate those laws and thus we have the major changes such as paper stock, inks, colors, back designs, cropping, players, ect. I also believe the glossy coating was to help offset the moisture absorption of the cards. Seal the front side and it reduces the amount of surface that can breath and thus make the card more moisture resistant. This also can help explain the cracking of the coating from the card stock expanding and contracting over the many years from different moisture environments.

We all need to stop and take a step back to look at what we have compared to what Burdick was trying to piece together. The internet and research of thousands of guys creates a much more detailed map. Best guess is that Burdick decided to combine them all into one group most likely due to some backlash he would have feared to receive from the LM company. Back then the company name would have been much more respected than now over 100 years later. LM was an instant powerhouse right out of the gate and any man no matter the riches or stature would have been fearful of disrespecting them back then in any way, especially in a published book for the public to use. The laws were much different then especially knowing that LM's history would later reveal some shady dealings throughout their inception from the ATC dissolution. I am sure you can imagine judges and lawmaker taking kickbacks to obtain bias towards them. I mean that never happens now or anything:rolleyes: You also wouldn't call a Dodge Hemi Cuda a Chrysler even though its owned by them. We respect the original company manufacture and it would be sacrilege to call it a Chrysler ___ ___.

The same should be done with the card sets. We should recognize them for what they are. ATC owned the Coupon T206's and LM had the Coupon's for 1914 and on under a different company and new branding campaign.

My research with fellow members has led us down several paths but realistically the simplest explanation seems to be the best:

"W. R. Irby, New Orleans factory #3 was owned by two different companies at two separate times. Due to this, cards produced before the ATC dissolution, mid 1910, were produced for distribution in the T206 advertising campaign. The cards produced between 1914-1919 were part of another brand and thus would be forced to change designs significantly enough as to not violate copyright laws of the time".

[Jobu]

I haven't yet replaced Mr. Evers - happy he is still enjoying his new home!

Nice card Luke ;) - too bad I can’t post my Tinker Bat Off no-print in this thread.

As I mentioned once before, I don’t know if they should be t206s, but any self respecting t206 back run should include t213-1, if such an example exists.

[tedzan]

Nice card Luke ;) - too bad I can’t post my Tinker Bat Off no-print in this thread.

As I mentioned once before, I don’t know if they should be t206s....but any self respecting t206 back run should include t213-1….if such an example exists.


Hey Ryan

I like the way you think :)

I also like your 1910 COUPON Evers better than mine....it looks better in SGC plastic than my PSA does.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910couponmattyeverschase.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910couponmattyeverschase25xb.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[tedzan]

In the 150 series press runs, American Lithographic (ALC) printed 34 different Southern Leaguers (SL).....16 of which represent the Southern Association.
In the 350 series press runs, ALC expanded the SL sub-set to 48 subjects.....20 of which represent the Southern Association. The four additional Southern
Association subjects are Bill Hart, "Hub" Hart, Lentz & Rockenfeld. This is important, as it clearly sets a Spring/Summer 1910 timeline for T213-1 cards.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/BreitBayBernCarrCran12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/EllmFritGremHartHart12x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/HickJordLenzMolePerd12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/PersReagRockSidSmithThorn12x.jpg


Southern Association (20 subjects)

Bay......………...Nashville
Bernhard...…...Nashville
Breitenstein…..New Orleans
Carey.........…..Memphis
Cranston...……..Memphis
Ellam......………..Nashville
Fritz......………….New Orleans
Greminger...…..Montgomery
Hart......………...Montgomery
Hart...……………..Little Rock
Hickman...……...Mobile
Jordan...………...Atlanta
Lentz......………..Little Rock
Molesworth.......Birmingham
Perdue...………….Nashville
Persons...………..Montgomery
Reagan...………...New Orleans
Rockenfeld........New Orleans
Smith...……….....Atlanta
Thornton...……...Mobile


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[tedzan]

I say yes the Coupon Type 1's are part of the T206 set. The Type 2&3's are part of a completely different company. I have explained below how I came up with this "crazy" notion.
……………………………………
"W. R. Irby, New Orleans factory #3 was owned by two different companies at two separate times. Due to this, cards produced before the ATC dissolution, mid 1910, were produced for distribution in the T206 advertising campaign. The cards produced between 1914-1919 were part of another brand and thus would be forced to change designs significantly enough as to not violate copyright laws of the time".

Andrew

Great to hear from you. You have said a lot in your post; and, your last paragraph very succinctly summarizes the situation regarding the difference
between the 1910 COUPON cards vs. the T213-2 and T213-3 sets.

American Lithographic (ALC) printed all these white-bordered cards from 1909-1919, and it's apparent that after the ATC divesture (circa mid 1911),
ALC replaced the Brown ink captions with BLUE ink captions on the following T-cards...…

Liggett & Meyers……
COUPON Tobacco
T213-2 (1914-1916)
T213-3 (1916-1919)

VICTORY Tobacco
T214 (1915)


P. Lorillard…...RED CROSS
T215-2 (1912-1913)


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

An often repeated excuse from the naysayers...."It's the thinner cardboard stock which the 1910 COUPON cards were printed on that disqualifies
them from being considered T206's." This thinking is really ridiculous. My question to you naysayers is this....Then how come you don't DISCARD
the AMERICAN BEAUTY (AB) cards, since their card dimensions are inconsistent with all the other T206's ? ?

Well of course that is as ridiculous as the above comment regarding the 1910 COUPON's. It's all the same difference. Both AB and 1910 COUPON
cards differ from the other T206's due to Cigarette pack factors. American Lithographic trimmed the AB cards in anticipation of ATC's intention of
narrowing down AB cigarette packs (however, this never occurred). And, the 1910 COUPON cards were never meant to be used as cigarette pack
stiffeners. Since this new brand (introduced circa 1909-1910) was packaged as loose cigarettes in 200-count cartons labelled COUPON Cigarettes.
Such a cigarette carton is seen in Jeremy's 2016 thread (post #37)….. http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=218967&highlight=1910+COUPON&page=4

Incidentally, no standard cigarette pack of that era has ever been reported that would have contained 1910 COUPON cards. And, I do not expect
that one will ever surface.
Therefore, my theory is that 1910 COUPON cards were either placed inside these 200-count cartons....or were pasted on these cartons. The latter
case would certainly explain the recurring paper loss found on quite a number of these cards' backs.

Here are some examples from my 1910 COUPON collection, which have the typical "glue spot" paper loss on the upper part of the backs (possibly
due to the cards having been pasted on cartons)......


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910couponcobb50x.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910COUPONredCobb75xb.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910COUPONchasedkcap38x.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910COUPONdkcapChase50b.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910CouponTed%20Breitenstein.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910CouponTed%20BreitensteinB.jpg




P.S. Jeff Burdick's accomplishments in our hobby (Sportscards & Non-Sportscards) are amazing. And, if he had the benefit of the Internet,
I have no doubt that the 1910 COUPON cards would have been catalogued alongwith the 15 other basic T-brands in the T206 set.



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

But he did have the benefit of being around when they were distributed and
they were less than 30 years old when he created the ACC.

[barrysloate]

As I've said before, if the Coupons were issued only in a single series, it would have been an easy decision for Burdick to group them with T206. But because there were three series, he had to make a decision and chose to classify the three as T213.

I do think the Type 1's are in spirit T206's, but as Leon pointed out they have been catalogued as T213's since the beginning and we can't arbitrarily change the ACC. However, if we could somehow take a time machine back and converse with Burdick, he would surely say that his work isn't gospel and is subject to corrections and reappraisal.

If somebody wanted to take the entire ACC and reevaluate the classifications, I think that would make for an amazing project. I have to think collectively the current hobby knows everything that Burdick knew, plus a lot more.

[Leon]

Only around 10% - 12% of what Burdick did was sportscards. I don't think he thought this out as much as you think he did. My guess, from some studying, is that he saw the backs and made them T213s because seeing the 3 Coupon backs were unlike any other back brands of 206, in that there aren't other white bordered cards (I could be wrong but don't think so) with a 206 back brand that has another catalog number too.
So this is what is being suggested? There would be T206 Coupon and T213 Coupons? I can't think of another T206 brand like that.

And Burdick absolutely KNEW AND WANTED the ACC to be a work in progress. I am not against redoing some things but not sure this is one I would be in favor of (not that that matters). IT is a good little debate.


I say yes the Coupon Type 1's are part of the T206 set. The Type 2&3's are part of a completely different company. I have explained below how I came up with this "crazy" notion.

The ATC owned the rights to the Type 1 Coupons and were printed as part of the T206 set in mid 1910 approximately. The cards were made by the ATC as part of their advertising campaign in cigarettes, and they were printed with all the same inks and designs. Nothing we have can disprove this theory. The thin paper argument can be explained in part to moisture. The thinner paper stocks that were made in the southern areas was likely due to the decrease in mold or mildew issues due to high humidity. Many southern advertisements have been found with the thinner paper stocks from that time frame. Thinner paper stock holds way less moisture and therefore will not be destroyed a fast as heavier card stock that has the ability to absorb and hold moisture from the air.

The ATC was divide into several sections when it was split up on May 29, 1911 ; Liggett & Myers(LM) being the main focus of my post. LM was given control of the W. R. Irby, New Orleans factory #3. This factory more than likely was forced to change the designs of the subjects that they once printed under the ATC banner due to Copyrights. The change in design had to be significant enough to not violate those laws and thus we have the major changes such as paper stock, inks, colors, back designs, cropping, players, ect. I also believe the glossy coating was to help offset the moisture absorption of the cards. Seal the front side and it reduces the amount of surface that can breath and thus make the card more moisture resistant. This also can help explain the cracking of the coating from the card stock expanding and contracting over the many years from different moisture environments.

We all need to stop and take a step back to look at what we have compared to what Burdick was trying to piece together. The internet and research of thousands of guys creates a much more detailed map. Best guess is that Burdick decided to combine them all into one group most likely due to some backlash he would have feared to receive from the LM company. Back then the company name would have been much more respected than now over 100 years later. LM was an instant powerhouse right out of the gate and any man no matter the riches or stature would have been fearful of disrespecting them back then in any way, especially in a published book for the public to use. The laws were much different then especially knowing that LM's history would later reveal some shady dealings throughout their inception from the ATC dissolution. I am sure you can imagine judges and lawmaker taking kickbacks to obtain bias towards them. I mean that never happens now or anything:rolleyes: You also wouldn't call a Dodge Hemi Cuda a Chrysler even though its owned by them. We respect the original company manufacture and it would be sacrilege to call it a Chrysler ___ ___.

The same should be done with the card sets. We should recognize them for what they are. ATC owned the Coupon T206's and LM had the Coupon's for 1914 and on under a different company and new branding campaign.

My research with fellow members has led us down several paths but realistically the simplest explanation seems to be the best:

"W. R. Irby, New Orleans factory #3 was owned by two different companies at two separate times. Due to this, cards produced before the ATC dissolution, mid 1910, were produced for distribution in the T206 advertising campaign. The cards produced between 1914-1919 were part of another brand and thus would be forced to change designs significantly enough as to not violate copyright laws of the time".

[toppcat]

Would not the quotation marks also be a departure from T206? Coupon type 1's and Cobb/Cobbs both have 'em.

[tedzan]

Would not the quotation marks also be a departure from T206? Coupon type 1's and Cobb/Cobbs both have 'em.

Hi Dave

Regarding the "Quotation Marks"....my understanding is that advertising new Tobacco brands which are in the process of getting a Registered Trademark require the Quotes.
Here are three examples of this......


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/bcobbtycobb.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/acobbtycobb.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/apiratecigpack.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/bpiratecigpack.jpg

and,

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910couponhuggins.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910couponhugginsb.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[frankbmd]

As I've said before, if the Coupons were issued only in a single series, it would have been an easy decision for Burdick to group them with T206. But because there were three series, he had to make a decision and chose to classify the three as T213.

I do think the Type 1's are in spirit T206's, but as Leon pointed out they have been catalogued as T213's since the beginning and we can't arbitrarily change the ACC. However, if we could somehow take a time machine back and converse with Burdick, he would surely say that his work isn't gospel and is subject to corrections and reappraisal.

If somebody wanted to take the entire ACC and reevaluate the classifications, I think that would make for an amazing project. I have to think collectively the current hobby knows everything that Burdick knew, plus a lot more.

My father worked at Crouse-Hinds Electric Co. in Syracuse, NY when Burdick was also working there. To the best of my knowledge they never had this discussion.

[tedzan]

Here are some of my 1910 COUPON cards that have been graded, and others that should be graded. The Grading Co.'s are very tough
on these cards. Especially, my Chance which I figured would get a PSA 3 (or perhaps even a 4).


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910CouponChance.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910CouponChanceBx.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910CouponMcIntyre.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910CouponMcIntyreb.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910couponsummers.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910couponhuggins.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910couponhugginsb.jpg




So, anyone here would like to venture a guess as to what grade this Willett will get ?

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910CouponWillett50x.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910COUPONWillett38b.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1910couponrossmanbreiten.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1910couponrossmanbreitenb.jpg




Hey guys
How's about joining in on this show....so show your 1910 COUPON cards. Condition is immaterial. Although, I'd like to see one with a Vg-Ex grade (or better).


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[DeanH3]

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=1127&pictureid=10120http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=1128&pictureid=16129

[Rhotchkiss]

Wow, great Chance and great Matty!

[sb1]

The nicest one I have owned and the only one I have left for a type.

[tedzan]

Hi Scott

Thanks for posting your 1910 COUPON Becker. So far, it is the highest graded T213-1 card posted in this thread.

And if I recall correctly....you are one of the guys who think these COUPON cards should belong in the T206 set.


Here's the highest graded 1910 COUPON in my collection.....

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910couponmattybk.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910couponmatty75x.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[ullmandds]

I sold a vg-ex type 1 coupon to a board member a few years ago...a SL'er if I remember correctly. I have an engle which I believe is a 3...there seem to be a lot of engles in type 1 coupons out there?

[Leon]

I found some new evidence this morning (after 77 yrs) that does in fact show Burdick thought all of these were issued later but at the time he had only seen the blue captioned ones, meaning type 2 and type 3. He noted that they were similar to 521 (now T206) but issued in 1914-1915. The first reference I have to type 1s is 4 yrs later in 1946 but he still thought they were all issued in 1914-1915. Maybe if he knew the type 1s were earlier he would have put them with 206s, but I can't think of a T206 back that has another white border like that? T206 Coupons and T213 Coupons? I dunno....
Another tidbit is it looks like Burdick made T213, T214 and T215 their own sets partially because they all came with blue captions (I know 213-1 didn't) and T206 has brown ones. But once he found the brown captioned ones, and they said Coupon on back, that is where he put them.

[tedzan]

I found some new evidence this morning (after 77 yrs) that does in fact show Burdick thought all of these were issued later but at the time he had only seen the blue captioned ones, meaning type 2 and type 3. He noted that they were similar to 521 (now T206) but issued in 1914-1915. The first reference I have to type 1s is 4 yrs later in 1946 but he still thought they were all issued in 1914-1915. Maybe if he knew the type 1s were earlier he would have put them with 206s, but I can't think of a T206 back that has another white border like that? T206 Coupons and T213 Coupons? I dunno....


Leon

Can you expand on this ....."but I can't think of a T206 back that has another white border like that? "…..statement of yours ?

Because to me it is clearly evident that the 1910 COUPON backs, having the same stylistic design as the T206 AMERICAN BEAUTY (frame)--BROAD LEAF-- CYCLE--DRUM cards,
tell us that these COUPON cards were printed and issued concurrently with the T206 AB-BL-CY-DR cards.
Here is my example of this...……...

A - B - C - C - D connection (printed circa Spring/Summer 1910)
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/T206ChaseQuintuplcate75x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/ChaseABxBLxCOxCYx25.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/T206DRUMx50bx.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Leon]

I will try to clarify the question-

What OTHER t206 tobacco brand has another white bordered baseball T card the same size as T206s? Because that is what would have to be done to do what you suggest.

And also, I guess as devil's advocate, even IF these T213-1s were printed with the other T206s who says they have to be labeled as such?

Leon

Can you expand on this ....."but I can't think of a T206 back that has another white border like that? "…..statement of yours ?

Because to me it is clearly evident that the 1910 COUPON backs, having the same stylistic design as the T206 AMERICAN BEAUTY (frame)--BROAD LEAF-- CYCLE--DRUM cards,
tell us that these COUPON cards were printed and issued concurrently with the T206 AB-BL-CY-DR cards.
Here is my example of this...……...

A - B - C - C - D connection (printed circa Spring/Summer 1910)
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/T206ChaseQuintuplcate75x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/ChaseABxBLxCOxCYx25.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/T206DRUMx50bx.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

I feel like they belong in a T206 collection. The thin paper is obviously a big difference, but so is the width of American Beautys. One thing that gives me pause is the limited checklist. There aren't any other T206 backs that were printed with 350 only series fronts but left so many poses off the checklist. The combination of Southern Leaguers, Super Prints and 350 Only poses is interesting given that the overall checklist only consists of 68 players.

Since threads are more fun with scans, here is my Engle-Willett ghost:

Cool Engle/Willett ghost Luke. I don't recall seeing any other Coupon ghosts.

[tedzan]

I will try to clarify the question-

What OTHER t206 tobacco brand has another white bordered baseball T card the same size as T206s? Because that is what would have to be done to do what you suggest.

And also, I guess as devil's advocate, even IF these T213-1s were printed with the other T206s who says they have to be labeled as such?


Leon


My understanding of Jefferson Burdick's established formula for T206's is that which comprises of white-bordered, brown captioned, cards with ATC advertisements
that were printed and issued within the timeline 1909 to early 1911 ?


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Leon]

Ok, so my understanding comes from the 1942 ACC Supplement and the 1946 ACC, where might yours come from?

Leon
My understanding of Jefferson Burdick's established formula for T206's is that which comprises of white-bordered, brown captioned, cards with ATC advertisements
that were printed and issued within the timeline 1909 to early 1911 ?

TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Exhibitman]

there aren't other white bordered cards (I could be wrong but don't think so) with a 206 back brand that has another catalog number too.

Perhaps not but there are different ATC issued T sets from the era that share brands:

--Cycle (T205, T206, T207)
--Mecca (T201, T218, T220)
--Hassan (T202, T205, T218)
--Honest Long Cut (T205,T219, T227)
--Polar Bear (T205, T206)
--Sweet Caporal (T205, T206)
--Tolstoi (T206, T218)

Why not group by brands and then classify each as a separate subcategory? Because Burdick didn't. That's all. He made a decision based on the data he had. Andrew's explanation seems to be very well thought out and credible. The effect of the ATC breakup on card production is the best explanation for why the -2 and -3 types are so different from T206.

[Leon]

I realized that Adam and that is why I phrased what I said the way I did.
I agree, Andrew's research concerning the ATC breakup is possibly the answer why the Coupons were made the way they were. But as I said, and no one contradicts based on what I have read so far, is that no other T206 brand would have another white bordered, baseball series except Coupon? I am not saying there can't be an exception but that is what it would be to me. It wouldn't be like any other listed t206 series.

There is a 100% chance we could do better writing the ACC today with all of the info gleaned in the last 59 years (the date of the last ACC).
If we are going to reclassify stuff there is a ton more to do based on what we now know. Someone should go for it. I nominate you, Adam :)>
I re-learned something new doing this research too, there are no W-unc cards as Burdick actually gave all that weren't classified a W500 number :).

Perhaps not but there are different ATC issued T sets from the era that share brands:

--Cycle (T205, T206, T207)
--Mecca (T201, T218, T220)
--Hassan (T202, T205, T218)
--Honest Long Cut (T205,T219, T227)
--Polar Bear (T205, T206)
--Sweet Caporal (T205, T206)
--Tolstoi (T206, T218)

Why not group by brands and then classify each as a separate subcategory? Because Burdick didn't. That's all. He made a decision based on the data he had. Andrew's explanation seems to be very well thought out and credible. The effect of the ATC breakup on card production is the best explanation for why the -2 and -3 types are so different from T206.

[tedzan]

Perhaps not but there are different ATC issued T sets from the era that share brands:

--Cycle (T205, T206, T207)
--Mecca (T201, T218, T220)
--Hassan (T202, T205, T218)
--Honest Long Cut (T205,T219, T227)
--Polar Bear (T205, T206)
--Sweet Caporal (T205, T206)
--Tolstoi (T206, T218)

Why not group by brands and then classify each as a separate subcategory? Because Burdick didn't. That's all. He made a decision based on the data he had. Andrew's explanation seems to be very well thought out and credible. The effect of the ATC breakup on card production is the best explanation for why the -2 and -3 types are so different from T206.

Adam

You have stated some very excellent points here......Thanks.

If you don't mind, I will expand on your sharing of T-brands:

AMERICAN BEAUTY (T205, T206)
BROAD LEAF (T205, T206, T207)
DRUM (T205, T206)
LENOX (T206, T80*)
OLD MILL (T206, T80*)
RED CROSS (T207, T215)
SOVEREIGN (T205, T206)
TOLSTOI (T206, T80*)
UZIT (T206, T80*)

* Military Series


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[tedzan]

Ok, so my understanding comes from the 1942 ACC Supplement and the 1946 ACC, where might yours come from?

Leon

In the 1970's - 1980's, my understanding of the T206 set was first developed by talking BB cards with these hobby greats...…

Bill Heitman
Irv Lerner
Frank Nagy

It's a shame Jefferson Burdick didn't live to be 90, we would have been very fortunate to discuss all this hobby stuff with him.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[MichelaiTorres83]

I do not know who those people are but that sounds like heresay.

I do not have an opinion either way but I can see the argument.

To that point:

Couldn’t a wolf be considered a breed of dog or all dogs are wolves. What determines a wolf is not a dog?

A few characteristics and someone at some point in time someone some where decided there is enough of a difference that they should be considered two sepeate things followed by a bunch of people accepting that.

Will you find people that think a wolf is a dog? Yep.

[t206fix]

The coupon back does not include "350 Subjects" like the others (AB, cycle, drum, BL). Why?

[asphaltman]

The coupon back does not include "350 Subjects" like the others (AB, cycle, drum, BL). Why?

Off the top of my head Hindu, Old Mill, and EPDG do not state 150 subjects, 350 subjects, etc either. Edited to add, after looking Polar Bear, Carolina Brights and Tolstoi do not state subjects on the back either.

[AddieJoss]

These are my only T206 Coupon backs that I have.

[Sean]

This is my only Coupon Type-1, and it's another Engel. Why so many of this particular player?

It's not graded, and I don't plan to get it graded because I like to be able to demonstrate how different it is from other T206 cards.

It has back damage in the same place as most of the other Coupons, though it isn't quite as bad.


339008

339009

[ullmandds]

Maybe it's just because there are a lot of Yankee/Highlander collectors...and it's a cool pose...is why we see all the engles????

[DeanH3]

Also of the t216's...one of the three is printed on thin paper...yet it's still a T216 Kotton?

Very good point Peter.

[Exhibitman]

That's kind of my point: the ACC designation T206 reflects a series of decisions based on information available at the time to a group of collectors like us. There is nothing inherently right or wrong with the decision to canonize certain cards as T206 and make others different. The type 1 Coupons seem indistinguishable from T206 from a design standpoint, other than the paper, but we have the Kotton cards as the 'rule' governing paper differences. As for the other white series T213s, well, as has been pointed out already they had the artwork and basically redid the captions and finishes to issue the cards. What company hasn't re-used artwork whenever it could get away with it? T202 was a repurposing of T205 cards with white borders. And how much artwork is shared across T sets?

Don't forget, Camel started its advertising in the teens by deriding companies that spent money on premiums instead of the product itself. In that atmosphere a cut rate re-issue of T206 might have made sense: type 2. Then you have the Federal League and a chance to re-do some captions and issue type 3.

[Leon]

T214 and T215 have similar designs and T215 has a brown captioned one too. I guess we make those T206 also?

That's kind of my point: the ACC designation T206 reflects a series of decisions based on information available at the time to a group of collectors like us. There is nothing inherently right or wrong with the decision to canonize certain cards as T206 and make others different. The type 1 Coupons seem indistinguishable from T206 from a design standpoint, other than the paper, but we have the Kotton cards as the 'rule' governing paper differences. As for the other white series T213s, well, as has been pointed out already they had the artwork and basically redid the captions and finishes to issue the cards. What company hasn't re-used artwork whenever it could get away with it? T202 was a repurposing of T205 cards with white borders. And how much artwork is shared across T sets?

Don't forget, Camel started its advertising in the teens by deriding companies that spent money on premiums instead of the product itself. In that atmosphere a cut rate re-issue of T206 might have made sense: type 2. Then you have the Federal League and a chance to re-do some captions and issue type 3.

[Exhibitman]

I think T214 was issued a few years after the end of the T206 run, so no.

T215 type 1 might be considered, since the time frame seems right, but I don't know enough about the issue to do more than guess at it. Red Cross was in T207 and T219, so who the heck knows.

[Sean]

T214 and T215 have similar designs and T215 has a brown captioned one too. I guess we make those T206 also?

And while we're at it, what should we do with T215 Pirates? Same artwork, brown captions, and perhaps some of them were printed in the same time frame.

[ullmandds]

Add em!

[Leon]

Add em!

troublemaker

[Sean]

Delete, unnecessary.

[Exhibitman]

I'll see your Pirate Merkle and raise you this one.

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/notanexhibitcard/websize/Nu-Card%20Boner.jpg

Wait, that doesn't sound right...

[Pat R]

The thing that stands out the most to me is the odd group of subjects used, I think Luke mentioned it earlier. The mix of forty two 350 only subjects
with Twenty Southern Leaguers and the six super prints doesn't fit in with any of the other T206 backs. To me it seems like something that was done after
the plates were used for the T206's. Where does the 1910 date for the T213-1's come from?

[insidethewrapper]

Sounds like a separate regional issue.

