T213 type 1 Collectors out there?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>Anyone collect T213-1?<br /><br />Care to share any observations on the set?<br />Any overly tough commons to come by? Errors or variations? I know T213-2 is pretty much king of the variations, but I don't recall any with type 1.<br /><br />Also has anyone seen any advertising or packaging for this issue?<br /><br />Anyone have the entire set already?<br /><br />Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Scarce issue. I'm afraid too scarce to have significant variations. I'm always looking for T213-1's to add to my collection.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>But I believe the T213-1s are actually tough-back T206s ('Coupon' back T206).<br /><br /><br />Is there any compelling evidence out there that would guide me to think otherwise?<br /><br />As far as I see it.... those are T206s.<br />Help me out.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>joe...what about the super thin stock? Doesn't really jibe w/t206's?<br /><br />pete

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>I never held one in my hands..... and that is a very good point that I did not know about.<br /><br />Yet - I am not sure that alone would convince me that this is not a T206.<br />compelling though.<br /><br />edit: to clarify - AB backed cards are narrower than the other T206s.... yet they are T206s. Just like AB, the thin stock might have been to make the card workable with the Coupon packaging.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill Todd</b><p>Joe,<br /><br />How about the blue ink in a different typeface used for the names/teams?<br /><br />Also, the cards reflect some team changes that don't show up in T-206, which tells me that they were issued later. For example, there's an Elberfeld T-213 on the Bay right now, showing him with Brooklyn. The Tabasco Kid was with the Robins for only 30 games in 1914, after being out of the majors for the previous two seasons.<br /><br />Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>i believe type 1's do NOT have blue type...although I just sold my type so I could be wrong...nonetheless a tough set to collect.<br /><br />pete

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>The T213-1s did not have blue ink or a different typeface.<br /><br />They had the same color ink and same typeface as the T206.<br /><br /><br />I believe you are referring to the T213-2s and the T213-3s.... which I agree was a different issue.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>No way do I believe a T213-1 is a set like the T206's. I have handled numerous T213-1's and they are at least completely different paper stock (very thin)....and from a different factory (I believe) than any other T206's. If we are going to say these are really T206's then we could say the same for E106, D303, T215-1 etc......These are Coupon cigarettes and not T206 imho.......just like Grandfater Jeff Burdick said....<br /><br /><img src="http://luckeycards.com/pt213-1benderandmatty.jpg"><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Derek Granger</b><p>I just sold a T213-1 Scoops Carey on this forum about 2-3 weeks ago. Actually, the lettering on the front is in brown ...different from the T206, which is in black. In addition, the card stock is EXTREMELY thin, which would suggest a completely different issue!<br />~Derek

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>I didn't know the color of the typeface was different than the T206 type color.<br /><br />That information together with the thin stock.....<br /><br />I am now leaning toward it being a separate issue.<br /><br />Mr. Burdick may have been on to something <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>interesting discussion. I seem to recall some discussion with regard to whether certain companies had subtle differences in their ink selection for the T206 run; IIRC Sovoreign was named as one that used a different ink. Now, I don't think there was any suggestion of different paper stock, but, I suppose, in theory, that might not be that much different then different ink...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>AndyH</b><p>I thought the T206 captions were in brown ink, not black. <br><br>Thanks,<br /><br />Andy

