Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?

[T205 GB]

I say yes the Coupon Type 1's are part of the T206 set. The Type 2&3's are part of a completely different company. I have explained below how I came up with this "crazy" notion.

The ATC owned the rights to the Type 1 Coupons and were printed as part of the T206 set in mid 1910 approximately. The cards were made by the ATC as part of their advertising campaign in cigarettes, and they were printed with all the same inks and designs. Nothing we have can disprove this theory. The thin paper argument can be explained in part to moisture. The thinner paper stocks that were made in the southern areas was likely due to the decrease in mold or mildew issues due to high humidity. Many southern advertisements have been found with the thinner paper stocks from that time frame. Thinner paper stock holds way less moisture and therefore will not be destroyed a fast as heavier card stock that has the ability to absorb and hold moisture from the air.

The ATC was divide into several sections when it was split up on May 29, 1911 ; Liggett & Myers(LM) being the main focus of my post. LM was given control of the W. R. Irby, New Orleans factory #3. This factory more than likely was forced to change the designs of the subjects that they once printed under the ATC banner due to Copyrights. The change in design had to be significant enough to not violate those laws and thus we have the major changes such as paper stock, inks, colors, back designs, cropping, players, ect. I also believe the glossy coating was to help offset the moisture absorption of the cards. Seal the front side and it reduces the amount of surface that can breath and thus make the card more moisture resistant. This also can help explain the cracking of the coating from the card stock expanding and contracting over the many years from different moisture environments.

We all need to stop and take a step back to look at what we have compared to what Burdick was trying to piece together. The internet and research of thousands of guys creates a much more detailed map. Best guess is that Burdick decided to combine them all into one group most likely due to some backlash he would have feared to receive from the LM company. Back then the company name would have been much more respected than now over 100 years later. LM was an instant powerhouse right out of the gate and any man no matter the riches or stature would have been fearful of disrespecting them back then in any way, especially in a published book for the public to use. The laws were much different then especially knowing that LM's history would later reveal some shady dealings throughout their inception from the ATC dissolution. I am sure you can imagine judges and lawmaker taking kickbacks to obtain bias towards them. I mean that never happens now or anything You also wouldn't call a Dodge Hemi Cuda a Chrysler even though its owned by them. We respect the original company manufacture and it would be sacrilege to call it a Chrysler ___ ___.

The same should be done with the card sets. We should recognize them for what they are. ATC owned the Coupon T206's and LM had the Coupon's for 1914 and on under a different company and new branding campaign.

My research with fellow members has led us down several paths but realistically the simplest explanation seems to be the best:

"W. R. Irby, New Orleans factory #3 was owned by two different companies at two separate times. Due to this, cards produced before the ATC dissolution, mid 1910, were produced for distribution in the T206 advertising campaign. The cards produced between 1914-1919 were part of another brand and thus would be forced to change designs significantly enough as to not violate copyright laws of the time".

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

I say yes the Coupon Type 1's are part of the T206 set. The Type 2&3's are part of a completely different company. I have explained below how I came up with this "crazy" notion.
……………………………………
"W. R. Irby, New Orleans factory #3 was owned by two different companies at two separate times. Due to this, cards produced before the ATC dissolution, mid 1910, were produced for distribution in the T206 advertising campaign. The cards produced between 1914-1919 were part of another brand and thus would be forced to change designs significantly enough as to not violate copyright laws of the time".

Andrew

Great to hear from you. You have said a lot in your post; and, your last paragraph very succinctly summarizes the situation regarding the difference
between the 1910 COUPON cards vs. the T213-2 and T213-3 sets.

American Lithographic (ALC) printed all these white-bordered cards from 1909-1919, and it's apparent that after the ATC divesture (circa mid 1911),
ALC replaced the Brown ink captions with BLUE ink captions on the following T-cards...…

Liggett & Meyers……
COUPON Tobacco
T213-2 (1914-1916)
T213-3 (1916-1919)

VICTORY Tobacco
T214 (1915)


P. Lorillard…...RED CROSS
T215-2 (1912-1913)


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[barrysloate]

As I've said before, if the Coupons were issued only in a single series, it would have been an easy decision for Burdick to group them with T206. But because there were three series, he had to make a decision and chose to classify the three as T213.

I do think the Type 1's are in spirit T206's, but as Leon pointed out they have been catalogued as T213's since the beginning and we can't arbitrarily change the ACC. However, if we could somehow take a time machine back and converse with Burdick, he would surely say that his work isn't gospel and is subject to corrections and reappraisal.

