Which Card Sets Should be Re-Classified?
 

From time to time I see very compelling arguments that some vintage sets should be re-classified with a different designation (a T-card to a D-card, etc.). For other sets, an argument can be made that they should be grouped into (or removed from) an existing set...the T213-1's and Ty Cobb backs come to mind, respectively.

The hobby's forefathers did an amazing job in classifying so many of these sets and we owe them much. I think that now, after decades, it's only natural to see some additions and revisions to their important work.

Curious to hear the thoughts of others on vintage sets that may fall into these categories.

W600 Sporting Life Cabinets should be an M issue, just like M110s and M116s.

H801-7 Old Mill Cabinets should be a T issue.

The T205s should be reclassified as T204.74

W503 should be reclassified as an 'E' issue.

Brian

"Scrapps Tobacco" ain't tobacco cards, yet both PSA and SGC continue to label as such. They have definitively been found to have been gum cards.

Tom C

E98's should no longer be catalogued exclusively as candy cards, since they have no product advertising, and the Black Swamp find confirmed that they were distributed through other venues.

All E95/E96 blank backs that are slabbed as proofs should be slabbed as cut outs from notebooks, scorecards, etc. I have never seen anything that looks like a real proof.

Sponsor's advertisements are printed on all insert cards; the reason for the extra expense of the premium.

The newly credited sponsor, H D Smith & Co. Gum, have no advertising on the Scrapps. (?)

Large thin card - thin gum. Packaged together - boxed?

I'm still looking for an 1888 Green and Blackwell Co. Gum (E223) Card Package - I've added to that an HDS Gum (Scrapps) package. Doubt their existence.

e97 b/w should be called something...but not proofs.

I wish all of the cards in the 1917 E135 family (Standard Biscuit D350-2, Weil Baking D328, and Boston Store H801-8) were considered to be the same set (like T206). I think it would boost their popularity a bit.

agreed!

W575 shouldn't be W's as it gives them a bum rap that they are hand cut. Only trimmed ones are, in my experiences. I do like the catchall of the "W575" series with different ads on them, otherwise.
.....Personally, I would make them H-Unc.... :), though technically this group would be "M"575-Unc.....

1909 w555
 

1909 w555 - Considering that a complete candy box has been discovered, it only makes sense that this card should be in the "E" category .......

Agreed.

Thank you
 

These are great suggestions, some I've considered and others are totally new to me. Keep 'em coming if you have any more! Thanks.

HDS is definitive.

I owned several uncut pairs that had tabs on them with HDS name. Consigned to Al at LOTG and he did the legwork that solved the mystery.

Tom C

To expand on what Leon said, W575-2 has absolutely no connection to W575-1 and is its own stand-alone release. On top of that whole not-being-a-W thing.

W502 isn't a W set either.

Yes Tom, I'm aware of these pairs from Al's auction and the results of the research:
There is an expense in producing, packaging and distributing cards. A sponsor's reason for absorbing this cost is to influence people to remain or become customers. Scrapps carry no message - no advertisement - no reminder of where the cards originated. This is still a part of the mystery missing from the story. All other insert cards bear a printed sponsor's ad. That is why I included a (?).

I shared my believe that neither of the PACKAGING that united the product and the card in each case existed - never disagreed with the HDS.

Reviving Thread
 

Just reviving this thread to see if there are an additional opinions. Thanks!

Apparently not :)
You could probably throw W575-2 in there. How many of those "strips" have we seen?

Copying a snippet from Al's (LOTG) research; RE: Origin of Scrapps.