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>Hi Derek,<br /><br />The font color is the same as T206. Neither are black.<br /><br />I've been collecting these type 1s casually for a few years and they're very hard to come by.<br /><br />I've always thought they should be considered T206, but let's provide some reasons for each side.<br /><br />I think people get too hung up on the designations which aren't always that important.<br /><br />Reasons for:<br /><br />T206 is really not one set, but just a group of many sets (Polar Bear, Piedmont, etc.) that happens to carry that designation due to the cards having the same style and being issued during the same years.<br /><br />T213-1s still have the same color font and same back bordering as many T206 type backs like Cycle, Broadleaf, Drum and others.<br /><br />To my knowledge, the teams are the same and the cards are issued during the same years as T206<br /><br />It looks like many of the T206 so called "superprints" are present within Coupon type 1s<br /><br />Reasons against:<br /><br />Thinner stock<br /><br />I think the main reason is that the backs state "Baseball Series" and don't give any regard to a distinct series (150, 350) and also don't state "Assorted."<br /><br /><br />Any other reasons you guys can think of that clearly separate these two issues?<br /><br />Rob<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>I am back to thinking they are T206s.<br /><br />Burdick who?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>Leggo my eggo...Joe!!!(insert smiley face here)<br /><br />pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>AndyH</b><p>Could the difference in paper stock be attributed to the fact that the coupons were printed in a different factory in Louisiana? If they were the only 'series' of T206 printed at this factory, then would it be that hard to believe that this factory might have had a different paper stock? The quality control in a single factory was somewhat low back then, let alone across different factories in different states. So couldn't one factory have secured lighter weight paper for their production of the cards?<br /><br />Just a thought. Now if someone could please put me in my place and shoot down this theory I could come back down to earth. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Andy<br /><br />edited to add: I also think they are a separate issue but wanted to pose this question to your folks. I think the fact that they produce two other related sets in future years after T206 production stopped seals the deal as far as separate issue.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>personally...I have always and still think Coupons are a separate distinct issue...not related to T206...dur to the stock, the factory. Are the team designations comparable to t206's...thereby placing them in the 1909-1911 era?<br /><br />pete

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>The only difference is the card stock and that alone would make me believe T213-1 is NOT in the T206 group. All 16 T206 brands have the same card stock. AB cards are cut narrower to fit the narrow package but the stock is the same as the other T206 brands and they also say 350 or 460 series.<br /><br />I also say that the Ty Cobb back T206 cards is not a T206 (because of the glossy surface and only a single player pictured), but thats for another day.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>what if the thinner paper stock was specifically done to accommodate the packaging of Coupon Cigarettes?<br />similar to the reasons for the narrow cut of AB.<br /><br />It is quite conceivable that the pre-formed boxes of the Coupon Cigarettes were narrower in capacity (just like the AB were narrower in width) - and thus the card had to be thinner in order to work with the packaging.<br /><br /><br />as far as the factory designation.... I always thought that was a designation of the tobacco factory and not the print-shop. If that is the case.... I don't think factory designation is relevant at all.<br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The T213-1 have identical fronts to T206, and even the back design is consistent. Only the factory is different. I always thought they may have been a lost tribe of T206. But I see an argument both ways, since the type 2 and 3 are distinct and would never be confused with a T206.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>Were Coupon Cigs a brand owned and manufactured by ATC?<br />If not, don't they have to be a separate issue?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>Good question Richard. Not sure, but I would assume yes due to the exact same back bordering design.<br /><br /><br />Thinner stock is not enough to convince me that it's a separate issue. That could've been a cheaper option for them.<br /><br />The fact that there's not a series listed on the backs is a difference that separates coupons from all of the T206 brands so I think it's noteworthy, but perhaps Coupon Cigs just wanted a smaller offering of players because they represented the regional players that were popular along with some big name guys like Cobb, Matty, Chance, Chase etc.<br /><br />Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Polar Bear, Tolstoi, EPDG, etc don't list a series either.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Richard,<br /> I'm pretty sure Coupon was under the ATC umbrella, as it went back to Ligget-Myers after the break up.<br /><br /> Liggett & Myers was given about 28 per cent of the cigarette market: <br />Piedmont <br />Fatima <br />American Beauty <br />Home Run <br />Imperiales <br />Coupon <br />King Bee <br />Fatima (the only 15 Turkish blend <br />and the cheap straight domestic brands. <br /><br /> It's interesting that the Home Run brand was the most popular brand in Louisiana, had a baseball theme, but never contained cards....<br /><br /> Be well Brian<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>Good point Darren.<br /><br />Polar Bear and Tolstoi both say "Assorted Designs" on the back.<br />EPDG doesn't and I hadn't noticed that.<br /><br />Side by side here's a look at how similar they are:<br /><br /><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/caramelcard/t206backchecklist/icons/broadleaf.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/caramelcard/t206backchecklist/icons/cycle350.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/caramelcard/t206backchecklist/icons/americanbeauty350border.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/caramelcard/t206backchecklist/icons/DR.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/caramelcard/t206backchecklist/icons/type1.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>A couple of interesting points about t213-1 from Lew's book:<br /><br />All the subjects in the set are only in the T206 350 series.<br />68 players checklisted. Doesn't sound like all have been catalogued.<br /><br />Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Coupon uses the same typeface and has the same border design as several of the T206's. I think we can make a very strong case that they should have been part of T206. <br /><br />I am one of those who feel that although Burdick deserves great credit for his monumental achievement of designating the various card issues, his work is not without errors. And this could be one of them.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>AndyH</b><p>But what about the type 2's and 3's? Why would a T206 brand continue with 2 more sets AFTER all the other brands stopped? <br><br>Thanks,<br /><br />Andy