If somebody wanted to take the entire ACC and reevaluate the classifications, I think that would make for an amazing project. I have to think collectively the current hobby knows everything that Burdick knew, plus a lot more.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

As I've said before, if the Coupons were issued only in a single series, it would have been an easy decision for Burdick to group them with T206. But because there were three series, he had to make a decision and chose to classify the three as T213.

I do think the Type 1's are in spirit T206's, but as Leon pointed out they have been catalogued as T213's since the beginning and we can't arbitrarily change the ACC. However, if we could somehow take a time machine back and converse with Burdick, he would surely say that his work isn't gospel and is subject to corrections and reappraisal.

If somebody wanted to take the entire ACC and reevaluate the classifications, I think that would make for an amazing project. I have to think collectively the current hobby knows everything that Burdick knew, plus a lot more.

My father worked at Crouse-Hinds Electric Co. in Syracuse, NY when Burdick was also working there. To the best of my knowledge they never had this discussion.

[tedzan]

Here are some of my 1910 COUPON cards that have been graded, and others that should be graded. The Grading Co.'s are very tough
on these cards. Especially, my Chance which I figured would get a PSA 3 (or perhaps even a 4).


.


..


.




So, anyone here would like to venture a guess as to what grade this Willett will get ?

.


.




Hey guys
How's about joining in on this show....so show your 1910 COUPON cards. Condition is immaterial. Although, I'd like to see one with a Vg-Ex grade (or better).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[DeanH3]

[Rhotchkiss]

Wow, great Chance and great Matty!

[Leon]

Only around 10% - 12% of what Burdick did was sportscards. I don't think he thought this out as much as you think he did. My guess, from some studying, is that he saw the backs and made them T213s because seeing the 3 Coupon backs were unlike any other back brands of 206, in that there aren't other white bordered cards (I could be wrong but don't think so) with a 206 back brand that has another catalog number too.
So this is what is being suggested? There would be T206 Coupon and T213 Coupons? I can't think of another T206 brand like that.

And Burdick absolutely KNEW AND WANTED the ACC to be a work in progress. I am not against redoing some things but not sure this is one I would be in favor of (not that that matters). IT is a good little debate.

Originally Posted by T205 GB

I say yes the Coupon Type 1's are part of the T206 set. The Type 2&3's are part of a completely different company. I have explained below how I came up with this "crazy" notion.

The ATC owned the rights to the Type 1 Coupons and were printed as part of the T206 set in mid 1910 approximately. The cards were made by the ATC as part of their advertising campaign in cigarettes, and they were printed with all the same inks and designs. Nothing we have can disprove this theory. The thin paper argument can be explained in part to moisture. The thinner paper stocks that were made in the southern areas was likely due to the decrease in mold or mildew issues due to high humidity. Many southern advertisements have been found with the thinner paper stocks from that time frame. Thinner paper stock holds way less moisture and therefore will not be destroyed a fast as heavier card stock that has the ability to absorb and hold moisture from the air.

The ATC was divide into several sections when it was split up on May 29, 1911 ; Liggett & Myers(LM) being the main focus of my post. LM was given control of the W. R. Irby, New Orleans factory #3. This factory more than likely was forced to change the designs of the subjects that they once printed under the ATC banner due to Copyrights. The change in design had to be significant enough to not violate those laws and thus we have the major changes such as paper stock, inks, colors, back designs, cropping, players, ect. I also believe the glossy coating was to help offset the moisture absorption of the cards. Seal the front side and it reduces the amount of surface that can breath and thus make the card more moisture resistant. This also can help explain the cracking of the coating from the card stock expanding and contracting over the many years from different moisture environments.

We all need to stop and take a step back to look at what we have compared to what Burdick was trying to piece together. The internet and research of thousands of guys creates a much more detailed map. Best guess is that Burdick decided to combine them all into one group most likely due to some backlash he would have feared to receive from the LM company. Back then the company name would have been much more respected than now over 100 years later. LM was an instant powerhouse right out of the gate and any man no matter the riches or stature would have been fearful of disrespecting them back then in any way, especially in a published book for the public to use. The laws were much different then especially knowing that LM's history would later reveal some shady dealings throughout their inception from the ATC dissolution. I am sure you can imagine judges and lawmaker taking kickbacks to obtain bias towards them. I mean that never happens now or anything You also wouldn't call a Dodge Hemi Cuda a Chrysler even though its owned by them. We respect the original company manufacture and it would be sacrilege to call it a Chrysler ___ ___.

