|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Ted Zanidakis
Darren extended my American Beauty 350-Broad Leaf 350-Cycle 350-Drum (A-B-C-D) connection to include the Coupon |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Joe D.
Yes - they are T206s. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Dan Bretta
I personally like the idea that T206 is just a classification of similar cards, but is not one set. Each set should be divided by the tobacco brand on the back. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: barrysloate
Yes. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Jodi Birkholm
Agreed. Just like Topps and OPC in latter years. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: JimB
Sounds like T206 to me. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: fkw
Nope, |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Ted Zanidakis
FRANK |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Craig W
Perhaps the Type 2's & 3's could be referred to as the T206 Updates? |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: J Levine
Ted, |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Matt
Josh - do the players/poses shown in the Obaks and Red Cross issues matchup to the T206s? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Ted Zanidakis
I have to correct this comment of yours...... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: barry arnold
Interesting but very difficult topic methinks. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: robert a
I don't understand how Obaks have anything to do with this, but T215 should be in this discussion as well. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: leon
It's been a long day as I went to California and back but let me just say this.... |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: J Levine
Ted, |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Joe D.
Frank, |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Jon Canfield
I want to first say that I really enjoy this debate as I've always wondered why Coupon Type 1's were classified the way they were by Burdick. That being said, I just want to put forth my possible explaination for the thinner stock of the Type 1's that I discussed in the previous thread. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: barrysloate
I like to divide T206 and T213 into three groups: |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: peter ullman
i agree with barry...next question: if in fact t213-1 coupons are part of the t206...how scarce are they? Lennox/uzit scarce? I wish I still had mine!!!! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Joe D.
Jon, |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: leon
I appreciate ya'll agreeing that Burdick did in fact catalog these by mfg correctly and they are in fact T213 and Coupons....just as the other series 2 and 3 are mfg by Coupon....He was consistent .....I agree he made a few other errors in the catlog but this obviously isn't one of them....thanks again |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Jon Canfield
Barry - now that we have that settled what about taking Coupon Type II's , Red Cross Type II's and Victory and making it one set produced between 1913-1915. Below is a Coupon Type II, Red Cross Type II and Victory (in that order) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: barrysloate
There is something arbitrary about categorizing any of these sets, or grouping them together, because we don't know the intent of the designer or manufacturer. We could just as easily designate T206 as a master set containing 15 different series, and also say that anyone completing a set of 520/524 with different backs is in fact mixing series together. BUt collectors fully accept a set with mixed backs, even prefer it. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Sean BH
I second that motion. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: leon
Ya'll keep making up your own rules and see how far it goes....Burdick classified these correctly. I am all for doing a whole different catalog....but it won't be the ACC....So far NOT ONE PERSON has been able to confute the fact these were classified by mfg and, as such, done correctly. I rest my case..... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: barrysloate
Don't rest your case quite yet. Burdick's contribution was monumental but he was really doing all this on the fly, based on his own observations and through correspondence with fellow collectors. There is an awful lot of information in the ACC, probably more than a handful of collectors could possibly amass, and they simply couldn't have gotten it all right. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Darren
"T213-1" is a T206 issue. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: leon
Again.....same conclusion. Burdick classified cards by mfg. Coupon is what T213 is. ALL 3 SERIES. I think at this point you are harrassing the witness > Please answer the question or move on... |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: barrysloate
Maybe I'll just take a nap instead. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Anonymous
Was the manufacturer Coupon or the ATC? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: barrysloate
Here's a question, and the answer is purely speculative: |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Matt
"So far NOT ONE PERSON has been able to confute the fact these were classified by mfg and, as such, done correctly. I rest my case....." |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: leon
Great point. I DO AGREE that Burdick would have, in all probability, made the type 1's as a T206 WITHOUT there being the other 2 series in the equation. He saw the Coupon Cigarette backs from all 3 sets and classified them correctly as T213.....as he couldn't put the last 2 series in T206 due to differences discussed. Great point... |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: leon
My good friend Jon did "attempt" to refute it..... though not successful imho.....btw, there is nothing personal about any of this...this is a lot of fun..... |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: barrysloate
This is a good debate but it will probably never be resolved. Of course, nothing will change and the type 1's will probably always be part of the Coupon set. But there is reason to question it. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Joe D.
Leon, |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: JimB
Since T206 was not the classification of the manufacturer, but a collector decades later, it seems the first thing we need to do is to DEFINE what a T206 is. Then we can move on to determining whether Coupons, Red Cross, Ty Cobb back, etc. belong under that classification. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: barrysloate
Uh oh Jim- you brought up the Ty Cobb back. You may be opening up a can of worms! But of course you made a good point that in 1910 the designation "T206" didn't exist. And nobody who collected them knew what they were doing. They did know however that if they saw a player or pose that was unfamiliar, they needed it. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Ed Hans
Leon, |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: barrysloate
T206 and T210 even share common poses, but the red borders make it inconsistent with the T206 cards. Again, we need some criteria for making these decisions. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Ted Zanidakis
We can all agree that T206's are American Tobacco Company (ATC) Base Ball premiums accompanying a variety |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Jon Canfield
Leon - obviously no hard feelings and this is, IMO, a great discussion. However, to expand on Ed's rationale, Burdick did not have a uniform classification system so it's not as cut and dry we would have hoped. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Ted Zanidakis
Checklist of the 20 Southern League Subjects included in the T213-1 set. Their fronts are identical to the ones in the T206 set. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Darren
"Since T206 was not the classification of the manufacturer, but a collector decades later, it seems the first thing we need to do is to DEFINE what a T206 is. Then we can move on to determining whether Coupons, Red Cross, Ty Cobb back, etc. belong under that classification." |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Craig W
Not to get too far off topic, but if we start remixing the T cards, will these come next? Clockwise from upper left: E90-1, E92, E101, T216, E105, E102. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: ParkerJ
Great points by Jon Canfield, and JimB. If we consider that the manufacturer was actually Amer Litho, then doesn't that cloud the whole "group by mfg" argument? |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Brian Weisner
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: Matt
"I shot 73 with 4 Birdie's from the tips and beat 2 tour players..." |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
E94s continue to get strong prices | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 41 | 05-11-2007 12:53 PM |
T205 Wheat -eBay follies continue | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 01-29-2007 05:30 AM |
Let the debate continue--Greatest Season Performance | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 73 | 07-08-2005 05:04 AM |
Goodwins - Let the debate continue (but don't digress this time!) | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 04-21-2004 12:13 PM |
A Great Debate? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 08-22-2002 11:15 PM |