Modifications to Vintage Baseball Card Sets' Year(s) of Issue
 

As everyone on the board knows, there have been a number of threads lately addressing the need to update/correct year(s) of issue for a number of vintage baseball card sets. Eventually each topic will "fall off the radar" as new posts are entered and my question is what will ultimately come out of all of our meaningful discussions and insight regarding each of these sets?

Would everyone agree that the Standard Catalogue of BB Cards put out by Krause Publications and updated each year is the most widely accepted "bible" currently used in the vintage baseball card hobby? If so, the board should make every effort possible to get the pertinent sets' "new" Year(s) of issue to Bob Lemke so that this information can be updated on an annual basis. I believe that it is one of Bob's primary objectives to ensure that the annual catalogue is as accurate and up-to-date as humanly possible.

The second part to this issue pretains to the grading companies, which have a major, major impact on the hobby these days. Each of the three major grading companies maintains an extensive database of pop reports which obviously contain baseball card sets' year(s) of issue. As we continue to discover through extensive research, etc. that some of these issue dates are not accurate, I believe that it is critical for the grading companies to mirror any updates that would make for more accuracy within the hobby. Of course, the question is "how to do this" when so many cards have already been slabbed with "old" year(s) of issue dates and already exist in their databases that way. I guess the two options are to continue using the old dates without making any changes or from "some point in time going forward", a sets' "new" year(s) of issue would be identified on both the grading label as well as the database for pop reports. The main drawback to this would, of course, be that each card in the set would appear as two different line items on their pop report.

How do others feel about this topic and is there a better way to implement the new information that many have worked so hard to uncover?

One set that the grading company ignores date of issue is the N172 Old Judges. All labels read 1887, when in fact the cards were issued over a period of four years. But do you think it is necessary for them to learn the different styles so that they could distinguish an 1887 card from an 1888? It would be nice, but I would rather they spent the extra time examining the cards.

I think the Krause Standard Catalog should make every effort to get the years correct, without exception, since collectors use the book regularly as a reference. It wouldn't hurt if the grading companies followed suit, but it may not be as important for them.

Good points, Barry.

Either the range of years (1887-90) for the Old Judges or specific year of issue (usually possible to determine in most cases) would better the current 1887 designation given all Old Judges.

For the real hard core Rookie Card collectors like myself, analyzing the cards for specific year(s) of issue, whenever possible, is very important for the collector if not the grading companies. However the individuals at the grading companies who would be responsible for making specific year(s) of issue designations would likely not be the same individual grading the cards so neither person would really have to alter the focus of their job in order to make their product more accurate.

As Barry stated, this topic would be even more prominent for the Standard Catalogue to update (including specific years of issue for the Old Judges) than the grading companies.

Phil- as you know, determining the date of issue of some of the more obscure early cards can be difficult.

Take the Reccius Wagner, for example (please take it!). How would you like to be the grader who has to determine what date to put on the label? That would entail more grief than one would want to deal with.

Re: Modifications to Vintage Baseball Card Sets' Year(s) of Issue
 

Phil,

I personally like the idea of knowing when certain sets were issued.
Any form of research I think not only benefits the hobby (current
and future collectors alike), but perhaps more importantly, it provides
an accurate timeline of what was taking place at the time of the sets'
issue. Here's a couple of examples (an earlier post regarding the
E107 issue. 1903 was when the American League was established
and the first World Series took place. Another example would be
the 1933 Goudey set. At that time Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and the
Yankees were American icons, thus, each player had a number of
cards issued in that set.) I believe what it comes down to is that
for any given set, there is a general theme as to what was
occurring in baseball. I think as time has passed, these themes
have been long been forgotten by most collectors who simply collect
to compile a set, player, team, Hall of Famers, etc!

As for the Standard Calatog, I think it would be remiss not to
place an accurate date on a set, IF an accurate date could be
determined. It would be no less a disservice to the hobby not to
include a new find such as the Skydash Jim Thorpe Colgan Chip
to this set, as to not include a newly discovered publish date.

In terms of grading companies, that's a whole different issue.
Many issues such as the ones you brought up would be big
problems. There again, what about cards that have been historically
accepted as being one year and through research are determined
to be wrong. (One example of this is the 1933 Goudey #106
Nap Lajoie, which was actually issued in 1934!) Would the hobby
accept this new publish date? I rather doubt it. Again, I would
hope the movers and shakers of the hobby embrace all new info
discovered by researchers, but only time will tell.