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i always thought the 2 things that seperated the t213 coupons from inclusion in the t206 was the thin card stock and it was a regional issue.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Andy,<br /> Good question.... Maybe they were trying to keep pace with the Kotton brand???? Who knows....Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>Andy,<br /><br />Other brands didn't stop. They just stopped sponsering baseball issues.<br /><br />I'm no expert on this subject matter, but it seems that after the American Tobacco Company broke up or disbanded (1912?), some brands continued on under Liggett and Myers with non-sports tobacco issues. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.<br /><br />Here are a few post T206 tobacco issues:<br /><br />Sweet Caporal Cigs<br /><br />T35 Card Series 1916 <br />T121 1914<br /><br />Piedmont Cigs<br /><br />T86 and T119 Post 1912<br /><br />Why did Coupon Cigs carry on with more baseball issues. I assume the first one was popular in the region?<br /><br />Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>AndyH</b><p>Brian,<br /><br />I'm not familiar with the Kottons. Were they a regional issue in Louisiana also? If so, that makes some sense. <br /><br />And hey, with all the other factories and brands dropping out, the Louisiana factory might get enough funds budgeted out to afford the better paper in the later years huh? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> And that fancy blue ink in 1914. <br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Andy<br /><br />edited to respond to Robert:<br /><br />Great point. I sometimes forget that these companies didn't produce these with 'baseball cards' in mind, they were just a premium to attract buyers. The subject matter changed, but the cards were still produced in later years. But I do think about all the effort that went into the baseball series as opposed to say birds or flags. They actually had to get contracts from players (right?) and they tried to keep up with team changes etc. Why stop all production of this baseball series except for in one state unless it wasn't part of their original baseball series.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p> Hi Andy,<br /> I think you answered your own question.... Anybody who's been to LA knows that it's a very different place today, much less than in the early 1900's...<br /> Be well Brian<br /><br /><br />PS The level of corruption in LA makes Chicago look like a playground...<br /> <br /><br />PS All 3 issues may have been printed and issued in LA, but nothing would surpise me down there.. <br /> <br /><br />PS 3 Yes Kottons were the competition, but in LA... they may have been owned by the same family.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>I agree that aside from the thin paper stock the t213-1's are t206 cards. So, were they on thicker stock they would be considered t206, but due to the difference I don't have a major problem with them being seperated in the ACC. However the T215-1 Red Cross set is a different story. They aren't on thin stock and the same brand is included in the t207 "set". The only issue that set might have is the back saying "100 subjects" as opposed to the t206-familiar 150, 350, or 460 subjects.<br />-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>It seems logical to me that Burdick made the original mistake by including so many brands under the T206 designation. The problem is not that Coupons aren't considered T206, but that Cycle, American Beauty and Broadleaf, etc. are included, solely on the basis of their front design and paper stock. If that is true, why aren't E90-1, E92, E101 and E106 considered part of the same set?<br /><br />Ted's ongoing work (with the board's help) seems to be directed at disassembling the T206 mishmash into its constituent parts, by year issued, by brand, by back. Many of these cards were printed, issued and distributed contemporaneously with one another, but they are probably all separate sets, in the way that we think of "sets" today.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Richard,<br /> I don't follow that logic at all.... The ATC basically owned the American Lithograph company, but had 0 interest in candy.... I'm lost... Be well Brian<br /><br /><br />PS I beleive the E cards were printed by a completely different company... inferior one to boot, as they didn't last as long, unless you are Jimb

