Modifications to Vintage Baseball Card Sets' Year(s) of Issue

[rhettyeakley]

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

[Brian-Chidester]

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.

[rhettyeakley]

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.

[tedzan]

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

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Brian-Chidester

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.

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.

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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.

Yeah, again, I'm not for a complete overhaul of the tobacco series numbers or anything. Alas, they are just hobby designations. If you have a Coupon or Red Cross series 1 card and want to put it with the rest of your 1909-12 white border tobacco cards, go for it. I do.

The designations help with buying, selling and organizing. Certainly we don't know how the sets were perceived when they were first issued.

[barrysloate]

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.

[barrysloate]

To put it more clearly, suppose a kid in the early teens had three red Cobbs- a Piedmont, a Sweet Caporal, and a Coupon. Do you think he said the Sweet Cap and the Piedmont belong together, but the Coupon belongs elsewhere? No, what he had was the same card in triplicate.

[caramelcard]

Leon,

You're a D303 collector for goodness sake. If Mother's and G.B. backs share the same designation, then so should T213-1 with T206. D303 G.B.s are "yankee" cards and the Mother's are "rebel" cards.

As Leon mentioned we've had a lot of good discussion on the T213-1 in the past. I was one of the bandleaders saying it should be part of the T206 "set."

The fact of the matter is that T206 is not a set.

If you want to argue about Burdick's designations then yeah maybe he should've gone with:

T206-1 (piedmont)
T206-2 (sweet cap)
T206-14 (coupon) etc

But, I think there's a great chance Burdick was very familiar with how similar type 1 Coupon's were to other "T206" backs as far as ornamentation and font color on the front. Those are pretty basic traits. He probably decided it would be easier for collectors to associate the type 1s with other coupon backed issues.

However, if we have to group T213-1 and T215-1 with T206 so that our collections of those type 1 cards are now worth more, then I agree that there's enough evidence to do so.

One of the "other sides" arguments had been:

Argument for Paper stock. It differs from that of all other brands.
Counter argument. American Beauty size differs from that of all other brands.

There are more arguments against that one can retrieve by looking through the old threads, but none hold up in my opinion.

Rob

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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.

When speaking with several old time collectors they have always collected the fronts. Hence, E92 were all the same, whether it was a Nadja, Dockman, Croft's Candy or Croft's Cocoa......all the same . So, it is with little doubt they did the same thing with white bordered cards. Quite a few of the letters/numbers we go by today weren't even ACC numbers at all. Groups such N (these were not letteredas 19th century in the ACC), E123, T215 Pirate etc.....were not in the ACC. They came from other places. At the same time, just as we don't change the English Alphabet or certain spellings because they don't hold to a conformity, I have never been in favor of changing the ACC. Just a personal preference that isn't too popular with this board. (but it's still not changing )

[Leon]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

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.

-Rhett

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

[rhettyeakley]

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

[Brian-Chidester]

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.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

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

I do own some of each. The -3's are the thickest of the bunch from what I remember (I am not holding one now). They are in fact thicker than the -2's and worlds thicker than the -1's. regards