PDA

View Full Version : Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?


Archive
06-30-2008, 05:11 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Darren extended my American Beauty 350-Broad Leaf 350-Cycle 350-Drum (A-B-C-D) connection to include the Coupon<br> Tobacco brand (the 68 cards classified as T213-1 set). The T213-1 back design is identical to the style and pattern of<br>the A-B-C-D backs. Coupon Tobacco was part of the American Tobacco Co. (ATC) in 1910 when these cards were prin-<br>ted by the American Lithographic Co. (ATC's associate).<br><br>There are 20 subjects from the 8 teams in the Southern League (Coupon Tobacco was based in Louisana). The fronts of <br>these 20 cards are identical to the ones in the T206 set.<br>There are 48 Major leaguers in the T213-1 set whose fronts are identical to the ones in the T206 350-only Series. These<br>48 are listed below.....and, for what it is worth, research has shown that the greater majority of these 48 Subjects were<br> printed with 3 (or all 4) of the A-B-C-D backs (see scan) as T206's. Further reinforcing the contention that these cards,<br>arguably, are an additional T-brand in the T206 set.<br><br> <br>..............A..............................B.... ...........................C...................... ..........D<br><br><br><br>1910 COUPON......Major Leaguers (48)<br> <br>Beals Becker<br>Chief Bender (trees)<br>Bobby Byrne<br>Bill Campbell<br>Frank Chance (portrait-yellow)<br>Chappy Charles<br>Hal Chase (portrait-blue)<br>Hal Chase (dark cap)<br>Ty Cobb (portrait-red)<br>Birdie Cree<br>Bill Donovan (throwing)<br>Mickey Doolan (bat)<br>Jean Dubuc<br>Joe Dunn (Brooklyn)<br>Clyde Engle<br>Evers (bat-yellow sky)<br>Art Fletcher<br>Topsy Hartsel<br>Danny Hoffman (St Louis)<br>Harry Howell<br>Miller Huggins (portrait)<br>Huggins (hands/mouth)<br>George Hunter<br>Ed Killian (portrait)<br>Otto Knabe<br>Frank LaPorte<br>Ed Lennox<br>Rube Marquard (portrait)<br>Doc Marshall<br>Mathewson (dark cap)<br>George McBride<br>Pryor McElveen<br>Matty McIntyre<br>Mike Mitchell (Cinci)<br>Mike Mowrey<br>Chief Myers (bat)<br>Chief Myers (fielding)<br>Dode Paskert<br>Bob Rhoades<br>Claude Rossman<br>Boss Schmidt (portrait)<br>Charlie Starr<br>Gabby Street (portrait)<br>Ed Summers<br>Bill Sweeney (Boston)<br>Ira Thomas<br>Ed Willett<br>Owen Wilson<br> <br>1910 COUPON Southern Leaguers (20)<br> <br>Bay (Nashville)<br>Bernhard (Nashville)<br>Breitenstein (New Orleans)<br>Carey (Memphis)<br>Cranston (Memphis)<br>Ellam (Nashville)<br>Fritz (New Orleans)<br>Greminger (Montgomery)<br>Hart (Little Rock)<br>Hart (Montgomery)<br>Hickman (Mobile)<br>Jordan (Atlanta)<br>Lentz (Little Rock)....sic..(Sentz)<br>Molesworth (Birmingham)<br>Perdue (Nashville)<br>Persons (Montgomery)<br>Reagan (New Orleans)<br>Rockenfeld (Montgomery)<br>Smith (Atlanta)<br>Thornton (Mobile)<br><br><br>It is a worthwhile debate that is tailored for this Forum. Let's continue this discussion......what are your thoughts on the<br>1910 COUPON cards ?<br>We all know how very rare these 68 cards are; but, this should not discourage us from conducting a thought-provoking<br>conversation here. <br><br><br>T-Rex TED<br><br>

Archive
06-30-2008, 05:19 PM
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Yes - they are T206s.<br /><br />The thinner paper was to conform with product packaging (I believe someone pointed out evidence to support this).<br /><br />Just like the narrow cut on the American Beauty was to conform with product packaging.<br /><br /><br />Its a T206.

Archive
06-30-2008, 05:24 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I personally like the idea that T206 is just a classification of similar cards, but is not one set. Each set should be divided by the tobacco brand on the back.

Archive
06-30-2008, 05:48 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Yes.

Archive
06-30-2008, 06:03 PM
Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>Agreed. Just like Topps and OPC in latter years.

Archive
06-30-2008, 06:24 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Sounds like T206 to me.<br />JimB

Archive
06-30-2008, 06:31 PM
Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Nope,<br /><br />They are a separate issue, and rightfully listed with a different number. Also with the 2 other similar looking Coupon back cards they need there own group of numbers. <br />Otherwise what would you call T213-2 T213-3........ T206-2?? <br />No, all 3 set need to be listed together under their own number, T213. <br /><br />Plus there is a big difference between thin card stock (T213-1) and narrow cut cards (T206 AB backs). The narrow cut cards is just a slight adjustment by the cutters at the end of production. The thinner card stock is another story, that is good proof alone that the Coupon type 1 issue is not 100% related to the other 16 back brands.<br /><br />Same thing with the so called T206 Cobb/Cobb back, it has a glossy surface so is not 100% related.

Archive
06-30-2008, 07:08 PM
Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>I believe t213-1's are most likely t206's. There are so many inaccuracies in the acc...this is most likely another. here's an image of the only 1 i've ever owned...now gone.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i176/ullmandds/?action=view&current=forsaletenfr-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i176/ullmandds/forsaletenfr-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Archive
06-30-2008, 07:21 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>FRANK<br /><br />I think you have inadvertently included the COUPON (Series 1) as the 16th T206 brand. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /> <br />As, my understanding is that there are only 15 T-brands....once you dis-card the Ty Cobb brand.<br /><br />But seriously, can you explain how the Coupon-1 backs are not a T206 design ? The paper stock is<br />another factor, but some genius here will come up with a practical explanation for this anomaly.<br /><br />I say....if they look like a duck and walk like a duck and quack like a duck....they are a T206.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

Archive
06-30-2008, 08:18 PM
Posted By: <b>Craig W</b><p>Perhaps the Type 2's & 3's could be referred to as the T206 Updates?<br />T206 (left) T213-2 (middle) T213-2 back (right)<br /><br /><img src="http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll71/craigw67217/Wheat.jpg">

Archive
06-30-2008, 08:44 PM
Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>Ted,<br />These are a different issue just as the Obaks and Red Cross are a different issue. Granted the backs on the Coupons are the same design except for one glaring difference. Your ABCD backs are all produced at the same factory in Virginia whereas the Coupon backs are printed in Louisiana. If you included the Coupon backs as a T206 subset then you must include the Obaks, the Red Cross set, Pirate set, and Ty Cobb (with Cobb back).<br /><br />You would make a better case for including Red Cross, Cobb, and Pirate sets (all southern produced) to be put under one ACC designation. Keep the Obaks west coast and keep the T206s as they are.<br /><br />My two cents.<br /><br />Joshua

Archive
06-30-2008, 09:36 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Josh - do the players/poses shown in the Obaks and Red Cross issues matchup to the T206s?

Archive
06-30-2008, 09:56 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I have to correct this comment of yours......<br /><br />"Your ABCD backs are all produced at the same factory in Virginia whereas the Coupon backs are printed in Louisana."<br /><br />The Factory locations on the backs of the various T206's and COUPON (type 1) are where the Tobacco products were<br /> produced and packaged. All the T206's, regardless of their T-brand advertising on their backs, were printed in New York<br /> City at the American Lithographic Company (on South Park Ave.) Then the T206's and the Coupon cards were shipped<br /> by rail to the various Tobacco Plants to be inserted into the Cigarette packs.<br />This fact has been verified.<br /><br />OBAKs were produced on the west coast.<br /><br /><br />TED Z

Archive
06-30-2008, 11:24 PM
Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>Interesting but very difficult topic methinks.<br />I lean toward putting them in T206 and don't feel quite as rough about it after reading my '67 Burdick and seeing that he had a bit of difficulty.<br />At least, it seems so as he mentions T206 twice in his very brief exposition<br />of T213 on p.64:<br />T213--Baseball series, Coupon cigts. designs of No. T206 .25<br />2 types: name in brown as No. T206,or name in blue. On card<br />or heavy paper. Issued 1914-15 and includes Federal Lg. Many team<br />changes. Name in blue value .35 .<br /><br />best,<br />barry

