[canjond]

Frank,

I have seen the soft packs before. There are 8-count soft packs dating to 1910 (I'm not sure if the one pictured above is an 8 or 10 count). The majority of the soft packs that are out there came from a New Jersey find circa 2005. I believe the seller came across 8 or 10 of them.

While I've had discussions about the soft pack theory with a few others in the past, I still don't completely agree that the AB's were cut thinner to fit in it.

- Based on ATC records discovered by Terry a few years back, AB was listed as being packaged in 10-count packs, not 8 count packs (not sure if the pack pictured above is an 8 or 10 but most of the softs I've seen have been 8 counts)

- The soft packs I have seen did not match the factory and district numbers for the AB cards.

- Many AB cards would show OBVIOUS signs on wear because of the relative lack of protection that the soft pack affords.

- I do have a 1910 AB slide and shell pack - exact same size as other slide and shell packs (including the 1905 ones). The factory and district codes DO match the cards. I'll post a picture of this pack later.

- All other "categorized" T206s were packaged in hard packs, not soft packs. The only exception to this would be Coupon, if you believe Coupon is a T206. However, Coupons did not offer any other configuration other than soft pack (so there was no alternative). The cards were much more brittle and the Type 1s that exist display the wear that would be typical for cards coming from soft packs.

In the end, I can neither prove nor disprove the soft pack theory. However, I do believe the reason for the thinner ABs does not have to do with packaging...