Appease me, please....one more time T206/T213/T215?

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Maybe those 7 with the series designation should be one thing, and the 8 with no designation should be something else.

* * *

[C]ollectors will like the idea of adding to them.

The fact that Burdick applied the moniker "T206" to cover cards with and without series designations means that the lack of a series designation on T213-1 is completely irrelevant to a determination here.

In addition, T206 is (obviously) my true collecting love. I also really dig Burdick. I have absolutely no interest in adding to T206 or correcting a flawed Burdick. I just happen to think this one is pretty obvious, bordering on the undeniable.

I find the arguments against including T213-1's as T206s wholly unpersuasive and easily rebutable, primarily because there is already so much variation among the different backs -- such a wide net was thrown by Burdick to cover multiple series of cards, with player variations, series size, and cardboard size (AB), it seems almost negligent to exclude T213-1. The logic for including each of the 16 different back types simply belies the logic to exclude T213-1 -- the rationale for including the 16 different backs cannot coexist with a rationale for excluding T213-1.

Moreover, I think it is obvious that Burdick excluded the T213-1s based on the later-issued Coupon series (some of the T213-1 fans arguing for exclusion essentially admit as much), and would not have done so had he known that they were issued contemporaneously with the other T206s -- which it also appears obviously to me that he did not (indeed the different later series likely provided a means for confusion here). And no one has come up with a valid response to Jon's point that T205s should have been T206-2 by the "exclusion-by-reason-of-later-series" logic, since, e.g., Piedmont made both T205s and T206s.

And, if Burdick was persuaded by the paper stock, it was because he did not realize how they were packaged in paper and that they therefore needed to be thinner, as Jon, our resident packaging expert, expertly pointed out.

Finally, to suggest that we should blindly rely on Burdick because of the passage of time, the current graded card flips, or the apparent genius of the man, is to ignore the question being asked -- namely, whether our current reliance on this age-old numbering practice should be revisited based on current knowledge of issuance of these little cardboard beauties and, most obviously, because they look one-and-the-same.

[judsonhamlin]

I think if your position is that we should focus on the company/brand for whom the cards were produced, then you are likely to agree with Burdick and leave the system as is, possible warts and all.
If your position (like mine) is that the focus should be on the company that actually printed the cards, you come down on the side of lumping the various brands advertised thereon.

As I said earlier, I do see a precedent for "lumping" - R73 Indian Gum. Non-sports guys must be able to cite other multi-year, multi-series sets printed by the same company that have one ACC #.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

I find the arguments against including T213-1's as T206s wholly unpersuasive and easily rebutable, primarily because there is already so much variation among the different backs -- such a wide net was thrown by Burdick to cover multiple series of cards, with player variations, series size, and cardboard size (AB), it seems almost negligent to exclude T213-1. The logic for including each of the 16 different back types simply belies the logic to exclude T213-1 -- the rationale for including the 16 different backs cannot coexist with a rationale for excluding T213-1.

Paul thanks for the well thought out post. We are obviously on opposite sides concerning whether T213-1's should be considered as a T206 so could you address how the T213-1's don't fit the printing process of the T206's?

The T206 set as we know it was printed with over 36 unique ad backs and none of those backs were printed with 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time. Each group was printed for a run and then retired to make room for the next group all the way through the set. Once a group was retired it was not brought back. So how then does the T213-1 set fit into the T206 set when it deviates from this process?

[T206Collector]

You're going to have to hold my hand through this a little bit, okay?

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

The T206 set as we know it was printed with over 36 unique ad backs and none of those backs were printed with 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time.

I don't understand this sentence. I assume you get to 36 by taking into account the different factories, overprints, and advertising colors (red/brown hindu, brown/black old mill, etc.). I do not know what you mean that "none of those backs were printed with 150-350 and 350 only subjects at the same time." Red Cobb portraits were printed with these backs, right?

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Each group was printed for a run and then retired to make room for the next group all the way through the set.

Again, what about, e.g., Red Cobb?

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Once a group was retired it was not brought back. So how then does the T213-1 set fit into the T206 set when it deviates from this process?

Again, when was Red Cobb retired? And how does T213-1 deviate from this process?

Maybe you could help answer my questions by explaining how the production of EPDG and Polar Bear differ from the production of T213-1?

[Abravefan11]

Yes, I am taking into consideration all of the unique back designs within the T206 set.

The Red Cobb portrait is a super print. This card along with five others were introduced with the 350 Only group. When ATC and ALC retired the 350 Only group they carried over these 6 into the 350-460 group. This accounts for their being found with so many backs but doesn't contradict my point. The Red Cobb was not taken out of production and then brought back.

T213-1 deviates from this process because once the 150-350 Subjects were retired and the printing of the 350 Only players began, no 150-350 subject was ever printed again. T213-1 printed 150-350 subjects together with 350 Only subjects. This did not happen in the T206 set.

The two assorted backs that the 150-350 and 350 only cards shared were Old Mill and EPDG. However they were not printed all in one big batch. There were print runs for the assorted backs during each groups print runs. EPDG's for example would have been run during the 150-350 printing, again during the 350 Only, again during the 350-460, and again in the 460 Only runs. So the 150-350 subjects and 350 Only subjects were printed separately with assorted backs not at the same time. This was not the case with the T213-1's. They were printed all together at the same time.

Please let me know if I need to clarify anything further. I'm not the best at explaining myself on the forum apparently and I apologize for the confusion.

[T206Collector]

So....

1. 150-350 Subjects were retired and then the 350 Only Series began; but

2. Old Mill and EPDG deviate from this axiom; and

3. So does T213-1; but

4. T213-1 is different from OM and EPDG, because the latter were issued in batches rather than all at once; and therefore

5. T213-1 is not a T206?

Did I follow this logic? Are you basically pinning your argument to the assertion that OM and EPDG were issued in batches and T213-1 was issued all at once? If so, I do not see how you get from 4 to 5 above.

[Abravefan11]

No, I must have confused you and I'll try to clarify.

1) Is true.

2) Old Mill and EPDG do not deviate. When the 150-350 run was being printed they printed backs with EPDG and some with Old Mill. 150-350 production stopped and was replaced by 350 Only subjects. Once they began printing these images they printed some with Old Mill and some with EPDG. They never printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time.

3) T213-1 printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time. This did not happen at anytime in the T206 print runs with any back.

4) T213-1 are different than EPDG and Old Mill.

5) 1-4 lead me to conclude T213-1 are not T206's.

Once the images were pulled from production in the T206 set it makes sense for them to be reused as a low cost alternative to creating a new set from scratch for another project separate from T206.

[T206Collector]

....because I don't see the significance of what you see.

How do you know:

1. That T213-1 printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time; and

2. That this did not happen at anytime in the T206 print runs with any back?