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>Brian,<br /><br />I think Richard's only referring to Burdick's designations; specifically that if Burdick calls Broadleafs, Cycles, Piedmonts etc "T206," then why not call E90, E101, etc all "E90" because those candy cards have the same fronts.<br /><br />Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p> OK Robert... I see your point... I was focussed too much on the printing to read the large print.... or see the forest for the trees. Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>Thank you, Robert, for making my point much more clearly.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>We need to remember that Burdick classified things according to the product it was distributed with AND by mfg. This is from the ACC, 1960, "Many sets came with two or more brands of cigarettes, as indicated. Most collectors are satisfied to obtain a set of the different pictures regardless of the brands. Sizes and shapes vary greatly." <br />And here is a copied page with him describing T cards:<br />(sorry the scan didn't come out great)<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1201756252.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glen Turner</b><p>I have a copy of the Oct-Nov-Dec 1971 issue of The Sport Hobbyist.<br />The Associate Editor was Frank Nagy.<br />In the issue Mr. Nagy checklists the T206 set. He lists 19 different brands of cigarettes being on the backs. Here is the list.<br />1-Sweet Caporal<br />2-Piedmont<br />3-Polar Bear<br />4-Sovereign<br />5-Old Mill<br />6-Tolstoi<br />7-El Principe<br />8-Hindu<br />9-American Beauty<br />10-Cycle<br />11-Red Cross<br />12-Hustler<br />13-Lenox<br />14-Broad Leaf<br />15-Uzit<br />16-Drum <br />17-Coupon<br />18-Carolina Brights<br />19-Ty Cobb<br />Notice he lists Red Cross and Coupon as backs for this set.<br />Does anyone know where Hustler came from?<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>AndyH</b><p>Hustler was started by Larry Flynt...wait sorry, wrong Hustler.<br /><br />Burdick had it listed as a back he needed in the T206 set when he was collecting. Leon has a very cool piece showing some of Burdick's needs and it lists the Huster back as well as the Cobb back if I remember correctly. Maybe Leon will endulge us again with a scan of it.<br><br>Thanks,<br /><br />Andy