ErikV

I think the hobby could deal with a reassessment of the date of issue if it's clear there was an error made.

The N28 set is a good example. It has always been assumed it was issued in 1887, yet until recently nobody made the simple observation that John Clarkson didn't join Boston until 1888. I can live with the date 1888 on that set.

I would always side with accuracy over tradition when it comes to dating a set.

Use the US Caramel set as an example. It has long been listed as a 1932 issue, but it can be shown to be a 1933 issue. I realize that changing the accepted date on the set will make an awful lot of slabs inaccurate. But if new information comes to light, the "facts" as we all thought we knew them should change also.

The subsequent data bases should also be changed, and if that means double listing, I'm OK with that.

What about the old slabs? I don't care.

The only time it might get tricky is when a date is changed, and a card assumed to be a player's rookie card loses that status. Who would want to pay a big premium for a rookie only to discover it was actually the player's third card?

But, in this case, the truth is, it already is the players third card. Nothing has really changed. If it's been classified wrong and it isn't changed, then we're acknowledging that we catalog them only for financial purposes, not historical.

True indeed. If the Standard Catalog were to change the date of a rookie card, so be it. But if a grading service changed it on the label, they might expect one or more irate phone calls down the road. But I agree, it is what it is.

I'd personally like to see the T213-1 and T215-1 series' changed to T206 back variants. Don't know if that is a popular opinion or not, but it's certainly one that I consider a valid change.

One other thing to consider is the advantage that an on-line baseball card catalogue/database such as the ones maintained by OldCardboard and VCP have in that they can update all of their information at a moment's notice as they are not limited to a once-a-year time frame for updates. It appears that this concept is really the wave of the future (and maybe even the present with blackberries, etc.).

No doubt. But it is very hard to keep internet updates long-term. History has to dictate something more concrete, otherwise we lose so much information.

When I was researching the 1966 unreleased Beach Boys album "Smile" during the early years of the internet, tons of new information was emerging from inside the walls of the long-closed Beach Boys world. In many instances throughout my life, I have just thought such information would always be available and I did nothing, but in this instance, I must pat myself on the back for printing out literally hundreds of pages from emails and internet sites now long-gone.

And I suggest that that will be the same with much of this baseball card knowledge should nothing concrete find its way into libraries.

Didn't Brian Wilson release "Smile" just a few years ago?

Not to derail, but, yes and no. He did not release it as it was originally recorded during the psychedelic era. He re-recorded everything and released it as a 2004 solo album.

The original tapes remain unreleased.

I was a writer and researcher on a documentary about the album produced by Showtime in 2004, but the film was more of an homage to Brian Wilson's efforts to finish it than a true look at its place in the context of '60s counter-culture.

Anyway, with regards to baseball card info online, I think it is an excellent resource for the collector. You can type any question into a search engine and get answers quickly and pretty accurately. That helps immensely in the process of buying and selling. However, long-term information pertaining to a card's history must be printed in some format that can be collected by a library or historian.

I enjoy web information tremendously, and count on it to make decisions about purchasing. But since I don't plan on writing a book about cards anytime soon, I rarely print anything from the internet out. I suppose it's up to those who are writing or documenting any one subject to take the time and weed through the internet information, and to document what they consider important new information about cards.

I think a major problem would be years issued, if they were issued in same years I could see it.

The first series' in the T213 and T215 were issued from 1910-1912.

I didn't know that, learn something new everyday !

Yeah, and they have the same exact fronts as those of 68 other players from the regularly recognized T206 white borders set, even down to the font and color of the typeset. The only difference between the T206 cards and the T213-1 and T215-1 cards, apparently, is the paper stock. I've never owned a T215-1, so I can't speak to that, but the T213-1 cards are a lot thinner.

I'm sure there is an entire thread on this subject somewhere, but it would have existed before I started reading posts here.

There are indeed several posts on the topic already. That change is different & much more controversial then those discussed here as that has to do with classification and not dates. The correct way to classify something is open to interpretation, dates are not.

not for me
 

First of all there are no other cards in T206 that are on as thin of stock as T213-1. I don't think it should be labeled as T206 because of that and because Burdick put Coupons in their own designation. For me, that's enough, though I am probably in the minority.