Archive
06-30-2008, 11:45 PM
Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>I don't understand how Obaks have anything to do with this, but T215 should be in this discussion as well.<br /><br /><br />The players and captions for T213 type 1 are the same as those found in T206.<br /><br /><br />T215 Red Cross type 1s do have the brown lettering similar to T206 and T213-1, but at least one case where the caption is different which places the issue into 1912.<br /><br />I haven't seen this card, but Lew Lipset's Encylopedia confirms a T215 type 1 of Clark Griffith with Washington.<br /><br />I believe the T213-1 cards are T206.<br /><br />The only argument against is the thinner stock, but perhaps the Louisiana factory used cheaper paper to save money.<br /><br />Robert<br /><br />

Archive
07-01-2008, 01:02 AM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>It's been a long day as I went to California and back but let me just say this....<br /><br />Burdick classified cards according to mfg.. Coupon was the cigarette mfg for T213 and that's what they are. Plain and simple. We aren't changing the alphabet and we aren't changing the ACC.....but good debate. regards

Archive
07-01-2008, 01:44 AM
Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>Ted,<br />You are correct, what I meant to say is that the factory designations were different. Just as Topps produced many many sets in New York with different advertising that use the same format with different advertising and are considered different sets.<br /><br />I wonder if we should change the designations to t206-1 for piedmont, t206-2 for sweet cap., etc.<br /><br />Joshua

Archive
07-01-2008, 08:30 AM
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Frank,<br /><br />"Plus there is a big difference between thin card stock (T213-1) and narrow cut cards (T206 AB backs). The narrow cut cards is just a slight adjustment by the cutters at the end of production. The thinner card stock is another story, that is good proof alone that the Coupon type 1 issue is not 100% related to the other 16 back brands."<br /><br /><br />I would have to disagree with this logic.<br /><br />It may actually be easier to run different paper than it would be to change the cutter settings. <br />It is, at the very least, no bigger of an adjustment.<br /><br /><br />The press is running. Loading different paper is basically a non-issue for the pressman.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />minor edit made.

Archive
07-01-2008, 10:21 AM
Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>I want to first say that I really enjoy this debate as I've always wondered why Coupon Type 1's were classified the way they were by Burdick. That being said, I just want to put forth my possible explaination for the thinner stock of the Type 1's that I discussed in the previous thread.<br /><br />We know from the few surviving Coupon cigarette packs that unlike the majority of the T-206 brands, Coupon's were packaged inside a soft-wrapper pack as opposed to a slide and shell box. <br /><br /><a href="http://s82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/?action=view¤t=Coupon.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/Coupon.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a><br /><br />The soft-wrapper packs are much more flimsy than the slide and shell boxes and and can be torn very easily. It is plausible that the thinner stock was used as the heavier stock paper would have torn the soft-wrapper packaging.<br /><br />It is also worth noting that we already know that the printers modified the printing process during the distribution of the T206 set without any plausible reason; specifically I'm referring to the American Beauty cards. It seems logical that the printers may have just begun to use thinner paper. It's no secret that the AB's are cut thinner than the other T206's. I had always heard that the reason for this was so that the cards could fit into the AB slide and shell cigarette boxes which were slightly smaller than the other slide and shells used to distribute the T206's. We now know, however, that this is not the case. Since the discovery of 20 or so American Beauty slide and shell cigarette boxes has proved that the boxes are identical in size to that of Piedmont, Sweet Caporal, Broadleaf, Uzit, etc, there now seems to be no explaination currently on the table to explain why AB's are thinner.

Archive
07-01-2008, 10:59 AM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I like to divide T206 and T213 into three groups:<br /><br />1) the 15 brands from Piedmont to Drum, which we all agree are part of T206 and no other set.<br /><br />2) The T213-2 and T213-3, which are clearly part of the Coupon set; among other things these two series were issued years after the T206 brands circulated.<br /><br />3) and the curious T213-1, which has characteristics of both of the above groups. As a result, it has mystified collectors. I think based on the years that they circulated, the designs on the front they share with T206, and the fact that the back design is identical to the A-B-C-D brands, the T213-1 are more likely part of the T206 group and were erroneously catalogued in the ACC. And while the paper stock differs, that is not a strong enough argument to say they are not T206. There could have been any number of reasons why different paper was used.

Archive
07-01-2008, 11:02 AM
Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>i agree with barry...next question: if in fact t213-1 coupons are part of the t206...how scarce are they? Lennox/uzit scarce? I wish I still had mine!!!!

Archive
07-01-2008, 11:02 AM
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Jon,<br /><br />Great information!<br /><br />I did not know that about the AB boxes (being the same size).<br /><br />I would like to suggest two possible reasons why, even with the same size box, the AB may have been cut narrower:<br /><br />.... if these cards were automatically inserted into packs - the machinery that did the insertion (for AB) may have had different specifications than others and may not have been able to handle the width of a traditional T206.<br /><br />.... human complaint / suggestion. Someone may have suggested (and probably was correct) that if the card was a little narrower insertion would be much easier (possibly less spoilage along with the ability to insert at a quicker pace). <br /><br /><br />Of course these are pure speculation - but after reading your post - these are the 'reasons' I could think of.<br /><br /><br />

Archive
07-01-2008, 11:45 AM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I appreciate ya'll agreeing that Burdick did in fact catalog these by mfg correctly and they are in fact T213 and Coupons....just as the other series 2 and 3 are mfg by Coupon....He was consistent .....I agree he made a few other errors in the catlog but this obviously isn't one of them....thanks again

Archive
07-01-2008, 11:57 AM
Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>Barry - now that we have that settled <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> what about taking Coupon Type II's , Red Cross Type II's and Victory and making it one set produced between 1913-1915. Below is a Coupon Type II, Red Cross Type II and Victory (in that order)<br /><br /><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/type-2.jpg"> <img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/t215-2.jpg"> <img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/t214.jpg"><br /><br /><br />Curiously, although it hasn't yet been debated, Coupon Type II's and III's, and Red Cross Type I's and II's have identical back frame designs. Below is a Red Cross back and a Coupon Type II back (in that order).<br /><br /><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/t215r90-1.jpg"> <img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/type-2r.jpg"><br /><br />Also, I have not decided where to put Red Cross Type I's but my vote would be with T206's. I agree that they are very similar to the T206 set in that they have the same front characteristics. Although they are listed as being produced in 1912, how accurate is this date?<br /><br />So, here is my re-classification of Barry's 3 above:<br /><br />1.) Traditional 15 brands/backs of the T-206 set<br /><br />2.) Coupon Type I's and Red Cross Type I's that I believe should be added to what we call "T206s"<br /><br />3.) Coupon Type II's, Red Cross Type II's and Victory which I believe should constitute one set.<br /><br />Lastly, I note that I did not classify Coupon Type III's in my "newly created" set consisting of Coupon Type II's, Red Cross Type II's and Victory. I believe Coupon Type III's should be a stand-alone set (and in my opinion, the only set that should be called T213). Here's my rationale... Coupon Type III's were produced well after Type I's and Type II's (1919). The back design differs from Type I's and Type II's, and, most importantly, the front design differes from both Type I's and Type II's (no team designation on Type III's). <br /><br />Coupon Type I's fit nicely with the T206 designation - produced in 1910 (same year as T206's), same front design, same back design.<br /><br />Coupon Type II's fit nicely with my newly created set with Red Cross Type II's and Victory - all produced between 1913-1915 (similarity in years, consecutive years of production ala T206), same front designs. [I know back design differs for Victory but not all back designs are the same in the T206 set]<br /><br />Coupon Type III's are just the "odd set out." It is a stand-alone set produced at the end of the decade.<br /><br />

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:04 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>There is something arbitrary about categorizing any of these sets, or grouping them together, because we don't know the intent of the designer or manufacturer. We could just as easily designate T206 as a master set containing 15 different series, and also say that anyone completing a set of 520/524 with different backs is in fact mixing series together. BUt collectors fully accept a set with mixed backs, even prefer it.<br /><br />There is a tremendous amount of knowledge available today, something clearly not available to the pioneers of the hobby. But for all we know about T206 who is to say we've gotten it right?<br /><br />Forgot to respond to Jon: the only problem with mixing the three sets you've cited is they look different. They use different fonts for the player name and team, and for me that is one of the strongest factors for not making them part of the same set. I guess we need criteria for these designations.

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:05 PM
Posted By: <b>Sean BH</b><p>I second that motion.<br /><br />Move to a vote?<br /><br />I think your T213-2, T214 and T215-2 is spot on along with T213-1's and T215-1's being T206 backs and T213-3 its own thing.<br /><br />

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:08 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Ya'll keep making up your own rules and see how far it goes....Burdick classified these correctly. I am all for doing a whole different catalog....but it won't be the ACC....So far NOT ONE PERSON has been able to confute the fact these were classified by mfg and, as such, done correctly. I rest my case.....