[ullmandds]

The thing that stands out the most to me is the odd group of subjects used, I think Luke mentioned it earlier. The mix of forty two 350 only subjects
with Twenty Southern Leaguers and the six super prints doesn't fit in with any of the other T206 backs. To me it seems like something that was done after
the plates were used for the T206's. Where does the 1910 date for the T213-1's come from?

This might be the bit of information that convinces me to not include them in T206?

[CobbSpikedMe]

I understand both sides of this issue. On Leon's side the Coupons are listed in the ACC as T213 so that's what they are. And T206 is what it is. It's that simple. On the other hand, if the ACC needs to be amended then someone should do it. Until then though, Coupons are going to be T213 because that's what Burdick catalogued them as. If you want to collect them in your T206 set then go ahead. As they say, there's no wrong way to collect right?

[Sean]

The thing that stands out the most to me is the odd group of subjects used, I think Luke mentioned it earlier. The mix of forty two 350 only subjects
with Twenty Southern Leaguers and the six super prints doesn't fit in with any of the other T206 backs. To me it seems like something that was done after
the plates were used for the T206's. Where does the 1910 date for the T213-1's come from?

We had this argument about five years ago (and every year since), but at that time Tim Cathey made this same point. The subjects chosen for Coupons did not follow the pattern of any other T206 backs.

[tedzan]

The thing that stands out the most to me is the odd group of subjects used, I think Luke mentioned it earlier. The mix of forty two 350 only subjects
with Twenty Southern Leaguers and the six super prints doesn't fit in with any of the other T206 backs. To me it seems like something that was done after
the plates were used for the T206's. Where does the 1910 date for the T213-1's come from?

Hey guys, this has all been cleared up before. I covered this situation in previous threads. So, I will reprise it here once again.

First, with all due respect to Luke (or Pat), they are appear to be uninformed as they are misleading with the above statement.

The Six Super Prints were simply 350 Series subjects when the 1910 COUPON cards were produced. It was not until later in the game that American Lithographic (ALC) selected
these six subjects from an earlier print run to be Super-Prints. And, ALC made this selection when they started printing the SOVEREIGN 460 cards (circa Summer/Fall 1910). Proof
of this is evident in the SOVEREIGN sub-set in that the Six Super Prints are found with both SOVEREIGN 350 and SOVEREIGN 460 backs, as I am illustrating here......

Furthermore, regarding the Southern Association (20) subjects, I refer you to post #24 in this thread.

Six Super Prints with SOVEREIGN 460 backs printed circa Summer/Fall 1910
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1911SovereignCobbSGCx50.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1911SovereignCobbSGCx50b.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/CobbSovereign350x25.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/CobbSovereign350x25b.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/asov460chancematty25x.jpg............http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/everssov460.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/bsov460chancematty25xy.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/beverssov460.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/absov3x4bluechasedk.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/babsov3x4bluechasedkcap_1.jpg


1910 COUPON printed circa Spring/Summer 1910

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910couponcobb50x.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910COUPONredCobb75xb.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910CouponChance.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910CouponChanceBx.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910couponmattyeverschase.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910couponmattyeverschase25xb.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910COUPONchasedkcap38x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910COUPONdkcapChase50b.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

Hey guys, this has all been cleared up before. I covered this situation in previous threads. So, I will reprise it here once again.

First, with all due respect to Luke (or Pat), they are appear to be uninformed as they are misleading with the above statement.

The Six Super Prints were simply 350 Series subjects when the 1910 COUPON cards were produced. It was not until later in the game that American Lithographic (ALC) selected
these six subjects from an earlier print run to be Super-Prints. And, ALC made this selection when they started printing the SOVEREIGN 460 cards (circa Summer/Fall 1910). Proof
of this is evident in the SOVEREIGN sub-set in that the Six Super Prints are found with both SOVEREIGN 350 and SOVEREIGN 460 backs, as I am illustrating here......

Furthermore, regarding the Southern Association (20) subjects, I refer you to post #24 in this thread.

Six Super Prints with SOVEREIGN 460 backs printed circa Summer/Fall 1910
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1911SovereignCobbSGCx50.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1911SovereignCobbSGCx50b.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/CobbSovereign350x25.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/CobbSovereign350x25b.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/asov460chancematty25x.jpg............http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/everssov460.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/bsov460chancematty25xy.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/beverssov460.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/absov3x4bluechasedk.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/babsov3x4bluechasedkcap_1.jpg


1910 COUPON printed circa Spring/Summer 1910

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910couponcobb50x.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910COUPONredCobb75xb.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910CouponChance.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910CouponChanceBx.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910couponmattyeverschase.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910couponmattyeverschase25xb.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910COUPONchasedkcap38x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910COUPONdkcapChase50b.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

All of the 350 only subjects are printed with a Forrest Green back and the
super prints are printed with an Apple Green back.

[RCMcKenzie]

Here are 4 Art Fletchers from this series in varying degrees of condition. The best example is an SGC 30 which is high grade for these. SGC 40 is the highest grade I have of any player, although I have some raw nice ones that could get 40 or 50.

[tedzan]

All of the 350 only subjects are printed with a Forrest Green back and the
super prints are printed with an Apple Green back.


No kidding.....Pat

I think my SOVEREIGN 350 and SOVEREIGN 460 scans of the six super prints in post #68 clearly show the apple green vs. darker green backs, respectively.

Here is an excerpt from my thread of which I identified all 66 subjects that were printed with the "apple green" SOVEREIGN 350 backs. Back in 2007, Art Martineau first noted
that certain SOVEREIGN 350 cards had a lighter shade of GREEN backs than other SOVEREIGN 350 cards. Initially, this phenomena was mystifying to all of us. By Nov 2007, I
had completed my all-SOVEREIGN set, and this enabled me to identify the 66 cards with the apple green backs..

Illustrated here are the 66 subjects that American Lithographic selected for the 350/460 series. American Litho printed
the backs of these 66 cards using an apple green colored ink (instead of the deep green seen on the backs of all the other SOVEREIGN cards).
For more info on this topic, check-out this thread posted in 2009....Sovereign phantom "350/460" series (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=116576)
Here is my concept of a 72-card sheet arrangement of these 66 subjects (Super-Prints are double-printed **) http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/MattySovereign350x25bx.jpg



v.................................... Six super-prints ....................................v
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/AT206superprints9x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/AmeBakBenCobConDav9x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/AT206superprints9x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/BurDonDooJDoyLDoyElb9x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/BerBraBroCraDouDow9x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/GrifJennJenJosLajLak9x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/ManJohnMagMcQMurpNich9x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/KleJorKonLeaMcInMul9x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/LeifOLeOvePelPfeReul9x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/RhoSmitRucSeySnoSta9x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/WagWilSweStrCYoSte9x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/WilhTinWillWilWillWhi9x.jpg





** Note
I show the super-prints Double-Printed (D-P) on this sheet, since several large T206 surveys have indicated that the 6 super-prints were D-P.


TED Z
.

TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[tedzan]

Here are 4 Art Fletchers from this series in varying degrees of condition. The best example is an SGC 30 which is high grade for these. SGC 40 is the highest grade I have of any player, although I have some raw nice ones that could get 40 or 50.

Hi Rob

The Grading Co.'s can be "brutal" grading these 1910 COUPON cards....and, especially PSA.
SGC 40 is the highest grade that I, also, have seen of any of these cards.

I thought I'd get a nice grade on this Chance. It doesn't have any creases (or subtle problems). When I complained to PSA, they remarked: "that's your opinion, we see it differently".

My mistake for submitting it to PSA.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910CouponChance.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910CouponChanceBx.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Luke]

It's a good point about the "Super Prints" not necessarily being a separate group in 1910. That's certainly possible. Are there any theories as to how the Super Prints were printed? Seems possible/likely to me that those 6 poses were on their own sheet. That would make it easy for them to be printed with the large number of backs they appear with.

[Luke]

Nice Evers Ryan!

That Willett is a beauty Ted. I am guessing it would grade a 2.5 or 3.

[RCMcKenzie]

Ted, that's awesome. I did not realize that you had found another T213-1 Chance and an upgrade to boot. Way to go. That card is near mint for this series. Here's an SGC 40 Rube Marquard...

[Luke]

That Marquard is super nice. Also, you have 4 Fletchers? That's insane!

[RCMcKenzie]

Thanks, Luke. It's a long story. I bought up a bunch of these in the 90's. I only need a T213-1 Bob Rhoades to complete the set.

[Luke]

That's incredible, congrats!

[tedzan]

Ted, that's awesome. I did not realize that you had found another T213-1 Chance and an upgrade to boot. Way to go. That card is near mint for this series. Here's an SGC 40 Rube Marquard...


Rob

After you and I did a deal for my original Chance some years ago, I came across this Chance and I could not pass it up, although the price for it was "steep".
I was very disappointed with the PSA's grade on it. Eventually, I'll crack it out and submit it to SGC.

Gee, you've been hunting for that Rhoades for many years now. It's scarcity appears to be like his T3 card (which is absolutely tough to find).

Good luck, and Happy New Year to you.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[tedzan]

It's a good point about the "Super Prints" not necessarily being a separate group in 1910. That's certainly possible. Are there any theories as to how the Super Prints were printed? Seems possible/likely to me that those 6 poses were on their own sheet. That would make it easy for them to be printed with the large number of backs they appear with.

My theory is that this simulated sheet which I constructed* is representative of one of the early 350 Series print runs comprising of 48 subjects (circa early Spring 1910).
And interestingly, this configuration coincides with the 48 - the Major League subjects in the 1910 COUPON set.

Subsequently, ALC selected the 6 subjects that we refer to as the "Super Prints"**. When ALC included these 6 guys in the 350/460 Series, they Double-Printed them on
sheets of T206's. This is evident on numerous surveys of T206 cards.

Early 350 Series configuration (circa early Spring 1910)
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1stQuad350seriesSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/2ndQuad350seriesSheet12xxx.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/3rdQuad350seriesSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/4thQuad350serieSheet12xx.jpg


Note * Placement of cards on this configuration are randomly arranged.

Note ** Scot Reader's excellent research revealed that these 6 subjects were printed in larger quantities, and with more Tobacco brands than any of the other subjects in
the T206 set. In his book titled "Inside T206", Scot identifies these 6 guys as the " Super-Prints ".


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Rhotchkiss]

Ted, do you still have the Chance from which you upgraded? If so, let me know if you ever go to sell/trade it.

[mrvster]

I believe the type 1's should have been included, but just weren't.....which sucks.....now they have just been classified with the 2's and 3's and grouped together unfortunately:(

I'm afraid it probably will always stay that way

[tedzan]

Ted, do you still have the Chance from which you upgraded? If so, let me know if you ever go to sell/trade it.

Ryan

Rob and I traded for my first Chance some years ago.

Have a Happy New Year.

Rob

After you and I did a deal for my original Chance some years ago, I came across this Chance and I could not pass it up, although the price for it was "steep".
I was very disappointed with the PSA's grade on it. Eventually, I'll crack it out and submit it to SGC.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[DixieBaseball]

Ted - Great thread and as time marches on, the consensus is growing that Coupon Type 1's are in fact the same as the other T206 brands from 1909-11. By the way, the grades don't matter on these delicate beauties as the grading companies are all over the board. I have several that are vastly under graded and some that are over graded. I do like them in the holder for protection since their so fragile. I hope you don't mind me tossing some Southern Leaguer's in as this thread is completely void of them minus the Ted Breitenstein! Here is a player from each of the SL Teams...
Happy New Year Everyone!!

[sb1]

Long shot, but does anyone recall a find or original collection where there were type 1 Coupons mixed with the other T206 brands. That would help cement their printing and distribution to the same time frame. I have purchased a couple of sizeable original collections of T206's, one of which was 90% Sovereign(all backs) indicating the smoker collector was a hardcore Sovereign cigarettes devotee.. There were a few other brands mixed in, but not many.

[RedsFan1941]

i bet Ted knows of one he can share with us

[tedzan]

Ted - Great thread and as time marches on, the consensus is growing that Coupon Type 1's are in fact the same as the other T206 brands from 1909-11. By the way, the grades don't matter on these delicate beauties as the grading companies are all over the board. I have several that are vastly under graded and some that are over graded. I do like them in the holder for protection since their so fragile. I hope you don't mind me tossing some Southern Leaguer's in as this thread is completely void of them minus the Ted Breitenstein! Here is a player from each of the SL Teams...
Happy New Year Everyone!!

Jeremy

I think your observation is correct, we may be winning the cause...." the consensus is growing that Coupon Type 1's are in fact the same as the other T206 brands from 1909-11 "

And, do I mind you posting some Southern Association guys here ? You have to be kidding, of course not....bring them all on.

What I do mind is that you got me interested in these 1910 COUPON cards quite a number of years ago :)

And every time I post something on these scarce gems, trying to inform the hobby, I have to dodge a lot of "flak" from some of these guys on this forum.
:) My fighter plane is riddled with bullets :)

Take care good buddy, and a Happy New Year to you and your family. I betcha your sons are looking forward to the BB season.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[ullmandds]

Long shot, but does anyone recall a find or original collection where there were type 1 Coupons mixed with the other T206 brands. That would help cement their printing and distribution to the same time frame. I have purchased a couple of sizeable original collections of T206's, one of which was 90% Sovereign(all backs) indicating the smoker collector was a hardcore Sovereign cigarettes devotee.. There were a few other brands mixed in, but not many.

That's a good point Scott? I'm not super-intuned to t206...but I used to be! I can't recall a "find" of original cards that contained coupons????

[tedzan]

Long shot, but does anyone recall a find or original collection where there were type 1 Coupons mixed with the other T206 brands. That would help cement their printing and distribution to the same time frame. I have purchased a couple of sizeable original collections of T206's, one of which was 90% Sovereign(all backs) indicating the smoker collector was a hardcore Sovereign cigarettes devotee.. There were a few other brands mixed in, but not many.

Hi Scott

Circa 2009 there was the "Louisiana find" of about 100 cards including T213-2 & 3, T214, T215 1 & 2, and T207's with RED CROSS backs (including Lowdermilk with RED CROSS back).
The timeline for this group of cards ranges from 1910 to 1919. And, what to me is most notable in this collection, is it does NOT include a single 1910 COUPON card.

I cannot think of any collection of any size that has included 1910 COUPON cards in my experience collecting vintage cards since 1977.


Scott, regarding your..... " I have purchased a couple of sizeable original collections of T206's, one of which was 90% Sovereign(all backs) ".....was this an original collection, and if so,
where did it originate from in the US ?

TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

An often repeated excuse from the naysayers...."It's the thinner cardboard stock which the 1910 COUPON cards were printed on that disqualifies
them from being considered T206's." This thinking is really ridiculous. My question to you naysayers is this....Then how come you don't DISCARD
the AMERICAN BEAUTY (AB) cards, since their card dimensions are inconsistent with all the other T206's ? ?

Well of course that is as ridiculous as the above comment regarding the 1910 COUPON's. It's all the same difference. Both AB and 1910 COUPON
cards differ from the other T206's due to Cigarette pack factors. American Lithographic trimmed the AB cards in anticipation of ATC's intention of
narrowing down AB cigarette packs (however, this never occurred). And, the 1910 COUPON cards were never meant to be used as cigarette pack
stiffeners. Since this new brand (introduced circa 1909-1910) was packaged as loose cigarettes in 200-count cartons labelled COUPON Cigarettes.
Such a cigarette carton is seen in Jeremy's 2016 thread (post #37)….. http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=218967&highlight=1910+COUPON&page=4

Incidentally, no standard cigarette pack of that era has ever been reported that would have contained 1910 COUPON cards. And, I do not expect
that one will ever surface.Therefore, my theory is that 1910 COUPON cards were either placed inside these 200-count cartons....or were pasted on these cartons. The latter
case would certainly explain the recurring paper loss found on quite a number of these cards' backs.

Here are some examples from my 1910 COUPON collection, which have the typical "glue spot" paper loss on the upper part of the backs (possibly
due to the cards having been pasted on cartons)......







P.S. Jeff Burdick's accomplishments in our hobby (Sportscards & Non-Sportscards) are amazing. And, if he had the benefit of the Internet,
I have no doubt that the 1910 COUPON cards would have been catalogued alongwith the 15 other basic T-brands in the T206 set.



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.


Jon has a picture of a coupon pack on his site.

http://baseballandtobacco.com/t213.htm

[tedzan]

Jon has a picture of a coupon pack on his site.

http://baseballandtobacco.com/t213.htm


Pat

We have gone thru this before....that pack in Jon's pix contained T213-2 or T213-3 cards. It did NOT contain 1910 COUPON cards. Think about it, the T-cards of that
era served the purpose of stiffening the cigarette pack. Two cards, one on each side of the pack were inserted.

There's no way the thin cardboard stock that the 1910 COUPON cards were printed on that could serve as stiffeners.

Incidentally, years ago I discussed with Jon the possibility of a cigarette pack containing 1910 COUPON cards, and if I recall correctly: Jon said that none were found.


Furthermore, a pack designed for 1910 COUPON cards would have had Quotation Marks on the brand name as the backs of these cards are printed with. The quotes
signify a new Tobacco brand which is in the process of getting a Registered Trademark.
Here are examples of this....

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910COUPONWillett38b.jpg............http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/apiratecigpack.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/bpiratecigpack.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/bcobbtycobb.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/acobbtycobb.jpg



Therefore, continue your search for a Coupon pack that is labelled..... "COUPON".

Please contact me when you do find such a pack.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

Pat

We have gone thru this before....that pack in Jon's pix contained T213-2 or T213-3 cards. It did NOT contain 1910 COUPON cards. Think about it, the T-cards of that
era served the purpose of stiffening the cigarette pack. Two cards, one on each side of the pack were inserted.

There's no way the thin cardboard stock that the 1910 COUPON cards were printed on that could serve as stiffeners.

Incidentally, years ago I discussed with Jon the possibility of a cigarette pack containing 1910 COUPON cards, and if I recall correctly: Jon said that none were found.


Furthermore, a pack designed for 1910 COUPON cards would have had Quotation Marks on the brand name as the backs of these cards are printed with. The quotes
signify a new Tobacco brand which is in the process of getting a Registered Trademark.
Here are examples of this....

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910COUPONWillett38b.jpg............http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/apiratecigpack.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/bpiratecigpack.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/bcobbtycobb.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/acobbtycobb.jpg



Therefore, continue your search for a Coupon pack that is labelled..... "COUPON".
Please contact me when you do find such a pack.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

Will do Ted, and you keep up the search for the reprints with impossible
backs and stating your opinions and theory's as facts.

[tedzan]

Hey Pat

Wishing you a very Happy New Year.

Perhaps we can try to enjoy 2019 without any sarcasm on this forum.


TED Z
.

[Pat R]

Fair enough Ted. So back to the discussion the coupon carton you refer to in
Jeremy's post doesn't have the quotation marks either.

339249

and can you answer the question of where the 1910 date for the type 1 comes from.

[tedzan]

Fair enough Ted. So back to the discussion the coupon carton you refer to in
Jeremy's post doesn't have the quotation marks either.

339249

and can you answer the question of where the 1910 date for the type 1 comes from.


Pat
1st.....Here is exactly what I said in the 1st post in this thread...…..

And, the 1910 COUPON cards were never meant to be used as cigarette pack
stiffeners. Since this new brand (introduced circa 1909-1910) was packaged as loose cigarettes in 200-count cartons labelled COUPON Cigarettes.
Such a cigarette carton is seen in Jeremy's 2016 thread (post #37)….. http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=218967&highlight=1910+COUPON&page=4

Incidentally, no standard cigarette pack of that era has ever been reported that would have contained 1910 COUPON cards. And, I do not expect
that one will ever surface.
Therefore, my theory is that 1910 COUPON cards were either placed inside these 200-count cartons....or were pasted on these cartons. The latter
case would certainly explain the recurring paper loss found on quite a number of these cards' backs.
Here are some examples from my 1910 COUPON collection, which have the typical "glue spot" paper loss on the upper part of the backs (possibly
due to the cards having been pasted on cartons)......

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910couponcobb50x.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910COUPONredCobb75xb.jpg



Pat....do notice that I stated...."Such a cigarette carton"

This particular carton which Jeremy posted in his thread some years ago contained COUPON cigarettes manufactured in 1913 - 1919. And, if cards were enclosed in this type of carton,
they would have been either T213-2 or T213-3.

This we know for sure, since the LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO. logo is printed on it.


The ATC divesture (circa June 1911) resulted in the following manner…………

LIGGETT & MYERS was given about 28 per cent of the cigarette market:

Coupon
Piedmont
Fatima
American Beauty
Home Run
Imperiales
King Bee
Fatima (the only 15 Turkish blend
and the cheap straight domestic brands.

P. LORILLARD received 15 per cent of the nation's business:

Helmar
Egyptian Deities
Turkish Trophies
Murad
Mogul
and all straight Turkish brands

AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. retained 37 per cent of the market:

Sweet Caporal
Hassan
Mecca
Pall Mall, its expensive all-Turkish brand, named for a fashionable London street in the 18th century where "pall-mall" (a precursor to croquet) was played.

R. J. REYNOLDS received no cigarette line but was awarded 20 per cent of the plug trade.



2nd....." and can you answer the question of where the 1910 date for the type 1 comes from."

Approx 10 years ago, Louisiana Newspaper clippings (1909 or 1910) were posted in a Net54 thread introducing the new ATC tobacco brand, COUPON.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

Pat
1st.....Here is exactly what I said in the 1st post in this thread...…..



Pat....do notice that I stated...."Such a cigarette carton"

This particular carton which Jeremy posted in his thread some years ago contained COUPON cigarettes manufactured in 1913 - 1919. And, if cards were enclosed in this type of carton,
they would have been either T213-2 or T213-3.


Approx 10 years ago, Louisiana Newspaper clippings (1909 or 1910) were posted in a Net54 thread introducing the new ATC tobacco brand, COUPON.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

How is the pack on Jon's site any different than the carton?

In your thread title you ask "what say you" and when I posted my opinion
you stated that I'm uniformed and that I'm misleading people.

I don't care if people consider them T206's but in my opinion there is more
evidence to support how Burdick catalogued them and not enough to change
it.

Yes they have the same image as T206's but the same group of subjects
are not found on any other backs except piedmont's which were used on
every subject with the exception of Demmitt and O'Hara St. Louis.

The same T206 images were also used for type 2 and 3 and the Chief Meyers
T213-3 card depicting him with New Haven would have been printed in 1919 or
later, eight years after the T206 printing supposedly ended. So they either
made new plates or used the T206 plates after their printing ended.
When I look at the group of subjects in the T213-1's it seems plausible
that's what they did with them.

Do you have a copy of that newspaper clipping and does it mention
anything about baseball pictures?

[tedzan]

How is the pack on Jon's site any different than the carton?


It isn't different. The pack depicted on Jon's site is labelled LIGGETT & MYERS; therefore, it was issued 1913 (or later). If it had BB cards in it they would be T213-2 or T213-3, ONLY.
OR, it may have Movie stars in it from that era. For example...…

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/COUPONGeorgeBeban25b.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/COUPONGeorgeBeban25x.jpg


I don't care if people consider them T206's but in my opinion there is more
evidence to support how Burdick catalogued them and not enough to change
it.


Your statement here tells us that you don't realize Jefferson Burdick incorrectly classified all three T213 sets as 1914-1915 issues. This timeline is a proven fallacy, on both ends of it.

"T213-1"......1910

T213-2...…….1914-1916

T213-3...…….1916-1919


Do you have a copy of that newspaper clipping and does it mention anything about baseball pictures?

The newspaper clipping was from the New Orleans Times Picayune. The date is circa late 1908, or early 1909. I cannot seem to find it (I read it at least 10 years ago).
You find it, you are good at searching for things.


Frankly, I am tired of playing this game. You do not want to accept my research, fine.....that's your prerogative. It appears to me that many guys responding in this thread
have more of an open mind.


TED Z
.

[Pat R]

I have been searching past threads. I did find one from 2009 where Jamie Hull
questioned the 1910 date but no one mentioned a Coupon newspaper clipping.

[Pat R]

It isn't different. The pack depicted on Jon's site is labelled LIGGETT & MYERS; therefore, it was issued 1913 (or later). If it had BB cards in it they would be T213-2 or T213-3, ONLY.
OR, it may have Movie stars in it from that era. For example...…

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/COUPONGeorgeBeban25b.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/COUPONGeorgeBeban25x.jpg





Your statement here tells us that you don't realize Jefferson Burdick incorrectly classified all three T213 sets as 1914-1915 issues. This timeline is a proven fallacy, on both ends of it.

"T213-1"......1910

T213-2...…….1914-1916

T213-3...…….1916-1919




The newspaper clipping was from the New Orleans Times Picayune. The date is circa late 1908, or early 1909. I cannot seem to find it (I read it at least 10 years ago).
You find it, you are good at searching for things.


Frankly, I am tired of playing this game. You do not want to accept my research, fine.....that's your prerogative. It appears to me that many guys responding in this thread
have more of an open mind.


TED Z
.

Post #59 in this thread has a 1908 newspaper clipping from the New Orleans Times Picayune
that mentions Coupon cigarettes but it doesn't say anything about baseball pictures.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=137059&highlight=Picayune

[CobbSpikedMe]

Interesting how the clipping about the contest also has the "Coupon" in quotes. Pat, nice job finding the thread.

[tedzan]

Post #59 in this thread has a 1908 newspaper clipping from the New Orleans Times Picayune
that mentions Coupon cigarettes but it doesn't say anything about baseball pictures.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=137059&highlight=Picayune


That's the 1908 Times Picayune article which I referred to regarding the "COUPON" Cigarettes brand. I knew you would find it.

Come on Pat, this is silly...."but it doesn't say anything about baseball pictures.".

T206's were not issued until approx. a year later (circa Spring/Summer 1909).

Anyway, thanks for finding this Newspaper article.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

That's my point Ted I asked where the 1910 dating of the T213-1's came from and
you said a newspaper clipping if that's not the case then where did that information
come from?

