T215 Red Cross actually a T206?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Scot and Leon - I agree with you both and think most people are pretty agreeable concerning why Burdick classified the cards the way he did. It's when you get to the "should he have classified them the way he did?" question that things get a little more tense.

From what we know today there would be some easy changes and then some that would cause WWIII for our board .

[Runscott]

Leon, I get your 'sideways' comment, but unless I read this wrong, this is just a discussion about whether or not WE (as collectors discussing a topic of interest to us) think the two type I's in question should be considered part of the T206 set.

Of course there's nothing wrong with what Burdick chose to do, and we are all grateful not only that he chose to do it, but in the way he did it; but how do WE wish to collect these cards? If someone chose to add the coupon and Red cross type I's to their T206 collection, replacing 'valid' T206 backs, I say more power to them - enjoy.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Leon, I get your 'sideways' comment, but unless I read this wrong, this is just a discussion about whether or not WE (as collectors discussing a topic of interest to us) think the two type I's in question should be considered part of the T206 set.

Of course there's nothing wrong with what Burdick chose to do, and we are all grateful not only that he chose to do it, but in the way he did it; but how do WE wish to collect these cards? If someone chose to add the coupon and Red cross type I's to their T206 collection, replacing 'valid' T206 backs, I say more power to them - enjoy.

Absolutely, Scott. And I was just making an observation about some of the discussions on the board pertaining to this subject. If guys want to put T213 or T215 into their T206 sets, it doesn't bother me at all.

And Bocabirdman- agreed....from now on we can just call everything T206 and there should be far less issues.

[sreader3]

Tim,

I get the descriptive (is) versus normative (should be) distinction but believe that the weight of history and tradition after 100+ years is so heavy that on most matters of opinion T206 (such as whether T213-1 and T215 are T206) will be governed by the status quo (that they are not T206). I agree that the normative question is interesting to talk about nonetheless.

Of course, on questions of fact [such as whether T206 Tinker (Bat Off) exists with Piedmont 42], T206 is subject to ongoing revision and extension.

Scot

[Abravefan11]

Again Scot we agree. I really don't think there will ever be complete agreement on how we would classify some of these sets today, but discussing the topic can foster new ideas and thoughts about the sets in question when approached with an open mind. As you said, they are interesting to talk about.

[barrysloate]

I also agree with the common thinking that T213 and T215 should be separate sets, and there is more evidence to suggest this than to merge them with T206. However, as I have often said, if Burdick were here with us today he would have said that his classifications were not the last word and that he would have expected future revisions. Getting collectors to agree on these revisions is the hard part.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

Absolutely, Scott. And I was just making an observation about some of the discussions on the board pertaining to this subject. If guys want to put T213 or T215 into their T206 sets, it doesn't bother me at all.

I DO agree with your thinking on this subject, but the only important thing is whether or not Frank would consider our monster counts valid if our T206 set was adulterated with a few Type 1 Coupon and Red Cross cards.

Frank?

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by Leon

From what we know today there would be some easy changes and then some that would cause WWIII for our board .

Since seemingly every thread on this board has a T206 subplot, why not just reclassify all Pre War cards as T206. It would make the Type Collector's task a whole lot easier