Originally Posted by ullmandds (Post 1839910)

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

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 1840691)

That's kind of my point: the ACC designation T206 reflects a series of decisions based on information available at the time to a group of collectors like us. There is nothing inherently right or wrong with the decision to canonize certain cards as T206 and make others different. The type 1 Coupons seem indistinguishable from T206 from a design standpoint, other than the paper, but we have the Kotton cards as the 'rule' governing paper differences. As for the other white series T213s, well, as has been pointed out already they had the artwork and basically redid the captions and finishes to issue the cards. What company hasn't re-used artwork whenever it could get away with it? T202 was a repurposing of T205 cards with white borders. And how much artwork is shared across T sets?

Don't forget, Camel started its advertising in the teens by deriding companies that spent money on premiums instead of the product itself. In that atmosphere a cut rate re-issue of T206 might have made sense: type 2. Then you have the Federal League and a chance to re-do some captions and issue type 3.

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1840699)

T214 and T215 have similar designs and T215 has a brown captioned one too. I guess we make those T206 also?

Originally Posted by ullmandds (Post 1840723)

Add em!

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 1840749)

The thing that stands out the most to me is the odd group of subjects used, I think Luke mentioned it earlier. The mix of forty two 350 only subjects
with Twenty Southern Leaguers and the six super prints doesn't fit in with any of the other T206 backs. To me it seems like something that was done after
the plates were used for the T206's. Where does the 1910 date for the T213-1's come from?

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 1840749)

The thing that stands out the most to me is the odd group of subjects used, I think Luke mentioned it earlier. The mix of forty two 350 only subjects
with Twenty Southern Leaguers and the six super prints doesn't fit in with any of the other T206 backs. To me it seems like something that was done after
the plates were used for the T206's. Where does the 1910 date for the T213-1's come from?

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 1840749)

The thing that stands out the most to me is the odd group of subjects used, I think Luke mentioned it earlier. The mix of forty two 350 only subjects
with Twenty Southern Leaguers and the six super prints doesn't fit in with any of the other T206 backs. To me it seems like something that was done after
the plates were used for the T206's. Where does the 1910 date for the T213-1's come from?

Originally Posted by tedzan (Post 1840778)

Hey guys, this has all been cleared up before. I covered this situation in previous threads. So, I will reprise it here once again.

First, with all due respect to Luke (or Pat), they are appear to be uninformed as they are misleading with the above statement.

The Six Super Prints were simply 350 Series subjects when the 1910 COUPON cards were produced. It was not until later in the game that American Lithographic (ALC) selected
these six subjects from an earlier print run to be Super-Prints. And, ALC made this selection when they started printing the SOVEREIGN 460 cards (circa Summer/Fall 1910). Proof
of this is evident in the SOVEREIGN sub-set in that the Six Super Prints are found with both SOVEREIGN 350 and SOVEREIGN 460 backs, as I am illustrating here......

Furthermore, regarding the Southern Association (20) subjects, I refer you to post #24 in this thread.

Six Super Prints with SOVEREIGN 460 backs printed circa Summer/Fall 1910
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...CobbSGCx50.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...obbSGCx50b.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...eign350x25.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ign350x25b.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...cematty25x.jpg............http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...verssov460.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ematty25xy.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...verssov460.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...luechasedk.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...asedkcap_1.jpg


1910 COUPON printed circa Spring/Summer 1910

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



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 1840789)

All of the 350 only subjects are printed with a Forrest Green back and the
super prints are printed with an Apple Green back.

Originally Posted by tedzan (Post 1647644)

Illustrated here are the 66 subjects that American Lithographic selected for the 350/460 series. American Litho printed
the backs of these 66 cards using an apple green colored ink (instead of the deep green seen on the backs of all the other SOVEREIGN cards).
For more info on this topic, check-out this thread posted in 2009....Sovereign phantom "350/460" series
Here is my concept of a 72-card sheet arrangement of these 66 subjects (Super-Prints are double-printed **) http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...gn350x25bx.jpg



v.................................... Six super-prints ....................................v
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...erprints9x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...obConDav9x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...erprints9x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...yLDoyElb9x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...raDouDow9x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...osLajLak9x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...MurpNich9x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...aMcInMul9x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...lPfeReul9x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...eySnoSta9x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...trCYoSte9x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...lWillWhi9x.jpg





** Note
I show the super-prints Double-Printed (D-P) on this sheet, since several large T206 surveys have indicated that the 6 super-prints were D-P.


TED Z
.

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie (Post 1840800)

Here are 4 Art Fletchers from this series in varying degrees of condition. The best example is an SGC 30 which is high grade for these. SGC 40 is the highest grade I have of any player, although I have some raw nice ones that could get 40 or 50.

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie (Post 1840881)

Ted, that's awesome. I did not realize that you had found another T213-1 Chance and an upgrade to boot. Way to go. That card is near mint for this series. Here's an SGC 40 Rube Marquard...

Originally Posted by Luke (Post 1840868)

It's a good point about the "Super Prints" not necessarily being a separate group in 1910. That's certainly possible. Are there any theories as to how the Super Prints were printed? Seems possible/likely to me that those 6 poses were on their own sheet. That would make it easy for them to be printed with the large number of backs they appear with.