[Leon]

Maybe, Like many other things, it came from conjecture not fact. When I started quoting Burdick all I got in response was some old hobbyists said "this and that." I say if we are going to have a good debate we should base it on facts not what someone might have said a long time ago.

That's my point Ted I asked where the 1910 dating of the T213-1's came from and
you said a newspaper clipping if that's not the case then where did that information
come from?

[AGuinness]

I have no horse in this race, but it does make me wonder: how would T213-1s being reclassified as T206s change how you collect, if it happened?

For me, it wouldn't change my T206 goal (Red Sox team set with all different backs), as none of the Sox players appeared in the T213-1s, but rather later Coupons.

[tedzan]

Maybe, Like many other things, it came from conjecture not fact. When I started quoting Burdick all I got in response was some old hobbyists said "this and that."
I say if we are going to have a good debate we should base it on facts not what someone might have said a long time ago.

Leon

Does your last comment also apply to Jefferson Burdick ?

As, I am sure you know, when he became aware (circa 1940's) that there were several white-bordered sets of tobacco cards issued in the Louisiana area (T213, T214, T215),
he originally considered the "T213-1" set as an extension of the T206 set.

I could give you a lengthy dissertation on all the factors with these Major League (48) subjects and their relevance to the other T206 brands, that results in a narrow timeline.
And, this research convinces me that the 1910 COUPON cards were indeed printed (and issued) in 1910.

And to a less complicated degree, the Southern Association (20) subjects fit into this narrow timeline. However, I will spare you all the nitty-gritty details.


1910 COUPON ("T213-1") Major League (48) subjects

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1stQuad350seriesSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/2ndQuad350seriesSheet12xxx.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/3rdQuad350seriesSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/4thQuad350serieSheet12xx.jpg


Southern Association (20) subjects
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/BreitBayBernCarrCran12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/EllmFritGremHartHart12x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/HickJordLenzMolePerd12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/PersReagRockSidSmithThorn12x.jpg



In my opinion....these cards (and the red Ty Cobb card with the TY COBB back) were advertising premiums, rather than insert cards (into tobacco products).

The bottom line is....you say nay and I say yea....to the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards as just another T-brand in the T206 set. And that is fine with me.
For I will just keep on rolling along including 1910 COUPON cards in my T206 runs of my favorite subjects.

Happy New Year to you, Leon.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Leon]

Hey Ted
I will try to do some more research for our next slugfest. Until then I hope this year is better than your last!! Happy collecting.

[Pat R]

Leon

Does your last comment also apply to Jefferson Burdick ?

As, I am sure you know, when he became aware (circa 1940's) that there were several white-bordered sets of tobacco cards issued in the Louisiana area (T213, T214, T215),
he originally considered the "T213-1" set as an extension of the T206 set.

I could give you a lengthy dissertation on all the factors with these Major League (48) subjects and their relevance to the other T206 brands, that results in a narrow timeline.
And, this research convinces me that the 1910 COUPON cards were indeed printed (and issued) in 1910.
And to a less complicated degree, the Southern Association (20) subjects fit into this narrow timeline. However, I will spare you all the nitty-gritty details.


1910 COUPON ("T213-1") Major League (48) subjects

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1stQuad350seriesSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/2ndQuad350seriesSheet12xxx.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/3rdQuad350seriesSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/4thQuad350serieSheet12xx.jpg


Southern Association (20) subjects
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/BreitBayBernCarrCran12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/EllmFritGremHartHart12x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/HickJordLenzMolePerd12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/PersReagRockSidSmithThorn12x.jpg



In my opinion....these cards (and the red Ty Cobb card with the TY COBB back) were advertising premiums, rather than insert cards (into tobacco products).

The bottom line is....you say nay and I say yea....to the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards as just another T-brand in the T206 set. And that is fine with me.
For I will just keep on rolling along including 1910 COUPON cards in my T206 runs of my favorite subjects.

Happy New Year to you, Leon.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

Ted, I think the 1910 timeline is important in this discussion as several people have stated that it's the main the reason they think the T213-1's should be included in the T206 set. I have been searching here and other places and everything I found about the 1910 date is based on the fact that they're all 350 only subjects which isn't true and I will explain this and provide evidence tomorrow because it will require a lengthy post.

In the meantime I have a question for you.

There isn't a single minor league player in the T213-1 set does any other back with 350 only subjects exclude all of the minor league players?

Also you say the super prints were supposed to be 350 only but ALC
changed their mind on them which I disagree with but either way
the fact is they're not a 350 only subject.

[tedzan]

Ted, I think the 1910 timeline is important in this discussion as several people have stated that it's the main the reason they think the T213-1's should be included in the T206 set.

I have been searching here and other places and everything I found about the 1910 date is based on the fact that they're all 350 only subjects which isn't true

and I will explain this and provide evidence tomorrow because it will require a lengthy post.

In the meantime I have a question for you.

There isn't a single minor league player in the T213-1 set does any other back with 350 only subjects exclude all of the minor league players?

Also you say the super prints were supposed to be 350 only but ALC
changed their mind on them which I disagree with but either way
the fact is they're not a 350 only subject.



Pat

1st..the 48 card arrangement of the Major Leaguers in the "T213-1" set were printed during an American Litho's early press run of the 350-only series T206's.
The timeline of this printing is in the Spring of 1910. This timeline is reinforced by the fact that 40 of these subjects were NOT printed with POLAR BEAR backs.
The initial POLAR BEAR press runs started in the Summer of 1910. American Litho printed 138 subjects of the 350-only series with the POLAR BEAR backs.

2nd..In the 150 series press runs, American Lithographic printed 34 different Southern Leaguers (SL)….16 of which represent the Southern Association. Then in
the 350 series press runs, ALC expanded the SL sub-set to 48 subjects....20 of which represent the Southern Association. The 4 additional Southern Association
subjects are Bill Hart, "Hub" Hart, Lentz and Rockenfeld. This fact is important, as it clearly sets a Spring 1910 timeline for the print run of the "T213-1" cards.

3rd..42 of the 48 subjects are absolutely 350-only series subjects. This fact is certain since these cards were subsequently printed with AB350 (frame)..BL350..
CY 350..DRUM 350 backs (circa Summer 1910). And, you have to realize that the 6 super-prints were originally printed in this early 350-only series press run
together with these other 42 subjects.
The 6 super-prints, of course, were also printed with the A-B-C-D pattern. It wasn't until the SOVEREIGN 350 "apple green" print run (circa Fall 1910) that the
6 super-prints were then extended into the 350/460 series.

It appears to me that your dogmatic mind-set is preventing you from understanding this sequence of events.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

Honestly Ted what do you expect when you start off a thread calling people
naysayers and uniformed and accuse them of misleading just because their
opinion is different from yours. I am amazed at how you dodge questions
like a mongoose dodging a cobra and spin your answers though.

I was responding to your unedited post before you "corrected your typo"
so I'll continue using your original post.

339474

1st - This is different than your original reason but anyway there
are 67 Polar Bear no prints and all of them are 350 only subjects. Of
those 67 subjects 51 are major league subjects and only 16 are minor
league subjects which relates to my second response/question to you.
So the amount of PB no prints in the Coupons isn't surprising the main fact
is some of them were printed with PB backs.

2nd I stated minor leaguers not southern leaguers and the
question was are there any other backs that were printed with the
350 only subjects in the T206 set that has no minor league subjects
in it?

3rd I agree that 42 of the 48 subjects are 350 only subjects and
I never said they weren't you originally said all 68 were 350 only subjects
and they're not. 350 only means those subjects were only printed on 350
series backs 34 of the southern leaguers were printed with Hindu backs
in the 150 series and the super prints were printed with 350-460 and
460 backs.

[Exhibitman]

Are anyone else's eyes starting to glaze over? This is like reading tax code.

[tedzan]

Are anyone else's eyes starting to glaze over? This is like reading tax code.

Adam

I appreciate your comment.....I did not intend to delve into all this "nitty-gritty regarding T206 / 1910 COUPON stuff.

Sometimes I feel like I am in a courtroom scenario on this forum responding to this continuous "grilling" :)

I've posted my theories on Net54 regarding T206's (and the like) since 2005. Most of them have withstood the test of time.

Many people like them, and then, some others don't.....Que sera, sera

Happy New Year, guy.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Sean]

Are anyone else's eyes starting to glaze over? This is like reading tax code.

It is starting to sound like a cable news show where the liberal and conservative repeat talking points at one another. :D

[Pat R]

Ted, I am at fault here for getting baited in by your underhanded comments.
You used to do the same thing to Tim Cathey but he was always respectful
and classy with his responses I wish I could handle it the same way but
admittedly I can't.

Tim was an asset to this forum and it's a shame he is no longer active here.

For anyone that is new to the forum in the past few years and interested in
the T206 set Tim has a great knowledge about the set that he shared in his
posts and I suggest you check some of them out using his profile.

http://www.net54baseball.com/member.php?u=193#stats

[Bill77]

Just a crazy thought I had, but if say Coupon and Red Cross cards been printed with gold borders like T205 cards would the brown captions be easier to place as T206 cards or would their hypothetical gold border cards also be excluded from the T205 set?

And yes I know that no such gold bordered cards exist with coupon and red cross backs. I just think that part of the reason for those two sets being separated in part has to do with the exclusion from the T205 set. I also think that T213, T214, and T215 should have been just simply one set named something like the blue caption set, but that may just be me over simplifying things.

[tedzan]

Ted, I am at fault here for getting baited in by your underhanded comments.
You used to do the same thing to Tim Cathey but he was always respectful
and classy with his responses I wish I could handle it the same way but
admittedly I can't.

Tim was an asset to this forum and it's a shame he is no longer active here.

For anyone that is new to the forum in the past few years and interested in
the T206 set Tim has a great knowledge about the set that he shared in his
posts and I suggest you check some of them out using his profile.

http://www.net54baseball.com/member.php?u=193#stats



Come on Pat, this is quite laughable: "getting baited in by your underhanded comments."

I have never, ever INITIATED negative comments against you. That's not my style. Yes, I may have responded with some remarks, and only because you have numerous times
on this forum called me a liar.

But, so did your two "buddies" Rivera and Cathey.

For years these two guys were very appreciative of my research into the T206 set. They would regularly pick my brain regarding T206's. Hey, I could bring up many Net54 posts
dating back to 2006 as evidence of this. And then, suddenly, in 2012 they turned on me.

I was especially disappointed in Jim Rivera. For many years I sold (or traded) him many, many rare back T206's at the Philly Show. When I got BROAD LEAF's, EPDG's, HINDU's,
LENOX, etc., I'd save them for him.
Jim thought he would give it a try being a dealer at the Philly Show, so I gladly allowed him to share my booth (circa 2009-2010). I would advertise "the Jim & Ted team" set-up
at Booth #408. We had fun "Talkin T206's" for hours at the Show. I met his family and he met my wife. I recall one time when a "walk-in" brought us a bunch of T206's. I started
sorting them out according to the Series they were in. One card in this lot was a PIEDMONT42 Wiltse (cap). I quickly recognized it as one of only 9 subjects known in the 460-only series....Jim was really impressed.
Oh well, Jim unfortunately showed me how "appreciative" he was ! !

So, that's the story Pat. I could tell you much more, but I don't think you want to hear it. Nor do the most of the members of this forum.

Good bye.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

Come on Pat, this is quite laughable: "getting baited in by your underhanded comments."

I have never, ever INITIATED negative comments against you. That's not my style. Yes, I may have responded with some remarks, and only because you have numerous times
on this forum called me a liar.
But, so did your two "buddies" Rivera and Cathey.

For years these two guys were very appreciative of my research into the T206 set. They would regularly pick my brain regarding T206's. Hey, I could bring up many Net54 posts
dating back to 2006 as evidence of this. And then, suddenly, in 2012 they turned on me.

I was especially disappointed in Jim Rivera. For many years I sold (or traded) him many, many rare back T206's at the Philly Show. When I got BROAD LEAF's, EPDG's, HINDU's,
LENOX, etc., I'd save them for him.
Jim thought he would give it a try being a dealer at the Philly Show, so I gladly allowed him to share my booth (circa 2009-2010). I would advertise "the Jim & Ted team" set-up
at Booth #408. We had fun "Talkin T206's" for hours at the Show. I met his family and he met my wife. I recall one time when a "walk-in" brought us a bunch of T206's. I started
sorting them out according to the Series they were in. One card in this lot was a PIEDMONT42 Wiltse (cap). I quickly recognized it as one of only 9 subjects known in the 460-only series....Jim was really impressed.
Oh well, Jim unfortunately showed me how "appreciative" he was ! !

So, that's the story Pat. I could tell you much more, but I don't think you want to hear it. Nor do the most of the members of this forum.

Good bye.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

Ted, I pointed out your initial negative comment. In post #68 you said I was
uninformed and misleading people. The uniformed and misleading information
you referred to was based on your opinion not a fact so your comments were
absolutely negative.


I have been posting on here for 8+ years and we have had many heated
arguments but I have never called you a liar. And to be clear
I'm not calling you a liar now either I'm merely saying you're wrong.

I'm sure there are several people saying here we go again but I think I
have the right to defend myself when you say I called you a liar several
times when it never happened not once.

Now I ask you something you ask me all the time show me proof.

Show me where I made a negative comment towards you prior to post #68
and show me a post of mine where I called you a liar.

I expect silence when you can't come up with proof but I think owe you it
to me to respond when you accuse me of calling you a liar.

[tedzan]

Hey guys,

I could post a number of occasions where Pat R. has responded to a theory (or statement) of mine regarding T206's where he has in effect said I was lying (or misleading).
I'll only post here what I consider Pat's most egregious example questioning of my character and my dedication to inform the hobby of the complexities of the T206 set.

Excerpted from thread dated 12/3/2016..... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=220948&page=7
Ted,

If you're concerned about confusing readers you should clear up this discrepancy involving your group A subjects for those that search the archives.

Your group A subjects are all AB460 no-prints but in this thread about the
AB460 subset you put together you have four of the group A subjects listed
in your set. Ames (hands over head), Baker, Elberfeld (Washington-fielding)
and Snodgrass (Catching).
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?page=2&t=91361


My response…..
Hey Pat

Don't worry guy, most readers of my threads are not confused. My T206 theory's and the empirical knowledge I've gained from putting together various sets (and sub-sets)
these past 37 years. And, my collecting experience that I have very generously shared with members of this forum speaks for itself.
Anyone here is free to check-out the T206 information posted in the "Consolidated access to the 15 - T206 T-brand (front/back) surveys....UPDATED " thread which
Leon has archived......
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=132611&page=6

And, I am surprised at your remarks regarding my AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 information and the near complete run (70/74) of these cards that I have put together. It has all
been documented in this Net54 thread...... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=124927&page=5
Which you are up to date on, since you have posted on this thread in 2016.


However, you choose to go back 8+ years to a thread that I posted, in which I listed 4 mistakes (out of 70 cards). Three of which (Baker, Elberfeld, and Snodgrass) in which
I discovered later that they actually had to be AB 350 cards. Unfortunately, these 3 cards in my collection had back damage and it wasn't easy to tell whether they were 350
or 460 (Factory #25 or Factory #42, respectively). Furthermore, back then Bill Brown's T206 Super-Set Excel list indicated that these 3 subjects (plus Ames) were confirmed
AB 460 cards. And, I have since then proven that these 4 subjects could not be AB 460 cards.


Anyhow, I'll tell you what really "ticks me off" about your remarks. I heard these EXACT words from some one 8 years ago (who doesn't post on Net54 any more). I sense
that this person has put you up to posting his 8-year old remarks (it's typical of his sick style). So, I dare you to deny that this is why you posted these negative remarks ? ?

I didn't think this was your style !

TED Z
.

Pat's response
No Ted nobody put me up to posting this. I have noticed discrepancy's
in several of your posts. I refrained from posting about them but I have had
enough of your condescending remarks like uninformed, ignorant, naïve, ect...

There is no doubt that you have done a lot of research on this set but for
me it is negated by the fact that you can't admit when you make a "mistake".

By the way Snodgrass (catching) wasn't printed with any of the American
Beauty backs so your back damage excuse doesn't cut it with me.

My response


Hey folks....if some one posts critical comments about you today that are identical to what you've heard from some one else 8 years ago, what is the probability
of this occurrence being just coincidental ? The probability is some where between 100,000 - Million to 1.

So....knowing you have a connection to that other party....you are not being truthful.

OK, you want to talk about mistakes....I admitted 8 years ago that I made on some of those T206 front/back cards. We were all still learning about The Monster.

And, what is more important is that my subsequent research resulted in significant information that is presented in this thread to Net54 members who appreciate
all this "nitty-gritty" stuff regarding T206's.

So, let's discuss your mistakes starting with this thread......in posts #45 and #47 you posted images of 460-only series subjects (Howell, Bergen, Overall, Murray)
that DO NOT pertain to the 350/460 series cards that this thread is devoted to. It is a distraction in the subject matter being discussed here.

If you want to talk 460-only series cards, why not simply start another thread.

TED Z
.

Incidentally, the other party in this discussion is Jim Rivera, who is Pat's buddy, and most likely has provided Pat with the above "talking points".

I will conclude this with the following......I do not understand what is Pat's problem concerning me. There have been some instances where he has posted on my threads
with some really meaningful stuff. But then there are times where he has impulsively been negative. And this has caused my thread to get side-tracked (as has occurred
in this thread).


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[t206fix]

What is the definition of a t206? Do we have a consensus? I always took the definition to mean a card issued by the ATC and distributed in/with packs of cigarettes between 1909-1911. Is there another definition out there?

If not, and if Coupons were produced in 1910 by the ATC, then by definition they should be t206s.

I think the inclusion of Byrne, Mowrey and Rossman in the Coupon set indicates they were printed before Ted's ABCD grouping (AB, BL, Cylcle, Drum), since all three are ABCD no prints. This indicates Coupons were produced before the bulk of the 350 series. This excerpt is from Reader's Inside t206 The Bible:

Byrne, Mowrey and Rossman have been confirmed to date with a very limited number of 350 series backs that includes only Piedmont 350, Sovereign 350, Sweet Caporal 350/25, Sweet Caporal 350/30 and, in the case of Byrne and Mowrey, Tolstoi. The apparent unavailability of these subjects with a fuller complement of 350 series backs may be traceable to the depiction of these three players with teams from which they were traded in August 1909, before distribution of the 350-only subject group began.

Also note that Becker(1910), Campbell(1909), Charles (1909), Dubuc (1910), Engle (1910), Huggins (1910), McIntyre (1910), Paskert (1911), LaPorte (1911) and Starr (1909) were all traded to new teams during this time. Eleven more Coupon subjects were out of baseball by the time the t206 production had ended.

I do believe most t206 followers would reasonably conclude that Coupons were produced during the t206 era. ATC made a strong effort to include the right player with the right team. If they produced this set in, say 1914... it'd be all out of whack.

However, a few things Pat posted makes sense to me. The Coupons fit no other 350 pattern. I'm a math guy, and the patterns of the AB.350nf, BL.350, C.350 and D.350 make reasonable sense... The Coupon back does not (*see below, good luck trying to figure it out). Why?

48 random 350 subjects, of which 45 follow the ABCD pattern. Eleven also have a Carolina Brights card (including Billy Campbell, who was out of baseball by 1909). And, I asked this question earlier in this thread, but why doesn't the Coupon back include the "350 subjects"? As Mike, "Inside the West Coast Rapper", put it earlier, "it looks like a regional issue". Somebody may surmise that the ATC, circa 1909, decided to glue a few Coupons on the end of those 100+ cigarette cartons to distribute down south with a couple of Southern Leaguers to entice the locals to buy their new "Coupon" product. Maybe, it wasn't meant to be the full "350 subjects", but just a one off.

Therefore, in conclusion your honor, if Coupons were printed in 1910, by the ATC, they should be a t206 by most definitions.

Pat and Ted are t206 godfathers - their knowledge of the t206s will be passed down from generation to generation. We'll carve their names... ok, going a bit far, but I hate to see the rift between them. I have learned so much from both of them and appreciate their contributions to t206 history.

[DixieBaseball]

Are anyone else's eyes starting to glaze over? This is like reading tax code.

LOL... :D

The 20 Southern Leaguer's are not included in the Type 2 or Type 3 Set. That is one glaring difference in the the Type 1's vs the Type 2 & 3's. Obviously the dates are different and the 20 Type 1 Southern Leaguer's are identical to the T206 players from 1909-11, yet not included in the 1914 & 1919 Coupon sets. If you take for example the 4 SL Nashville players (Bay,Bernhard,Ellam,Perdue) from the T206 set, they match spot on to the Type 1 Coupon set, but when you get into the Type 2 1914 Coupons, Nashville players change over to Al Bridwell & Gabby Street & same for Type 3 Coupons as they feature Al & Gabby. It's like this with other players from SL teams and that makes a distinction between the 20 SL featured in Coupon that were offered in the American Litho / ATC brands later named - T206.

Also, as for the New Orleans Times Picayune, there was a series of Coupon Advertisements in the 1909-10 papers depicting different Sportsmen scenarios, like hunting, horse racing, sporting events, etc. The pack is on the advertisement with T206 style cards showing and players names. One such advertisement (that I own), depicts 3 Southern Leaguer's coming out of the top of the pack. When I have time I will have to dig up the Newspaper as I don't have it scanned and its buried in a dry dark place. The Coupon Ad's were run for a handful of months around the 1909-10 time frame.

[Pat R]

LOL... :D

The 20 Southern Leaguer's are not included in the Type 2 or Type 3 Set. That is one glaring difference in the the Type 1's vs the Type 2 & 3's. Obviously the dates are different and the 20 Type 1 Southern Leaguer's are identical to the T206 players from 1909-11, yet not included in the 1914 & 1919 Coupon sets. If you take for example the 4 SL Nashville players (Bay,Bernhard,Ellam,Perdue) from the T206 set, they match spot on to the Type 1 Coupon set, but when you get into the Type 2 1914 Coupons, Nashville players change over to Al Bridwell & Gabby Street & same for Type 3 Coupons as they feature Al & Gabby. It's like this with other players from SL teams and that makes a distinction between the 20 SL featured in Coupon that were offered in the American Litho / ATC brands later named - T206.

Also, as for the New Orleans Times Picayune, there was a series of Coupon Advertisements in the 1909-10 papers depicting different Sportsmen scenarios, like hunting, horse racing, sporting events, etc. The pack is on the advertisement with T206 style cards showing and players names. One such advertisement (that I own), depicts 3 Southern Leaguer's coming out of the top of the pack. When I have time I will have to dig up the Newspaper as I don't have it scanned and its buried in a dry dark place. The Coupon Ad's were run for a handful of months around the 1909-10 time frame.

This is what I'm waiting to see I asked where the 1910 dating came from
and I was told a newspaper clipping but no one could show a coupon ad
that mentioned the cards and I couldn't find where one was posted. All of the ads that I've seen are Old Mill and Hindu. There are
26 different Old Mill ads that I know of and each of them has one that mentions Texas League players and one that Doesn't.

339603 339604
339605 339606
339607 339608
339609

[Pat R]

The ads came out small here's a larger version of one.

339610

[tedzan]

Tony and Jeremy

I really appreciate your posts. Both of you have amplified on a lot of factors which I have presented here in my earlier posts.

Jeremy....it would be great if you can show us your New Orleans Times Picayune papers with the Coupon Advertisements (1909-1910 )
depicting different Sportsmen scenarios.

Thanks again,


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

Here's a couple of Hindu Ads both picture Southern League players but only
one mentions them.

339611

339612

[Pat R]

Tony and Jeremy

I really appreciate your posts. Both of you have amplified on a lot of factors which I have presented here in my earlier posts.

Jeremy....it would be great if you can show us your New Orleans Times Picayune papers with the Coupon Advertisements (1909-1910 )
depicting different Sportsmen scenarios.
Thanks again,


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.


I agree 100% if such an ad exist I would change my opinion and say they
should be included in the T206 set and they were just another T206 rule
breaker.

[Pat R]

What is the definition of a t206? Do we have a consensus? I always took the definition to mean a card issued by the ATC and distributed in/with packs of cigarettes between 1909-1911. Is there another definition out there?

If not, and if Coupons were produced in 1910 by the ATC, then by definition they should be t206s.

I think the inclusion of Byrne, Mowrey and Rossman in the Coupon set indicates they were printed before Ted's ABCD grouping (AB, BL, Cylcle, Drum), since all three are ABCD no prints. This indicates Coupons were produced before the bulk of the 350 series. This excerpt is from Reader's Inside t206 The Bible:

Byrne, Mowrey and Rossman have been confirmed to date with a very limited number of 350 series backs that includes only Piedmont 350, Sovereign 350, Sweet Caporal 350/25, Sweet Caporal 350/30 and, in the case of Byrne and Mowrey, Tolstoi. The apparent unavailability of these subjects with a fuller complement of 350 series backs may be traceable to the depiction of these three players with teams from which they were traded in August 1909, before distribution of the 350-only subject group began.

Also note that Becker(1910), Campbell(1909), Charles (1909), Dubuc (1910), Engle (1910), Huggins (1910), McIntyre (1910), Paskert (1911), LaPorte (1911) and Starr (1909) were all traded to new teams during this time. Eleven more Coupon subjects were out of baseball by the time the t206 production had ended.

I do believe most t206 followers would reasonably conclude that Coupons were produced during the t206 era. ATC made a strong effort to include the right player with the right team. If they produced this set in, say 1914... it'd be all out of whack.

However, a few things Pat posted makes sense to me. The Coupons fit no other 350 pattern. I'm a math guy, and the patterns of the AB.350nf, BL.350, C.350 and D.350 make reasonable sense... The Coupon back does not (*see below, good luck trying to figure it out). Why?

