Why don't different T206 backs have their own designation?
 

I apologize if this has been covered over the years. I did search, but it's been 10+ years since taking my hiatus from the board. There are countless pages that came up in the search results.

Caramels/novelty/magazine cards with like fronts and different backs all warrant individual designations (e.g. E90, E101, E102, etc...). Why haven't T206s been re cataloged in a similar fashion? If I had to guess, it may steal some of the allure from the T206 Monster designation. It would also be tougher to keep track of the dozens of possibilities, when factory, color, series, etc..are added to the mix. It just seems odd that the logic is different with T206s than with candy cards.

Not sure why, but Burdick did the same thing with the E92 set (if it was Burdick and not Egan later). I've just learned to adjust and maintain my inner peace.

Brian

I think that it is because not all cards come with all backs. Also, the set was issued in series and some brands were only available in one series. It certainly adds value to the rarer backs. If Drum or Uzit was its own set, would most people care about them? As a t206 collector, not only do I want one of each front, but I want as many different examples of different backs as I can get.

Very good point to this thread. However, this ad may answer your answer. They were issued/intended as a series, but distributed via different brands.

http://t206resource.com/SL%20Ad%201.jpg

Would they care about Drum and Uzit? Of course. They care about Victory and Red Cross and Pirate and ....

Very interesting, and the names at the top of the border are a nice touch.

I think it makes sense in some ways.

T206 is a group of related sets with identical fronts issued by various brands of the same company.

The others are related sets, having identical or nearly identical fronts, but were issued by different companies. They're also smaller more well defined sets.
Think of the others like MSA where they printed discs, that they then put different backs on for different clients.

The fact that T206 cards are all from various brands of ATC is probably the best argument to keep all backs designated as T206.

As far as I know the E92 Dockman and Nadja brands are different companies from the E92 Croft's Candy and Croft's Cocoa, so this would be a case where there should be at least three different ACC designations.

Brian

Duly note that many of the categorizations and all of the catalog letter-numbers were made by collectors after the fact (The tobacco companies didn't make the T206 name), and they could have been cataloged in different ways. The Allen & Ginter 'baseball card sets' are just collector made-up, because A & G issued the cards as issues that contained boxing, wrestling and other sports. I think the T206 as it is is proper, but it is not 'wrong' to suggest that they should have been sets cataloged by back brands, especially when compared to how other 'back brand' sets have been cataloged. The original question was a very good one, and, most interesting to me, I don't think I ever pondered that before.

Some would, but some wouldn't. I don't have any of those backs and most likely never will. I do want different t206 backs.

You are missing out! With your taste, maybe consider an HOF Pirate or Victory (or Red Cross). I never look at mine and think "damn, I am so pissed I own this". Instead, I think "I wish I could show these more often to people who know how rare they are!" ;)

I know that feeling. :D

If I were rich like you, I might. I have to be picky about what I buy. I would rather have your Honus Wagners.:)

Hey, I know this feeling as well! :)

I don’t know if it’s being rich, as much as being totally addicted (see other thread) and believing strongly in the long term, investment value of rare HOF cards.

T206s have similar characteristics such as white borders, brown lettering, size and paper consistency (mostly) and were inserted in tobacco packs in the same time frame. The series which aren't classified as T206 have different characteristics.