Let me give another example to explain the reasoning. Let's assume one woman made it into the major leagues. Generally speaking, the classification category of Major League ball players only tends to include men, but now there is a single example of a woman in that category. Should she not be included among Major League ballplayers because she has some different anatomy? Because the criteria is simply that one plays in the major leagues, not have male organs is a non-issue. Having different biological characteristics was never a criteria for determining wether or not somebody was a major league ballplayer. One can make a new category of major league ball players with male organs, but that does not change the old category.
Likewise, if one wants to make a new category for tobacco cards that includes all white bordered ATC cards with baseball fronts produced between 1909-1911 and advertising ATC brands, but excluding those for which 85% of known copies have a glossy front or for which the brand only has one front, that is fine. But it is not "T206".
By the way, the glossy front that bothers you so much begs the question of why 20% of them do NOT have a glossy front. Perhaps they started without it and then ATC decided to make the cards for this limited edition specialty brand special and added the gloss. WHo knows? Would that eliminate it? I don't think so.
JimB
|