48 random 350 subjects, of which 45 follow the ABCD pattern. Eleven also have a Carolina Brights card (including Billy Campbell, who was out of baseball by 1909). And, I asked this question earlier in this thread, but why doesn't the Coupon back include the "350 subjects"? As Mike, "Inside the West Coast Rapper", put it earlier, "it looks like a regional issue". Somebody may surmise that the ATC, circa 1909, decided to glue a few Coupons on the end of those 100+ cigarette cartons to distribute down south with a couple of Southern Leaguers to entice the locals to buy their new "Coupon" product. Maybe, it wasn't meant to be the full "350 subjects", but just a one off.

Therefore, in conclusion your honor, if Coupons were printed in 1910, by the ATC, they should be a t206 by most definitions.

Pat and Ted are t206 godfathers - their knowledge of the t206s will be passed down from generation to generation. We'll carve their names... ok, going a bit far, but I hate to see the rift between them. I have learned so much from both of them and appreciate their contributions to t206 history.

Great post Tony. I think it's the most unbiased post in this thread.

It would be interesting to hear Scot's opinion on them.

[Pat R]

Pat

We have gone thru this before....that pack in Jon's pix contained T213-2 or T213-3 cards. It did NOT contain 1910 COUPON cards. Think about it, the T-cards of that
era served the purpose of stiffening the cigarette pack. Two cards, one on each side of the pack were inserted.

There's no way the thin cardboard stock that the 1910 COUPON cards were printed on that could serve as stiffeners.

Incidentally, years ago I discussed with Jon the possibility of a cigarette pack containing 1910 COUPON cards, and if I recall correctly: Jon said that none were found.


Furthermore, a pack designed for 1910 COUPON cards would have had Quotation Marks on the brand name as the backs of these cards are printed with. The quotes
signify a new Tobacco brand which is in the process of getting a Registered Trademark.
Here are examples of this....

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910COUPONWillett38b.jpg............http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/apiratecigpack.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/bpiratecigpack.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/bcobbtycobb.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/acobbtycobb.jpg



Therefore, continue your search for a Coupon pack that is labelled..... "COUPON".

Please contact me when you do find such a pack.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

It's possible the quotes were never put on the packs from circa 1910.
In post #5 of this thread Jon says the pack on his website is from 1910
hopefully if he changed his mind he will chime in.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=113967&highlight=Coupon

It seems like they used quotes on a several tobacco products around that time.
I have this Carolina Bright's coupon that has "Carolina Brights" on the coupon
but on the picture of the pack Carolina Brights doesn't have quotes.

339654 339655

[DixieBaseball]

I agree 100% if such an ad exist I would change my opinion and say they
should be included in the T206 set and they were just another T206 rule
breaker.

Hey Guys - Sorry, been away at Volleyball Tourneys the past serveral days... I still need to read and catch up on this thread, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned... The Federal Leaguers seem to be key to the time difference in the Type 1 and Type 2's, correct !? Burdick seem to get the Type 2 dating correct as that set is loaded with Federal leaguer's (Federal League 1913-15) and a perfect example is Al Bridwell 1914 Type 2 card - St. Louis Terriers Fed league team. Bridwell is also featured in the Type 2 set with a Nashville card having spent time bouncing around SL a bit. There are other examples in the Type 2 set of Minor League/Federal Leaguer's who are not featured in the Type 1 set as well. To me it seems fairly obvious the 4 Nashville players featured in ATC/American Litho 1909-11 are Bay, Bernhard, Perdue, and Ellam. Those 4 Nashville players are absent in the Type 2 and 3 sets as well as the obvious blue lettering which distinguishes the 2&3 sets from the Type 1. Two Clear examples that Type 1 were most likely not printed in and around the time of the Type 2 and 3 sets.

Pat - Thanks for all the advertisement examples of OM & Hindu... I think that may be what I have buried in my collection. I will dig it up at some point and verify... Too big to scan, and I haven't looked at it in years... Regardless of an advertisement, sure that is clear proof, but Coupon Type 1 cards are so rare, I doubt they had a Advertising campaign like the other ATC brands. While it would be nice to have a clearly dated advertisement as proof, I think its clear by the Federal league example aforementioned and the 4 Nashville players mirroring the T206 4 Nashville players that its more likely the Coupons were produced around 1909-11 than around 1913-19 like the Type 2 and 3's with blue lettering and glossy/thicker cardboard. It's only a matter of time as type 1's lean way more towards the 1910 date, than they do any other date imho.

Thanks, J

[Pat R]

Thanks for the reply Jeremy. My reasons for excluding them from the
T206 set is similar to your reasons for separating them from the Type 1 and 2's.

When I look at the T213-1's they stand out from the way any of the T206
backs were printed.

The T213-1's have three different groups represented in the 68 cards.

I randomly grabbed one of each from my collection as an example.

339932


Excluding Piedmont which was used on every card in the set with the exception
of Demmitt and O'Hara St. Louis these three cards are not found with the same
back on any of the T206 backs and the same thing is true for any combination
of one card from each group.

Then you have the minor league players. All of the 350 series backs have minor league players and most of them have over 40% but there isn't a
single minor league player in the T213-1's.

Other people have said that it looks like they reused some of the T206 plates/artwork after the printing of the T206's and I feel the same way
when I look at the group of cards used for the T213-1's.

The following is pure speculation... We know from many of the old newspaper articles that inserting the "baseball pictures" was a big success at the
time. I see the T213-1's as a cheap trial promotion. Print them with the old T206 plates on thinner stock and see how it goes. They find it's
a success so they have them printed on thicker cardboard and decide to change the captions as a cheap way to put their own brand stamp on them
without having to make a bunch of new plates.

[Ritz Collector]

Was wondering the same thing

[tedzan]

Any given day on ebay you can dial up T213 Coupon cards, and you will typically find approx. 200 cards listed. The majority
of them will be T213-2 cards. And, on the average as many as 20 % of them will be T213-3 cards.
Very seldom will you find even one "T213-1" card listed for sale.

It's obvious to me the 1910 COUPON cards were not designed to be inserted in the standard (10-cigarette) pack of that era.
My theory is they were either......
simply handed out to customers purchasing this new ATC brand, or pasted on a 200-count cigarette cartons,, or just placed
inside one of these cartons. In any event, this Willett was most likely the latter case. As it is the best looking 1910 COUPON
card in my collection.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1910COUPONWillett25.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1910COUPONWillett25b.jpg



Collecting these cards, I have noticed that approx. 10 % (or perhaps as much as 15 %) of them have this type of paper loss
on their backs (which most likely resulted because these cards pasted on cigarette cartons). The repetitive spot-like spoilage
on these cards is too consistent to blame it on some random cause.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910couponcobb50x.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910COUPONredCobb75xb.jpg



This one, though, has faint cardboard residue on it from also being pasted on a cigarette carton. Apparently, whoever removed
this card from a carton did it very, very carefully. I've seen very few 1910 COUPON cards (less than 1%) exhibiting this type of
minimal back damage.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910COUPONDoolan.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1910COUPONDoolanB.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[DixieBaseball]

Thanks for the reply Jeremy. My reasons for excluding them from the
T206 set is similar to your reasons for separating them from the Type 1 and 2's.

When I look at the T213-1's they stand out from the way any of the T206
backs were printed.

The T213-1's have three different groups represented in the 68 cards.

I randomly grabbed one of each from my collection as an example.

339932


Excluding Piedmont which was used on every card in the set with the exception
of Demmitt and O'Hara St. Louis these three cards are not found with the same
back on any of the T206 backs and the same thing is true for any combination
of one card from each group.

Then you have the minor league players. All of the 350 series backs have minor league players and most of them have over 40% but there isn't a
single minor league player in the T213-1's.

Other people have said that it looks like they reused some of the T206 plates/artwork after the printing of the T206's and I feel the same way
when I look at the group of cards used for the T213-1's.

The following is pure speculation... We know from many of the old newspaper articles that inserting the "baseball pictures" was a big success at the
time. I see the T213-1's as a cheap trial promotion. Print them with the old T206 plates on thinner stock and see how it goes. They find it's
a success so they have them printed on thicker cardboard and decide to change the captions as a cheap way to put their own brand stamp on them
without having to make a bunch of new plates.


Pat - If the Coupon Type 1's were regionally released during the time frame with the other 16 ATC brands released between 1909-11 in New Orleans/South wouldn't they want to stick to the Southern League players and known Big league players of the day and not get into Minor league players from places like Toledo or Buffalo as minor league cards for example? This would indicate regional Southern release to me... I think that is the plausible answer why the minor league players are not present in the 68 card set. Also, this set of 68 seems like a strange number for a release and reminds me of the Red Sun set "First Series 1 to 75" (On reverse of Red Sun card) and the parallel drawn from that Regional release where by they never produced a 2nd series b/c the first series perhaps underwhelmed cigarette consumers. Obviously something caused Red Sun to not make a 2nd series. (Series 2 - 76-150) ?!? Both of these brands, Coupon & Red Sun, were both New Orleans brands and Red Sun was produced/released around 1909-10 time frame (No RS advertisements known as well, correct !?) and most likely Coupon as the 17th American Litho / ATC brand. We don't know that there was not going to be more Coupon (Type 1) cards released. Their rarity indicates something happened, just like it did to Red Sun Series 2 not being produced. I think the Red Sun set indicates something was not quite right in Tobacco/baseball card world in 1910 in that region and if this set was released in that time frame, it perhaps suffered the same fate!? Perhaps Red Sun & Coupon didn't make quite the splash against the larger National brands and the cards were a marketing stunt that just didn't materially help, so ATC / W.R. Irby nixed the series 2 RS & didn't produce/release any more Coupons.

Lastly, if you could show me a Full size American Beauty card, I would go away and say Coupon may not necessarily be one of the 17 Amer Litho ATC brands, but since exception was made on AB, why not exception on Coupon (Type 1)?! This was not a style change, but yet a size change (Width of card) and so was Coupon, a size change (Thickness of card).

Everything about the Type 1 Coupon looks like the other 16 Amer Litho - ATC brands including Ty Cobb Tobacco with exception to the thickness which can be explained by American Beauty as it is clearly different. Also there is no argument or debate for Type 2 and 3 Coupons as that would be no different than Old Mill making another set of cards in 1914 and 1919. That seems to throw people off imho. Also consider that Old Mill was on another completely different set (T210). Why not call them Old Mill Type 1 & 2 ?!? My point is Burdick made a catalog for cards. A wonderful way to help collectors... Just because he labeled certain cards T206 or T213-1 doesn't change anything about the card being just like the other American Litho - ATC brands. If you include American Beauty as a T206, then Coupon should be as well. (Not Coupon Type 2 or 3)

[DixieBaseball]

Ted - Love the Willett, but my favorite Coupon you own is the Pink Matty. Such a beautiful card! Here are a few more SL Coupons...

[tedzan]

Jeremy

Great stuff, guy......and, do you have all 20 of the 1910 COUPON Southern Association subjects ?


I need the 1910 COUPON card to complete my run of Greminger……


.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/GremingerP350HinduRedSun25.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/GremingerP350HinduRedSun25b.jpg



http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/EdGremingerOM.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SoLgeOLDMILLx25b.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[DixieBaseball]

Ted - I had another Greminger at one point, and traded/sold it to someone in this Net54 community but that was many years ago. This is the only one I own now and it does comprise my SL run of Coupons. Took me well over 10 years to get all 20. As I mentioned in earlier posts, the grading companies are very inconsistent on grading these puppies. I have several that are off by a grade to a grade and a half both ways.

[tedzan]

Jeremy

From our previous conversations, I figured you had all 20 of the Southern Association guys.....congratulations.

Eventually, I'll find a 1910 COUPON Greminger. I'm a patient dude, when it comes to stuff like this.

Best regards,


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

Jereme, if the American Beauty checklists didn't match up with any
of the other backs in the T206 set like the Type 1's do I would agree
with you but they do and as a matter of fact they match up exactly
with several of the 350 series backs.

I also contend your minor league explanation supports excluding the
type 1's rather than including them because they would have had to
completely re-arrange at a minimum 2 or 3 sheet layouts in the
middle of printing all of the other T206 backs but if they were using
the plates/artwork after they were used on the T206's it wouldn't
interrupt the printing for the other T206 backs. This is one of the
reasons I asked where the 1910 date came from. Did they print
them right after the 350 only series was finished using the old
plates or did they have access to the plates/artwork and print
them after the printing of the 460 series concluded.


I haven't come across an ad that singles out Red Sun but here's a store
ad that lists Red Sun as one of the Liggett & Myers cigarettes they sell.

340190

[DixieBaseball]

Fair point, Pat but I would be curious what date do you think they printed them? 1912 or 1913? Not likely based off the players in the set and the look of the Coupon is just like the other 16 ATC brands. If they printed them in the 1909-11 time frame, then that would indicate they are the 17th American Lithographic ATC brand, but just printed in limited quantity and released regionally which may or may not been their full intent. I think the same reason they were printed/released in scarcity is the same reason Red Sun was printed/released in scarcity and Red Sun, we know was most likely released in early 1910 (produced in 1909/1910) with the intent to release a 2nd series at some point following that 1st series of 75 cards. With some Coupon cards having as few as 2-3 examples known, it is quite possible there could be a few yet discovered, and then perhaps proofs which might indicate more cards were going to be produced liked the Olberman T206 SL 8 proofs + Eddie Collins Proof. Why were those 9 cards not included in T206 set and why did it take 50 years for those cards to be known? Where do those fit into the T206 set? Does T206 represent 521, 524, or 530 cards to be complete? Why does the Old Mill T210 set released in 1909-10 have 114 cards? If Red Sun T211 which mirrors Old Mill T210 for 75 cards, and were to assume they were going to put 75 more cards in that 2nd series or would they just mirror the T210 set and put only 39 cards in that 2nd series ? All of these numbers are arbitrary for unknown reasons. Perhaps Coupon is the same ?! I believe Coupon was released in 1909-11 time frame and if Red Sun didn't do well and release a 2nd series in New Orleans, I believe Coupon could have been in a similar situation. New Orleans, regional brands perhaps didn't cut it against National brand cigarettes. More discovery hopefully to come!

http://t206resource.com/Olbermann%20Proofs.html

[DixieBaseball]

Jereme, if the American Beauty checklists didn't match up with any
of the other backs in the T206 set like the Type 1's do I would agree
with you but they do and as a matter of fact they match up exactly
with several of the 350 series backs.

I also contend your minor league explanation supports excluding the
type 1's rather than including them because they would have had to
completely re-arrange at a minimum 2 or 3 sheet layouts in the
middle of printing all of the other T206 backs but if they were using
the plates/artwork after they were used on the T206's it wouldn't
interrupt the printing for the other T206 backs. This is one of the
reasons I asked where the 1910 date came from. Did they print
them right after the 350 only series was finished using the old
plates or did they have access to the plates/artwork and print
them after the printing of the 460 series concluded.


I haven't come across an ad that singles out Red Sun but here's a store
ad that lists Red Sun as one of the Liggett & Myers cigarettes they sell.

340190


This store ad is really interesting. Where did you find this information? Do you have any idea of the date of this? (I am guessing 1912-1919) Interesting that Red Sun is on the list but Coupon is not. We would need to ask Jon C. but I believe there is only one known Red Sun pack from 1910 known to exist. Also, perhaps only 1 Coupon pack from that era as well, but not sure on that...

[MichelaiTorres83]

Given that a lot of t206 cards are miscut and some have 2 names I would ask if there are any miscut coupons? I also wonder are there any 2 name cards that disprove or contradict 2 name cards in the t206 set?

Every t206 card back has a miscut of some type.

[MichelaiTorres83]

Would the fact that type 2 and 3 being from a factory not associated to t206 at all for any other back and type 1 cards being from the same factory not associated to any other t206 back be enough of a point to classify them as a t213 with the others?

That to me seems like the most logical reason it would not be a t206.

How would one use an undated card to make this determination? If a t206 was printed in 1909, then sold with a 1914 stamp what year was the card issued? To me the date is a lot less relevant than a characteristic of the card itself.

Since there is no date and everyone is guessing it seems most logical to go by the most obvious portions of the card followed by the less obvious ones. Most of the time the answer is the simplest one.

I think he got it right and everyone is overthinking it based on an imaginary date range.

[Pat R]

[/B]

This store ad is really interesting. Where did you find this information? Do you have any idea of the date of this? (I am guessing 1912-1919) Interesting that Red Sun is on the list but Coupon is not. We would need to ask Jon C. but I believe there is only one known Red Sun pack from 1910 known to exist. Also, perhaps only 1 Coupon pack from that era as well, but not sure on that...

I had it in a folder of newspaper clippings I saved. I found another one and I
think you will find this interesting since Red Sun is considered a regional brand
associated with Louisiana. Both ads are from Ohio newspapers the original
ad I posted is from Jan 19 1914 and this one is from Feb 17 1914.

340216

I just spent a couple of hours looking through Louisiana newspapers from
1900-1920 and I couldn't find anything on Red Sun cigarettes.

This is a Liggett & Myers ad that was in a Louisiana paper on Feb 19 1913
that has several brands that are listed in the Ohio ads but no Red Sun.

340217

Here's a larger scan of the brands in the ad
340220

I also found this W.R. Irby ad in a Jan 11 1914 Louisiana paper. No
Red Sun in this one either but it does have Coupon in the ad. Notice
that all of the brands are in quotation marks including Coupon.

340221


I have limited knowledge regarding the Red Sun cards but they do seem
similar to the T213's in that they use images from the T210 series 8
which also used some of the T206 images.

So where does the 1910 date on the T211's come from. If it's based on
the subjects in the set like the T213's seem to be I would question how
accurate that date is too if that's the only thing the date is based on.
You can pinpoint an earliest date based on what teams certain subjects
played on at the time but you can't pinpoint a stopping point based
solely on the subjects in the set. There are numerous pre and post
war cards that were printed depicting players on teams that they weren't
on when the cards were distributed.

[rats60]

Pat - If the Coupon Type 1's were regionally released during the time frame with the other 16 ATC brands released between 1909-11 in New Orleans/South wouldn't they want to stick to the Southern League players and known Big league players of the day and not get into Minor league players from places like Toledo or Buffalo as minor league cards for example? This would indicate regional Southern release to me... I think that is the plausible answer why the minor league players are not present in the 68 card set. Also, this set of 68 seems like a strange number for a release and reminds me of the Red Sun set "First Series 1 to 75" (On reverse of Red Sun card) and the parallel drawn from that Regional release where by they never produced a 2nd series b/c the first series perhaps underwhelmed cigarette consumers. Obviously something caused Red Sun to not make a 2nd series. (Series 2 - 76-150) ?!? Both of these brands, Coupon & Red Sun, were both New Orleans brands and Red Sun was produced/released around 1909-10 time frame (No RS advertisements known as well, correct !?) and most likely Coupon as the 17th American Litho / ATC brand. We don't know that there was not going to be more Coupon (Type 1) cards released. Their rarity indicates something happened, just like it did to Red Sun Series 2 not being produced. I think the Red Sun set indicates something was not quite right in Tobacco/baseball card world in 1910 in that region and if this set was released in that time frame, it perhaps suffered the same fate!? Perhaps Red Sun & Coupon didn't make quite the splash against the larger National brands and the cards were a marketing stunt that just didn't materially help, so ATC / W.R. Irby nixed the series 2 RS & didn't produce/release any more Coupons.

Lastly, if you could show me a Full size American Beauty card, I would go away and say Coupon may not necessarily be one of the 17 Amer Litho ATC brands, but since exception was made on AB, why not exception on Coupon (Type 1)?! This was not a style change, but yet a size change (Width of card) and so was Coupon, a size change (Thickness of card).

Everything about the Type 1 Coupon looks like the other 16 Amer Litho - ATC brands including Ty Cobb Tobacco with exception to the thickness which can be explained by American Beauty as it is clearly different. Also there is no argument or debate for Type 2 and 3 Coupons as that would be no different than Old Mill making another set of cards in 1914 and 1919. That seems to throw people off imho. Also consider that Old Mill was on another completely different set (T210). Why not call them Old Mill Type 1 & 2 ?!? My point is Burdick made a catalog for cards. A wonderful way to help collectors... Just because he labeled certain cards T206 or T213-1 doesn't change anything about the card being just like the other American Litho - ATC brands. If you include American Beauty as a T206, then Coupon should be as well. (Not Coupon Type 2 or 3)

I would be for excluding American Beauty from the t206 cards, except they were used for t205 cards also. So, clearly they were intended to be part of t206. Not so for Coupon. Coupon is an unique set and in my opinion should remain that way.

[RCMcKenzie]

I wonder why Carlos Smith Shreveport was not included in the T213-1 series?

How do people view the 136 cards found with a Hindu brown back? Is that a set? There's no Cobb. Before Burdick, how did people know that a sweet cap 150 back and a Hindu SLer were part of the same "set"?

[tedzan]

I wonder why Carlos Smith Shreveport was not included in the T213-1 series?


Hi Rob

The Shreveport Giants were in the Southern Association 1901 - 1903.
Then Shreveport became the Pirates in the Southern Association 1904 - 1907.
During 1908 - 1910 they were transferred to the Texas League.


Hey guys....this LEAGUE change for Shreveport, in my opinion, certainly narrows the timeline window
of the printing of the 1910 COUPON set.

TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[insidethewrapper]

Let me start out by saying ,"I don't understand the T206 set and all the different backs". Seems like 16 or so different sets to me. If Topps came out with cards and placed them in candy bars ( Almond Joy, Kit-Kat, Payday,Mounds,Mr. Goodbar etc, etc), let's say all brands made from the same company with different backs, I think they would all be different sets and listed as 2019 Almond Joy, 2019 Kit-Kat etc.
Could someone explain why this wasn't done with the T206 set with all the different backs ? Thanks

[tedzan]

Hi Mike

Here's the simple answer to your very good question....

Breaking down the T206 set into 16 sub-sets would have been too complex at that time when Jefferson Burdick catalogued these T-cards. And, actually it still is.

Personally, I would have preferred this if he had each T-brand a set in their own. In recent years, I have put together T206 sets according to the various brands...…

AMERICAN BEAUTY 460
PIEDMONT
SOVEREIGN
SWEET CAPORAL, Factory #30


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[DixieBaseball]

I had it in a folder of newspaper clippings I saved. I found another one and I
think you will find this interesting since Red Sun is considered a regional brand
associated with Louisiana. Both ads are from Ohio newspapers the original
ad I posted is from Jan 19 1914 and this one is from Feb 17 1914.

340216

I just spent a couple of hours looking through Louisiana newspapers from
1900-1920 and I couldn't find anything on Red Sun cigarettes.

This is a Liggett & Myers ad that was in a Louisiana paper on Feb 19 1913
that has several brands that are listed in the Ohio ads but no Red Sun.

340217

Here's a larger scan of the brands in the ad
340220

I also found this W.R. Irby ad in a Jan 11 1914 Louisiana paper. No
Red Sun in this one either but it does have Coupon in the ad. Notice
that all of the brands are in quotation marks including Coupon.

340221


I have limited knowledge regarding the Red Sun cards but they do seem
similar to the T213's in that they use images from the T210 series 8
which also used some of the T206 images.

So where does the 1910 date on the T211's come from. If it's based on
the subjects in the set like the T213's seem to be I would question how
accurate that date is too if that's the only thing the date is based on.
You can pinpoint an earliest date based on what teams certain subjects
played on at the time but you can't pinpoint a stopping point based
solely on the subjects in the set. There are numerous pre and post
war cards that were printed depicting players on teams that they weren't
on when the cards were distributed.

Pat - Very interesting, but with Liggett having multiple brands for it's factory locations in places like New Orleans, St. Louis, MO., etc - it wouldn't surprise me to see all of their brands listed under their Corporation together, even in Ohio. Very cool and may help further explain the Red Sun story down the road as more information is found. Thnx for sharing that store ad !

Per Lew Lipset's EOBBC, Frank Huelsman (Mobile), who is in the Red Sun set only played with Mobile during the first part of 1909 and Jake Daubert, the Southern Association Batting Champion in 1910 who joined Memphis after the season was underway is not in the Red Sun set. This time stamps the set along with the Southern Assoc players of that era to to 1909-10, so most likely released in 1910. Also Hub Perdue (Nashville) who played in the Majors in 1911 (played for Nashville from 1907-10) is in the Red Sun set. Lots of evidence on timeline that Red Sun is in fact a 1910 set. Those discoveries were made a long time ago by Burdick, later published by Lipset with further time stamps of players, etc. T211 Red Sun is not in question on dating imo and neither is T210 Old Mill as there is many similar dating of players that can be started and stopped around that era with minor league to major league explanations such as the examples mentioned on the Red Suns. (Shoeless Joe is in T210 Old Mill with New Orleans, yet played in 1908-09 for A's, before joining NO for 1910, then onto Cleveland for 1911 season) This indicates to me that OM was produced in 1910, released in late 1910, early 1911. Red Sun can be conservatively put in that same time frame. 1910-11, and most likely Coupon Type 1 as well - 1910-11, which all falls under the time frame of 16 ATC brands release, potentially leaving out the 17th ATC brand, Coupon, from Burdick's 1940's designation of T206 as the 17th ATC brand inclusive of his T206 cataloging of brands.

Back to the Coupon ("Type 1" as Burdick's designation). It's a fact, that Coupon can be more easily tied to T206 / 16 ATC brands than it can to Coupon Mild & Sweet from 1914 ("Type 2" as Burdick's designation) because there are No team changes in the Coupon set of 68, as well as the pictures and captions match up to the rest of the T206 set comparing the 68 cards, but there are are many team changes in the Type 2 and 3 sets, as well as blue lettering, gloss on Type 2's. At the end of the day, all these types are simply Burdick's understanding at that time 75 years ago and that is how he labeled them. Nothing more, nothing less. Pretty obvious, the Type 1's are more alike the 16 ATC Brands from 1909-11, later labeled T206 by Burdick, than they are alike the later dated T213-2&3 sets from 1914 and 1919. Again, if AB is inclusive in T206 with size differences (width), then Coupon should be with size differences (Thickness).