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:14 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Don't rest your case quite yet. Burdick's contribution was monumental but he was really doing all this on the fly, based on his own observations and through correspondence with fellow collectors. There is an awful lot of information in the ACC, probably more than a handful of collectors could possibly amass, and they simply couldn't have gotten it all right.<br /><br />There is so much we know today that they didn't. Doesn't that count for something?

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:21 PM
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>"T213-1" is a T206 issue.<br /><br />T213-2 should now be T213-1 and T213-3 should now be T213-2. These issues apparently confuse the picture for some, but in my feeble mind they are irrelevant in this discussion. The years of issue, the design, the gloss, the ink all point to a separate issue for the type 2 and 3 Coupons. Simple as that. They are a spin off issue.<br /><br />Classification goes beyond similar images, so including all "sets" that use the same image as T206 as T206-X does not compute. A number factors need to be considered -- as we have discussed over several threads. <br /><br />It's hard to say where exactly T206 Coupon's fit in the scarcity bracket--given that they have not been traditionally collected as T206. They are pretty tough.<br /><br /><br /><br />

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:21 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Again.....same conclusion. Burdick classified cards by mfg. Coupon is what T213 is. ALL 3 SERIES. I think at this point you are harrassing the witness <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>&gt; Please answer the question or move on... <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:22 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Maybe I'll just take a nap instead. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:26 PM
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Was the manufacturer Coupon or the ATC?<br />Is Coupon just another brand owned by ATC at the time these cards were made? If so, it seems clear to me that Coupons are the same as Piedmonts or Sweet Caporals. <br /><br />Differences in appearance, glossiness and different paper stock, are due to them being printed on different machinery and in a different part of the country (different ink and paper suppliers).

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:28 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Here's a question, and the answer is purely speculative:<br /><br />What if only the type 1's were manufactured, and the 2's and 3's never existed. Where would the type 1's be designated?

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:31 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>"So far NOT ONE PERSON has been able to confute the fact these were classified by mfg and, as such, done correctly. I rest my case....."<br /><br />Leon - I think Jon C made an attempt to address your argument in the previous thread:<br />"So, the fact that Coupon produced two more "sets" (Type 2 and Type 3) after the 1909-1911 distribution of the T206 set should not have played a role in Burdick's decision to not include Type 1's in the T206 set although I agree with you that it probably did. Piedmont, for example, produced the art stamp series in 1914 - well after the break-up of the ATC and after the T206 series was over but this didn't stop Burdick from deciding that Piedmont should not be included with the T206 set. Sure, you can argue that Piedmont T206's look nothing like the art stamps - but Type 2's and 3's look nothing like Coupon Type 1's!"<br /><br />

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:31 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Great point. I DO AGREE that Burdick would have, in all probability, made the type 1's as a T206 WITHOUT there being the other 2 series in the equation. He saw the Coupon Cigarette backs from all 3 sets and classified them correctly as T213.....as he couldn't put the last 2 series in T206 due to differences discussed. Great point...

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:36 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>My good friend Jon did "attempt" to refute it..... though not successful imho.....btw, there is nothing personal about any of this...this is a lot of fun.....

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:37 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>This is a good debate but it will probably never be resolved. Of course, nothing will change and the type 1's will probably always be part of the Coupon set. But there is reason to question it.

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:37 PM
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Leon,<br /><br />"So far NOT ONE PERSON has been able to confute the fact these were classified by mfg and, as such, done correctly. I rest my case....."<br /><br /><br />Quite simply - if the AB is a T206, then that opens the door to the Coupon being a T206 as well.<br /><br />as mentioned - it is just as easy to load thinner stock into a press as it would be to change the settings on a cutter - - probably easier.<br /><br />Easier = less of a manufacturing change.

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:44 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Since T206 was not the classification of the manufacturer, but a collector decades later, it seems the first thing we need to do is to DEFINE what a T206 is. Then we can move on to determining whether Coupons, Red Cross, Ty Cobb back, etc. belong under that classification.<br /><br /><br />If T206 is defined as the classification number of baseball cards inserted with Tobacco products owned by the ATT between 1909 and 1911, then probably all three deserve T206 classification.<br /><br />All classification models have a degree of arbitrariness/subjectivity to them. As many have argued (I think quite convincingly), the ATT baseball card productions could just as easily have been divided into 16, 17, 18 sets or more based on brands, series, etc. Our own Ted has begun collecting in this way.<br /><br />It has been standard in the hobby, since the time of Burdick to classify them as one large set with multiple brand and series backs and this is how most in the hobby collect the set as a whole. Under that model, I think Coupon type one, Red Cross, and Ty Cobb all belong in T206.<br />JimB

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:50 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Uh oh Jim- you brought up the Ty Cobb back. You may be opening up a can of worms! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> But of course you made a good point that in 1910 the designation "T206" didn't exist. And nobody who collected them knew what they were doing. They did know however that if they saw a player or pose that was unfamiliar, they needed it.

Archive
07-01-2008, 12:57 PM
Posted By: <b>Ed Hans</b><p>Leon,<br /> Your "classified by the backs" theory makes no account of the Old Mill brand. Old Mill is quite properly considered a back of T206, but, equally properly the T210s are not. They were sponsored by the same brand, but they look different, hence the separate ACC classification.

Archive
07-01-2008, 01:03 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>T206 and T210 even share common poses, but the red borders make it inconsistent with the T206 cards. Again, we need some criteria for making these decisions.

Archive
07-01-2008, 01:47 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>We can all agree that T206's are American Tobacco Company (ATC) Base Ball premiums accompanying a variety<br /> of T-brand tobacco products during the 1909 to early 1911 era. ATC's associate, the American Lithographic Co.,<br /> designed, printed, & shipped these BB cards to their respective Tobacco Districts to be inserted in their Cigarette<br /> (or otherwise) packs. The pictures of the various Subjects are identical, regardless of the back advertisements,<br /> and the one common denominator that I believe defines the 1909-early 1911 "T206 era" is that their captions are <br />printed with BROWN ink.<br /><br />ATC's divesture occured in December 1911.....T206's were history by then. However, American Lithographic Co.<br /> (ALC) continued producing a variety of Tobacco product premiums (including BB cards). But now.....post-1911,<br /> ALC started captioning these "T206 look-alike" cards with BLUE ink (for whatever reasons).<br /><br />At this point we no longer think "T206's" and start classifying these cards as T-xxx sets.<br /><br />LEON<br />Sorry, to differ with you ole buddy....but, the 68 cards in the COUPON TOBACCO set (1910) are T206 "cousins".<br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br />

Archive
07-01-2008, 02:09 PM
Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>Leon - obviously no hard feelings and this is, IMO, a great discussion. However, to expand on Ed's rationale, Burdick did not have a uniform classification system so it's not as cut and dry we would have hoped.<br /><br />Piedmont also "had its advertisement" on a back in the T-205 series, as did SC, etc etc. Red Cross also distributed the T-207 series. [Obviously, there are many brands that produced/advertised on cards in different series so I have not attempted to list them all, just gave a few examples for illustration.] <br /><br />If Burdick was simply classifying cards by mfg as I believe you are saying when you say that Coupon's are T-213's, then Piedmont backs, for example, should have been classified as Type I, Type II, Type III and so on. Again, to illustrate, Piedmont's should have be something like this:<br /><br />T-206 Type I (Piedmont backed white borders)<br />T-206 Type II (Piedmont backed gold borders)<br />T-206 Type III (Piedmont art stamps)<br /><br />Another example: Fatima's should have been T-200 Type I (team cards) and Type II (player cards or T-227 as we know them currently)<br /><br /><br />This rationale would apply to any brand (tobacco or candy) that distributed advertising backs through a multitude of different sets. However, Burdick didn't do it this way - or at least all the time. Sometimes, Burdick grouped multiple companies together by similar appearance and card design when classifying the issuance (T-206). Other times, he classified the issuance based on the distributer (T-213).<br /><br />So, I politely <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> disagree with you when you say "So far NOT ONE PERSON has been able to confute the fact these were classified by mfg and, as such, done correctly" since Burdick did not uniformly classify all sets by mfg. In fact, I will even go as far to say that Burdick only classified brands by mfg when it fancied him to do so since I can only think of 4 instances where Burdick classified a set by mfg: Coupon, Contentnea, Obak and Red Cross.<br /><br />Maybe Burdick didn't like the taste of Coupon cigarettes so relegated them to the "ugly stepchild of the T-206's" status?

