Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ? (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=263762)

tedzan 12-26-2018 08:01 PM

Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?
 
An often repeated excuse from the naysayers...."It's the thinner cardboard stock which the 1910 COUPON cards were printed on that disqualifies
them from being considered T206's.
" This thinking is really ridiculous. My question to you naysayers is this....Then how come you don't DISCARD
the AMERICAN BEAUTY (AB) cards, since their card dimensions are inconsistent with all the other T206's ? ?

Well of course that is as ridiculous as the above comment regarding the 1910 COUPON's. It's all the same difference. Both AB and 1910 COUPON
cards differ from the other T206's due to Cigarette pack factors. American Lithographic trimmed the AB cards in anticipation of ATC's intention of
narrowing down AB cigarette packs (however, this never occurred). And, the 1910 COUPON cards were never meant to be used as cigarette pack
stiffeners. Since this new brand (introduced circa 1909-1910) was packaged as loose cigarettes in 200-count cartons labelled COUPON Cigarettes.
Such a cigarette carton is seen in Jeremy's 2016 thread (post #37)….. http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...+COUPON&page=4

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

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


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...poncobb50x.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...edCobb75xb.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...sedkcap38x.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...apChase50b.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...eitenstein.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...itensteinB.jpg




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



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Cozumeleno 12-26-2018 09:11 PM

Quote:

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

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

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

Leon 12-26-2018 09:31 PM

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

DeanH3 12-26-2018 10:09 PM

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

RCMcKenzie 12-26-2018 10:31 PM

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

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

tedzan 12-27-2018 08:02 AM

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

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno (Post 1839808)
I agree, Ted. I won't rehash all of the points I made previously but, in summary, same fronts, same font, same back ad design as others. Burdick noted in his book that the Coupons were printed in 1914-15. Had he known that the T213-1s were printed earlier, I don't really see a reason why he wouldn't have classified them as T206.

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

Cozumeleno

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

Thanks,

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

RedsFan1941 12-27-2018 09:21 AM

no they are not t206s

but always fun to discuss for the fiftieth time

Leon 12-27-2018 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941 (Post 1839873)
no they are not t206s

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

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

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

.

ullmandds 12-27-2018 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1839876)
Of course they aren't. Burdick looked at the cards, they all had similar fronts but not exact and had the same brand of cigarette on the back. No other T206 ad back group has the characteristics of the T213 Coupon set. Or show me one with a blue caption or on paper stock. :)

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

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

.

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

tedzan 12-27-2018 10:00 AM

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

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie (Post 1839823)
Hi, Ted, Happy Holidays. This topic reminds me of standing before a Shakespeare class and explaining that 'Shakespeare' is just a pen name. It makes the crowd upset.

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


Rob

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

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


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...UPONDoolan.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...PONDoolanB.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

tedzan 12-27-2018 10:17 AM

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

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1839876)
Of course they aren't. Burdick looked at the cards, they all had similar fronts but not exact and had the same brand of cigarette on the back. No other T206 ad back group has the characteristics of the T213 Coupon set.

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


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



A - B - C - C - D connection
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...uplcate75x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...LxCOxCYx25.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...6DRUMx50bx.jpg




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

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...Buffalo50x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...lueChase50.jpg

. . . . . . . . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...loT213x25b.jpg . . . . . . . . . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ueChase50b.jpg



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


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

RedsFan1941 12-27-2018 10:50 AM

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

Leon 12-27-2018 10:51 AM

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

buymycards 12-27-2018 11:12 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Rick

ullmandds 12-27-2018 11:15 AM

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

Luke 12-27-2018 11:45 AM

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

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

insidethewrapper 12-27-2018 11:53 AM

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

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

Rhotchkiss 12-27-2018 12:19 PM

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

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

Jersey City Giants 12-27-2018 01:50 PM

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

tedzan 12-27-2018 01:55 PM

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

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



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

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...sSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...Sheet12xxx.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...sSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...eSheet12xx.jpg





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

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...poncobb50x.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...edCobb75xb.jpg



http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...uponChance.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...onChanceBx.jpg



http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...everschase.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...schase25xb.jpg



http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...sedkcap38x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...apChase50b.jpg



Major Leaguer's (48 subjects) checklist

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

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

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


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

T205 GB 12-27-2018 03:06 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jobu 12-27-2018 03:51 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss (Post 1839926)
Nice card Luke ;) - too bad I can’t post my Tinker Bat Off no-print in this thread.