So, my understanding is the entire set of Coupon Type 1 players matches the 350 series players spot on, including the 20 Southern League players from the 8 Southern League teams, correct !? If that's the case, when was the 350 series produced/released?? Further evidence Coupon is a 1910-11 set.

Also, one other important piece to the potential dating of 1910 release for Coupons is within those 20 Southern League players in the Coupon set. Two are from Little Rock. (Hart & Lentz) Little Rock was only a member of Southern Association in 1909 with the other teams Nashville, Memphis, Birmingham, Montgomery, Mobile, New Orleans, and Atlanta. Chattanooga took Little Rock's place in 1910 in the Southern Association, and as we can see from the T210 Old Mill set, the Series 8 is void of Little Rock, but has Chattanooga in it. Further evidence not just on T210 Old Mill, but certainly Coupon as having a 1910 release.

I believe the 68 card set of Coupons is probably not complete. If 9 T206 proof cards can not be known for over 100 years, then a set as rare as Coupon could certainly end up with more cards, even if they are only proofs, scrap, etc... Wouldn't surprise me a bit if a new find yielded some unknown players from that 350 series subjects. (Side note : Type 3 has 70 cards, and Type 2 has 187)

I will lean on Ted, Scot, you, and others on the following questions...

What about the other "Southern Leaguers" from the T206 set? Any patterns with the remaining "SL" players even though they are not actually SL players but called that in the T206 set... (Texas League, South Atlantic League, Virginia League are all absent from the Coupon set, correct !?) The Coupon set has 20 True Southern League players in it. Those 8 Teams represented are period to 1909. This would suggest they were produced & released around that time frame, most likely 1910, but most certainly not later than 1911.

Why is the Coupon set missing T206 Southern leaguers from The South Atlantic, Virginia, and Texas leagues ? Perhaps, it's as easy as where they were released. New Orleans. New Orleans was in the Southern Association obvioulsy and the 20 SL players represent 8 teams in the SA.

And, again wouldn't the Type 1 Coupons matching the 350 series for all 68 cards not put a time stamp of 1910-11 on the set, thus making them the 17th ATC brand ?? What have I missed on the 350 series and the parallel of the 68 Coupon subjects ?


https://www.sportscollectorsdigest.com/tracking_the_fate_and_survival_rate_of_370_million/

[DixieBaseball]

New Orleans Market selling Coupon Cases/Cartons (Behind Glass) - Notice the Cigarette dispenser on counter... Boy, I would give my pinky nail to go back in time, and have a some fried oysters for lunch right there in that moment for about an hour or two, then purchase some Coupons for the road.... :D Carton - (Circa 1914-20)

[DixieBaseball]

Coupon

[DixieBaseball]

Given that a lot of t206 cards are miscut and some have 2 names I would ask if there are any miscut coupons? I also wonder are there any 2 name cards that disprove or contradict 2 name cards in the t206 set?

Every t206 card back has a miscut of some type.


Interesting questions. I am not aware nor do I believe I have seen a miscut Coupon card and I am not aware of any 2 name Coupon cards, however I believe there may be miscut Type 2 and 3 cards as well as possibly some oddly proportioned borders with possible 2 name on Type 2 & 3 Coupons.

One important thing you need to consider is just the scant quantity of Coupon. With only 68 players and less than 10 known to exists of any of those players (taken into account SGC/PSA pop reports show typically around 2-5 graded examples and of course the raw estimate, I think Coupon's exists in numbers of somewhere around 2-15 examples, perhaps slightly higher of each player. Probably less than 1,000 Total Coupons... (Until a find of an uncut sheet, proofs, or a chest from New Orleans where the smoker only smoked that brand :) ) That number compared to other brands is 1% or less, so there just may not be enough sample to see any 2 name or miscut Type 1's.

Edited to add : Also consider how big the T210 Old Mill set is and how many cards are in that set it has scant few wrong backs, miscuts, 2 name cards compared to T206. For a set this big, it has a very low number of odd cards. The quality control must have been really good on the T210's.

I think each set has different factors based on quantity, quality control, etc. - Also perhaps logistics may have played a part in some odd way. (American Litho to Train to Factory to Consumer)

[MichelaiTorres83]

There are miscut broadleaf cards, lenox cards, hindu cards etc all of which have card populations under 1000.

The identical factory and brands make it more a t213 if you ask me and really is solid justifaction for a new card T type classification with sub types 1 2 and 3 for subtle differences among cards from the same factory and brand.

Again, I feel the date is irrelevant some and everyone is overthinking it. Especially when I do not think anyone can point me to a rule or document that states a date is a mandatory part of determining what type and class a card should be designated.

[DixieBaseball]

There are miscut broadleaf cards, lenox cards, hindu cards etc all of which have card populations under 1000.

The identical factory and brands make it more a t213 if you ask me and really is solid justifaction for a new card T type classification with sub types 1 2 and 3 for subtle differences among cards from the same factory and brand.

Again, I feel the date is irrelevant some and everyone is overthinking it. Especially when I do not think anyone can point me to a rule or document that states a date is a mandatory part of determining what type and class a card should be designated.

Burdick lumped the 16 ATC brands under the T206 designation for his ACC catalog. The date is of relevance. 1909-11.

Not sure about your factory theory... Also Coupon Type 3's also come with a Factory 8 overprint which was in North Carolina. (not New Orleans) Remember, these cards were shipped to all the factories from American Lithographic. Like I said, quality control is different with a lot of brands. The T210 Series 8 should have way more miscut, wrong back, issues than they do, and per my knowledge you can't count on 2 hands the amount of 2 name, or error cards in that series and Thousands of those cards exists. Each production and release could have brought different factors. T211 has either 1 or No error cards and there are hundreds... Some things just can't be explained...

[SetBuilder]

Using Ted's logic, then Gypsy Queens should be N172's.

[MichelaiTorres83]

Burdick lumped the 16 ATC brands under the T206 designation for his ACC catalog. The date is of relevance. 1909-11.

Not sure about your factory theory... Also Coupon Type 3's also come with a Factory 8 overprint which was in North Carolina. (not New Orleans) Remember, these cards were shipped to all the factories from American Lithographic. Like I said, quality control is different with a lot of brands. The T210 Series 8 should have way more miscut, wrong back, issues than they do, and per my knowledge you can't count on 2 hands the amount of 2 name, or error cards in that series and Thousands of those cards exists. Each production and release could have brought different factors. T211 has either 1 or No error cards and there are hundreds... Some things just can't be explained...

Where does it say that date is a criteria?

[Pat R]

Thank you for your response Jeremy. I don't think either one of us is
going to change the other persons opinion on this. As I have stated previously
based on extended research of different aspects of the printing of the
T206 set the T213-1's don't match up with any of the 350 series
backs that were printed with subjects used in the T213-1's.
If we find evidence that they were printed during the 350 only
phase (and I have been searching one way or the other) they would be a rule breaker for sure.

I don't think I answered your question about when I felt the T213-1's
were printed. Honestly I don't know it could have been soon after the
350 only printing concluded up until right before the printing of T213-2's
but in my opinion they reused the leftover plates/artwork and
possibly someone selected the subjects they wanted to use for the
T213-1's from the group of plates that were no longer being used.

[tedzan]

I will lean on Ted, Scot, you, and others on the following questions...

What about the other "Southern Leaguers" from the T206 set? Any patterns with the remaining "SL" players even though they are not actually SL players but called that in the T206 set... (Texas League, South Atlantic League, Virginia League are all absent from the Coupon set, correct !?) The Coupon set has 20 True Southern League players in it. Those 8 Teams represented are period to 1909.
This would suggest they were produced & released around that time frame, most likely 1910, but most certainly not later than 1911.

Why is the Coupon set missing T206 Southern leaguers from The South Atlantic, Virginia, and Texas leagues ? Perhaps, it's as easy as where they were released. New Orleans. New Orleans was in the Southern Association obvioulsy and the 20 SL players represent 8 teams in the SA.



Jeremy

We may never find an actual date when the 1910 COUPON cards were issued. However, we really don't need to. We have sufficient evidence gleaned from years of our research,
which logically suggests that this set of 68 cards were printed and issued within the T206 timeline.

Starting with this fact that American Lithographic (ALC) in 1909 printed 34 different Southern Leaguers (SL)...….16 of which represent the Southern Association. Circa late 1909
or early 1910, ALC expanded the SL sub-set to 48 subjects, 20 of which represent the Southern Association (SA). The four additional SA subjects are Bill Hart, "Hub" Hart, Lentz
and Rockenfeld. This is significant, as it clearly sets a Spring/Summer 1910 timeline for this T206 press run.

Furthermore, a timeline "window" is set by the fact that Carlos Smith (Shreveport) is not included as SA guy, since the Shreveport Pirates were transferred from SA to the Texas
League (1908 - 1910). And, ALC correctly identified Carlos Smith as one of the six Texas Leaguers which were included in the group of 48 subjects in the SL sub-set.

Finally, for those who think that ALC printed the "T213-1" cards in 1911 (or beyond). ALC started their gold-bordered sets (T80, T205, etc.) in the Spring of 1911. We have ALC
documented evidence regarding the T80 cards which were inserted in cigarettes packs with 350/460 and 460-only series T206 cards in the Spring of 1911......

T80 cards
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/T80ColCav2ScotchHiAdjGen25.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/LenoxUzitCairoMonTolstoi25b.jpg


Jeremy
It has become wearisome trying to convince members of this forum that the "T213-1" cards are indeed 1910 COUPON's which were printed and issued within the T206 timeline.

Take care good buddy.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[RCMcKenzie]

someone selected the subjects they wanted to use for the
T213-1's from the group of plates that were no longer being used.

This is what I was driving at when I asked about the Shreveport, LA. player. Why are they selecting Billy Campbell unless they had to as part of a group?

[Pat R]

Jeremy

We may never find an actual date when the 1910 COUPON cards were issued. However, we really don't need to. We have sufficient evidence gleaned from years of our research,
which logically suggests that this set of 68 cards were printed and issued within the T206 timeline.

Starting with this fact that American Lithographic (ALC) in 1909 printed 34 different Southern Leaguers (SL)...….16 of which represent the Southern Association. Circa late 1909
or early 1910, ALC expanded the SL sub-set to 48 subjects, 20 of which represent the Southern Association (SA). The four additional SA subjects are Bill Hart, "Hub" Hart, Lentz
and Rockenfeld. This is significant, as it clearly sets a Spring/Summer 1910 timeline for this T206 press run.

Furthermore, a timeline "window" is set by the fact that Carlos Smith (Shreveport) is not included as SA guy, since the Shreveport Pirates were transferred from SA to the Texas
League (1908 - 1910). And, ALC correctly identified Carlos Smith as one of the six Texas Leaguers which were included in the group of 48 subjects in the SL sub-set.
Finally, for those who think that ALC printed the "T213-1" cards in 1911 (or beyond). ALC started their gold-bordered sets (T80, T205, etc.) in the Spring of 1911. We have ALC
documented evidence regarding the T80 cards which were inserted in cigarettes packs with 350/460 and 460-only series T206 cards in the Spring of 1911......




Jeremy
It has become wearisome trying to convince members of this forum that the "T213-1" cards are indeed 1910 COUPON's which were printed and issued within the T206 timeline.

Take care good buddy.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

Ted, The same thing would apply if they reused the old plates as it would
for several of the things you've brought attention to.

[tedzan]

Pat

Back in my High School days (during the Paleolithic Age :)), I worked part-time in a Print Shop. I'm quite familiar with printing practices. And, I can tell you that printers
don't use.... "reused the old plates".
Major printing firms have multiple plates of each image so that they can replace used ones. As is obvious, as the plates wear the quality of the printed image deteriorates.

ALC printed the T213-2, T213-3, T214, T215-2 cards with a whole new set of printing plates.

The "T213-1" sub-set was printed concurrently with the exact same printing plates used to produce their respective T206 cards


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[t206fix]

Again, I feel the date is irrelevant some and everyone is overthinking it. Especially when I do not think anyone can point me to a rule or document that states a date is a mandatory part of determining what type and class a card should be designated.

I think this argument will go on and on until we define what a t206 really is. Wikipedia notes:
The tobacco card set known as T206 was issued from 1909 to 1911 in cigarette and loose tobacco packs through 16 different brands owned by the American Tobacco Company. It is a landmark set in the history of baseball card collecting, due to its size and rarity, and the quality of its color lithographs.

Is there a different definition? Are we arguing what Burdick thought a t206 was, and if so, case closed, he said "no".

When I was 12, I bought boxes of Cookie Crunch trying to complete this stupid set... Do we say that to have a complete 1984 topps set, you need to have this set because it was produced in 1984 by Topps? No, because we have a definition of what the 1984 topps set is comprised of...


So what makes a t206? If we answer that, we can stop arguing, or maybe, we just like arguing.

[Pat R]

I think this argument will go on and on until we define what a t206 really is. Wikipedia notes:
The tobacco card set known as T206 was issued from 1909 to 1911 in cigarette and loose tobacco packs through 16 different brands owned by the American Tobacco Company. It is a landmark set in the history of baseball card collecting, due to its size and rarity, and the quality of its color lithographs.

Is there a different definition? Are we arguing what Burdick thought a t206 was, and if so, case closed, he said "no".

When I was 12, I bought boxes of Cookie Crunch trying to complete this stupid set... Do we say that to have a complete 1984 topps set, you need to have this set because it was produced in 1984 by Topps? No, because we have a definition of what the 1984 topps set is comprised of...


So what makes a t206? If we answer that, we can stop arguing, or maybe, we just like arguing.

Good point Tony.

[SetBuilder]

What is a T206?


A card that was printed by ALC between the years 1909-11? or,
A card that was issued inside packages of ATC branded tobacco products between the years 1909-11? or,
both?


ALC is just a printer, and probably had a few clients, so it can't just be that they were printed by ALC because they could have been issued by another tobacco company. T206 cards must have the same issuer, and in this case it was ATC.

If the Coupon cards were printed by ALC, and issued/distributed by ATC inside tobacco products, between the years 1909 and 1911, then they should be T206.

Is there a definitive answer to any of those three questions at this point?

[DixieBaseball]

MichelaiTorres83;1844471]Where does it say that date is a criteria?

What I am saying is Coupon was released most likely during the 1910-11 based off everything we know, and probably should be lumped in as the 17th ATC brand produced by American Lithographic, which would mean it is more closely related to those 16 brands that have been designated T206, and therefore should be part of the T206 set. It is far closer to the T206 group than the 1914 & 19 Coupon Type 2, 3, with glossy finish, blue lettering, and different minor league players featured in the set that are not featured in the T206 set. I think Burdick simply lumped Type 1's because of the name Coupon even though the Type 1's are way closer to the sixteen 1909-11 T206 Brands than even they are with the 1914 & 1919 Coupon Brands.


What we know :

1. It looks just like the other 16 ATC brands Burdick included in T206.
2. According to Lew Lipset's Encyclopedia of Baseball Cards, the entire Coupon group consist of 350 series.
3. Also, according to Lipset's EOBBC, the 20 Southern Leaguers featured in Coupon were issued with the 350 series subjects.
4. The Coupon has a Size variance, just like the other T206 brand, American Beauty. (Depth/Width)

Side Note :

*The T211 Red Sun set was released in New Orleans (early Spring due to dating of players in minor and majors) and the intended 2nd series was not released. Perhaps that was due to the ATC break up in May of 1911. If the T206 brands seized ball card production in 1911 from the ATC break up, then most likely the 2nd Series for T211 never got off the ground for the same reasons. This could be a likely reason for Coupons being in limited numbers if it is from the 350 series only, released at back end of 1910, early 1911. (In previous posts, I was wondering why Red Sun didn't release their 2nd series and also drawing a parallel with Coupon as 2 sets in New Orleans that didn't do very well in terms of cards released, and I suggested there was some event that disrupted that 2nd series of Red Suns, as well as more Coupons being released with packs/cartons of cigarettes. The only event I can find around that timeline is the ATC break up which was obviously a big deal as it disrupted the whole industry and T206 cards as we know them stopped in 1911. Apologies for the ramble...)

* More Info - In 1915 Category 4 Hurricane hit New Orleans... http://www.neworleansbar.org/uploads/files/William%20Ratcliffe%20Irby_1-2.pdf

[Pat R]

MichelaiTorres83;1844471]Where does it say that date is a criteria?

What I am saying is Coupon was released most likely during the 1910-11 based off everything we know, and probably should be lumped in as the 17th ATC brand produced by American Lithographic, which would mean it is more closely related to those 16 brands that have been designated T206, and therefore should be part of the T206 set. It is far closer to the T206 group than the 1914 & 19 Coupon Type 2, 3, with glossy finish, blue lettering, and different minor league players featured in the set that are not featured in the T206 set. I think Burdick simply lumped Type 1's because of the name Coupon even though the Type 1's are way closer to the sixteen 1909-11 T206 Brands than even they are with the 1914 & 1919 Coupon Brands.


What we know :

1. It looks just like the other 16 ATC brands Burdick included in T206.
2. According to Lew Lipset's Encyclopedia of Baseball Cards, the entire Coupon group consist of 350 series.3. Also, according to Lipset's EOBBC, the 20 Southern Leaguers featured in Coupon were issued with the 350 series subjects. 4. The Coupon has a Size variance, just like the other T206 brand, American Beauty. (Depth/Width)

Side Note :
*The T211 Red Sun set was released in New Orleans (early Spring due to dating of players in minor and majors) and the intended 2nd series was not released. Perhaps that was due to the ATC break up in May of 1911. If the T206 brands seized ball card production in 1911 from the ATC break up, then most likely the 2nd Series for T211 never got off the ground for the same reasons. This could be a likely reason for Coupons being in limited numbers if it is from the 350 series only, released at back end of 1910, early 1911. (In previous posts, I was wondering why Red Sun didn't release their 2nd series and also drawing a parallel with Coupon as 2 sets in New Orleans that didn't do very well in terms of cards released, and I suggested there was some event that disrupted that 2nd series of Red Suns, as well as more Coupons being released with packs/cartons of cigarettes. The only event I can find around that timeline is the ATC break up which was obviously a big deal as it disrupted the whole industry and T206 cards as we know them stopped in 1911. Apologies for the ramble...)

The Southern Leaguers are 150/350 subjects.

340348

[DixieBaseball]

The Southern Leaguers are 150/350 subjects.

Pat - Are you referring to just the 20 Southern Association players in the Coupon set as 150/350 series or are you referring to the 48 players that are referred to as "Southern Leaguer's" in the T206 set? The Texas League, South Atlantic League, and Virginia league are commonly lumped in that verbiage as "Southern Leaguers" when in fact they actually are not. The 20 players featured in the Coupon set are from the Southern Association.

Also, maybe you or Ted can clear up what Lew Lipset meant when he said "It is not surprising to find this entire Coupon Series to consist of 350 series subjects."

Pat - What do you make of the Texas, Virginia, and South Atlantic League "SL" players not being present in this set, and only the 20 Southern Association players present which I believe were 350 series only, correct !?

Edited to add, if the 150 subjects are present what does this prove? It's still in the 1909-11 time frame. Does it imply there could have been more of the 150 subjects? Are all 68 cards featured as 350 subjects ? Did Lipset miss this? What correlation or theory are you trying to prove?

[Pat R]

Pat - Are you referring to just the 20 Southern Association players in the Coupon set as 150/350 series or are you referring to the 48 players that are referred to as "Southern Leaguer's" in the T206 set? The Texas League, South Atlantic League, and Virginia league are commonly lumped in that verbiage as "Southern Leaguers" when in fact they actually are not. The 20 players featured in the Coupon set are from the Southern Association.

Also, maybe you or Ted can clear up what Lew Lipset meant when he said "It is not surprising to find this entire Coupon Series to consist of 350 series subjects."

Pat - What do you make of the Texas, Virginia, and South Atlantic League "SL" players not being present in this set, and only the 20 Southern Association players present which I believe were 350 series only, correct !?
Edited to add, if the 150 subjects are present what does this prove? It's still in the 1909-11 time frame. Does it imply there could have been more of the 150 subjects? Are all 68 cards featured as 350 subjects ? Did Lipset miss this? What correlation or theory are you trying to prove?

Jeremy, the 20 subjects were printed with Hindu and possibly Old Mill during the 150
series printing so they are 150/350 subjects.

340350

[DixieBaseball]

Jeremy, the 20 subjects were printed with Hindu and possibly Old Mill during the 150
series printing so they are 150/350 subjects.

340350


Gotcha - Thanks for the newspaper ad info! So, that dates Coupons from 1909-1911 instead of 1910-11 as I originally thought.... (assuming 350 series was printed in 1910-11)

Do you know if the 20 Southern Association players were all printed during the 350 series? Perhaps that is what Lipset meant...

[Pat R]

Gotcha - Thanks for the newspaper ad info! So, that dates Coupons from 1909-1911 instead of 1910-11 as I originally thought.... (assuming 350 series was printed in 1910-11)

Do you know if the 20 Southern Association players were all printed during the 350 series? Perhaps that is what Lipset meant...

No the 350 only subjects in the coupons eliminate them from the 1909 date.

Here's the thread I posted when I found the Old Mill ad

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=260823&highlight=Old+Mill

[DixieBaseball]

No the 350 only subjects in the coupons eliminate them from the 1909 date.

Here's the thread I posted when I found the Old Mill ad

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=260823&highlight=Old+Mill

Ok, so back to my original theory 1910-11 !?

[Pat R]

Ok, so back to my original theory 1910-11 !?

There is no proof on the date but it's speculated in early 1910.

[DixieBaseball]

There is no proof on the date but it's speculated in early 1910.

I am good with that as it certainly indicates the T206 timeline rather than any other timeline. 1910 most likely, 1911 at latest. Nothing proven definitive, but not likely 1912-13, and a long way away from the 1914 & 1919 Coupon Type 2 & 3 releases which look nothing like the Coupon Type 1 release.

I am guessing that Cat 4 Hurricane in New Orleans in 1915 didn't help with any evidence of local Coupon advertisements such as a pictures, broadsides, local store coupons, etc. -

[RCMcKenzie]

Jeremy, the 20 subjects were printed with Hindu and possibly Old Mill during the 150
series printing so they are 150/350 subjects.

340350
Were Jimmy Hart and Bill Hart printed with a Hindu back? I'm following the argument that we should just leave the nomenclature as it is. I don't follow the argument that Coupon 1 backs are some vastly separate set. I'm not a T206 expert, but I'm familiar with the cards and read T206Resource and stuff.
I was just hoping to learn more about the set because I collect it. If we don't learn more about it, that's okay too. Have a good one, guys.

[tedzan]

Jeremy

Starting with this fact that American Lithographic (ALC) in 1909 printed 34 different Southern Leaguers (SL)...….16 of which represent the Southern Association.
Circa late 1909 or early 1910, ALC expanded the SL sub-set to 48 subjects, 20 of which represent the Southern Association (SA). The four additional
SA subjects are Bill Hart, "Hub" Hart, Lentz and Rockenfeld.

This is significant, as it clearly sets a Spring/Summer 1910 timeline for this T206 press run.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

Hey guys,

First of all, Lew Lipset is absolutely correct...…

" According to Lew Lipset's Encyclopedia of Baseball Cards, the entire 1910 Coupon group consist of 350 series.
Also, according to Lipset's EOBBC, the 20 Southern Leaguers featured in Coupon were issued with the 350 series subjects. "

2nd....The 20 subjects in this set from the Southern Association were NOT all printed in 1909 with HINDU backs !
Only 16 of the 20 were. See the excerpt from my post # 156 reprised above.

This fact confirms Lipset's second statement quoted above.

Please, let's consider the actual facts in the printing of these cards, instead of going off on misleading statements.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

I stand corrected I didn't check all 20 subjects but the fact is there are
150/350 southern league subjects in the coupon set.

[tedzan]

I stand corrected I didn't check all 20 subjects but the fact is there are
150/350 southern league subjects in the coupon set.

Pat

Please don't misconstrue, I'm not trying to be negative....but, incorrect facts in this debate can only drive us "crazy" in our attempts to resolve this puzzle.

Yes, we all know there are 34 - Southern Leaguer's (SL) which were printed in 1909 when ALC produced the 150/350 series cards.

But, the bigger picture to consider in this argument is that ALC expanded the SL sub-set to 48 subjects when they started printing the 350 series cards.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[RedsFan1941]

you are right ted. incorrect facts are not helpful.

[frohme]

Lots of good discussion and back and forth amidst everything.

I would like to add only that having owned only a few, and watched the site somewhat religiously, the highest graded T213-1 I've seen posted is an SGC 50 Ed Reagan (http://www.net54baseball.com/showpost.php?p=1044920&postcount=36). I remember another full-size one, but I couldn't find it quickly... maybe Pete can re-post it :D


The theories, conjectures, and discussion points around when various changes might have been imposed by the ATC breakup are interesting to think about with what might have already been in flight for T207 (i.e Napoleon, Anonymous, & Red Cross backs), but that's a subject for another thread.

--
Mike

[tedzan]

The theories, conjectures, and discussion points around when various changes might have been imposed by the ATC breakup are interesting to think about with what might have already been in flight for T207 (i.e Napoleon, Anonymous, & Red Cross backs), but that's a subject for another thread.

Mike

Hi Mike

There is only an occasional thread regarding T207's on this forum. You know the T207's better than most of us here. How's about initiating more threads on these "mysterious" cards.

I say "mysterious" for several reasons.....one being that I do not think American Lithographic produced them. And, like you said "the ATC breakup" may have had some affect on why
the T207 set differs from the previous T-card sets of that era.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[MichelaiTorres83]

I think this argument will go on and on until we define what a t206 really is. Wikipedia notes:
The tobacco card set known as T206 was issued from 1909 to 1911 in cigarette and loose tobacco packs through 16 different brands owned by the American Tobacco Company. It is a landmark set in the history of baseball card collecting, due to its size and rarity, and the quality of its color lithographs.