Archive
07-01-2008, 04:10 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Checklist of the 20 Southern League Subjects included in the T213-1 set. Their fronts are identical to the ones in the T206 set. <br />All 8 teams in the Southern League are represented.<br /> <br />Bay (Nashville)<br />Bernhard (Nashville)<br />Breitenstein (New Orleans)<br />Carey (Memphis)<br />Cranston (Memphis)<br />Ellam (Nashville)<br />Fritz (New Orleans)<br />Greminger (Montgomery)<br />Hart (Little Rock)<br />Hart (Montgomery)<br />Hickman (Mobile)<br />Jordan (Atlanta)<br />Lentz (Little Rock)....sic..(Sentz)<br />Molesworth (Birmingham)<br />Perdue (Nashville)<br />Persons (Montgomery)<br />Reagan (New Orleans)<br />Rockenfeld (Montgomery)<br />Smith (Atlanta)<br />Thornton (Mobile)<br /><br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

Archive
07-01-2008, 07:06 PM
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>"Since T206 was not the classification of the manufacturer, but a collector decades later, it seems the first thing we need to do is to DEFINE what a T206 is. Then we can move on to determining whether Coupons, Red Cross, Ty Cobb back, etc. belong under that classification."<br /><br />JimB,<br /><br />I couldn't agree more.<br />

Archive
07-01-2008, 07:52 PM
Posted By: <b>Craig W</b><p>Not to get too far off topic, but if we start remixing the T cards, will these come next? Clockwise from upper left: E90-1, E92, E101, T216, E105, E102.<br /><br /><img src="http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll71/craigw67217/Shean.jpg">

Archive
07-01-2008, 08:44 PM
Posted By: <b>ParkerJ</b><p>Great points by Jon Canfield, and JimB. If we consider that the manufacturer was actually Amer Litho, then doesn't that cloud the whole "group by mfg" argument? <br /><br />I would consider the broader definition of T206 to be any white-border, brown letter, card printed by ALC and inserted with ATC tobacco products from 1909-1911. Importantly, I do not believe this expansive definition actually changes the size of a "t206" set beyond the current 524 cards - there are no front images in the t213-1 which are unique from t206. It only expands the size of the "master" set, and that only affects Ted <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> .<br /><br />We should consider that by the time Burdick classified this set and named it as "T206" (in ACC #1, 1939) collectors had already been collecting it in some form for over 30 years. So I would imagine he must have taken some consideration of how the collectors of that day had already classified these cards together and differentiated them from other sets. It might have been as innocuous and arbitrary as him finding that by 1939 all the people he knew who collected the coupon cards (I,II, and III) happened to group them together as a single set.<br /><br />Just my 2 cents.<br /><br />Edited: typo.

Archive
07-01-2008, 10:22 PM
Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Guys,<br /><br /><br />I played a wonderful round of golf today in fantastic weather...So I missed all of the fireworks.... How can you call 15-16 different brands the "T206 set", but ignore Coupons?? A few more questions:<br /><br />1. ATC had all of the signatures to use the images... How would Coupon aquire these so easily after the breakup?<br />2. Kotton used Wagner, but Coupon didn't??? I wonder why? Because Coupon under ATC had already been warned or sued not to use his image.... Kotton probably used it as a selling point...<br />3. T213-1'S were produced and distributed in 1910-11 and were owned and operated by ATC and use the exact same images, so why are they not included?<br />4. People keep getting stuck on the series 2 and 3 Coupons as proof of a different "set", but personally I think that was competition with Kotton period. <br /><br /> Be well Brian<br /><br />PS I shot 73 with 4 Birdie's from the tips and beat 2 tour players...<br />

Archive
07-01-2008, 11:27 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>"I shot 73 with 4 Birdie's from the tips and beat 2 tour players..."<br /><br />WOW!

Archive
07-01-2008, 11:32 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Burdick classified T213’s the following way (verbatim from the 1960 ACC)<br /><br />T213- Baseball Series, Coupon cigts. Designs of No. T206 .25<br />2 types: name in brown as in No. T206 or name in blue. On card or heavy paper. Issued 1914-15 and includes Federal League. Many team changes. Name in blue value .35<br /><br /><br />He goes on to say that T214 and T215 both use designs of No. T206 and both are similar to T213. He states these things very plainly. Had he wanted T213(-1) in T206 he would have done so and not used the phrase “heavy paper” above, obviously referring to T213-1 Coupons. I consider, from what he stated, the type 1’s and type 3’s should potentially be consolidated into one series…or he didn’t know about the type 3’s when he finished the catalog, which is possible, and leaves the T213-1's as the heavy paper ones he was referring too. Whether he should have done so or not, he did what he did, fully understanding where No. T206 fit into his/the equation.....I will just go against the grain on this one I guess….It won’t be the first time…I guess next we can argue W600 and H801-7 Old Mill…...best regards<br />

Archive
07-02-2008, 09:12 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>In all deference to Burdick, he got this one wrong. He was right 99+ % 0f the time; but, he was not infallible.<br /><br />I have a question for you (or anyone else who doesn't think COUPON-type 1 is a T206 issue).<br /><br />Of the 16 different T-brands, can you name any other T206 back design style that is repeated over 5 T-brands ?<br /><br /><br /><br />..............A..............................B.... ...........................C...................... ...........D<br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/abblcydrumbacks.jpg"><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/bkcoupon25size.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br />I say this is NO mere coincidence....the A-B-C-D T-brands and COUPON were designed & printed by American<br /> Lithographic during the Summer of 1910. And, marketed by the American Tobacco Co. This fact is undeniable.<br /><br />The COUPON (type-1) can be considered an "ASSORTED" extension of the A-B-C-D connection (since it is not<br /> identified as "350 Subjects").....but, indeed it is part and parcel of the T206....350 Series. The Subjects depic-<br />ted on the 68 cards confirm this fact.<br /><br />I have more questions to hit you with, but I'll leave at this one, for now.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /> <br />

Archive
07-02-2008, 10:17 AM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>We can argue till the cows come home (I love saying that) and it won't change a thing.. Burdick even referenced T206 as similar designs...Good debate and sort of fun....I still say T213 is correct and am still odd man out. ....as usual. regards

Archive
07-02-2008, 10:52 AM
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>"PS I shot 73 with 4 Birdie's from the tips and beat 2 tour players..."<br /><br /><br />Brian - if you don't mind a round of golf with a hacker.... maybe one day we can get together and you can give me some pointers <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />nice round!

Archive
07-02-2008, 10:57 AM
Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>I believe your quote from the 1960 ACC actually tends to prove the opposite point, i.e. that Burdick got it wrong. "Issued 1914-15 and includes Federal League" is wrong--we know that type 1 Coupons were issued in 1910. It appears he incorrectly lumped them together, and assumed they were all issued several years after T206, which is why he couldn't call them T206. His premise was flawed. Seems he just missed this one.<br /><br />

Archive
07-02-2008, 11:06 AM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I think Todd is right. Burdick got the date wrong on the T213-1s and thus misidentified them according to his own system. The other thing this confirms is that he was not a clear writer and could have used a better editor. Where was Barry in 1960? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />JimB

Archive
07-02-2008, 11:13 AM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I guess a bit of this is semantics with me. He might not have known the exact year (T213-3 was later too) but he got the type of cigarettes correct and labeled the cards together per his thinking. Could he have made a mistake on this? Sure, I just don't think so. He did definitely miss the boat on several notable others ie...W503, W600, H801-7 ...and I am sure there are more....best regards

Archive
07-02-2008, 11:46 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>You're right...."Good debate and sort of fun...."<br /><br />But, I cannot accept your...."he did what he did" (Burdick) as a valid reason to continue referring to these<br /> first 68 cards of the COUPON Tobacco brand as anything other than a 16th brand of the T206 set. <br />Have no fear, though, as nothing will change because of this (or any other) debate we have on this topic<br />on this forum.<br /><br />I, and others, will call these Coupon cards "T206's"......and, you and others will call them "T213's"......and,<br /> then some wont give a Tinker' damn what they are called.<br /><br />Recall my old adage....that we live in a 1/3 world. Hey, 1-for-3 in Base Ball gets you into the HOF every time. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br />

Archive
07-02-2008, 11:47 AM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Ted, my friend....that's pretty damn funny. You made me smile.......take care

Archive
07-02-2008, 05:06 PM
Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Joe,<br /> I used to be a "player" before I got married and had kids... So now I can shoot 68 or 85 on any given day. I'd be honored to tee it up with you anytime. Be well Brian<br /><br />PS LMK if you make down to NC or SC and we'll hit a few.<br /><br /><br /><br />

Archive
07-02-2008, 07:47 PM
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Brian - sounds cool.<br /><br />If I can make it to NC or SC I will email you ahead of time.<br />I'm part of that $9 fare club.... so if a cheap airfare gets emailed to me - maybe I can shoot down there for a round of golf.<br /><br />And if you find yourself heading to the NY area.... let me know.