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


tedzan 12-27-2018 05:10 PM

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

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss (Post 1839926)
Nice card Luke ;) - too bad I can’t post my Tinker Bat Off no-print in this thread.

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


Hey Ryan

I like the way you think :)

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


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...everschase.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...schase25xb.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

tedzan 12-27-2018 08:19 PM

Are the 1910 COUPON (T213-1) cards really T206's ? ....I think so. ....What say you ?
 
In the 150 series press runs, American Lithographic (ALC) printed 34 different Southern Leaguers (SL).....16 of which represent the Southern Association.
In the 350 series press runs, ALC expanded the SL sub-set to 48 subjects.....20 of which represent the Southern Association. The four additional Southern
Association subjects are Bill Hart, "Hub" Hart, Lentz & Rockenfeld. This is important, as it clearly sets a Spring/Summer 1910 timeline for T213-1 cards.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...arrCran12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...artHart12x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...olePerd12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...thThorn12x.jpg


Southern Association (20 subjects)

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


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

tedzan 12-28-2018 09:30 AM

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

Originally Posted by T205 GB (Post 1839972)
I say yes the Coupon Type 1's are part of the T206 set. The Type 2&3's are part of a completely different company. I have explained below how I came up with this "crazy" notion.
……………………………………
"W. R. Irby, New Orleans factory #3 was owned by two different companies at two separate times. Due to this, cards produced before the ATC dissolution, mid 1910, were produced for distribution in the T206 advertising campaign. The cards produced between 1914-1919 were part of another brand and thus would be forced to change designs significantly enough as to not violate copyright laws of the time".

Andrew

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

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

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

VICTORY Tobacco
T214 (1915)


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


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Pat R 12-28-2018 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tedzan (Post 1839788)
An often repeated excuse from the naysayers...."It's the thinner cardboard stock which the 1910 COUPON cards were printed on that disqualifies
them from being considered T206's.
" This thinking is really ridiculous. My question to you naysayers is this....Then how come you don't DISCARD
the AMERICAN BEAUTY (AB) cards, since their card dimensions are inconsistent with all the other T206's ? ?

Well of course that is as ridiculous as the above comment regarding the 1910 COUPON's. It's all the same difference. Both AB and 1910 COUPON
cards differ from the other T206's due to Cigarette pack factors. American Lithographic trimmed the AB cards in anticipation of ATC's intention of
narrowing down AB cigarette packs (however, this never occurred). And, the 1910 COUPON cards were never meant to be used as cigarette pack
stiffeners. Since this new brand (introduced circa 1909-1910) was packaged as loose cigarettes in 200-count cartons labelled COUPON Cigarettes.
Such a cigarette carton is seen in Jeremy's 2016 thread (post #37)….. http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...+COUPON&page=4

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

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


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...poncobb50x.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...edCobb75xb.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...sedkcap38x.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...apChase50b.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...eitenstein.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...itensteinB.jpg




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



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

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

barrysloate 12-28-2018 10:53 AM

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

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

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

Leon 12-28-2018 10:59 AM

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

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


Quote:

Originally Posted by T205 GB (Post 1839972)
I say yes the Coupon Type 1's are part of the T206 set. The Type 2&3's are part of a completely different company. I have explained below how I came up with this "crazy" notion.

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

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

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

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

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

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


toppcat 12-28-2018 11:03 AM

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

tedzan 12-28-2018 11:30 AM

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

Originally Posted by toppcat (Post 1840199)
Would not the quotation marks also be a departure from T206? Coupon type 1's and Cobb/Cobbs both have 'em.

Hi Dave

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


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...cobbtycobb.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...cobbtycobb.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...atecigpack.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...atecigpack.jpg

and,

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ponhuggins.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...onhugginsb.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

frankbmd 12-28-2018 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 1840194)
As I've said before, if the Coupons were issued only in a single series, it would have been an easy decision for Burdick to group them with T206. But because there were three series, he had to make a decision and chose to classify the three as T213.