Is there a different definition? Are we arguing what Burdick thought a t206 was, and if so, case closed, he said "no".

When I was 12, I bought boxes of Cookie Crunch trying to complete this stupid set... Do we say that to have a complete 1984 topps set, you need to have this set because it was produced in 1984 by Topps? No, because we have a definition of what the 1984 topps set is comprised of...


So what makes a t206? If we answer that, we can stop arguing, or maybe, we just like arguing.

Yea. I think that is the point. Where is the criteria used to determine a t206 card from the source that did it, not what a random person copied from a Tough Stuff magazine and posted to Wikipedia.

I am not sure how else you determine if someone made a “mistake”. If he says this is my criteria, this is my analysis and its proven incorrect, that is a mistake.

There are 2 ways of reading that.

Wikipedia says that date for when they were issued, but it does not say it is a criteria used to determine a t206. Maybe the criteria for a t206 does not require a date and the date range given is simply supplimental information about the cards.

Is there anything documenting what the criteria was for either a T206 or T213 from Burdick himself? I really do not know and this is a serious question. If so can you post it?

[Leon]

Since you asked here is the definitive answer (to me), once again, why T213s aren't T206s. It is from the 1960 American Card Catalog. It isn't rocket science. I would say if Burdick didn't know of the differences, and didn't actually compare them to T206, there could be a case for the -1s to be different. He knew exactly what he was doing when he made them their own series with the others from it. I am not sure how anyone can dispute that fact when it has been written for 59 yrs.

Yea. I think that is the point. Where is the criteria used to determine a t206 card from the source that did it, not what a random person copied from a Tough Stuff magazine and posted to Wikipedia.

I am not sure how else you determine if someone made a “mistake”. If he says this is my criteria, this is my analysis and its proven incorrect, that is a mistake.

There are 2 ways of reading that.

Wikipedia says that date for when they were issued, but it does not say it is a criteria used to determine a t206. Maybe the criteria for a t206 does not require a date and the date range given is simply supplimental information about the cards.

Is there anything documenting what the criteria was for either a T206 or T213 from Burdick himself? I really do not know and this is a serious question. If so can you post it?

[MichelaiTorres83]

I have not seen that before. Thanks for posting it.

Your post sounds as though we do not agree, so to clarify, we do agree.

Your image supports that the designation is more about the brand than a date for t206 even if yhe date range on t213s may have been a mistake.

It also shows that a date range for t206 is non existing in the designation like I suspected.

[DixieBaseball]

Hey guys,

First of all, Lew Lipset is absolutely correct...…

" According to Lew Lipset's Encyclopedia of Baseball Cards, the entire 1910 Coupon group consist of 350 series.
Also, according to Lipset's EOBBC, the 20 Southern Leaguers featured in Coupon were issued with the 350 series subjects. "

2nd....The 20 subjects in this set from the Southern Association were NOT all printed in 1909 with HINDU backs !
Only 16 of the 20 were. See the excerpt from my post # 156 reprised above.

This fact confirms Lipset's second statement quoted above.

Please, let's consider the actual facts in the printing of these cards, instead of going off on misleading statements.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.


Thanks Ted for posting that info... That does confirm what I have been saying and thought that was the case. The fact that Burdick named the first coupon cards Type 1 and designated it T213 is not in question by me. What I am saying is all evidence leans towards the Coupon being another American Litho-ATC brand and the 350 series subjects suggest it was a brand from 1909-11 time frame, then I think we could all agree that Coupon is another brand just like the 16 brands Burdick designated T206. My point is, it's pretty obvious that Coupon brand is much more alike the rest of the T206 cards than it is the other two Coupon brands from 1914 & 1919. Also, don't forget that Burdick didn't even have a final count on the Type 1 Coupons (68) so he really wasn't as familiar with them as other ATC brands.

[Pat R]

Hey guys,

First of all, Lew Lipset is absolutely correct...…

" According to Lew Lipset's Encyclopedia of Baseball Cards, the entire 1910 Coupon group consist of 350 series.
Also, according to Lipset's EOBBC, the 20 Southern Leaguers featured in Coupon were issued with the 350 series subjects. "

2nd....The 20 subjects in this set from the Southern Association were NOT all printed in 1909 with HINDU backs !
Only 16 of the 20 were. See the excerpt from my post # 156 reprised above.

This fact confirms Lipset's second statement quoted above.

Please, let's consider the actual facts in the printing of these cards, instead of going off on misleading statements.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.


Actually Ted since you're concerned about accuracy Lipset didn't specify Hindu and although he didn't know it at the time we now have proof
that except for the six Texas League players all of the SL players were printed in 1909 during the 150 series including all 20 of the coupon
SL subjects and despite not knowing this fact Lipset still considered them a "unique issue".

340456

340457

[tedzan]

…..and although he didn't know it at the time we now have proof that except for the six Texas League players all of the SL players were printed in 1909 during the 150 series including all 20 of the coupon SL subjects.....


Pat...….. "including all 20 of the coupon SL subjects"…….. WRONG !

So, where are the BROWN HINDU cards of these four Southern Association players.... Bill Hart, "Hub" Hart, Lentz, Rockenfeld ! ?

These four Southern Association subjects were NOT PRINTED or issued in the initial launch of the Southern League group of 34 cards in 1909.

I don't understand why you continue to ignore this fact. These 4 guys were not available until all 48 of the Southern Leaguers were issued circa early 1910 (with OLD MILL backs,
or with PIEDMONT 350 backs).


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[topcat61]

Hey Ted, everyone -It depends on how you look at it. Coupon Cigarettes and the Irby Branch were sold to Liggett & Myers on April 30th, 1911 from ATC

[Pat R]

Pat...….. "including all 20 of the coupon SL subjects"…….. WRONG !

So, where are the BROWN HINDU cards of these four Southern Association players.... Bill Hart, "Hub" Hart, Lentz, Rockenfeld ! ?

These four Southern Association subjects were NOT PRINTED or issued in the initial launch of the Southern League group of 34 cards in 1909.

I don't understand why you continue to ignore this fact. These 4 guys were not available until all 48 of the Southern Leaguers were issued circa early 1910 (with OLD MILL backs,
or with PIEDMONT 350 backs).

TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

Ted, The Old Mill Southern League ad is dated August 14 1909 are you
suggesting that they printed 34 subjects with the Old Mill backs and then
waited six to nine months before they printed the other 14 subjects with
Old Mill Backs?

13 of the 14 are depicted on the team they played on in 1909 on their T206 cards and only 4 are
depicted on the team they played on in 1910 and that's because they
stayed on the same team they played for in 1909.

340556

[tedzan]

Pat

By your own admission you do not put together T206 sets......it's not your thing. Otherwise, you would have a different perspective on how these cards were produced.

Having "completed" 5 - T206 sets (and working on near "complete" 6th set), I can tell you that tracking down PIEDMONT 350 vs. OLD MILL backed Southern Leaguers
is an interesting experience. I could go into a lengthy dissertation on this subject, however it has been a long day and I'm tired. Besides, it has become apparent to me
that when I post some meaningful and valid factors on these cards, you ignore what I have said and go on to some other diversion.

So, the answer(s) you are looking for in your last post are addressed by Scot Reader in his excellent book "Inside T206" (pages 44-46)........so check-it-out.



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

Pat

By your own admission you do not put together T206 sets......it's not your thing. Otherwise, you would have a different perspective on how these cards were produced.

Having "completed" 5 - T206 sets (and working on near "complete" 6th set), I can tell you that tracking down PIEDMONT 350 vs. OLD MILL backed Southern Leaguers
is an interesting experience. I could go into a lengthy dissertation on this subject, however it has been a long day and I'm tired. Besides, it has become apparent to me
that when I post some meaningful and valid factors on these cards, you ignore what I have said and go on to some other diversion.

So, the answer(s) you are looking for in your last post are addressed by Scot Reader in his excellent book "Inside T206" (pages 44-46)........so check-it-out.



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

Ted,

I have a copy of Scots inside T206. There's a lot of valuable information in
it and I have read it several times. I believe Scot wrote it in 2006 and last
updated it in 2009. A lot of new information is and has been discovered
since then including the Old Mill ad.

I don't see how I'm creating a diversion by responding to something you
quoted from my previous post perhaps it's you that's creating the diversion
because you don't have an answer to the question.

[DixieBaseball]

I have mentioned before I came up just a bit short of finishing the 68 Coupon Type 1 cards after a decade or so of trying, but in my passion for collecting these rare beauties was able to finish a run of the 20 SL players and these 2 cards without a doubt were the two toughest cards for me to find. I have only seen 3 Gordon Hickman cards in my lifetime and only 1 Hub Perdue (pictured). I am hopeful a few more exists so I can lay eyes on them! Love these rare T206's!

[Pat R]

I have mentioned before I came up just a bit short of finishing the 68 Coupon Type 1 cards after a decade or so of trying, but in my passion for collecting these rare beauties was able to finish a run of the 20 SL players and these 2 cards without a doubt were the two toughest cards for me to find. I have only seen 3 Gordon Hickman cards in my lifetime and only 1 Hub Perdue (pictured). I am hopeful a few more exists so I can lay eyes on them! Love these rare T206's!

There are several Perdue and Hickman T206's on ebay right now. :)

[RCMcKenzie]

There are several Perdue and Hickman T206's on ebay right now. :)

Good one, Pat. Very funny. Here's my Hub Perdue. This is what they call a "set filler".

[ullmandds]

Good one, Pat. Very funny. Here's my Hub Perdue. This is what they call a "set filler".

Nolonger a set filler!!! A highlight of someones back run/ collection these days!!

[Pat R]

Good one, Pat. Very funny. Here's my Hub Perdue. This is what they call a "set filler".

Looks fine to me Rob, well loved with no paper loss.

[RedsFan1941]

if i needed that one for a set, i'd happily include it

[DixieBaseball]

Rob - Of course, I knew you had a Hub! Only the 2nd Hub I have ever seen... Thank you for sharing! One heck of a filler...:rolleyes:

[RCMcKenzie]

Congrats on the SL subset, Jer, I knew you could do it! Here are the most difficult cards in this set according to the combined sgc and psa pop reports

LaPorte 0
Hoffman 1
McIntyre 2
Hickman 2
perdue 2
rossman 2
schmidt 2
molesworth 2
rhoades 2
greminger 2
willett 2
smith 2
charles 3
cree 3
most Cobb 12

[tedzan]

Congrats on the SL subset, Jer, I knew you could do it! Here are the most difficult cards in this set according to the combined sgc and psa pop reports

LaPorte 0
Hoffman 1
McIntyre 2
Hickman 2
perdue 2
rossman 2
schmidt 2
molesworth 2
rhoades 2
greminger 2
willett 2
smith 2
charles 3
cree 3
most Cobb 12


Hi Rob

Thanks for posting that "scarcity" list. It's nice to know that my 1910 COUPON collection includes 3 of the toughest subjects (according to the pop reports).
Which reminds me, I most likely will have Rossman and Willett graded, eventually.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1910COUPONWillett25.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1910COUPONWillett25b.jpg




http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910CouponMcIntyre.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910CouponMcIntyreb.jpg




http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/RossmanCoupP350Sov50x_2.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/RossmanCoupP350Sov50xb_2.jpg




TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

Ted, What's the transfer on your Rossman coupon? I think it might be an
EPDG transfer.

[DixieBaseball]

Rob - Great pics, and scarcity list! Does anyone know of any ungraded Cobb Coupon cards in the Universe? I don't, except for the one that was in that completed set done many years ago, which I believe now has been broken up and sold in pieces if memory serves...

The Cobb count could be representative of the max amount of Coupon's per player and the Cobb possibly, has a few that have been double graded/crossed over, etc. - My assumption would be there are 8-15 Coupon Cobb's including all graded/raw examples. You have to figure there are more Cobb's than other common players, so when I think of the definition of rare, I would say 8-15 examples is right in the sweet spot. I figure the average number of Coupons for most players is around 4-8.... What event happened to make these so limited? Break up of ATC, stop production? (May-1911). Hurricane of 1915?? It appears Coupons and Red Suns have similar production with Red Suns having a few more examples... Both are rare. Red Suns stopped production of the intended 2nd series at 75 cards. Was this at/around the time Coupon's were just starting production? 1911 ??? So many questions, but I feel like the darts are all around the bulls eye and we just need more time and research to connect the dots... Ramble end.

[Pat R]

Ted, What's the transfer on your Rossman coupon? I think it might be an
EPDG transfer.

It looks like paper addition on the front but with the smaller scan it's hard to tell it could be paper loss but either way it looks like it was stuck to an EPDG
at some point.

341678

341679341680

[tedzan]

Ted, What's the transfer on your Rossman coupon? I think it might be an
EPDG transfer.
Pat

Here are larger front/back scans of the Rossman card. Rossman is an EPDG no-print; therefore, how can it have an EPDG transfer ?

The Rossman card was printed with very few backs. Most likely because he was traded by Detroit to the St. Louis Browns (August 20, 1909).
Plus, his Major League career ended Sept, 3, 1909.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1910couponrossmanbreiten.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/1910couponrossmanb.jpg

TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

Ted, It's a "storage" transfer not a factory transfer.

[Pat R]

Rob - Great pics, and scarcity list! Does anyone know of any ungraded Cobb Coupon cards in the Universe? I don't, except for the one that was in that completed set done many years ago, which I believe now has been broken up and sold in pieces if memory serves...

The Cobb count could be representative of the max amount of Coupon's per player and the Cobb possibly, has a few that have been double graded/crossed over, etc. - My assumption would be there are 8-15 Coupon Cobb's including all graded/raw examples. You have to figure there are more Cobb's than other common players, so when I think of the definition of rare, I would say 8-15 examples is right in the sweet spot. I figure the average number of Coupons for most players is around 4-8.... What event happened to make these so limited? Break up of ATC, stop production? (May-1911). Hurricane of 1915?? It appears Coupons and Red Suns have similar production with Red Suns having a few more examples... Both are rare. Red Suns stopped production of the intended 2nd series at 75 cards. Was this at/around the time Coupon's were just starting production? 1911 ??? So many questions, but I feel like the darts are all around the bulls eye and we just need more time and research to connect the dots... Ramble end.

Some of these subjects are extremely tough with other backs too.
Try and find some of these subjects with Tolstoi backs. Ted said he
searched for twelve years and never even saw a scan of Rossman with
a Tolstoi back.

Here are the combined pop reports on some of the Coupon type 1 subjects with
Tolstoi backs.

Cree - 2
Donovan - 2
Dubuc - 2
Dunn - 1
Engle - 3
Hoffman - 0
Hunter - 1
Killian - 3
Laporte - 1
Rossman - 0
Thomas - 0
Willett - 1
Wilson - 3

Dunn, Rossman and Thomas were only recently confirmed with Tolstoi
backs in the past year.

[tedzan]

It looks like paper addition on the front but with the smaller scan it's hard to tell it could be paper loss but either way it looks like it was stuck to an EPDG
at some point.

341678

341679341680


Pat

You have a better eye than I.

Nice catch on the EPDG transfer on my Rossman card.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[DixieBaseball]

Some of these subjects are extremely tough with other backs too.
Try and find some of these subjects with Tolstoi backs. Ted said he
searched for twelve years and never even saw a scan of Rossman with
a Tolstoi back.

Here are the combined pop reports on some of the Coupon type 1 subjects with
Tolstoi backs.

Cree - 2
Donovan - 2
Dubuc - 2
Dunn - 1
Engle - 3
Hoffman - 0
Hunter - 1
Killian - 3
Laporte - 1
Rossman - 0
Thomas - 0
Willett - 1
Wilson - 3

Dunn, Rossman and Thomas were only recently confirmed with Tolstoi
backs in the past year.


Pat - That is very interesting. What do you make of such a ridiculously low pop for those players? Tolstoi is in that middle range of tough backs which shouldn't be too difficult to find, yet these are super rare. Have you been able to see if these players were possibly "late" into production for some baseball reason? i.e. traded, called up, etc. ?! Perhaps Tolstoi added them to production late !?

[tedzan]

Jeremy

Here are 27 subjects in the 1910 COUPON set which were NOT printed with these following 350 series backs…..
CAROLINA BRIGHTS, EL PRINCIPE DE GALES, OLD MILL, POLAR BEAR. But were printed with the TOLSTOI back.

Do we have enough imagination to figure this strange incongruity, or is this a case where...."Only the Monster Knows !" :)

Byrne
Charles
Donovan (throwing)
Doolan (fielding)
Fletcher
Hoffman (St Louis AL)
Howell (portrait)
Huggins (portrait)
Huggins (hands at mouth)
Hunter
Killian (portrait)
Knabe
Lennox
Marquard (portrait)
McBride
McElveen
McIntyre (Detroit)
Mitchell (Cincinnati)
Mowery
Myers (bat)

Paskert
Rhoades (hands at chest)
Rossman
Schmidt (portrait)
Starr
Street (portrait)
Summers


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

Pat - That is very interesting. What do you make of such a ridiculously low pop for those players? Tolstoi is in that middle range of tough backs which shouldn't be too difficult to find, yet these are super rare. Have you been able to see if these players were possibly "late" into production for some baseball reason? i.e. traded, called up, etc. ?! Perhaps Tolstoi added them to production late !?

Jeremy, it's not just the players I listed that was just a sample most
of the 350 only subjects are difficult to find with a Tolstoi back here
are the combined pop reports of another group of confirmed Tolstoi's.

Anderson - 4
Bush - 0
Blackburne - 4
Cross - 4
Easterly - 1
Hoblitzel - 2
Kisinger - 1
McElveen - 3
Mowrey - 4
Oakes - 3
Ritter - 4
Smith, Heinie - 0
Zimmerman - 2

The didn't begin printing the Tolstoi backs until sometime during the 350
only series and I think it might have been towards the end of the 350
only printing as that would explain why most of them are scarce with
Tolstoi backs.

[Rich Falvo]

Pat - one of the things that surprised me the most after trying to work on a Providence master set was how tough the Tolstoi backs are for that 350 group.

[Pat R]

Hey Pat - at some point in near future, I will certainly be looking into your ATC Journal info (thank you for providing-looks interesting), and this thread to review all the comments. Plausible either way I suppose, but certainly will check it out. I am to busy playing offense at the moment, to play defense :p --- Seriously though, I look forward to reviewing, discussing w/ you and Ted in near future. Just so frikkin busy, and I better get back to pressure washing the back deck as that is what I was suppose to be doing this morning... ;) Meanwhile... let us be Free from Adulteration!

To keep from hi-jacking Teds other thread any further I moved this here where it's on topic. Until you get free time to look at the Journal which I think is the most important information there is in trying to date the time frame of the type 1's here's a rundown of some of the information in it.

The pages in it are from early 1909 through 1912 here's the two index pages I posted in the other thread

460068

460069

Some of the pages have examples of the cards pasted to them but the t206
pages were all removed and sold. Here's one of the pages I posted in the other
thread an American Beauty page with a Willetts pasted to it who as you know is in the t213-1 set.

460103

I know your a Southern League collector so here's an Old Mill page from the journal.

In partial it reads Began packing nat'l players same as those in piedmonts
began packing Jan 8th 1910 Began shipping Jan 9th 1910

Began packing one nat'l + 1 so league pict 3/15/1910 shipping 3/17/1910
Discontinued 12/14/10

460087

If the type 1's were printed in 1910 they almost certainly should be in this journal.




Pat

If you do NOT see the stylistic similarity of the design of these 5 backs indicating that they were printed during the Summer 1910 timeline,
then you have no appreciation for the operation at American Lithographic's art department. These designs were simultaneously printed in
the Spring/Summer of 1910. The same was true with another stylistic back design during the 350-only Series (CAROLINA BRIGHTS).

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/T206ChaseQuintuplcate75x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/ChaseABxBLxCOxCYx25.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/T206ElberfeldDRUMx25b.jpg



Furthermore,
This information is derived from an ATC journal regarding the May 1911 DIVESTURE ACT, which broke up American Tobacco Company's
monopoly.

Liggett & Myers was given about 28 per cent of the cigarette market:

Piedmont
Fatima
American Beauty
Home Run
Imperiales
COUPON
King Bee
Fatima

P. Lorillard received 15 per cent of the nation's business:

Helmar
Egyptian Deities
Turkish Trophies
Murad
Mogul
and all straight Turkish brands

American Tobacco retained 37 per cent of the market:

Pall Mall
Sweet Caporal
Hassan
Mecca


Note that the COUPON brand is assigned to L & M.....proving to us that it was in the marketplace during 1910.
Newspaper clippings (circa 1909) exist which inform us this new ATC brand was being introduced.


THAT'S ALL FOLKS, CASE IS CLOSED !


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.


Since Ted seems to be reluctant to view the journal and points to the stylistic design similarity's as one of the reasons they were printed in 1910 all the brands are on the index pages except Coupon.

460104

[tedzan]

If the type 1's were printed in 1910 they almost certainly should be in this journal.


Since Ted seems to be reluctant to view the journal and points to the stylistic design similarity's as one of the reasons they were printed in 1910 all the brands are on the index pages except Coupon.

460104


Hey Pat

Where do you come-off saying I am "RELUCTANT" to respond to this journal you posted. I already reviewed it in the other thread you posted it in.....and,
THERE'S NOTHING THERE THAT DISPELS THAT THE 1910 COUPON CARDS WERE PRINTED AND ISSUED IN 1910 ! That list is IRRELEVANT ! !

Where is a DATE on it ? Where are the other American Tobacco Co. (ATC) brands on that list ? For example....POLAR BEAR....RED CROSS (T215)...."PIRATE"...."TY COBB"

The fact that POLAR BEAR is missing on this journal list certainly indicates that this journal list would have been dated PRIOR TO THE SUMMER of 1910.

Anyhow, this list that you are "raving about" tells us NOTHING about when the "COUPON" cards were printed (or issued). ! Absolutely, nothing ! !

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________

Furthermore,

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910couponhugginsb.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/bcobbtycobb.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/acobbtycobb.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/apiratecigpack.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/bpiratecigpack.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/bt215pirate.jpg


Hey guys,

Those QUOTES surrounding these three Brand names are very significant. These QUOTES indicate that these are new ATC brands which had not yet received
an officially Registered TRADEMARK. Most people do not understand the importance of this, for it does INDEED set a timeline when these cards were printed
and issued.

Regarding the COUPON brand, it would be Circa Spring - Summer 1910.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

Hey Pat

Where do you come-off saying I am "RELUCTANT" to respond to this journal you posted. I already reviewed it in the other thread you posted it in.....and,
THERE'S NOTHING THERE THAT DISPELS THAT THE 1910 COUPON CARDS WERE PRINTED AND ISSUED IN 1910 ! That list is IRRELEVANT ! !

Where is a DATE on it ? Where are the other American Tobacco Co. (ATC) brands on that list ? For example....POLAR BEAR....RED CROSS (T215)...."PIRATE"...."TY COBB"

The fact that POLAR BEAR is missing on this journal list certainly indicates that this journal list would have been dated PRIOR TO THE SUMMER of 1910.

Anyhow, this list that you are "raving about" tells us NOTHING about when the "COUPON" cards were printed (or issued). ! Absolutely, nothing ! !

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________

Furthermore,

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1910couponhugginsb.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/bcobbtycobb.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/acobbtycobb.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/apiratecigpack.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/bpiratecigpack.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/bt215pirate.jpg


Hey guys,

Those QUOTES surrounding these three Brand names are very significant. These QUOTES indicate that these are new ATC brands which had not yet received
an officially Registered TRADEMARK. Most people do not understand the importance of this, for it does INDEED set a timeline when these cards were printed
and issued.

Regarding the COUPON brand, it would be Circa Spring - Summer 1910.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

The dates are on the pages with instructions on what to put in the packs and cartons. you need to look at the whole journal.

The journal dates are from 1909-1912 with the latest packing date of 8/12
on the Nebo brand. It is my understanding that the dates on the T215's are
approximate too and maybe the journal helps narrow the time frame down for them.

As for the Polar Bears first off that's a pouch scrap tobacco I don't know all of
the Tobacco brands on the index pages are any of the other brands pouch scrap Tobacco that had
cards inserted in them?

also several years ago when I was researching the print flaws I said the Polar
Bears didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the t206 brands.

You point out the similarity's in the Polar Bears to the Coupon perhaps the reason is they weren't printed and distributed with the other t206 brands.

Here's what I posted in 2015

Print flaws are important in the research of the printing process and they can also help spot fakes. I have been doing some limited research on a group of
T206 print flaws and I want to share what I think could/might be important
(to some people). These print flaws show that the front plates were shared
with some backs but likely not all backs within the same print groups and series, and the backs
seem to be grouped together, for instance the "murr'y flaw is found on four
different backs Lenox, Old Mill, Tolstoi, and SC 350-460 fact 30 and I have
found a couple of other flaws that are shared by Tolstoi's and Lenox.

Now the most interesting back in this research is Polar Bear, I have yet to
find any of these flaws on a PB back or a flaw on a PB (Dopner as far as I know
is only found on PB backs) has not been found on any other back.

I have stated before (and this is just my opinion) that I think the T206
printing was spread out among the several printing facility's that the American
Lithograph co. owned at the time. It just seems to make sense that a pretty
large project spread out over a fairly long period would have been done at
more than one place.

To me it is the best explanation for several things such as....

Sheet layout changes within the same series and some subjects that are more
difficult in common backs could be explained by slightly different layouts
at different facility's.

Why Demmitt and O'Hara ST Louis and the Dopner flaw are only found on PB backs and unless I'm wrong no printing flaw found on a different back is found
on a PB back. This could be explained if the Polar bears were printed by
themselves at one of the facility's and at the time they were making the
plates for that facility Demmitt and O'Hara were with ST Louis.

Now of course I know this is all speculation but I think it could be a good discussion.

[tedzan]

Pat

The journal list you are referring to (labelled Index) has 30 brands on it.