Archive
07-02-2008, 09:32 PM
Posted By: <b>Eric B</b><p>Ted, I think your picture of the 5 backs seals it - Coupons are definitely T206-16's.<br /><br />Now how do we decide which brand is T206-1, T206-2, T206-3, etc.

Archive
07-02-2008, 11:04 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Well, the first three T206 sub-sets should be as follows......<br /><br />T206-1......PIEDMONT<br /><br />T206-2......SWEET CAPORAL<br /><br />T206-3......SOVEREIGN<br /><br />then, how about the following sub-sets as a function of their issue date......<br /><br />T206-4......HINDU (brown)<br /><br />T206-5......OLD MILL (Southern League)<br /><br />T206-6......El Principe de Gales<br /><br />T206-7......OLD MILL (Assorted)<br /><br />T206-8......POLAR BEAR (Assorted)<br /><br />T206-9......TOLSTOI (Assorted)<br /><br />T206-10.....CAROLINA BRIGHTS (Assorted)<br /><br />T206-11.....AMERICAN BEAUTY<br /><br />T206-12.....BROAD LEAF<br /><br />T206-13.....CYCLE<br /><br />T206-14.....DRUM<br /><br />T206-15.....COUPON<br /><br />T206-16.....LENOX<br /><br />T206-17.....HINDU (red)<br /><br />T206-18.....UZIT<br /><br /><br />I'm sure to get some arguments on these classifications....and, that's just fine.<br /><br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

Archive
07-02-2008, 11:11 PM
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>Ted, interestingly (and ignoring the Coupon argument as I do not think they belong with T206)Cycle's are in the middle of some tough, tough backs but to me, at least, seem to be easier than say Carolina Brights or Broad Leafs.

Archive
07-02-2008, 11:14 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Remember, I have classified them in chronological order.....not as function of their scarcity.<br /><br />Regards,<br />TED Z

Archive
07-02-2008, 11:21 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Why is Coupon included? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
07-02-2008, 11:23 PM
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>Ted, yes I see but there is a rough correlation (as I am sure you know) between issue date and scarcity. Cycle and American Beauty I would think should come before Carolina Brights on a scarcity basis. Just curious why some late printed brands might be easier than others.

Archive
07-02-2008, 11:27 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>T206-19 Ty Cobb brand.<br />JimB

Archive
07-02-2008, 11:30 PM
Posted By: <b>ty_cobb</b><p>T206-1......SWEET CAPORAL issued July 9, 1909, advertised the week prior.<br /><br />T206-2......PIEDMONT<br /><br />T206-3......SOVEREIGN<br /><br />then, how about the following sub-sets as a function of their issue date......<br /><br />T206-4......HINDU (brown)<br /><br />T206-5......EL PRINCIPE DE GALES<br /><br />T206-6......OLD MILL (Assorted)<br /><br />T206-7......POLAR BEAR (Assorted)<br /><br />T206-8......TOLSTOI (Assorted)<br /><br />T206-9.....CYCLE issued July 3 1910.<br /><br />T206-10.....AMERICAN BEAUTY<br /><br />T206-11.....CAROLINA BRIGHTS (Assorted)<br /><br />T206-12.....BROAD LEAF<br /><br />T206-13.....DRUM<br /><br />T206-14.....LENOX<br /><br />T206-15.....HINDU (red)<br /><br />T206-16.....UZIT<br /><br /><br />The 1st series of Coupons are definitively a 1910 issue, and of course with the shared<br />T206 subject matter, one can argue for the sake of arguing the 'proper classification'.<br />But to me, doesnt differ a whole lot with the situation regarding 'brown caption' T215<br />Red Cross, so I'm comfortable listing the Coupons as a group. (although I agree w. Brian<br />Weisner as to time of ATC's print, issue, similarity etc etc)<br /><br /> <br />

Archive
07-02-2008, 11:35 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Notice that I have grouped the ASSORTED brands together, and Carolina Brights is at the end of that group.<br />Coupon (also an ASSORTED brand) should probably be inserted between Carolina Brights and American Beauty.<br /><br />TED Z

Archive
07-02-2008, 11:48 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>TY COBB<br /><br />Have to seriously differ with you........Both the Magie error (PIEDMONT 150) and the Joe Doyle error (PIEDMONT 350) cards<br />tell us that the very 1st press runs at the start of each Series had to be printing the PIEDMONT brand. The Sweet Caporal<br /> press runs shortly followed.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

Archive
07-03-2008, 01:47 AM
Posted By: <b>ty_cobb</b><p>Not contesting that Piedmont is the most complete subset, or that it contains<br />the most corrections of subject matter. My thinking is that Sweet Cap was issued<br />in Pennsylvania first (w. Wagner & Plank). <br /><br />If Piedmont issues the Wagner 'first', then you have to come up with a reason<br />why they discontinued him from production and then Sweet Caporal<br />comes out way later and starts re-issuing the Honus Wagner all over again??

Archive
07-03-2008, 02:24 AM
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Oh snap!

Archive
07-03-2008, 03:45 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Where have you been ?<br /><br />Why don't you join the fray on this one....it's your kind of stuff.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

Archive
07-03-2008, 03:45 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Mr. TY COBB<br /><br />Reprising what we know about these 5 Subjects........<br /><br />150 Series<br /><br />Jennings (portrait).....exists only with PIEDMONT 150<br /><br />Magie (portrait)........exists only with PIEDMONT 150<br /><br />Plank (portrait).........exists with PIEDMONT 150, SWEET CAP 150/25 & SWEET CAP 150/30<br /><br />Wagner (portrait)......exists with PIEDMONT 150, SWEET CAP 150/25 & SWEET CAP 150/30<br /><br />350 Series <br /><br />Joe Doyle (error).......exists only with PIEDMONT 350<br /><br />Plank (portrait).........exists only with SWEET CAP 350/30<br /><br /><br />The Plank and Wagner cards being available with more Sweet Caporal's than Piedmont's are somewhat of a mystery. Sometime <br />back, I hypothesized that Plank was "yanked" due to the American Caramel Company having exclusive rights to Plank (E91 and<br /> E90-1 sets preceded T206)....Ditto, for Wagner.<br />This litigation forced ATC to "cease and desist" their initial Piedmont Plank's and Wagner's (although a few Wagner's "escaped"<br /> into the marketplace). However, the 2nd press run of Sweet Cap. Plank's and Wagner's did make it into in the marketplace for<br /> a short while....until the "cease and desist" order caught up with this batch. <br /><br />What is NOT a mystery is that Magie, Jennings (in the 150 Series), and Doyle do not exist as Sweet Caporal cards....PERIOD.<br /><br />These 3 T206's without a doubt prove that the Piedmont brand was the 1st printed and the 1st in the marketplace.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />

Archive
07-03-2008, 11:44 AM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>We will accept a different cardstock (Coupon), and different size and cut (American Beauty) because the criteria are that they were issued with ATC tobacco products in the requisite years. If Ty Cobb brand was a special short-term promotion and due to the loose leaf format, they had a glossy coat put on the front of this short run to protect them from the kind of tobacco damage suffered by Polar Bears, why would that be sufficient reason not to count them as T206s?<br />JimB<br /><br /><img src="http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/6744/t206cobbfrontsgc20qr9.jpg"> <img src="http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/4794/t206cobbbacksgc20fh5.jpg">

Archive
07-03-2008, 12:47 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>To add to what I said above, it has been postulated here that Coupons were on thin stock due to packaging necessities (thin paper packaging that could be ripped by harder stock). We don't know why ABs are thinner since it seems AB packs have been found and it seems they could have had a full-sized t206 in them. So their thin cut is a bit of a mystery, though it was long thought that the reason was a smaller package. Maybe the interior packaging still required a smaller card. Regardless, it seems that adjustments were made to accommodate the specific needs of specific brands. So why not on a short run special production?<br />JimB

Archive
07-03-2008, 01:28 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim- as long as you are asking, here is the main reason why I think the Cobb back may not be part of the T206 set:<br /><br />Every one of the other 15 advertising backs was printed in series. Each has anywhere from 520 known cards, such as Piedmont, to perhaps 120-150 cards, such as Drum. In each case a promotion would have been successful in getting a smoker to keep buying packs, as there was always the prospect of finding new players one didn't have.<br /><br />The Ty Cobb brand consists of a single player and pose. That means after you bought your first pack you were finished with your set. I can't imagine what kind of promotion that would be. Therefore, I don't even believe it was found in a pack of cigarettes. I think it was more a point of purchase item, given to the consumer, by the tobacconist, who bought Ty Cobb tobacco.<br /><br />Ever go into a bookstore, for example, buy some books, and then have the cashier hand you a bookmark with the store name and address on it? That would insure that if you used the bookmark you wouldn't forget the name of the store. That's my opinion of how this card was distributed. It's a conjecture, I know that, but the fact that only a single pose was issued suggests this is unlike any of the known T206 brands.