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

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

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

tedzan 12-28-2018 08:01 PM

Are the 1910 COUPON (T213-1) cards really T206's ? ....I think so. ....What say you ?
 
Here are some of my 1910 COUPON cards that have been graded, and others that should be graded. The Grading Co.'s are very tough
on these cards. Especially, my Chance which I figured would get a PSA 3 (or perhaps even a 4).


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...uponChance.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...onChanceBx.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...onMcIntyre.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...nMcIntyreb.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ponsummers.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ponhuggins.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...onhugginsb.jpg




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

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...Willett50x.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...Willett38b.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...manbreiten.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...anbreitenb.jpg




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


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

DeanH3 12-28-2018 09:26 PM

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=10120http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=16129

Rhotchkiss 12-28-2018 11:09 PM

Wow, great Chance and great Matty!

sb1 12-29-2018 06:51 AM

2 Attachment(s)
The nicest one I have owned and the only one I have left for a type.

tedzan 12-29-2018 08:01 AM

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

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

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


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

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ponmattybk.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...onmatty75x.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

ullmandds 12-29-2018 08:41 AM

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

Leon 12-29-2018 08:56 AM

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

tedzan 12-29-2018 09:37 AM

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

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1840434)
I found some new evidence this morning (after 77 yrs) that does in fact show Burdick thought all of these were issued later but at the time he had only seen the blue captioned ones, meaning type 2 and type 3. He noted that they were similar to 521 (now T206) but issued in 1914-1915. The first reference I have to type 1s is 4 yrs later in 1946 but he still thought they were all issued in 1914-1915. Maybe if he knew the type 1s were earlier he would have put them with 206s, but I can't think of a T206 back that has another white border like that? T206 Coupons and T213 Coupons? I dunno....


Leon

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

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

A - B - C - C - D connection (printed circa Spring/Summer 1910)
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...uplcate75x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...LxCOxCYx25.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...6DRUMx50bx.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Leon 12-29-2018 09:41 AM

I will try to clarify the question-

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by tedzan (Post 1840441)
Leon

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

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

A - B - C - C - D connection (printed circa Spring/Summer 1910)
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...uplcate75x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...LxCOxCYx25.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...6DRUMx50bx.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference
.


Pat R 12-29-2018 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke (Post 1839912)
I feel like they belong in a T206 collection. The thin paper is obviously a big difference, but so is the width of American Beautys. One thing that gives me pause is the limited checklist. There aren't any other T206 backs that were printed with 350 only series fronts but left so many poses off the checklist. The combination of Southern Leaguers, Super Prints and 350 Only poses is interesting given that the overall checklist only consists of 68 players.

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

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

tedzan 12-29-2018 11:00 AM

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

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1840442)
I will try to clarify the question-

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

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


Leon


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


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Leon 12-29-2018 11:03 AM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by tedzan (Post 1840455)
Leon
My understanding of Jefferson Burdick's established formula for T206's is that which comprises of white-bordered, brown captioned, cards with ATC advertisements
that were printed and issued within the timeline 1909 to early 1911 ?

TED Z

T206 Reference
.


Exhibitman 12-29-2018 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1840196)
there aren't other white bordered cards (I could be wrong but don't think so) with a 206 back brand that has another catalog number too.

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

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

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

Leon 12-29-2018 04:57 PM

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 1840510)
Perhaps not but there are different ATC issued T sets from the era that share brands:

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

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


tedzan 12-29-2018 05:04 PM

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

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 1840510)
Perhaps not but there are different ATC issued T sets from the era that share brands:

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

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

Adam

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

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

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

* Military Series


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

tedzan 12-29-2018 05:19 PM

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

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1840457)
Ok, so my understanding comes from the 1942 ACC Supplement and the 1946 ACC, where might yours come from?

Leon

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

Bill Heitman
Irv Lerner
Frank Nagy

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


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

MichelaiTorres83 12-29-2018 07:46 PM

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

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

To that point:

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

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

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

t206fix 12-29-2018 09:03 PM

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

asphaltman 12-29-2018 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t206fix (Post 1840590)
The coupon back does not include "350 Subjects" like the others (AB, cycle, drum, BL). Why?

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.