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>The Hustler back is included in the T59 Flags of all Nations set and early in the hobby it was reported that baseball players could be found with back, however an example has never been brought to light. <br /><br />It was probably an error early on in the hobby that was perpetuated by some of the early collectors.<br />-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>So Nagy considered Coupons and Red Cross to be T206s in 1971, yet these were categorized separately in the ACC by Burdick long before then? Was this a controversy at the time?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>As most remember I was able to get the complete checklists from one of the true hobby pioneers, Walt Corson. Walt is the person who sold Nagy much of his collection in the famed station wagon adventure that Bill Mastro once wrote about. Walt's best friend was James Lowe, famed postcard collector and author of several books. If we remember correctly Mr. Lowe's son Jeff auctioned off several N167's on ebay and is where I picked up the Ewing. I believe the Ewing most likely came from Corson before he sold everything to Nagy. Walt's checklist here included Hustler and Cobb as T206 backs he still needed. Walt was a friend of Jeff Burdick too.....So there is some small legitimate chance that this little 3 x 5 is where the "Hustler backed T206" urban myth came from.. I still go by Burdick first and foremost, even when he made a mistake, much as I still go by the English language when something doesn't fit a "rule". We don't change our alphabet and I don't change Burdick's ACC (but that's just me). This is circa late 1950's (maybe very early 1960's) as that is when the checklists are from too. It looks like he had just nabbed a Carolina Brights back.<br />Hope this helps a little..<br /><img src="http://luckeycards.com/pocorson3x5checklist.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>T213-1 is more closely related to T206 than is Ty Cobb reverse.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>If T213-1 is T206 where would it rank in back scarcity? I'd say probably around Broadleaf and Carolina Brights.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>i agree with you darren<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>This thread got me to looking at T213s on eBay, and I was surprised at the prices. I reckon I just hadn't priced one in a while, and I live in the past...<br /><br />I recall being excited when I started thinking of T213-1s as a new T206. I think the paper was the difference, enough of a difference. I perceived that folks down there in Louisiana started asking about ball cards after the 150 series had been released in the East. <br /><br />I think T213-1s don't belong in with T206s.<br /><br />And where did this idea that the ATT owned Amrican Lithograph come from?? Any source on that?<br /><br /><br />Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p> Hi Frank,<br /> I have posted the article about the formation of The American Lithograph Company on here several times. I will see if I can find my copy of the article, but basically Duke helped Knapp consolidate the major lithographers into one group, and he was not only a silent partner, but the major customer.<br /> Be well Brian<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Here is the link:<br /><a href="http://www.spoonercentral.com/knapp/ALCO.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.spoonercentral.com/knapp/ALCO.html</a><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Thank you, Brian.<br /><br />Now let me ask about the packaging. I understand that American Beauty packages were more slender than Piedmont and the rest, hence the second trimming of the cards (seems to me that ABs were cut twice, once like regular cards, maybe by machine or at least with preset jigs, then cut again by hand to shave a bit off of one edge). But were Coupon packages of thinner paper, so they needed a less stiff card insert so it would not tear through the paper package?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p> Hi Frank,<br /> You may want to check with Jon Canfield, as he has a picture of a Coupon pack in his book from Al Shaw. The pack does look like it might be more of a soft version versus the harder slide shell, but it's tough to tell from a scan. <br /> I think you can make as many arguments for the T213-1's being part of the T206 run as you can against, so I guess we will never know. <br /><br /> Be well Brian<br /><br />It is interesting that even after the break up of the ATC in 1911 that Liggett & Myers continued to include baseball cards as premiums in many of there brands.<br />Fatima<br />Coupon<br />Recruit<br />Piedmont<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Frank,<br /><br />Your question about the packaging and comparison to AB are exactly the reasons why the thinner stock does not (by itself) lead me to exclude these cards from the T206 designation.<br /><br />Just like AB needed narrower.... Coupon packaging may have needed thinner.<br /><br /><br />In case anyone is unsure - it is very easy to load up different paper stocks for the same press run. My shop does it on occasion when a customer asks for it (e.g. a thin version of a brochure for a bill stuffer, and a thicker one for a sturdy handout - all done at one time).<br /><br />So - these cards could very well have been printed during a 'T206' press run. The exact same ink / machine / pressman / during the very same pressrun that day. <br /><br /><br /><br />edit: grammar

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Joe, I know what you mean, but... <br />There is a big difference though. The AB cards are at least 1/8" narrower but a thinner stock card will maybe be 1/64" thinner if that. Im sure the package could handle a thicker card stock. Its not that much thicker.<br /><br />I believe part of the reasoning for the category Burdick used is because the other 2 Coupon sets are so different and needed a new ACC# why not just include the type 1 cards in the T213 with the other 2. It makes more sense to keep all 3 sets under one number, not split the same brand into to T213 and T206. Same with the T215 Red Cross type 1 cards that are identical to T206, keep them with the blue caption Red Cross under the same ACC#.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>"Joe, I know what you mean, but...<br />There is a big difference though. The AB cards are at least 1/8" narrower but a thinner stock card will maybe be 1/64" thinner if that. Im sure the package could handle a thicker card stock. Its not that much thicker."<br /><br /><br />I am not so sure the coupon package could handle a thicker card stock... or that the people who made that decision thought it could.<br /><br /><br />I think it is reasonable to assume that the length, width, height, shape, thickness of any vintage card was directly related to the construction of the packaging they were placed into. <br /><br />Basically - there is a reason why those cards were thin (regardless of an ACC designation) - and I think it is likely the packaging had something to do with it. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Eric B</b><p>I think someone should redo the ACC numbers for T206 starting with T206-1 being Piedmont, T206-2 being Old Mill, etc......ending with T206-14 being Coupon, T206-15 being Red Cross, and T206-16 being Ty Cobb (set of 1).<br /><br />That would shake up the Registry <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Seriously, think about what you would do? You can't collect all 16 series now. So the trading, selling, and buying frenzy would be fun to watch. I think prices would nearly double immediately.