Archive
07-03-2008, 01:54 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Barry,<br />That is an interesting theory and quite possibly a correct scenario. So much about the Ty Cobb brand is a mystery. Obviously it had a very short run, which is probably part of the reason for only one subject (not to mention the name of the brand). I am not convinced that the number of subjects in the series was a key characteristic of "T206" given that all the brands had varying numbers of subjects. If you are right that it was a promotion handed out by the tobacco seller as a promotion, rather than inside a Ty Cobb tin does not seem to me to be a big issue either with regard to labeling them as T206.<br />Best,<br />Jim

Archive
07-03-2008, 02:06 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Happy 4th of July....this should make your day.<br /><br />Although, I tend to agree with Barry's well stated argument here......I have included the Ty Cobb back in this list.<br /><br /> My skepticism is based on my feeling that this T-brand was produced post ATC divesture (circa 1912); and there-<br />fore, does not fall under the T206 rubric. Nevertheless, here you go. <br /><br /><br />The following T206 sub-sets are listed in approximate order of their issue date......<br /><br /><br />T206-1......PIEDMONT<br /><br />T206-2......SWEET CAPORAL<br /><br />T206-3......SOVEREIGN<br /><br />T206-4......HINDU (brown)<br /><br />T206-5......OLD MILL (Southern League)<br /><br />T206-6......El Principe de Gales<br /><br />T206-7......OLD MILL (Assorted)<br /><br />T206-8......POLAR BEAR (Assorted)<br /><br />T206-9......TOLSTOI (Assorted)<br /><br />T206-10.....AMERICAN BEAUTY<br /><br />T206-11.....BROAD LEAF<br /><br />T206-12.....CYCLE<br /><br />T206-13.....DRUM<br /><br />T206-14.....COUPON (Assorted)<br /><br />T206-15.....CAROLINA BRIGHTS (Assorted)<br /><br />T206-16.....LENOX<br /><br />T206-17.....HINDU (red)<br /><br />T206-18.....UZIT<br /><br />T206-19.....TY COBB<br /><br /><br />TED Z

Archive
07-03-2008, 02:08 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>My friend....let me simplify this for you...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />T206 - White borders ...different brands<br /><br />T213- Coupon cigarettes- 3 series..<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Now isn't that much cleaner and simpler?

Archive
07-03-2008, 02:18 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Ted, my friend,<br />Happy 4th back at you.<br />JimB

Archive
07-03-2008, 02:51 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I like to complicate things....too bad I wont be in Chicago next month, otherwise you and I could extend this debate over a<br />couple of drinks. Perhaps then, we could resolve this controversy. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Have a Happy 4th of July......<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

Archive
07-03-2008, 03:12 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim- one thing you said that was interesting is we are not sure what the criteria is for a T206, other than what has been assimilated from the time Burdick began his mammoth project to what we know today. Funny thing is, when the set was released circa 1910 it wasn't called anything. How do we know with certainty that everything we've learned about the set is what was intended back then? Could the original designers and printers ever imagined that the set would be talked about 100 years later? Could they ever imagine how valuable the cards would be? Certainly not.<br /><br />So whatever T206 means to us today is our recreation of what we think it was supposed to be. Did we get it right? Who knows.

Archive
07-03-2008, 03:33 PM
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Defining T213 is just as important as defining T206. T213-1 has many more differences(including paper stock)with T213-2 & -3 than it does with T206. Essentially the only similarity between T213-1 and -2 & -3 is the Coupon reverse/advertiser.<br /><br />All the subjects (68) in T213-1 are identical to T206 350 series subjects. The 20 Southern Leaguers are all from the Southern League--those T206 subjects from the Virginia League, South Atlantic League, and Texas League were excluded.<br /><br />With regards to T215-1 as being T206,I haven't completed my homework yet. But upon cursory review, there are enough differences to exclude them from T206--different captions, scattered subjects, etc.<br />

Archive
07-03-2008, 04:18 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Barry said,<br />"Jim- one thing you said that was interesting is we are not sure what the criteria is for a T206, other than what has been assimilated from the time Burdick began his mammoth project to what we know today. Funny thing is, when the set was released circa 1910 it wasn't called anything. How do we know with certainty that everything we've learned about the set is what was intended back then? Could the original designers and printers ever imagined that the set would be talked about 100 years later? Could they ever imagine how valuable the cards would be? Certainly not.<br /><br />So whatever T206 means to us today is our recreation of what we think it was supposed to be. Did we get it right? Who knows."<br /><br /><br />Barry,<br />On this, we are in complete agreement. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />JimB

Archive
07-03-2008, 06:24 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim- it's all about how we recreate history. We can research it exhaustively but will always get some things wrong.

Archive
07-03-2008, 07:03 PM
Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>Very well said, Barry S.<br /><br />Yes, we will get things wrong just as Burdick himself and others did decades ago.<br />Perhaps what is most important at this juncture is the rising consensus which is coming about through this exhaustive research, as you so aptly put it<br />Barry S., and collegial inquiry which ultimately cares more about the truth,as best as we can define it, than any cavalier oneupsmanship.<br />And what a great college of inquiry has evolved over the years since ACC.<br />And what a great indebtedness we owe to those from the beginnings.<br /><br />best,<br /><br />barry

Archive
07-03-2008, 07:26 PM
Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>Perhaps the most important factor against T215-1's is the fact that the backs say "100 subjects", a number which is not associated with any of the T206 series. <br /><br />I am among those that consider the t213-1's as likely being part of the T206 promotion. I brought it up a couple years ago on the board and was basically called an idiot, but I guess the tide has turned. All this being said, nobody will ever actually call them T206 (even if everyone agreed).<br />-Rhett

Archive
07-03-2008, 09:39 PM
Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>If similarity is the deciding factor, then we should combine the 1933 Goudey and 1933 WWG sets, and the 1934 Goudey and 1934 WWG sets. Perhaps we should reclassify Tango Eggs as E106.<br /><br />And what do we do about 1921 and 1922 American Caramel E121s? There's the 1921 E121 Series of 80, and the 1922 E121 Series of 120. Should we now call it one complete 200 card set? Or should they be renamed E121-1 and E121-2, respectively?<br /><br />And why stop there? Let's combine the 1951 Topps Red Back and Blue Back sets. Maybe all OPC and Topps Venezuelan sets from the same year should be combined with their Topps counterparts. 1956 Topps is close enough to the 1955 Topps set -- let's call it the 1955-56 set.<br /><br />

Archive
07-03-2008, 10:14 PM
Posted By: <b>Jim Rivera</b><p>ABCD t206s are all factory no. 25 2nd district Va. and the Coupon is factory no. 3 district LA.<br />They may have some of the same fronts but I believe the factory 3 Louisianna seperates it from ABCD factory 25 VA T206s.<br />But there may still be a chance for type 1s tobe included because of EPDG out of factory 17 and Polar bear out of factory 6 were included.<br /><br />EPDG factory 17 district VA.<br />Polar Bear factory 6 district O.-is that New Orleans Louisianna?