I have never really heard of T215-1 being classified as T206 nor very many arguments (unlike T213-1) thinking it should be. I am aware of at least 1 T215-1 that has a bit of a different background than it's T206 counterpart, that being Griffith batting. FYI, T215-1 is normal cardstock from what I remember. I have owned several but only own 1 now....regards

Information continually comes to light on certain sets and that is why the dates are subject to revision. IMO, they should always be revised to reflect the truth and the third party graders ("TPG") should adjust their checklists and slab labels accordingly. Not that they always do but they should. Heck, I've had PSA refuse to fix boxing checklists with omitted cards because they haven't slabbed a specimen of the missing card yet! Everyone collecting those sets is collecting a partial set.

There was some set that Memory Lane had
 

In one of their auctions about 3-4 years ago; in which the cards sent to the Patent office and the copyright date was one year later than the original issue.

It was a 1930's set and to the best of my recollection; was the 1933 Sport Kings set which then probably should have been changed to a 1934 set.

I don't think anyone gave it much thought at the time; but in reality that set probably needs to have the date changed as well

Regards
Rich

Leon... I respect your opinion about the T213-1 series. However, if Uzit had printed white borders again in 1914-15 and once more in 1919, Burdick probably would have given them their own designation, to say nothing of the fact that without the continued series, we now consider the Uzit 1910-11 series to be a part of T206.

In the end, T206 is a label placed onto the set 20+ years after its creation. In 1909-12, were one to get one of these cards in a tobacco pouch or cigarette pack, you would have had an un-numbered Piedmont card or Uzit card. And in the case of Coupon cards, the 1910-12 series was funded by ATC and printed by ALC, distributed in an area that no other T206 back was distributed. Had there been no T213-2 or T213-3, no one would even be arguing that series 1 was a part of T206, irregardless of paper stock. It just would be.

As for T215-1, I've only seen around twenty different cards, either through online scans, at card shows or in auction catalogues. I honestly don't know about background variations, as each series 1 card I've seen from the Victory set has been exactly like its T206 counterpart. I may have jumped the gun on saying that series was another T206 back, as I really haven't studied it enough to know for sure. Gut shot guess.

First off you just need to get your series straight, otherwise you have a good argument (one I don't buy, but a good one). T215-1 is Red Cross....Had you talked about Victory I would have responded in kind.

Sorry, I hadn't had that second cup of coffee yet. Red Cross. I had the Zack Wheat T214 in my head when I wrote that.

Lumping vs. Splitting
 

Having been a 206 collector for two decades+, my gut tells me that Brian is right. It seems that a decision was made by Burdick to lump American Beauty, Broadleaf,, Piedmont, etc, but not the 1910 issues of Coupon and Red Cross. That, in my opinion, was wrong. I think that seeing subsequent issues of those cards where none existed from 206 clouded his opinion as to the initial release. T207 Red Cross is "lumped" with the Recruit/Napoleon/Broadleaf backs; why not the same for T206/T215-1?

Leon, do you have a scan of the T215-1 tht has the different background?

The thing kind of going against the T215-1 as being part of T206 to me has always been the fact that the back states "100 subjects" which is not seen on any other T206 back. Other than that I had never noticed any differences between the T206 and T215-1 card fronts and assumed they were likely another variation of the T206 "set"

-Rhett

I think you are right Rhett.I think the 100 subjects (or 100 Designs,as shown on the back) and maybe even the Factory No.10,5th.Dist.,N.J., is what separated them from being an actual extension of the T206 set.

Well, there is no excuse for the Standard Catalog or grading co's to get dates wrong on Old Judges anymore since the definitive reference on them was published last year. I suspect the next big book will reflect this.

Hi Rhett... like I said to Leon up above, it was more of a gut-shot guess on my part, as I've done no real hard research on T215-1. It's just that every card I've seen over the years has matched its T206 counterpart exactly for the fronts. Leon's assertion that there are background variations certainly changes things.

As for stating that "100 subjects" were offered, I don't see that as necessarily deterring T215-1 from being a back variant in T206. Other tobacco backs in T206 don't say how many subjects, but they offer far fewer total than 100. In fact, there isn't one uniform back that offers all 524 fronts.

Griffith
 

I don't own this T215-1 Griffith anymore(and took the T206 scan from ebay). The T215-1 belongs to another board member but it was in my collection for years. You can see the background shading be different......however it is more pronounced (much more) on different cards. I am not sure this isn't just a printing plate issue though. Even regardless of this I have never heard T215 be talked about as being T206.....as the T213-1 has..
best regards

ps..btw Brian- as you are throwing out different scenarios about different issues I applaud you for it. I am the type that thinks everything should be questioned and inspected :). Now, about an actual change, I am much slower.