It has NO DATE identifying it....and it does NOT include the POLAR BEAR brand. The POLAR BEAR brand was a MAJOR brand,
the likes of which was printed on the backs of 250 subjects in the T206 set.

The timeline of the first series of POLAR BEAR cards has been established as beginning circa Spring -Summer 1910. Therefore,
that journal list of 30 brands that you are touting were generated prior to the Spring of 1910. Then of course it would not have
any information regarding COUPON (or RED CROSS, or PIRATE, or TY COBB SMOKING TOBACCO).


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

Pat

The journal list you are referring to (labelled Index) has 30 brands on it.

It has NO DATE identifying it....and it does NOT include the POLAR BEAR brand. The POLAR BEAR brand was a MAJOR brand,
the likes of which was printed on the backs of 250 subjects in the T206 set.

The timeline of the first series of POLAR BEAR cards has been established as beginning circa Spring -Summer 1910. Therefore,
that journal list of 30 brands that you are touting were generated prior to the Spring of 1910. Then of course it would not have
any information regarding COUPON (or RED CROSS, or PIRATE, or TY COBB SMOKING TOBACCO).


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.



My god Ted who's the one making a "fool" of himself take your blinders
off and read the whole journal not just the index page or read my posts that have some of them in it.


Here I've circled the dates on a couple of them but take the time and read
the whole journal it's been available on here for years.

460231

460232

[tedzan]

Pat

I don't see any connections between those small "piecewise" journals and the large journal (listed with the 30 brands) labelled "INDEX", which
you touted as being "evidence" for your cause. Show me how they are connected ?
So, the dates on those are irrelevant to anything we are discussing with respect to when the 1910 "COUPON" cards were printed and issued.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[jggames]

Just an observation from a fan of the Ledger pages. It seems to be a true index, as the page number on the American Beauty card page “95” corresponds to the American Beauty entry on the Index “95-119” but I also see a date of 1912 at the top of the second page.

[Pat R]

Just an observation from a fan of the Ledger pages. It seems to be a true index, as the page number on the American Beauty card page “95” corresponds to the American Beauty entry on the Index “95-119” but I also see a date of 1912 at the top of the second page.

This is correct James when you look at the whole journal the index page is more or less in chronological order and they added a page number to the index when they changed what was inserted in packs of that particular brand. It starts with entry's from 1909 and ends in 1912. This is why in my opinion if Coupon type 1's were distributed in 1910 they should be in this journal.

The page with 1912 on it is the second index page which would be when they created that index page.

[jggames]

This is correct James when you look at the whole journal the index page is more or less in chronological order and they added a page number to the index when they changed what was inserted in packs of that particular brand. It starts with entry's from 1909 and ends in 1912. This is why in my opinion if Coupon type 1's were distributed in 1910 they should be in this journal.

The page with 1912 on it is the second index page which would be when they created that index page.

I guess what I didn’t explicitly say was that it also connects the pieces to that index page

[tedzan]

Just an observation from a fan of the Ledger pages. It seems to be a true index, as the page number on the American Beauty card page “95” corresponds to the American Beauty entry on the Index “95-119” but I also see a date of 1912 at the top of the second page.

Jason

Perhaps you can get an answer from Pat.....because I have asked him to explain why the POLAR BEAR brand is missing from that list of 30 brands (supposedly
reflecting "entry's from 1909 and ends in 1912").

But, Pat avoids answering that simple question.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

Jason

Perhaps you can get an answer from Pat.....because I have asked him to explain why the POLAR BEAR brand is missing from that list of 30 brands (supposedly
reflecting "entry's from 1909 and ends in 1912").

But, Pat avoids answering that simple question.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

I posted my opinion on that in post #211 I highlighted in red for you.

[tedzan]

I posted my opinion on that in post #211 I highlighted in red for you.

"You point out the similarity's in the Polar Bears to the Coupon perhaps the reason is they weren't printed and distributed with the other t206 brands."


Pat

Sorry, but I did not get what you were driving at with that, when I first read it. And, I still don't understand what you are
alluding to regarding similarity between 1910 COUPON cards and POLAR BEAR cards (other than they are both T206's).


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

"You point out the similarity's in the Polar Bears to the Coupon perhaps the reason is they weren't printed and distributed with the other t206 brands."


Pat

Sorry, but I did not get what you were driving at with that, when I first read it. And, I still don't understand what you are
alluding to regarding similarity between 1910 COUPON cards and POLAR BEAR cards (other than they are both T206's).


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

I thought I remembered you comparing them but I couldn't find where you
did so I was wrong about that.

[Pat R]

This is correct James when you look at the whole journal the index page is more or less in chronological order and they added a page number to the index when they changed what was inserted in packs of that particular brand. It starts with entry's from 1909 and ends in 1912. This is why in my opinion if Coupon type 1's were distributed in 1910 they should be in this journal.

The page with 1912 on it is the second index page which would be when they created that index page.

Sometimes we get lucky and find definitive proof of something in writing like the packing and shipping dates in the journal but most of the time
you're just putting together bits and pieces to form an opinion.

Ryan just posted his multi - overstrike back southern leaguers in another thread.
460413

The backs are from a test print scrap, we have no way of knowing when each
back was test printed but I think it's fair to assume it was close to the same time.


The three backs on Ryan's cards are Piedmont, Old Mill and EPDG, those three backs are in a group together on the index page along with Hindu.

460414

[Pat R]

The more meticulously I look through the journal the more things seem to come together. When I first found out about it on here I printed it out and
since then I have looked through it on several occasions when I was researching other things but over the past few day's I've been taking a much closer look at everything in it.

It's really a shame that many of the t206 pages and others like Red Sun were removed from the journal. Some of them have been sold in auction
so we have images of them but others like Sovereign, Broad Leaf and Drum as far as I know haven't.

Looking at the pages that are available explains some things and adds to a lot of what we do know.

I posted it earlier but here are a couple more things about it that I noticed.


Up until recently the southern leaguers were thought to have been printed in 1910 with the Old Mill backs but in 2018 I found this ad.
460586

The August 14 1909 date in that ad coincides with the date on the ledger that says they first started packing and shipping the Old Mill southern leaguers 7/09.

The Old Mill ledger page could also explain why the "exclusive 12" subjects in the 460 only series are very tough with an old Mill back because the ledger page indicates they discontinued packing the Old Mills on 12/14/1910.

[tedzan]

The more meticulously I look through the journal the more things seem to come together. When I first found out about it on here I printed it out and
since then I have looked through it on several occasions when I was researching other things but over the past few day's I've been taking a much closer look at everything in it.

It's really a shame that many of the t206 pages and others like Red Sun were removed from the journal. Some of them have been sold in auction
so we have images of them but others like Sovereign, Broad Leaf and Drum as far as I know haven't.

Looking at the pages that are available explains some things and adds to a lot of what we do know.

I posted it earlier but here are a couple more things about it that I noticed.


Up until recently the southern leaguers were thought to have been printed in 1910 with the Old Mill backs but in 2018 I found this ad.
460586

The August 14 1909 date in that ad coincides with the date on the ledger that says they first started packing and shipping the Old Mill southern leaguers 7/09.

The Old Mill ledger page could also explain why the "exclusive 12" subjects in the 460 only series are very tough with an old Mill back because the ledger page indicates they discontinued packing the Old Mills on 12/14/1910.



Thank you Pat....for confirming what I posted in my thread regarding the Exclusive 12 cards in the 460-only Series back in 2013. The UZIT backs are almost impossible to find
with these 12 subjects, and the OLD MILL appears to 2nd in line in terms of scarcity.

Furthermore, I also noted then that the T80 cards are extremely difficult to find with OLD MILL backs.



Indeed, these Exclusive 12 cards are difficult with CYCLE 460 backs, and EPDG backs.

My experience collecting back runs of these 12 subjects is that OLD MILL is very tough, and UZIT is virtually impossible.

After I completed my RED HINDU run of these 12 guys, I started the OLD MILL run approx. a year ago and so far I have only these 4 guys......

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/OldMillCrandall25x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/OMMcGrawFordDevore50x.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/OldMillCrandall25xb.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/OMMcGrawFordDevore25b.jpg




TED Z
.

[Pat R]

No problem Ted as I said it certainly could explain the difficulty of the
"exclusive 12" subjects with an Old Mill back. But I do have to ask why
do you accept this information from the journal but you won't accept
the absence of the Coupons in it?

[tedzan]

Pat

As I have already said....that undated list of 30 brands (ATC) without POLAR BEAR data indicates to me that it reflects information prior to the introduction of the
POLAR BEAR tobacco cards (circa SPRING 1910).

We cannot ignore this timeline. I will get into this later today, as I have to leave right now.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

Ted, I told you several times the dates are there, Polar bear isn't and I gave you my opinion why. I have more to post maybe I'll convince you yet.

I'm still waiting to hear from Jeremy since he's the one that completed a set or near set of the type 1 southern Leaguers.

[Pat R]

Pat

As I have already said....that undated list of 30 brands (ATC) without POLAR BEAR data indicates to me that it reflects information prior to the introduction of the
POLAR BEAR tobacco cards (circa SPRING 1910).

We cannot ignore this timeline. I will get into this later today, as I have to leave right now.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.


Here's the Carolina Brights page that was removed from the album and was sold in an auction. The part of the page that had the packing and shipping dates was removed.
460655


But another Carolina Brights page with cards I'm not familiar with was still in the journal
460656

Someone crossed it out but on the side it says began packing Ball pictures
Piedmont back backs in Carolina Brights 12/8(or18) 1909 it goes on to say
began packing 2 ball pictures with C.B. backs

460657

[Pat R]

Pat

As I have already said....that undated list of 30 brands (ATC) without POLAR BEAR data indicates to me that it reflects information prior to the introduction of the
POLAR BEAR tobacco cards (circa SPRING 1910).

We cannot ignore this timeline. I will get into this later today, as I have to leave right now.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

Ted, I found some more information why Polar Bear probably wouldn't be in the ATC Journal.

It wasn't an ATC brand until 1914
461867

I also said like Coupon I think it's possible that the Polar Bears weren't printed with the other t206's.

Now I'm not saying this is proof but the Owner of Polar Bear Tobacco Eddie
Wilbern was a Baseball fan who even talked about buying the Brooklyn Dodgers.
461868

So he could have decided to use the past success of the cigarette inserts to promote his product and also could have been the reason for team changes on Demmitt and O'Hara.

He was known to promote his products in interesting ways.

461869

[Pat R]

Some more evidence that Polar Bear could have been printed separately and even after t206's is a recently discovered original 150+
find of t206's and around 30 t205's with the 120+ t206's "almost Exclusively" Polar bear.

It seems odd that if they were printed with the t206's that there weren't other brands of t206's in it but there were other brands of t205's which were printed after
the t206's.

https://blog.justcollect.com/blog/pennsylvania-polar-bear-tobacco-card-collection

[tedzan]

Hey guys,

History of Polar Bear.....and Factory No. 6, 1st District, Middletown, Ohio

Paul Sorg and John Auer began producing cut plug tobacco in Middletown, Ohio, in the late 1870’s. In 1898, Continental Tobacco Company (one of the main
holding companies under the American Tobacco Company umbrella) purchased the Middletown plant. In early 1899, Luhrman & Wilburn Tobacco Company
of Cincinnati (one of the largest scrap tobacco manufacturers) was purchased by Continental. Continental then moved the Luhrman & Wilburn operations to
the Middletown factory. Upon the break-up of ATC in 1911, the plant ownership changed to the P. Lorillard Company, which operated it until 1951.

Note: the owners of the American Tobacco Company and the American Lithographic Company (ALC) , J. B. Duke and J. P. Knapp, respectively were very close
business partners during the years of production of Tobacco cards. The POLAR BEAR cards of the T206 set were printed by ALC during 1910 - 1911.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________________________

The cards of Demmitt & O'Hara provide us an insight into the timeline when the POLAR BEAR (PB) cards were printed. The New York versions of Demmitt & O'Hara
are 350-only Series subjects, which were printed prior to the PB press runs.

Circa Summer 1910 timeline is confirmed by the Demmitt & O'Hara St Louis variations....since both of which were printed ONLY with PB backs.

Demmitt & O'Hara were traded during the off-season in 1909. They both started the 1910 season with their respective St Louis teams. Early May of 1910, both of
them were re-assigned to the Eastern League. Demmitt to Montreal and O'Hara to Toronto.

This narrow window of their play with their St Louis teams in May 1910 absolutely confirms the timeline of these Demmitt and O'Hara cards to the Summer of 1910.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/DemmittStLouisSGC.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/PolarBearMcGlynn25x.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/OHaraStLouisSGCA.jpg


Imperial Tobacco (C46)....Eastern (International) League cards
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/ac46demmittohara.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

Hey guys,

History of Polar Bear.....and Factory No. 6, 1st District, Middletown, Ohio

Paul Sorg and John Auer began producing cut plug tobacco in Middletown, Ohio, in the late 1870’s. In 1898, Continental Tobacco Company (one of the main
holding companies under the American Tobacco Company umbrella) purchased the Middletown plant. In early 1899, Luhrman & Wilburn Tobacco Company
of Cincinnati (one of the largest scrap tobacco manufacturers) was purchased by Continental. Continental then moved the Luhrman & Wilburn operations to
the Middletown factory. Upon the break-up of ATC in 1911, the plant ownership changed to the P. Lorillard Company, which operated it until 1951.

Note: the owners of the American Tobacco Company and the American Lithographic Company (ALC) , J. B. Duke and J. P. Knapp, respectively were very close
business partners during the years of production of Tobacco cards. The POLAR BEAR cards of the T206 set were printed by ALC during 1910 - 1911.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________________________

The cards of Demmitt & O'Hara provide us an insight into the timeline when the POLAR BEAR (PB) cards were printed. The New York versions of Demmitt & O'Hara
are 350-only Series subjects, which were printed prior to the PB press runs.

Circa Summer 1910 timeline is confirmed by the Demmitt & O'Hara St Louis variations....since both of which were printed ONLY with PB backs.

Demmitt & O'Hara were traded during the off-season in 1909. They both started the 1910 season with their respective St Louis teams. Early May of 1910, both of
them were re-assigned to the Eastern League. Demmitt to Montreal and O'Hara to Toronto.

This narrow window of their play with their St Louis teams in May 1910 absolutely confirms the timeline of these Demmitt and O'Hara cards to the Summer of 1910.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/DemmittStLouisSGC.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/PolarBearMcGlynn25x.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/OHaraStLouisSGCA.jpg


Imperial Tobacco (C46)....Eastern (International) League cards
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/ac46demmittohara.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

You can address me Ted I think I've shown I willing to discuss our opinions and I think I always provide my reasons whether they're right or wrong.

Where do we have proof of the distribution dates on the Polar Bears? Demmit and O'hara isn't proof.
We have proof through ads and the ATC journal on the distribution of most if not all of the other t206 brands.

The Polar Bear brand was organized by Wilbern
462088

and it's obvious he was a baseball fan and spent money promoting baseball
so why isn't it possible he was involved with re-using the t206 images in the
Polar Bear Brand?
462089

When You compare Polar Bear to the other t206 brands you have

1 Demmitt and O'hara

2 the only t206 brand inserted directly with the tobacco in a pouch

3 A different back printing process than all the other backs (the lack of ink
makes up the advertising while with all the other backs the advertising is printed in ink)

4 Print flaws that are found on all other brands aren't found on Polar Bears
but the Dopner error/flaw is only found on Polar Bear.

I think anybody that does research especially on the older cards knows that although it's helpful dating a distribution on the teams players played for at the time isn't always accurate.


For decades most people including you thought the Southern Leaguer printing started in late 1909-early 1910 with the Old Mill backs until I found the ad that showed they were distributed in the summer of 1909 with Old Mill backs and the ATC journal shows the same thing.


So what's your explanation for Polar Bear and Coupons absence in the journal now that you've seen that the dates are there for all the other tobacco products and the t206's coincide with newspaper and sporting life ads that were promoting them.

[G1911]

If we assume authenticity and accuracy (there are some conflicts with data on the card backs in non-baseball sets compared to what the journal states), over 3/4 of the ATC journal is missing, based on the page numbering that goes to at least 380 in the surviving pages. Personally, I don't see how was can say a set is not in there, and that its lack of inclusion is evidence it is from a separate run as a result. We do not know the table of contents pages (which appear to have been amended as pages were added) are all present. We would need the entirety of the book to say this with any degree of certainty.

Second, Polar Bear absolutely was an ATC brand in the T206 distribution period, Continental was a subsidiary of the ATC they used to manage multiple smaller brands. That does not mean PB's were printed at the same time as other backs, but this does not seem to hold weight as a reason to support a claim it is a separate release.

If PB's were from years years later, like in 1914 as was alluded, like T214, T213-2 etc., the selection and team captions are very, very odd. I can't see why Demmitt (he wasn't in the majors in 1911, 1912, or 1913) and O'Hara (never played a game in the majors after 1910) would be updated for late 1909 (Demmitt was swapped Dec. 16, 1909, not sure on O'Hara) trades and the numerous other players who changed teams or left the league were re-printed without any updates years later. That seems even odder to me. I've always thought PB was just printed at the end of the production run that included O'Hara and Demmitt. The PB cards also do not betray the low-quality print that the ALC 'reprint' issues had, like T213-2, T213-3, T223. This does not rule it out, of course.

I'm not seeing much evidence to support the notion, certainly not a preponderance that the general understanding in the hobby is wrong or has less evidence than this claim. I don't have enough money into T206 to have a dog in the fight, I'm open to the notion if the evidence supports it. I'm just not seeing that evidence. I'd be happy to be proven wrong and learn something new, PB's are the coolest looking back in my book and I go out of my way to add them over other backs.


EDIT: After looking at my copy of the .pdf'd ledger again, it is obvious the table of contents with brands is not complete and at least 1 full page of it is missing. This makes the claim that PB is NOT in the ledger even more difficult to sustain.

[Pat R]

If we assume authenticity and accuracy (there are some conflicts with data on the card backs in non-baseball sets compared to what the journal states), over 3/4 of the ATC journal is missing, based on the page numbering that goes to at least 380 in the surviving pages. Personally, I don't see how was can say a set is not in there, and that its lack of inclusion is evidence it is from a separate run as a result. We do not know the table of contents pages (which appear to have been amended as pages were added) are all present. We would need the entirety of the book to say this with any degree of certainty.

Second, Polar Bear absolutely was an ATC brand in the T206 distribution period, Continental was a subsidiary of the ATC they used to manage multiple smaller brands. That does not mean PB's were printed at the same time as other backs, but this does not seem to hold weight as a reason to support a claim it is a separate release.

If PB's were from years years later, like in 1914 as was alluded, like T214, T213-2 etc., the selection and team captions are very, very odd. I can't see why Demmitt (he wasn't in the majors in 1911, 1912, or 1913) and O'Hara (never played a game in the majors after 1910) would be updated for late 1909 (Demmitt was swapped Dec. 16, 1909, not sure on O'Hara) trades and the numerous other players who changed teams or left the league were re-printed without any updates years later. That seems even odder to me. I've always thought PB was just printed at the end of the production run that included O'Hara and Demmitt. The PB cards also do not betray the low-quality print that the ALC 'reprint' issues had, like T213-2, T213-3, T223. This does not rule it out, of course.

I'm not seeing much evidence to support the notion, certainly not a preponderance that the general understanding in the hobby is wrong or has less evidence than this claim. I don't have enough money into T206 to have a dog in the fight, I'm open to the notion if the evidence supports it. I'm just not seeing that evidence. I'd be happy to be proven wrong and learn something new, PB's are the coolest looking back in my book and I go out of my way to add them over other backs.


EDIT: After looking at my copy of the .pdf'd ledger again, it is obvious the table of contents with brands is not complete and at least 1 full page of it is missing. This makes the claim that PB is NOT in the ledger even more difficult to sustain.

Greg, yes there are a lot of pages missing in the journal but there's still a lot of information in the pages that are there. I don't see where you're getting that there is a table of contents page missing. As I said in our previous discussion you have to look over all of the pages thoroughly and take in account the information from other pages.. I haven't found any inaccuracies on the dates in the journal but I do see where there is some inaccuracy in how you're reading what's in it.

In the other thread you made a couple of inaccurate points about the journal.
I don't believe this is correct (or fully correct). There are some oddities in the ledger book, and some pages that indicate multiple print runs/issue runs for the same set. For example, T53 is stated in one of the Posey letters in it to have starting packing and delivery on March 29, 1911. The very next letter in the book says this single-series single-brand issue started packing and delivery on May 23, 1911.

T218's 3rd series is stated to have been issued in February, 1911 on one page in the ledger itself, and one of the Posey letters states May 25th.

Many of the pages are also missing, they are numbered to at least 380. Including the Posey letters not counted in the page count, there are 65 pages still together plus the remnants of the T206 pages someone ripped out of the collection to sell at some point, removing a lot of context.

I suspect T36 is one of the issues that had multiple issue (and print?) runs, and so was not issued for only March 27 and 28, 1911.

The two T53 dates you point out are when they were discontinuing two different products and substituting T53's in their place.

On this one they are discontinuing the Auto drivers and substituting the cowboy's.
462203

and on this one they're discontinuing the Lighthouse's and substituting the cowboy's.
462204

and as I pointed out in the other thread March 27 and 28 wasn't the only dates they distributed the T36's that was just the days they started packing and shipping them.

also from our previous discussion I don't see any proof of "impossible" dates in the journal.

I think that if the Polar Bears and Coupons were printed in the same timeframe as the t206's it would be quite a coincidence that they are the only two missing from this journal however I was never suggesting they were printed in 1914 as you state I was suggesting they may have been printed shortly after the T206's or at a different facility than the t206's.

Each individual person put's a different weight on information they find in their research but for me written information from the time of occurrence like this journal is at the top for me. The information in the card catalogs with some things are a best guess based on the information known at the time but that doesn't mean we have to stop looking or accepting new information when it becomes available.

[G1911]

Greg, yes there are a lot of pages missing in the journal but there's still a lot of information in the pages that are there. I don't see where you're getting that there is a table of contents page missing. As I said in our previous discussion you have to look over all of the pages thoroughly and take in account the information from other pages.. I haven't found any inaccuracies on the dates in the journal but I do see where there is some inaccuracy in how you're reading what's in it.

In the other thread you made a couple of inaccurate points about the journal.
[/B]

The two T53 dates you point out are when they were discontinuing two different products and substituting T53's in their place.

On this one they are discontinuing the Auto drivers and substituting the cowboy's.
462203

and on this one they're discontinuing the Lighthouse's and substituting the cowboy's.
462204

and as I pointed out in the other thread March 27 and 28 wasn't the only dates they distributed the T36's that was just the days they started packing and shipping them.

also from our previous discussion I don't see any proof of "impossible" dates in the journal.

I think that if the Polar Bears and Coupons were printed in the same timeframe as the t206's it would be quite a coincidence that they are the only two missing from this journal however I was never suggesting they were printed in 1914 as you state I was suggesting they may have been printed shortly after the T206's or at a different facility than the t206's.

Each individual person put's a different weight on information they find in their research but for me written information from the time of occurrence like this journal is at the top for me. The information in the card catalogs with some things are a best guess based on the information known at the time but that doesn't mean we have to stop looking or accepting new information when it becomes available.

1) You posted the two Contents/Index pages that survive in 209. There is not another page in the surviving journal. Note that they record nothing before page 52. I find it extremely unlikely this is complete, and the first 51 pages of a ledger were just blank.


2) If 3/4 of the journal, and some of the index at least, is missing how can we reasonably state Coupon and Polar Bear do not appear in the journal? This is going beyond the evidence.


3) I got the 1914 implication when you stated in 229 that " I found some more information why Polar Bear probably wouldn't be in the ATC Journal. It wasn't an ATC brand until 1914." I apologize if I misunderstood, but the inference seemed to be it wasn't an ATC brand (it factually was), and was thus not printed under the ATC/ALC parternship until it was. I already stated I think PB was printed at/near the end of the 350 run which you apparently do not agree with, so I'm not sure what your timeframe is if it is not this.


4) Yes, they are substituting a Hassan series for the Hassan T53's on two different dates, significantly apart. The pages attached in your post 234 give two different release dates for the Hassan T53 series. T53 release "Started Packing Mch. 29" and "Started Delivering March 29" according to letter 1. According to letter 2, T53's "Started Packing May 23, 1911" and "Started Delivery, May 29, 1911", producing two different release dates. Both cards in the journal are F30's. We may see different possible explanations and indications of what it can mean for other sets, but your claim that my claim they have two different release dates in the journal is an "inaccuracy" is plainly false. Are you alleging that the date a set "started packing" and "started delivery" in the journal is not a release date? Will this standard be applied to the T206 pages?


5) Yes, I strongly agree T36's were not a two day issue. That was the thesis. I said this in the part you bolded, and are claiming is an inaccurate statement (It's an opinion statement on an uncertain issue, not a claim to fact by the way) I made. Note that the sentence you bolded to claim is incorrect begins "I suspect...". A Posey letter states T77 is being replaced with T36 in Hassan 30 on March 27, 1911. T53 is then replaced in Hassan 30 with T36 on March 29, 1911, which is a 2 day gap. One of the Posey letters state they are being packaged and delivered March 27, in place of T218-3, with a Mecca 30 card pictured. The next letters states Mecca has exhausted the supply of T36 and is issuing T42 March 31st, a 4 day gap.


6) I 100% agree on the supremacy of primary sources, I do not see how you are inferring I am favoring secondary sources and catalogs over primary with your next statement. You already already know well that my argument is the conflict on the cards themselves, not a date in a catalog, which I have never once cited. Who is arguing that we should "stop looking" for new information? When have I ever done this, since you are replying to me? If we're going to do this, can we stick to evidentiary grounds in good faith? I disagree with you, I do not claim you are not seeking truth and are trying to shut down the search for new information. People can simply and politely disagree.