Archive
07-04-2008, 12:11 AM
Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Excuse me if this has already been discussed, but has the date of issue for the Ty Cobb Back ever been verified? <br /><br />How do we know that it was issued during the same timeframe as the rest of the T206 brand runs of 1909-11?<br /><br /><br /><br />

Archive
07-04-2008, 08:04 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>My skepticism of this back is based on my feeling that this T-brand was produced post ATC divesture (circa 1912); and<br /> therefore, does not fall under the T206 rubric.<br /><br />Its District 4, North Carolina implies a Plant near Durham....but, its Factory #33 is a mystery.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

Archive
07-04-2008, 08:40 AM
Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>"The thinner paper was to conform with product packaging (I believe someone pointed out evidence to support this)."<br /><br />Joe D- do you think that minute fraction of an inch (probably the thickness of a strand of hair), was to conform to product packaging?<br /><br /><br />Ted- interesting thread, who really knows...<br /><br /><br />Brian- when discussing golf scores here, please tell us what you shoot on a regulation course, not "chip & put"...thanks! <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />Happy 4th everyone!!! <br /><br />i'm going to a rooftop party later (high-rise building on 34th & the east river, 30th floor), RIGHT infront of the Macy*s Fireworks Display!<br /><br />

Archive
07-04-2008, 11:01 AM
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Michael,<br /><br />"Joe D- do you think that minute fraction of an inch (probably the thickness of a strand of hair), was to conform to product packaging?<br />"<br /><br /><br />quick answer: yes.<br /><br />With any printed piece that is intended to be inserted into packaging - thought goes into the paper weight and how well it would work with the packaging. To think that they might just print up the cards and then afterward think about how it would fit into the packaging, would be - well..... simply ludicrous. So yes - I have to believe the packaging was a factor in the paper choice of the insert. <br /><br />As a matter of fact - I would bet anything the decision to go with the lighter paper had more to do with the product packing than it had to do with any potential burdick, leon, ted z, or N54 T-designation of the card. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
07-04-2008, 11:05 AM
Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>Joe- i'll defer to you, since it is your profession.<br /><br />now, if we were talking about how to design a chair leg, well, then you'd defer to me!<br /><br /><img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />happy 4th!<br /><br />when are we getting dinner???

Archive
07-04-2008, 11:15 AM
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Michael -<br /><br />well its all theory (by all of us) - so who knows?<br /><br />I am sure there are other plausible explanations... but considering everything, I think the packaging conformity is the most likely reason for the lighter paper choice.<br /><br /><br />As far as chair legs... I will definitely defer to you!

Archive
07-04-2008, 11:19 AM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>"Excuse me if this has already been discussed, but has the date of issue for the Ty Cobb Back ever been verified? "<br /><br />No, no dating has ever been verified.<br />JimB

Archive
07-04-2008, 11:23 AM
Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Michael,<br /> Happy 4th... We'll be in the backyard watching the fireworks from the Club with most of our neighbors and friends. We'll leave a chair open for you... Be well Brian<br /><br />PS Actually we were playing from the tips at about 7000 yards... But I was happy to hit one through the clown's mouth...smiley...<br />

Archive
07-04-2008, 11:37 AM
Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>Bri, Joe, Jim, Ted...etc.<br /><br />everyone have a safe 4th!<br /><br />i'm gettign ready to watch the Hot Dog Eating Contest on ESPN!!! (12 Noon)

Archive
07-04-2008, 12:53 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>It is my understanding that the final ATC production runs of T206's occurred in the Spring of 1911. By then<br /> T-brands such as American Beauty, Piedmont, and Sweet Caporal were being produced by Liggett & Myers<br /> at the Durham, North Carolina plant....Factory #42, 4th District, N.C.<br /><br />The Ty Cobb brand identifies the 4th District, N.C......however, it is Factory #33. Therefore, we can assume<br />that this T-brand was produced in the Durham area in (an as of yet undisclosed #33 plant) some time in the<br />mid 1911 to 1914 time frame. <br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/factory42dist4nc.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br />FACTORY #42....DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/alandmpc.jpg"><br /><br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

Archive
07-04-2008, 03:50 PM
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>If memory serves,<br /><br />I've been under the impression that the Cobb/Cobb was a 1914 creation.

Archive
07-04-2008, 09:36 PM
Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>If the Ty Cobb backed card is a c. late 1911 to 1914 issue, then should all of the following sets, with blue lettering, be related?<br /><br />Ty Cobb Back<br />T213 Type 2<br />T214<br />T215 Type 2<br /><br />

Archive
07-04-2008, 09:59 PM
Posted By: <b>scott brockelman</b><p>But. as much as I hate to admit it Coupon type 1 should be included in T206, The back is the same design. as is the front font color and the make up of players. The later blue font issue coupons would/should fall into the T215 genre. It is not the brand that dicates the designation but the format, otherwise why would we not place T205 American Beauty or T207 Broadleaf in the T206 category? Because they have a different design, not a different cigarette mfg.<br /><br />While I have put the Monster to rest, I will not pursue the Coupons to complete it. They are amazingly tough, probably in the area of Lenox, Carolina Brights, Red Hindu and Broadleaf, in the last 10 years I doubt I have owned over a dozen of them.<br /><br />Just my thoughts<br /><br />Scott

Archive
07-05-2008, 01:38 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>You stated my case, better than I have....and, with a lot less words.<br /><br />Thank you,<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

Archive
07-05-2008, 03:35 AM
Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>Hey Richard,<br /><br />Not sure what you mean there.<br />Have you seen a Ty Cobb Backed card with blue lettering? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

Archive
07-05-2008, 12:13 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>If there were no T206s produced in N.C., we might have stronger reason to suggest that Ty Cobb brand is not a T206, but what we have is evidence that they were produced in N.C. Thus, we still do not have definitive dating information.<br /><br /><br />Of course inclusion of the Ty Cobb brand means that those who collect backs would have a card that is 5x as tough as the Wagner to get for completion of a back set. For the completist, that could be an ongoing frustration, much like the big 4 are for a lot of T206 set collectors (of front images). I now feel like I need a Coupon to complete my back set.<br />JimB

Archive
07-05-2008, 11:54 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I have several responses to this statement of yours.....<br /><br />"If there were no T206s produced in N.C., we might have stronger reason to suggest that Ty Cobb brand<br /> is not a T206, but what we have is evidence that they were produced in N.C. Thus, we still do not have<br /> definitive dating information."<br /><br /><br />1st....The T206's (backs) I show in the above post were not produced in North Carolina. They were pro-<br />duced in NYC (as were T205, T213, T214, T215, and T3's). Then they were shipped to their respective <br />T-brand Factories.<br /><br />2nd....The Red Ty Cobb/Ty Cobb was also produced in NYC. The Ty Cobb Plug Tobacco was produced at<br /> Factory #33 in Durham, NC. <br />This Ty Cobb card was then shipped to NC and may have been packaged within this Tobacco's Tin, or may<br /> have been handed out by a vendor selling this Plug Tobacco.<br /><br />3rd....Dating info....my best guess is that this unique Ty Cobb card was produced no earlier than mid-1911,<br /> and no later than late 1912.<br /> The mid-1911 date is dictated by "District 4, NC" on this card's back. And, is bounded by the late 1912 date<br /> since the caption on the front of this card is not printed in BLUE ink.<br />I think the BLUE ink captions were first printed on T-cards produced in 1913 by American Lithographic.<br /><br />TED Z <br /><br />

Archive
07-05-2008, 11:57 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>T213-1's come up every now and then so you will be able to get one if you want. Don't count on a high grade one though, because as has been stated numerous times, unlike their distant cousin the t206'S, they are on paper thin stock and generally found in grades of 3 or less.......High grade for them would be a 4-5, imo.....regards

Archive
07-06-2008, 12:25 AM
Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>In the 1996 REA auction Rob Lifson theorized(albeit loosely) that the Ty Cobb back was distributed in Georgia. Cobb was from Georgia, they were found in Georgia and the book they were found in was in honor of a Georgia Congressman who had recently passed away.

Archive
07-06-2008, 09:03 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>The Georgia Senator you are referring to was Richard Russell, who amassed a large collection of T-cards, as a teenager<br /> during 1909-1914. I have acquired several T206's from his collection.<br /> I personally do not think that the Ty Cobb "Smoking Tobacco" card was packaged in the Ty Cobb Cut Plug Tobacco Tin.<br />For the few cards that have been found would have tobacco stains on them. And, this is why I said that they may have<br />been handed out by a vendor selling this Plug Tobacco.<br /><br />This mystery continues.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /> <br />

Archive
07-06-2008, 12:49 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Ted,<br />I realize American Lithograph printed all the cards in NY and sent them to tobacco factories. I was probably not clear enough with my words above, but that is beside the point. I don't doubt the strong likelihood that your dates are in the ballpark. From the evidence we have, those are reasonable guesses. But I just do not think the evidence is conclusive. It would be nice to find actual documentation in the form of legal papers that would clearly date the production run of the Ty Cobb brand. Beyond that, we are probably left with speculation.<br />JimB

Archive
07-06-2008, 01:52 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim- while I have speculated the Ty Cobb back may have circulated later than the 15 T206 brands, I admit it is purely a guess. Nobody has been able to document when it was distributed.

Archive
07-06-2008, 03:24 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Actually, as I think about it further, if we go by Ted's data that the blue name/team on T213-2,3 is the indicator of a shift beginning in mid-1912, then it seems the conclusion would be that Ty Cobb brand would be a T206 issue from early 1911.<br />JimB

Archive
07-06-2008, 03:33 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>That's pretty interesting, and it could suggest a circa 1911 issue. Exactly how it was distributed, and why the brand consists of a single pose, are the questions most intriguing to me.