The same should be done with the card sets. We should recognize them for what they are. ATC owned the Coupon T206's and LM had the Coupon's for 1914 and on under a different company and new branding campaign.

My research with fellow members has led us down several paths but realistically the simplest explanation seems to be the best:

"W. R. Irby, New Orleans factory #3 was owned by two different companies at two separate times. Due to this, cards produced before the ATC dissolution, mid 1910, were produced for distribution in the T206 advertising campaign. The cards produced between 1914-1919 were part of another brand and thus would be forced to change designs significantly enough as to not violate copyright laws of the time".

[toppcat]

Would not the quotation marks also be a departure from T206? Coupon type 1's and Cobb/Cobbs both have 'em.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Would not the quotation marks also be a departure from T206? Coupon type 1's and Cobb/Cobbs both have 'em.

Hi Dave

Regarding the "Quotation Marks"....my understanding is that advertising new Tobacco brands which are in the process of getting a Registered Trademark require the Quotes.
Here are three examples of this......





.

and,

.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Leon

there aren't other white bordered cards (I could be wrong but don't think so) with a 206 back brand that has another catalog number too.

Perhaps not but there are different ATC issued T sets from the era that share brands:

--Cycle (T205, T206, T207)
--Mecca (T201, T218, T220)
--Hassan (T202, T205, T218)
--Honest Long Cut (T205,T219, T227)
--Polar Bear (T205, T206)
--Sweet Caporal (T205, T206)
--Tolstoi (T206, T218)

Why not group by brands and then classify each as a separate subcategory? Because Burdick didn't. That's all. He made a decision based on the data he had. Andrew's explanation seems to be very well thought out and credible. The effect of the ATC breakup on card production is the best explanation for why the -2 and -3 types are so different from T206.

[Leon]

I realized that Adam and that is why I phrased what I said the way I did.
I agree, Andrew's research concerning the ATC breakup is possibly the answer why the Coupons were made the way they were. But as I said, and no one contradicts based on what I have read so far, is that no other T206 brand would have another white bordered, baseball series except Coupon? I am not saying there can't be an exception but that is what it would be to me. It wouldn't be like any other listed t206 series.

There is a 100% chance we could do better writing the ACC today with all of the info gleaned in the last 59 years (the date of the last ACC).
If we are going to reclassify stuff there is a ton more to do based on what we now know. Someone should go for it. I nominate you, Adam >
I re-learned something new doing this research too, there are no W-unc cards as Burdick actually gave all that weren't classified a W500 number .

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Perhaps not but there are different ATC issued T sets from the era that share brands:

--Cycle (T205, T206, T207)
--Mecca (T201, T218, T220)
--Hassan (T202, T205, T218)
--Honest Long Cut (T205,T219, T227)
--Polar Bear (T205, T206)
--Sweet Caporal (T205, T206)
--Tolstoi (T206, T218)

Why not group by brands and then classify each as a separate subcategory? Because Burdick didn't. That's all. He made a decision based on the data he had. Andrew's explanation seems to be very well thought out and credible. The effect of the ATC breakup on card production is the best explanation for why the -2 and -3 types are so different from T206.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Perhaps not but there are different ATC issued T sets from the era that share brands:

--Cycle (T205, T206, T207)
--Mecca (T201, T218, T220)
--Hassan (T202, T205, T218)
--Honest Long Cut (T205,T219, T227)
--Polar Bear (T205, T206)
--Sweet Caporal (T205, T206)
--Tolstoi (T206, T218)

Why not group by brands and then classify each as a separate subcategory? Because Burdick didn't. That's all. He made a decision based on the data he had. Andrew's explanation seems to be very well thought out and credible. The effect of the ATC breakup on card production is the best explanation for why the -2 and -3 types are so different from T206.

Adam

You have stated some very excellent points here......Thanks.

If you don't mind, I will expand on your sharing of T-brands:

AMERICAN BEAUTY (T205, T206)
BROAD LEAF (T205, T206, T207)
DRUM (T205, T206)
LENOX (T206, T80*)
OLD MILL (T206, T80*)
RED CROSS (T207, T215)
SOVEREIGN (T205, T206)
TOLSTOI (T206, T80*)
UZIT (T206, T80*)

* Military Series


TED Z

T206 Reference
.