I find the cards themselves the best tell, as this journal is of unknown provenance, unknown custody, and unknown authenticity (and was apparently modified and had pages ripped out by at least one owner to sell for profit). A card can not have been packed and delivered before events in its back text happened. T218-1 and T218-2 (Or T220-2, if it is read that way, it is even more impossible) both appear to have impossible release dates given on pages 70 and 89 that do not mesh with the text on card backs that reference specific events after that date. T218-1 is given dates in January, and May (which someone seems to have notated with an update to be June 22), 1910. Card backs reference after January, that date is not possible but the others are. T218-2 could not be released June 16, 1910 (which is before one of the dates given for series 1 even, on page 85) because the backs run through at minimum July 4, 1910. If the reference to a Tolstoi series of this name means T220-2, that could not have been released in June, because it notes events through August of 1910. There are others that I think are a bit off that are not hard evidence, like T220-2 being a March, 1911 issue in a another Posey letter, that seems awfully late based on the card content. Most of the other card sets in the journal are not of a subject kept up-to-date with recent events and so do not provide much of a clue either way on the details of release. If authentic, and I am not even saying it is not authentic, I am saying I do not know and there is little evidence either way on the provenance and authenticity of this item and thus it should not be automatically assumed this source is Gospel, there appear to be some inaccuracies in it. I do not think the data here is paramount to what is stated on card backs. I do not see how it reasonably could be.


7) I have seen 0 evidence Polar Bear's were "printed at a different facility", they seem to clearly be from American Lithographic like the rest of the cards. If printed after the other 350 cards (I suspect they were), I do not see why we would think they were done by someone else and so perfectly copied the T206's. Or are we saying American Lithographic had another facility that they actively printed the white-border series at? If so, how could we possibly conclude which backs were printed at this second shop? 3/4 of the journal, at minimum, is missing. A ton of ATC/ALC sets are not in the surviving pages.

[Pat R]

1) You posted the two Contents/Index pages that survive in 209. There is not another page in the surviving journal. Note that they record nothing before page 52. I find it extremely unlikely this is complete, and the first 51 pages of a ledger were just blank.


2) If 3/4 of the journal, and some of the index at least, is missing how can we reasonably state Coupon and Polar Bear do not appear in the journal? This is going beyond the evidence.


3) I got the 1914 implication when you stated in 229 that " I found some more information why Polar Bear probably wouldn't be in the ATC Journal. It wasn't an ATC brand until 1914." I apologize if I misunderstood, but the inference seemed to be it wasn't an ATC brand (it factually was), and was thus not printed under the ATC/ALC parternship until it was. I already stated I think PB was printed at/near the end of the 350 run which you apparently do not agree with, so I'm not sure what your timeframe is if it is not this.


4) Yes, they are substituting a Hassan series for the Hassan T53's on two different dates, significantly apart. The pages attached in your post 234 give two different release dates for the Hassan T53 series. T53 release "Started Packing Mch. 29" and "Started Delivering March 29" according to letter 1. According to letter 2, T53's "Started Packing May 23, 1911" and "Started Delivery, May 29, 1911", producing two different release dates. Both cards in the journal are F30's. We may see different possible explanations and indications of what it can mean for other sets, but your claim that my claim they have two different release dates in the journal is an "inaccuracy" is plainly false. Are you alleging that the date a set "started packing" and "started delivery" in the journal is not a release date? Will this standard be applied to the T206 pages?


5) Yes, I strongly agree T36's were not a two day issue. That was the thesis. I said this in the part you bolded, and are claiming is an inaccurate statement (It's an opinion statement on an uncertain issue, not a claim to fact by the way) I made. Note that the sentence you bolded to claim is incorrect begins "I suspect...". A Posey letter states T77 is being replaced with T36 in Hassan 30 on March 27, 1911. T53 is then replaced in Hassan 30 with T36 on March 29, 1911, which is a 2 day gap. One of the Posey letters state they are being packaged and delivered March 27, in place of T218-3, with a Mecca 30 card pictured. The next letters states Mecca has exhausted the supply of T36 and is issuing T42 March 31st, a 4 day gap.


6) I 100% agree on the supremacy of primary sources, I do not see how you are inferring I am favoring secondary sources and catalogs over primary with your next statement. You already already know well that my argument is the conflict on the cards themselves, not a date in a catalog, which I have never once cited. Who is arguing that we should "stop looking" for new information? When have I ever done this, since you are replying to me? If we're going to do this, can we stick to evidentiary grounds in good faith? I disagree with you, I do not claim you are not seeking truth and are trying to shut down the search for new information. People can simply and politely disagree.

I find the cards themselves the best tell, as this journal is of unknown provenance, unknown custody, and unknown authenticity (and was apparently modified and had pages ripped out by at least one owner to sell for profit). A card can not have been packed and delivered before events in its back text happened. T218-1 and T218-2 (Or T220-2, if it is read that way, it is even more impossible) both appear to have impossible release dates given on pages 70 and 89 that do not mesh with the text on card backs that reference specific events after that date. T218-1 is given dates in January, and May (which someone seems to have notated with an update to be June 22), 1910. Card backs reference after January, that date is not possible but the others are. T218-2 could not be released June 16, 1910 (which is before one of the dates given for series 1 even, on page 85) because the backs run through at minimum July 4, 1910. If the reference to a Tolstoi series of this name means T220-2, that could not have been released in June, because it notes events through August of 1910. There are others that I think are a bit off that are not hard evidence, like T220-2 being a March, 1911 issue in a another Posey letter, that seems awfully late based on the card content. Most of the other card sets in the journal are not of a subject kept up-to-date with recent events and so do not provide much of a clue either way on the details of release. If authentic, and I am not even saying it is not authentic, I am saying I do not know and there is little evidence either way on the provenance and authenticity of this item and thus it should not be automatically assumed this source is Gospel, there appear to be some inaccuracies in it. I do not think the data here is paramount to what is stated on card backs. I do not see how it reasonably could be.


7) I have seen 0 evidence Polar Bear's were "printed at a different facility", they seem to clearly be from American Lithographic like the rest of the cards. If printed after the other 350 cards (I suspect they were), I do not see why we would think they were done by someone else and so perfectly copied the T206's. Or are we saying American Lithographic had another facility that they actively printed the white-border series at? If so, how could we possibly conclude which backs were printed at this second shop? 3/4 of the journal, at minimum, is missing. A ton of ATC/ALC sets are not in the surviving pages.


1) The contents pages are about a particular brand/timeframe it's possible the first 50 pages were general information but even if they
weren't with the order of the other t206's (and other issues) I'm pretty certain the Polar Bear or Coupon weren't on those pages.

2) In my opinion they would absolutely be on the first contents page all the other t206's (except maybe Broad Leaf I don't know for sure if there was
another issue printed before t206's with a Broad Leaf back) are in chronological order based on their t206 distribution.

3)The Tobacco company information is a mess to try and figure out from that time. The American Tobacco Company had full control of some products and
partial control of others and they were trying to hide some information because of the forced divide, The way I read the clip I posted they didn't gain full control of The Continental Tobacco Company until 1914.


4) The release date for the T53's is March 29 so if you bought a pack of 10 Hassan cigarettes that was packed before that date you would get an
Auto Driver or a Light house in that pack if you bought one after that date you would get a Cowboy or a Light House in that pack until May 23 when they
discontinued packing the Light House cards. I haven't checked all the packing dates on the Hassan inserts but if there wasn't something substituted right
after the Light House cards were discontinued then every pack would have a Cowboy in it. My point is they didn't stop and restart packing the Cowboy's
they were packed from March 29 until they were discontinued permanently. They just shared the packing with different cards over that period.

5) I think 4 covers this one.


6) The first part was a general statement and I respect if you disagree.

For the second part ATC was only packing the cards so they were dependent on what ALC was printing for them. In most cases it wasn't a one time supply
of a particular set ALC was printing them and supplying ATC with what they printed and cards within that set changed that's where were get some of the
rarities found in most sets. In other words series 1 t218 cards weren't all necessarily printed in one printing.
So lets say there were three phases of series one the third phase is where the cards that you question the dates on would have come from.

7) I'm not suggesting the Polar Bears weren't printed by ALC I'm suggesting they might have been printed at one of their other facility's like the one in PA.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=205962&highlight=American+Lithograph

What are some of the ton of ATC/ALC sets from 1909-1911 that aren't in the journal?

[jggames]

It seems reasonable to believe that Index is a full representation of the ledger's contents, if only just for practical purposes...they used it regularly and needed to get to pages quickly. A hidden "Coupon" or Polar Bear page just seems unlikely given all of the other brands' representation.

If that's the case then figuring out where these two brands were printed becomes the fun historical hunt. I hadn't seen this posted yet, so I thought I'd share. Everyone knows Knapp and ATC printed everything, here is a direct connection to the Coupon's W.R. Irby New Orleans branch, which I hadn't seen before. "The Knapp Co Lith NY"

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0071/9152/files/Screen_Shot_2021-06-02_at_12.08.15_PM_1024x1024.png?v=1622992208

[Pat R]

It seems reasonable to believe that Index is a full representation of the ledger's contents, if only just for practical purposes...they used it regularly and needed to get to pages quickly. A hidden "Coupon" or Polar Bear page just seems unlikely given all of the other brands' representation.

If that's the case then figuring out where these two brands were printed becomes the fun historical hunt. I hadn't seen this posted yet, so I thought I'd share. Everyone knows Knapp and ATC printed everything, here is a direct connection to the Coupon's W.R. Irby New Orleans branch, which I hadn't seen before. "The Knapp Co Lith NY"

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0071/9152/files/Screen_Shot_2021-06-02_at_12.08.15_PM_1024x1024.png?v=1622992208

That is cool Jason thanks for posting that.

[G1911]

[/B]


1) The contents pages are about a particular brand/timeframe it's possible the first 50 pages were general information but even if they
weren't with the order of the other t206's (and other issues) I'm pretty certain the Polar Bear or Coupon weren't on those pages.

2) In my opinion they would absolutely be on the first contents page all the other t206's (except maybe Broad Leaf I don't know for sure if there was
another issue printed before t206's with a Broad Leaf back) are in chronological order based on their t206 distribution.

3)The Tobacco company information is a mess to try and figure out from that time. The American Tobacco Company had full control of some products and
partial control of others and they were trying to hide some information because of the forced divide, The way I read the clip I posted they didn't gain full control of The Continental Tobacco Company until 1914.


4) The release date for the T53's is March 29 so if you bought a pack of 10 Hassan cigarettes that was packed before that date you would get an
Auto Driver or a Light house in that pack if you bought one after that date you would get a Cowboy or a Light House in that pack until May 23 when they
discontinued packing the Light House cards. I haven't checked all the packing dates on the Hassan inserts but if there wasn't something substituted right
after the Light House cards were discontinued then every pack would have a Cowboy in it. My point is they didn't stop and restart packing the Cowboy's
they were packed from March 29 until they were discontinued permanently. They just shared the packing with different cards over that period.

5) I think 4 covers this one.


6) The first part was a general statement and I respect if you disagree.

For the second part ATC was only packing the cards so they were dependent on what ALC was printing for them. In most cases it wasn't a one time supply
of a particular set ALC was printing them and supplying ATC with what they printed and cards within that set changed that's where were get some of the
rarities found in most sets. In other words series 1 t218 cards weren't all necessarily printed in one printing.
So lets say there were three phases of series one the third phase is where the cards that you question the dates on would have come from.

7) I'm not suggesting the Polar Bears weren't printed by ALC I'm suggesting they might have been printed at one of their other facility's like the one in PA.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=205962&highlight=American+Lithograph

What are some of the ton of ATC/ALC sets from 1909-1911 that aren't in the journal?


1) Nobody can possible know what is in pages 1-51, or if it ended at 380. None of us possibly can.

2) Same

3) That does not answer when the allegation is that Polar Bear was printed. We have walked back the 1914 not ATC claims, and so it isn't 1914. But it also isn't T206 time because it is not in the surviving elements of the ledger and wasn't done at the time they were. So when is it? Somewhere between 1911-1913?

4) They can't "start delivering" a Hassan 30 card in May if that Hassan 30 card was already being delivered in March and there was a continuous release and they have been doing so since March. Perhaps their verbiage is just imprecise and it was a continuous release (clearly alongside other sets). We do not know, the evidence is simply not here to be certain. We are all guessing on what is present.

5) The difference with T36 is we have claims of end dates, but I'm not sure it matters much.

6) There is zero evidence to indicate sets were not released as series, but in timed smaller waves instead. This is simply the assumption that best fits treating the ledger as gospel-source to explain everything. The only SP card in T218-1 is Handy, who was pulled between the Mecca and Hassan runs. Johnson (Green) was added late (He did not replace Handy) and is a super print. 3 cards had amendments made during the print run creating variations. None of this suggests wave release. Nothing in T206 suggests a handful of subjects were issued at a time, and then the next wave added and so on either. There is no actual evidence of waves being added late, much less a preponderance. There is no evidence Phil McGovern was a late addition whatsoever.

7) T68, T99, T219, some C issues they printed in this time frame like C52, T220-1 to name some examples from the top of my head I care about. Many later issues are not in what survives like T207, T227. Again though, we factually do not know what was in this complete ledger if its authenticity is assumed. Maybe T68 was included, I don't know, nobody does.



A gospel source methodology, in which all other evidence is seen through the lens of needing to conform with the gospel-source, even if those explanations appear to contradict other facts and probabilities or are much less likely than simpler explanations, is an inherently flawed methodology. I agree with some of the claims coming from what is in the ledger (quite a few, actually), but some of the claims being made do not stand up to a reasonable evidentiary standard (I would use a preponderance standard, personally). That Polar Bear is not present in the 1/4 (at absolute most, we do not and cannot possibly know how long it actually was originally) of this work whose surviving contents pages are clearly not complete does not mean it was not produced as T206. One cannot claim to know what was and was not in this work when most of it is gone, and the table of contents is plainly missing at least one page. Disagreeing with someones interpretations of an incomplete book with unknown provenance and authenticity is not tantamount to favoring secondary and tertiary sources over primary. And so on and so forth. Is there a single shred of evidence to support a claim that since PB is not T206 (a rather fluid, after-the-fact construct) outside of this series of stacking assumptions based on presence in the ledger remnants? None has been produced.

[jggames]

That Polar Bear is not present in the 1/4 (at absolute most, we do not and cannot possibly know how long it actually was originally) of this work whose surviving contents pages are clearly not complete does not mean it was not produced as T206.
Is there a single shred of evidence to support a claim that since PB is not T206 (a rather fluid, after-the-fact construct) outside of this series of stacking assumptions based on presence in the ledger remnants? None has been produced.

I missed the claim that PB shouldn’t be considered T206 because they weren’t in the ledger. Or that the ledger had anything to do with the “T206” definition at all.

I certainly think it’s a T206 along with “Coupon” Type-1 - they just may not have been packed at the Ledger’s place of distribution.

[Pat R]

1) Nobody can possible know what is in pages 1-51, or if it ended at 380. None of us possibly can.

2) Same

3) That does not answer when the allegation is that Polar Bear was printed. We have walked back the 1914 not ATC claims, and so it isn't 1914. But it also isn't T206 time because it is not in the surviving elements of the ledger and wasn't done at the time they were. So when is it? Somewhere between 1911-1913?

4) They can't "start delivering" a Hassan 30 card in May if that Hassan 30 card was already being delivered in March and there was a continuous release and they have been doing so since March. Perhaps their verbiage is just imprecise and it was a continuous release (clearly alongside other sets). We do not know, the evidence is simply not here to be certain. We are all guessing on what is present.

5) The difference with T36 is we have claims of end dates, but I'm not sure it matters much.

6) There is zero evidence to indicate sets were not released as series, but in timed smaller waves instead. This is simply the assumption that best fits treating the ledger as gospel-source to explain everything. The only SP card in T218-1 is Handy, who was pulled between the Mecca and Hassan runs. Johnson (Green) was added late (He did not replace Handy) and is a super print. 3 cards had amendments made during the print run creating variations. None of this suggests wave release. Nothing in T206 suggests a handful of subjects were issued at a time, and then the next wave added and so on either. There is no actual evidence of waves being added late, much less a preponderance. There is no evidence Phil McGovern was a late addition whatsoever.

7) T68, T99, T219, some C issues they printed in this time frame like C52, T220-1 to name some examples from the top of my head I care about. Many later issues are not in what survives like T207, T227. Again though, we factually do not know what was in this complete ledger if its authenticity is assumed. Maybe T68 was included, I don't know, nobody does.



A gospel source methodology, in which all other evidence is seen through the lens of needing to conform with the gospel-source, even if those explanations appear to contradict other facts and probabilities or are much less likely than simpler explanations, is an inherently flawed methodology. I agree with some of the claims coming from what is in the ledger (quite a few, actually), but some of the claims being made do not stand up to a reasonable evidentiary standard (I would use a preponderance standard, personally). That Polar Bear is not present in the 1/4 (at absolute most, we do not and cannot possibly know how long it actually was originally) of this work whose surviving contents pages are clearly not complete does not mean it was not produced as T206. One cannot claim to know what was and was not in this work when most of it is gone, and the table of contents is plainly missing at least one page. Disagreeing with someones interpretations of an incomplete book with unknown provenance and authenticity is not tantamount to favoring secondary and tertiary sources over primary. And so on and so forth. Is there a single shred of evidence to support a claim that since PB is not T206 (a rather fluid, after-the-fact construct) outside of this series of stacking assumptions based on presence in the ledger remnants? None has been produced.


Greg, I never said everything in the journal is gospel. Admittedly I'm not good at putting what I'm trying to say in writing.

The majority of the information in the ledger pages isn't about the printing of the cards it's about particular types of cards inserted in a particular product and when you look at different pages in some cases you can see where a particular product for a particular brands supply was exhausted but at some point more were printed and it was available again similar to when a grocery store runs out of a certain product. That doesn't necessarily mean that product was discontinued they just temporarily ran out of stock.

I can tell you that with the T68's you brought up some of them at some point were printed right around the end of the T206 Tolstoi printing.

We know this because some scrap cards of the t206 460 only series Tolstoi's/Piedmont's have been found that were cut from a sheet that was used as a test print and they have T68 subjects on them.

462761
462760

462762

462763

[G1911]

Greg, I never said everything in the journal is gospel. Admittedly I'm not good at putting what I'm trying to say in writing.

The majority of the information in the ledger pages isn't about the printing of the cards it's about particular types of cards inserted in a particular product and when you look at different pages in some cases you can see where a particular product for a particular brands supply was exhausted but at some point more were printed and it was available again similar to when a grocery store runs out of a certain product. That doesn't necessarily mean that product was discontinued they just temporarily ran out of stock.

I can tell you that with the T68's you brought up some of them at some point were printed right around the end of the T206 Tolstoi printing.

We know this because some scrap cards of the t206 460 only series Tolstoi's/Piedmont's have been found that were cut from a sheet that was used as a test print and they have T68 subjects on them.

462761
462760

462762

462763

I understand your argument, and you may well be correct in this point, but the ledger does not seem to say that. We don't have T53 being discontinued and coming back, we have it stated to begin twice. T36 which is discontinued, we don't have a later re-release of in the surviving pages. It may be the way you think, it may not. I don't know if sets were one shots, went out of stock and brought back, could go either way. I suspect some were issued multiple times in fairly close succession, but that is mere conjecture off fragmentary evidence. None of us know. An inaccuracy is not a difference of opinion on slim evidence, it's a false claim to fact.

These exact cards are one of the reasons I used T68. I think you are making my point here. T68 series 2 was printed very close in time with T206 series 3 (and presumably distributed, it does not make sense that they ordered sets and then just sat on them for long periods of time or years, especially when they seem to run out of sets within 48 hours sometimes). It's first series was printed before (I do not have direct evidence of this, but it seems difficult to argue that series 2 came before series 1), probably similar timeframe as the first or second series of T206, but as a non-sport subject it's cards are less directly telling. And yet, it is not in the ledger, it's brands, ATC cigarettes, not in the surviving contents pages. This doesn't mean it isn't from the same period, issued in the same way, from the same company and place as the sets and parts of sets that are. This is my entire point; lack of presence in the surviving elements of the ledger (Less than a quarter of it, at best) does not mean it is from a different time or distribution. This is true for T68, it is true for Polar Bear, it is true for Coupon.

I'm still unclear when it is being alleged PB was printed and distributed now, removing the not-atc-until-1914, if we disagree it was printed and distributed at the end of the 350 run (accounting for the updates to Demmitt and O'Hara but no other cards), when is the allegation that it was released? Post 209 suggests not 1910. But it's before 1914. Obviously we can't say an exact date, but are we alleging mid-late 1911 after the 460 series? 1912? 1913? I've still seen 0 evidence that it was printed or distributed at a different time from what the cards seem to suggest in the captions. I'd love to see it if it exists.

[G1911]

I missed the claim that PB shouldn’t be considered T206 because they weren’t in the ledger. Or that the ledger had anything to do with the “T206” definition at all.

I certainly think it’s a T206 along with “Coupon” Type-1 - they just may not have been packed at the Ledger’s place of distribution.

The thread is about if Coupon should be classified as T206. We have an argument in post 209 that Polar Bear and Coupon "almost certainly should be in this journal" if they were produced in 1910. The Journal dates covering 1909-1912 are highlighted in posts 209 and 211, suggesting that the cards are form a different time, though we have withdrawn from the 'it can't be from 1909 to 1912 because it wasn't ATC until 1914' that was originally part of it and the earlier replies. In bold red, it is said that "they weren't printed and distributed with the other t206 brands." If they were not printed and distributed, both in time and geographically, with the rest of T206, how should they possibly be classified T206? As the thread is quite specifically and explicitly about what should and should not be classified as T206, I struggle to see any relevance to the subject if this is not the argument. If I misunderstood Mr. Pat_R's argument, he's had several replies to correct this directly stated counterargument.

As to your second point, the Ledger does not appear to belong to a place of distribution whatsoever. It includes many brands from many different factories, not a single distribution center/factory. If we must assign it to a geographical place, the inclusion of the Posey letters would indicate it came from a corporate office at 111 Fifth Ave. in NYC.

[Pat R]

The thread is about if Coupon should be classified as T206. We have an argument in post 209 that Polar Bear and Coupon "almost certainly should be in this journal" if they were produced in 1910. The Journal dates covering 1909-1912 are highlighted in posts 209 and 211, suggesting that the cards are form a different time, though we have withdrawn from the 'it can't be from 1909 to 1912 because it wasn't ATC until 1914' that was originally part of it and the earlier replies. In bold red, it is said that "they weren't printed and distributed with the other t206 brands." If they were not printed and distributed, both in time and geographically, with the rest of T206, how should they possibly be classified T206? As the thread is quite specifically and explicitly about what should and should not be classified as T206, I struggle to see any relevance to the subject if this is not the argument. If I misunderstood Mr. Pat_R's argument, he's had several replies to correct this directly stated counterargument.

As to your second point, the Ledger does not appear to belong to a place of distribution whatsoever. It includes many brands from many different factories, not a single distribution center/factory. If we must assign it to a geographical place, the inclusion of the Posey letters would indicate it came from a corporate office at 111 Fifth Ave. in NYC.

Greg, the reason for several replies is because Ted asked me why the Polar Bears weren't in the ledger in post #210, 212, and 218 and I gave a couple of reasons why I thought they might not be in the ledger.

[Pat R]

The thread is about if Coupon should be classified as T206. We have an argument in post 209 that Polar Bear and Coupon "almost certainly should be in this journal" if they were produced in 1910. The Journal dates covering 1909-1912 are highlighted in posts 209 and 211, suggesting that the cards are form a different time, though we have withdrawn from the 'it can't be from 1909 to 1912 because it wasn't ATC until 1914' that was originally part of it and the earlier replies. In bold red, it is said that "they weren't printed and distributed with the other t206 brands." If they were not printed and distributed, both in time and geographically, with the rest of T206, how should they possibly be classified T206? As the thread is quite specifically and explicitly about what should and should not be classified as T206, I struggle to see any relevance to the subject if this is not the argument. If I misunderstood Mr. Pat_R's argument, he's had several replies to correct this directly stated counterargument.

As to your second point, the Ledger does not appear to belong to a place of distribution whatsoever. It includes many brands from many different factories, not a single distribution center/factory. If we must assign it to a geographical place, the inclusion of the Posey letters would indicate it came from a corporate office at 111 Fifth Ave. in NYC.

The Letters are from the Kinney Brothers packing plant to Posey at 111 Fifth Ave. The original Kinney Brothers building was at West 22nd St. NYC but it was gutted by a fire in 1892 I
don't know if they rebuilt it or relocated. At the time of the fire they were processing 18,000,000 cigarettes a week.

[Pat R]

Pat

As I have already said....that undated list of 30 brands (ATC) without POLAR BEAR data indicates to me that it reflects information prior to the introduction of the
POLAR BEAR tobacco cards (circa SPRING 1910).

We cannot ignore this timeline. I will get into this later today, as I have to leave right now.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

While continuing to research the journal I think two of the reasons I posted are why the Polar Bears are not in this journal. That it was a different product
processed at a different facility.

I'm pretty sure this journal was from the Kinney Brothers processing facility. The Posey letters in the journal are the original letters and the carbon copy's
would have been sent to the fifth Ave. facility informing them what was being packed in the products.

Polar Bear falls under the plug tobacco product and I still stand behind my opinion I posted before that it was at most only partially under the control of the
American Tobacco company at that time Polar Bear t206's were printed.

463127

463128

[jggames]

Just picked this up from ebay. It’s cool to see the T206 brands, and nothing really turns on this 1912 booklet, but it would be cool to find the 1909-1911, simply to see what the cigarette packs may have said on the front (if it’s not already known).

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0071/9152/files/49CC6D74-8A37-4349-8091-FA17160D4FEA_1024x1024.jpg?v=1624927154

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0071/9152/files/568AD41F-83E3-40F4-B55D-92DFE02B1D0A_1024x1024.jpg?v=1624927192

[gabrinus]

That's cool Jason...Jerry