I think those are printing issues. I have some T206s with marked variations on the printing of background stuff. I will try to post one later.

Thanks, Leon.

In truth, I actually see no way that these designations will ever be changed. So ensconsed are they in the trading, grading and pricing of these cards, I can't imagine wiping the slate clean of their past and getting everyone in the hobby to agree on a new designation.

But again, I was just throwing it out there with regards to T215-1. I have never owned one myself and know very little about the series besides what I've read in Burdick's book and have seen at card shows, on eBay and in auction catalogues. To my eyes, it just looked like the same thing that had happened with Coupon also happened with Red Cross. That being that the 1st series was printed between 1910-12, with the same fronts as T206, just distributed in areas not touched by the other cigarette distributers. My gut feeling about both T213-1 and T215-1 is that they would have been T206 back variants had there not been the second series (for both) and the third series (for T213). In other words, Red Cross and Coupon would be like Uzit or American Beauty.

Time to reclassify the 1910 COUPON set as a T206 sub-set
 

To refresh your thinking, here is the link to my thread on this subject......http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon

It's time to reclassify this set of 68 cards and identify them as the the 16th T-brand of the T206 set. The front images of these cards
are derived from the T206 series of "350 Subjects". The back design is consistent with the four other T206 brands printed and issued
during the Summer/Fall of 1910. Therefore, they are a bona fide white-bordered set under the T206 rubric. The only argument against
this, is that they were printed on very slightly thinner cardboard stock than T206's. In my opinion this is a weak argument that smells
like a "Louisiana red-herring".

At the risk of being a broken record on this subject, I will leave you with this illustration, since a picture is worth a 1000 words........

<img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/at206quintuplicatedesign.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

TED Z

Ted... any thoughts on the T215-1 Red Cross and Pirate backs?

The T215-1 set is more like the T206 set than the T213-1 other than the 100 subjects notation on back. The reason that the 100 number is significant to me is that no other T206 back has that distinction. There is the 150 back, the 350 back and the 350-460 back. Sure there are some t206 backs that don't state a number but T215-1 being the only one saying 100, and the horizontal back (also not on any T206 backs) are both somewhat of a deterrent to referring to that set as a T206 set to me. Also, the ACC is fairly random, we could be making a case for the T215-2, T213-2 and T214 sets being from the same set as well just w/ different backs--but this will never happen.
-Rhett

Alternatively, based on back similarities, maybe American Beauty, Broadleaf, Cycle, and Drum cards should be classified as T213s...

Well, T213-2 and -3, as well as T214 and T215-2 were printed all between 1913 and 1919, plus with the blue text, they have more apparent discrepencies than T213-1 and T215-1.

I didn't say anything about the T213-3's--that set is unlike any of these other sets...thin stock, norrow borders and flat (non-glossy) finish to the cards themselves.

I am basically just making a point about the ACC w/ that example. Burdick was very well organized and was very good at doing what he did. That being said, he wasn't always consistent (although usually he was) about how he classified things and why some sets got their own ACC designation vs. sets that were grouped together. The simplest thing is to simply leave things the way that they are. there is little doubt the T213-1 Coupon set was produced at the same time as the T206 backs Ted showed above, and there is little doubt to us rational thinkers (sorry Leon;)) that they were from the same promotion. There is a good chance that the T215-1 were also done at the same time w/ the same promotion, but this is less clear to me given themajor back differences stated above (also just to play devil's advocate here, what about those foreign T215 Pirate cigarette cards, they could be deemed T206's by some as well--although any foreign cards by the ATC are generally listed as T400+).

The T213-1 Coupons were likely only listed as a different ACC because the T213-2 & 3 sets were obviously not T206's and needed their own designation and Burdick threw the earliest set along with his later brethren for organizational purposes (which in my opinion was probably a mistake).

What I stated earlier about the T213-2, T214, and T215-2 sets is that these also could just as easily have been listed together as one ACC # (NOT T206) and been different back variations within that ACC # as these were all issued around the same time period and have a lot of the same characteristics. But you don't hear the clamoring for this as you do the T206's because these are more thinly traded.

