|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
The T215-1 set is more like the T206 set than the T213-1 other than the 100 subjects notation on back. The reason that the 100 number is significant to me is that no other T206 back has that distinction. There is the 150 back, the 350 back and the 350-460 back. Sure there are some t206 backs that don't state a number but T215-1 being the only one saying 100, and the horizontal back (also not on any T206 backs) are both somewhat of a deterrent to referring to that set as a T206 set to me. Also, the ACC is fairly random, we could be making a case for the T215-2, T213-2 and T214 sets being from the same set as well just w/ different backs--but this will never happen.
-Rhett
__________________
Check out my YouTube Videos highlighting VINTAGE CARDS https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbE..._as=subscriber ebay store: kryvintage-->https://www.ebay.com/sch/kryvintage/...p2047675.l2562 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Alternatively, based on back similarities, maybe American Beauty, Broadleaf, Cycle, and Drum cards should be classified as T213s...
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
I didn't say anything about the T213-3's--that set is unlike any of these other sets...thin stock, norrow borders and flat (non-glossy) finish to the cards themselves.
I am basically just making a point about the ACC w/ that example. Burdick was very well organized and was very good at doing what he did. That being said, he wasn't always consistent (although usually he was) about how he classified things and why some sets got their own ACC designation vs. sets that were grouped together. The simplest thing is to simply leave things the way that they are. there is little doubt the T213-1 Coupon set was produced at the same time as the T206 backs Ted showed above, and there is little doubt to us rational thinkers (sorry Leon) that they were from the same promotion. There is a good chance that the T215-1 were also done at the same time w/ the same promotion, but this is less clear to me given themajor back differences stated above (also just to play devil's advocate here, what about those foreign T215 Pirate cigarette cards, they could be deemed T206's by some as well--although any foreign cards by the ATC are generally listed as T400+). The T213-1 Coupons were likely only listed as a different ACC because the T213-2 & 3 sets were obviously not T206's and needed their own designation and Burdick threw the earliest set along with his later brethren for organizational purposes (which in my opinion was probably a mistake). What I stated earlier about the T213-2, T214, and T215-2 sets is that these also could just as easily have been listed together as one ACC # (NOT T206) and been different back variations within that ACC # as these were all issued around the same time period and have a lot of the same characteristics. But you don't hear the clamoring for this as you do the T206's because these are more thinly traded. On a side note, while Burdick was really quick to give early E-cards their own ACC #'s all those tobacco sets are more similar within their own groupings than the E92 family of sets, given the players only available in one or more of the different backs within that set. At least all the players in T213-1 and T215-1 are also found in the T206 set. -Rhett
__________________
Check out my YouTube Videos highlighting VINTAGE CARDS https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbE..._as=subscriber ebay store: kryvintage-->https://www.ebay.com/sch/kryvintage/...p2047675.l2562 Last edited by rhettyeakley; 02-18-2010 at 11:24 AM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I'd be for grouping the T213-2, T214, and T215-2 series's into one new designation, though I know very little about T214 and T215-2, so that might be jumping the gun a bit.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Just a thought, but as Coupon was obviously a cheaper tobacco brand (see backs of T213-2's for the # of cigarettes you got vs. the normal T206 cards). Maybe they asked to have their first series of cards (T213-1) to be on thinner paper stock as a cost-cutting measure, something the other T206 manufacturers weren't as worried about due to their higher profit margins.
Maybe Jon can correct me, but I was under the impression that Coupon also used "soft" packs as opposed to the slide shell that the majority used--which also would have been a cost-cutting measure by a bargain brand.