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss (Post 1840988)

Ted, do you still have the Chance from which you upgraded? If so, let me know if you ever go to sell/trade it.

Originally Posted by tedzan (Post 1840934)

Rob

After you and I did a deal for my original Chance some years ago, I came across this Chance and I could not pass it up, although the price for it was "steep".
I was very disappointed with the PSA's grade on it. Eventually, I'll crack it out and submit it to SGC.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Originally Posted by DixieBaseball (Post 1841138)

Ted - Great thread and as time marches on, the consensus is growing that Coupon Type 1's are in fact the same as the other T206 brands from 1909-11. By the way, the grades don't matter on these delicate beauties as the grading companies are all over the board. I have several that are vastly under graded and some that are over graded. I do like them in the holder for protection since their so fragile. I hope you don't mind me tossing some Southern Leaguer's in as this thread is completely void of them minus the Ted Breitenstein! Here is a player from each of the SL Teams...
Happy New Year Everyone!!

Originally Posted by sb1 (Post 1841162)

Long shot, but does anyone recall a find or original collection where there were type 1 Coupons mixed with the other T206 brands. That would help cement their printing and distribution to the same time frame. I have purchased a couple of sizeable original collections of T206's, one of which was 90% Sovereign(all backs) indicating the smoker collector was a hardcore Sovereign cigarettes devotee.. There were a few other brands mixed in, but not many.

Originally Posted by sb1 (Post 1841162)

Long shot, but does anyone recall a find or original collection where there were type 1 Coupons mixed with the other T206 brands. That would help cement their printing and distribution to the same time frame. I have purchased a couple of sizeable original collections of T206's, one of which was 90% Sovereign(all backs) indicating the smoker collector was a hardcore Sovereign cigarettes devotee.. There were a few other brands mixed in, but not many.

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)......







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
.

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 1841232)

Jon has a picture of a coupon pack on his site.

http://baseballandtobacco.com/t213.htm

Originally Posted by tedzan (Post 1841243)

Pat

We have gone thru this before....that pack in Jon's pix contained T213-2 or T213-3 cards. It did NOT contain 1910 COUPON cards. Think about it, the T-cards of that
era served the purpose of stiffening the cigarette pack. Two cards, one on each side of the pack were inserted.

There's no way the thin cardboard stock that the 1910 COUPON cards were printed on that could serve as stiffeners.

Incidentally, years ago I discussed with Jon the possibility of a cigarette pack containing 1910 COUPON cards, and if I recall correctly: Jon said that none were found.


Furthermore, a pack designed for 1910 COUPON cards would have had Quotation Marks on the brand name as the backs of these cards are printed with. The quotes
signify a new Tobacco brand which is in the process of getting a Registered Trademark.
Here are examples of this....

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


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



Therefore, continue your search for a Coupon pack that is labelled..... "COUPON".
Please contact me when you do find such a pack.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 1841302)

Fair enough Ted. So back to the discussion the coupon carton you refer to in
Jeremy's post doesn't have the quotation marks either.

Attachment 339249

and can you answer the question of where the 1910 date for the type 1 comes from.

Originally Posted by tedzan (Post 1839788)

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

Originally Posted by tedzan (Post 1841319)

Pat
1st.....Here is exactly what I said in the 1st post in this thread...…..



Pat....do notice that I stated...."Such a cigarette carton"

This particular carton which Jeremy posted in his thread some years ago contained COUPON cigarettes manufactured in 1913 - 1919. And, if cards were enclosed in this type of carton,
they would have been either T213-2 or T213-3.


Approx 10 years ago, Louisiana Newspaper clippings (1909 or 1910) were posted in a Net54 thread introducing the new ATC tobacco brand, COUPON.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 1841333)

How is the pack on Jon's site any different than the carton?

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 1841333)

I don't care if people consider them T206's but in my opinion there is more
evidence to support how Burdick catalogued them and not enough to change
it.

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 1841333)

Do you have a copy of that newspaper clipping and does it mention anything about baseball pictures?

Originally Posted by tedzan (Post 1841472)

It isn't different. The pack depicted on Jon's site is labelled LIGGETT & MYERS; therefore, it was issued 1913 (or later). If it had BB cards in it they would be T213-2 or T213-3, ONLY.
OR, it may have Movie stars in it from that era. For example...…

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...geBeban25b.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...geBeban25x.jpg





Your statement here tells us that you don't realize Jefferson Burdick incorrectly classified all three T213 sets as 1914-1915 issues. This timeline is a proven fallacy, on both ends of it.

"T213-1"......1910

T213-2...…….1914-1916

T213-3...…….1916-1919




The newspaper clipping was from the New Orleans Times Picayune. The date is circa late 1908, or early 1909. I cannot seem to find it (I read it at least 10 years ago).
You find it, you are good at searching for things.


Frankly, I am tired of playing this game. You do not want to accept my research, fine.....that's your prerogative. It appears to me that many guys responding in this thread
have more of an open mind.


TED Z
.