On a side note, while Burdick was really quick to give early E-cards their own ACC #'s all those tobacco sets are more similar within their own groupings than the E92 family of sets, given the players only available in one or more of the different backs within that set. At least all the players in T213-1 and T215-1 are also found in the T206 set.

-Rhett

I'd be for grouping the T213-2, T214, and T215-2 series's into one new designation, though I know very little about T214 and T215-2, so that might be jumping the gun a bit.

Just a thought, but as Coupon was obviously a cheaper tobacco brand (see backs of T213-2's for the # of cigarettes you got vs. the normal T206 cards). Maybe they asked to have their first series of cards (T213-1) to be on thinner paper stock as a cost-cutting measure, something the other T206 manufacturers weren't as worried about due to their higher profit margins.

Maybe Jon can correct me, but I was under the impression that Coupon also used "soft" packs as opposed to the slide shell that the majority used--which also would have been a cost-cutting measure by a bargain brand.

not quite, in my experience
 

Of the 20, or more, T213-3's I have owned none were thin stock. Thin borders- yes, thin stock....just the opposite, which is why you can find them in higher grade sometimes....again, completely different, in that respect, from Coupon T213-1. regards

I don't have any T213-3's anymore but I don't remember them being thick stock like the T213-2's. I wasn't implying they were as thin as T213-1's (those are REALLY thin) but I was comparing them to the T213-2, T214, and T215-2 cards. Again, I may be wrong but I don't remember them being the thickness of the glossy T213-2 set.
-Rhett

I don't think the ACC merits such a major overhaul as this suggests. But I do agree with Ted's assessment that the fact the paper was thinner on the T213-1 is really a minor consideration. It could have just been no more than what thickness of paper was delivered to the factory at that time. Maybe it was cheaper than the thicker stock. That by itself doesn't suggest it should not be part of T206.

Rhett,

With regards to the T215-1 Pirate backs (or whatever label you choose to give to this series), I know very little about them. I've never seen one in person and very few online scans.

The only reason I know anything at all about the T213 series is because I own one card from the first series and one from the second: a beater Miller Huggins (series 1) and an Otto Knabe (series 2), both of which have paper loss on the back, with the Huggins being heavily creased up. I bought these back around 1988 and had no idea for YEARS that they WEREN'T part of the T206 series. The blue type on the Knabe made me curious, but I kept them as part of my T206 collection nevertheless, and still do with the Huggins (he being one of only three HOF'ers that I had as a kid, all beaters, all with paper loss: Collins and McGraw-finger-pointing being the others).

I'd love to run across a beater T215-1 or Pirate Cigarettes for what I paid for my T213s back in 1988, but the chances in this day and age, with the internet and all, are slim and none.

again....
 

I do own some of each. The -3's are the thickest of the bunch from what I remember (I am not holding one now). They are in fact thicker than the -2's and worlds thicker than the -1's. regards

Rhett......et al
 

Note the annotated "...." on the COUPON lettering of the 1910 card.....the significance of this is, that in the Summer of 1910
when these 68 cards were printed, ATC had a pending Copyright of this newly acquired T-brand in their monopoly. Therefore,
at that point in time (unlike the T213-2 & T213-3 issues), the "COUPON" issue is indeed just another T206 back.


<img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/bcouponrossleachchase.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

P.S......In response to you last post......the T213-3's that I have are normal T206 thickness and they are narrow cut similar
to the American Beauty cards.
Also, circa 1914-15, production of COUPON cigarettes was transferred to Factory #8 (same factory as the VICTORY brand).
Therefore, some T213-3 cards are found overprinted with "Factory #8" on their backs.

TED Z

Yeah, again, I'm not for a complete overhaul of the tobacco series numbers or anything. Alas, they are just hobby designations. If you have a Coupon or Red Cross series 1 card and want to put it with the rest of your 1909-12 white border tobacco cards, go for it. I do.

The designations help with buying, selling and organizing. Certainly we don't know how the sets were perceived when they were first issued.

Brian- true, and has been pointed out elsewhere on the thread, every designation for every card set was assigned decades after the cards were issued. There were no T206's in 1910.

And I would bet if somebody picked up a T213 Cobb at the time of issue, and already had the same pose with a Piedmont back, they would have deemed it a duplicate. I'm certain nobody distinguished the card at the time of issue the way we do today. A red Cobb was a red Cobb, and all the back told you was it was found in a different brand of cigarettes.