Archive
07-06-2008, 08:26 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>We are having a tough enough time here selling the fact that 1910 COUPON cards are the 16th T-brand of the T206 set.<br /><br />Adding the Ty Cobb/Ty Cobb card to this mix is too much for some to accept. Let's focus on the COUPON's first.<br /><br />This unique Red Ty Cobb card is "food for thought" for another day.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

Archive
07-06-2008, 10:34 PM
Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p><br />The logical case for joining the 1910 Coupons with the other 15 tobacco brands in the 1909-11 ATC baseball release seems persuasive; however, I don't think the 1910 Coupons can simply be relabelled as T206s since the ACC is the foundational document for the "T" classification scheme and it tells us that a 1910 Coupon is not a T206 but rather a T213-1. To argue that a 1910 Coupon is a T206 is kind of like arguing that since there are parallels between the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution we should start calling the Fourteenth Amendment the Fifth. If one wants to say that the 1910 Coupons are part of the "1909-11 ATC White Borders Set" I would be more receptive.

Archive
07-07-2008, 01:39 AM
Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>Scot,<br /><br /> You say that you don't think the 1910 Coupons can simply be relabelled as T206s since ACC is the Foundational document for the "T" classification scheme. I think that we can acknowledge key works as foundational yet move to make necessary changes when a consensus of scholarship demands it.<br />In a similar sense,I think that your own very important work has already demanded significant changes in important works such as the Monster which many see as foundational in its own niche.<br />Granted, we may well be still in the early stages of developing a consensus<br />regarding the Coupon---206 issue but it is becoming quite convincing already. At some future date, it will become apparent that relabelling is necessary methinks. Textual criticism is replete with examples of major and minor amendments/relabellings to foundational works.<br />I say these things with particular respect to you as your own work has done more to revamp and clarify T206 scholarship than any other and has already itself become the key foundational work for its niche. <br />Perhaps someone may argue that we need not relabel ACC but create a new<br />foundational volume in its place. Although there are a number of errors in<br />ACC, I do not think that they are numerous enough to require more than a <br />relabeling or reclarifying via an 'appendix' or what I have referred to elsewhere as an Errata section.<br /><br />best,<br />barry<br />

Archive
07-07-2008, 04:01 AM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Scot,<br />One error is your reply: the ACC mentions sixteen, not fifteen brands in the T206 set. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br />JimB

Archive
07-07-2008, 08:33 AM
Posted By: <b>Ed Hans</b><p>As long as we're fixing a few errors in the ACC, there are scores, if not hundreds, of issues that Burdick never knew about that deserve a numeric designation.

Archive
07-07-2008, 10:38 AM
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Scot,<br /><br />"To argue that a 1910 Coupon is a T206 is kind of like arguing that since there are parallels between the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution we should start calling the Fourteenth Amendment the Fifth."<br /><br /><br />I am glad you brought up the constitution!<br /><br />Isn't it wonderful that the writers of the constitution allowed for amendments..... that they knew over time - the written work itself would be more viable if it could be amended.<br /><br />I am guessing burdick would have understood and believed in amendments as well (just a guess).<br /><br /><br />Its just that some hobby traditionalists - don't want nuttin changed no matta what.<br /><br /><br />Thats okay for a card hobby I guess (in the grand scheme of things... so what?).....<br />Thank goodness it is not the case for the constitution.<br /><br /><br />My preference would be for a more amendable system. And as far as this thread goes - my belief is that a coupon is a T206.<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br />Joe<br /><br />

Archive
07-07-2008, 12:13 PM
Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p>My objection to moving T213-1s into the T206 camp is procedural rather than substantive. The objection would go away if the ACC were FORMALLY AMENDED to move T213-1s into the T206 camp. If I may stretch the Constitution analogy a little further (hopefully not beyond recognition), henceforth calling a T213-1 a T206 without formal amendment to the ACC would be tantamount to changing the Constitution by judicial fiat.<br /><br />That said, I think this Board, with its breadth and depth of knowledge, is ideally suited to devise a comprehensive classsification system for vintage baseball cards that is more rational than the ACC and could, after creation, serve as the new foundational document.

Archive
07-07-2008, 12:21 PM
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Scot -<br /><br />very well said.<br /><br />I agree with you completely.<br /><br /><br />The opinions I posted were just that... opinions for discussion.<br /><br /><br />I am with you on the procedural concern you mention and wouldn't want to see it any other way.

Archive
07-07-2008, 01:15 PM
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>I somewhat agree with Scot's reasoning. But I also think that it should stay separate. The two issues are alike enough that they both can have a "T" at the beginning. <br /><br />The T213-1s seem distinct to me because of the thinner stock (no matter the reason) and their regional distribution, which was different from Piedmonts, Sovereigns, and the like. I well understand that they look quite a bit like a T206. <br /><br />I'd rather have T213-1s remain T213s, and get a new designation for the -2s and -3s.<br /><br /><br />But this thread begs the question of what about a new catalog. The New Card Catalog of 19th and 20th Century Baseball Cards. I'd volunteer for a committee of 'us' to put together such a work. I'd just as soon not address other sports and non-sports. And I'd like it to stay close to Mr. Burdick's efforts as much as would be practicable. 'We' could work on such a book, then publish it via Lulu... That is what we need. But I'd like to draw a line with the year 2000 (the last year of the 20th century) as the most recent limit. Drawing a line at 1980 might be easier on us. "We'd" have a helluva time with designations for all of the chase sets from the 80s and 90s.<br /><br />Could we on this board come up with a committee of us for such a work??

Archive
07-07-2008, 01:18 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Frank - nice idea; why not draw the line even earlier? Perhaps pre-1950?

Archive
07-07-2008, 01:32 PM
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>1950 would be fine with me. I think book sales and interest might be boosted if we edged over into the Topps issues a bit. Maybe the thing to do would be to go through the 1973 Topps. I think that was a year Topps issued the cards in series, 1974 was an 'all at once' kind of thing.<br /><br />1950 would stop in the middle of Bowmans... but 1973 or 2000 would stop in the Topps string, so what would that matter? Maybe let the 'committee' draw the line as a first thing to haggle out.<br />

Archive
07-07-2008, 01:49 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I've always thought that the 1974 Topps set was a "semi-series" type issue. Since the Washington Nationals (initial press run) variations<br /> only partially included the subsequent press run of San Diego Padres cards in this set.<br /><br />And, 1975 Topps with it's experimental MINI issue is worthy of being included.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

Archive
07-07-2008, 01:54 PM
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Then let's go with something that runs through the 1975 card issues (used in its old sense). That would keep us short of those chase cards....<br /><br />And maybe we need a new thread on this topic. I apologize if I've hijacked your thread, Ted.<br /><br />I can envision a new catalog coming from this... As much as I'm adverse to change, it might be good in the long run.

Archive
07-07-2008, 01:55 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>If you look at 1974 Topps as a series, it was certainly an unintentional one. There was a rumor that the Padres were moving to Washington, and Topps just wanted to make sure they were on top of it.<br /><br />When the team stayed in San Diego, they were forced to correct their error.

Archive
07-07-2008, 03:29 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>No need to apologize Frank....I think we had run the course on the 1910 COUPON subject, anyway.<br /><br />Barry, the first 15 of the 22 San Diego cards were initially printed as Washington Nationals. The higher # cards (above<br /> #389) only exist as SD Padres (including Winfield's rookie). Therefore, to my way of thinking, there must of been more<br /> than one Series issued in the 1974 set....otherwise, there would be 22 Washington Nationals.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

Archive
07-07-2008, 03:41 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>That's right- not all the players were issued with Washington. Good point.

Archive
07-07-2008, 04:01 PM
Posted By: <b>Millerhouse</b><p>I found myself amused at the apparent reluctance of some to amend card designations assigned by Burdick. Try, for example, looking up an N172 in the American Card Catalog. In truth, I'm not sure whether or not that number was used, but my memory is that Burdick used the "N" prefix to indicate cards issued in South America. Regular old Old Judge cards were denoted as #172s, with the same type of designation applied to all 19th Century issues: #28, #29, #43, #162, #167, #172, #173, etc.<br /><br />Not sure upon whom one can blame this change, but everyone has certainly accepted it without so much as a nod to Jefferson Burdick.<br /><br />Regards all,<br /><br />Dan

Archive
07-07-2008, 05:52 PM
Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>Bert Sugar added the N to the 19th century stuff. A catalog should be ever-changing and ever-expanding, or it loses its utility. <br><br>Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc