Why is T206 considered One set

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark Fricke</b><p>I have been a longtime collector and observer (read: student) of this board. One question that has plagued me for a number of years is why the T206 set has always been considered to be one set regardless of the different products (backs) they were issued with.<br /><br />This set seems to be one of the very few exceptions to where the hobby has classified sets seperately if they were issued by different manufacturers, even if they are identical cards. I'm struggling for examples but the first one that comes to mind is the Jello/Post issues of the 1960s. They are identical cards, just issued with different products and different logos, just like T206's. I know T206 all came from the ATC but the Post/Jello set all came from General Mills. I'm sure there are better examples of this anomoly in vintage sets (Yuenglings?) but I defer.<br /><br />Obviously were not going to shake up the hobby with this question, but why aren't the sets seperated as a Sweet Caporal set, a Piedmont set, an Old Mill set etc.?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>An equally good question is why Old Judge is considered one set. It is no more one set than Topps baseball is one set.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>I think this is a valid question. The answer probably has more to do with tradition than anything else. Remember, that at one point some considered the T213-1 and T215-1 sets to be part of the larger T206 set as well. It has a much smaller checklist, but had the same pictures, same style printing, and (T213)include Southern League cards as well. There are definately some backs/brands that do not include every player produced in t206, and some are even different sizes (American Beauty). It is interesting to note that within the t205-t207 sets there are many examples of checklists being totally different for each back. For example, in t205 if they seperated them by backs the minor leaguers would only be part of the Hassan and Polar Bear sets. <br /><br />If this hobby was more like Coins or Stamps (with the slightest variations being scrutinized), the t206 set would probably would be seperated into distinct sets, based on their backs. There are tons of variations within our hobby that also recieve little to no attention. Examples are Colgans Chips photo cropping variations, and 1939 Play Balls. The 39 Play Balls are an interesting story. When I first got into the hobby, many made a big deal about the two different styles of backs on most low-# cards. Some being found with names in all caps, and some in caps and lower case. This is a minor variation, however there are cards within the 1939 set that have changes in thir bios--and these variations are not even mentioned in the SCD anymore (they used to be long ago). Personally I like variations, and think that they should all be noted for future reference, but the book producers disagree. Anyways, I'm just ranting a little.<br />-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>I do not ever remember the T213 or T215 being part of the T206 set. Another comparison may be the M101 sporting news with all of the different backs, I think they are all considered 1 set.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Actually Burdick classified some of the Sporting News M101-4/5's as other ACC numbers.....D329 Weil Baking..D350-2 Standard Biscuit, are 2 of them.....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Isn't D329 the larger E121 size Weil and not the smaller one? Dan.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>D329 Weil Baking cards are the smaller size cards with the Sporting News checklist. D328 Weil Baking share the checklist with the Collin McCarthy/Boston Store.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Cool! D328, hell I was warm, give or take a point ah?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark Fricke</b><p>So, along these lines...is there a checklist anywhere that lists cards by back? For example if I wanted to collect just Piedmont series 150 cards is there a checklist for all the cards that fit that series? <br />I checked the T206 museum site and didn't see anything like that.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Burdick wasn't particularly enamored of back variations (nor was anyone else at a time when cards sold for a nickel each). He tends to designate cards as part of sets based on fronts with different backs given short shrift. The later sets cited as using T206 fronts have different ink and/or some different teams designated and/or different finishes. I can see why a front-centric cataloguer would treat the T206 brands as one. I do the same with T218-T219-T220-T225 boxing, following Burdick's lead, even though there are similar rarity issues with respect to some of the back variations there.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>that explains why so many of the T206 cards out there were glued into scrapbooks -- in fact, I believe Burdick himself glued the T206 cards into scrapbooks at the Met. Who wants to see an advertisement for a cigarette company.<br /><br />Ah, but now, we all revere the backs.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andy Cook</b><p>Rhett,<br />What are the 1939 Playballs with back bio variations?<br />Thanks,<br />Andy

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>All the cards in all the backs...T206