__________________
Check out my YouTube Videos highlighting VINTAGE CARDS https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbE..._as=subscriber ebay store: kryvintage-->https://www.ebay.com/sch/kryvintage/...p2047675.l2562 Last edited by rhettyeakley; 02-18-2010 at 11:46 AM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Rhett......et al
Note the annotated "...." on the COUPON lettering of the 1910 card.....the significance of this is, that in the Summer of 1910
when these 68 cards were printed, ATC had a pending Copyright of this newly acquired T-brand in their monopoly. Therefore, at that point in time (unlike the T213-2 & T213-3 issues), the "COUPON" issue is indeed just another T206 back. P.S......In response to you last post......the T213-3's that I have are normal T206 thickness and they are narrow cut similar to the American Beauty cards. Also, circa 1914-15, production of COUPON cigarettes was transferred to Factory #8 (same factory as the VICTORY brand). Therefore, some T213-3 cards are found overprinted with "Factory #8" on their backs. TED Z Last edited by tedzan; 02-18-2010 at 01:05 PM. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think the ACC merits such a major overhaul as this suggests. But I do agree with Ted's assessment that the fact the paper was thinner on the T213-1 is really a minor consideration. It could have just been no more than what thickness of paper was delivered to the factory at that time. Maybe it was cheaper than the thicker stock. That by itself doesn't suggest it should not be part of T206.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The designations help with buying, selling and organizing. Certainly we don't know how the sets were perceived when they were first issued. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Brian- true, and has been pointed out elsewhere on the thread, every designation for every card set was assigned decades after the cards were issued. There were no T206's in 1910.
And I would bet if somebody picked up a T213 Cobb at the time of issue, and already had the same pose with a Piedmont back, they would have deemed it a duplicate. I'm certain nobody distinguished the card at the time of issue the way we do today. A red Cobb was a red Cobb, and all the back told you was it was found in a different brand of cigarettes. Last edited by barrysloate; 02-18-2010 at 12:41 PM. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
not quite, in my experience
Of the 20, or more, T213-3's I have owned none were thin stock. Thin borders- yes, thin stock....just the opposite, which is why you can find them in higher grade sometimes....again, completely different, in that respect, from Coupon T213-1. regards
__________________
Leon Luckey |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
I don't have any T213-3's anymore but I don't remember them being thick stock like the T213-2's. I wasn't implying they were as thin as T213-1's (those are REALLY thin) but I was comparing them to the T213-2, T214, and T215-2 cards. Again, I may be wrong but I don't remember them being the thickness of the glossy T213-2 set.
-Rhett
__________________
Check out my YouTube Videos highlighting VINTAGE CARDS https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbE..._as=subscriber ebay store: kryvintage-->https://www.ebay.com/sch/kryvintage/...p2047675.l2562 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Rhett,
With regards to the T215-1 Pirate backs (or whatever label you choose to give to this series), I know very little about them. I've never seen one in person and very few online scans. The only reason I know anything at all about the T213 series is because I own one card from the first series and one from the second: a beater Miller Huggins (series 1) and an Otto Knabe (series 2), both of which have paper loss on the back, with the Huggins being heavily creased up. I bought these back around 1988 and had no idea for YEARS that they WEREN'T part of the T206 series. The blue type on the Knabe made me curious, but I kept them as part of my T206 collection nevertheless, and still do with the Huggins (he being one of only three HOF'ers that I had as a kid, all beaters, all with paper loss: Collins and McGraw-finger-pointing being the others). I'd love to run across a beater T215-1 or Pirate Cigarettes for what I paid for my T213s back in 1988, but the chances in this day and age, with the internet and all, are slim and none. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
again....
Quote:
__________________
Leon Luckey |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Run of Trader Speaks from 1-1974 to 10-1983 - Auction ends Dec.30 at 10:00 PM EST | jerrys | Live Auctions - Only 2-3 open, per member, at once. | 0 | 12-26-2009 12:20 PM |
Baseball - Vintage Type I Press Photos - 1930s-40s Ending Tonight Nov. 6th on Ebay | D. Bergin | Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T | 3 | 11-06-2009 08:25 AM |
2008-09 Japanese Baseball Card Checklist & Price Guide | Archive | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 1 | 08-13-2008 11:04 AM |
Vintage baseball card Podcasts | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 0 | 03-09-2007 05:13 AM |
Current Issue of The Vintage & Classic Baseball Collector | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 10-28-2001 02:01 PM |