T215 Red Cross actually a T206?

[cozmokramer]

I came across a brief website mentioning that many feel the T215 Red Cross type 1 cards may actually be just a T206 with another back.

Are there any opinions here or articles that discuss this?

[cdn_collector]

Indeed there are -- you'll probably hear some of those opinions in very short order. There have been at least a couple threads in the past discussing the whys and why nots of both T213-1 and T215-1 being part of the T206 set.

I would post links to those threads, but, well, I'm just not very good at using the search function.

Regards,

Richard.

[Jlighter]

If you include the t215 then you have to include the t213, they have more similarities then with t206.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by cdn_collector

Indeed there are -- you'll probably hear some of those opinions in very short order. There have been at least a couple threads in the past discussing the whys and why nots of both T213-1 and T215-1 being part of the T206 set.

I would post links to those threads, but, well, I'm just not very good at using the search function.

Regards,

Richard.

It's always a good debate. Some will think the T213 and T215 should be included in t206, I don't. Many times you can look at the very bottom of a thread and find older, similar threads listed. There are a few down there in this one. It's one of the features of this board's software.

[Abravefan11]

Based on how the T206 was put together and printed it's an easy no for me.

[Runscott]

I agree with Tim, but as a collector, since the fronts look exactly alike for the T206, Red Cross Type 1's and Coupon Type 1's, I see no problem whatsoever with using these two issues to fill in spots in my T206 collection.

Of course, that would be very expensive, but if your focus is having more difficult cards in your 'T206' collection, why not supplement your set with a few of these - it certainly would make it more interesting.

[buymycards]

I would lean heavily on the side of the people who consider T215 an extension of the T206 set, mainly because of the factory designation.

The T213-1 is more questionable because of the Louisiana designation.

[tedzan]

1910 COUPON (T213-1)

Most of you guys know my opinion regarding the 1910 COUPON cards. In the past 6 years, I have posted several threads on this subject.

Check out these threads........
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=Quintuplicate
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon

It is a NO-BRAINER, these cards are indeed the 16th T-brand of the T206 set; as, they were issued in the Spring/Summer of 1910 (concurrently with the AMERICAN BEAUTY,
BROAD LEAF, CYCLE, and DRUM cards).
With all due respect to Burdick....he mis-classified this sub-set of 68 cards. Burdick's records indicate that they were issued "circa 1913-15"......this timeline is absolutely incorrect !
So, we'll give Burdick a "mulligan" on this one


This group of five T-brands were printed & issued circa Spring/Summer of 1910



RED CROSS (T215-1)




This issue is somewhat more complicated, as it derives subjects from the 150 series, 350 series, and the 460 series. Although, some of the RED CROSS cards were issued
in 1910, others were issued in early 1912 (evident by team trades reflected in their captions). So, I'm not ready to venture out on a limb and say the T215-1 should be
classified as part of the T206 set. Check out this thread........
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ight=red+cross



The 1910 COUPON....absolutely YES


TED Z

[barrysloate]

Why are T215 Red Cross not considered part of the T206 set, but brown background Red Cross are considered part of the T207 set? Is there a difference?

Quick side bar: as I'm typing in the words "Red Cross" I'm listening to an ad on the radio asking for donations to the Red Cross for Hurricane Sandy. Isn't that a coincidence?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Why are T215 Red Cross not considered part of the T206 set, but brown background Red Cross are considered part of the T207 set? Is there a difference?

Quick side bar: as I'm typing in the words "Red Cross" I'm listening to an ad on the radio asking for donations to the Red Cross for Hurricane Sandy. Isn't that a coincidence?

I'm 75 - 25 % leaning toward the the T215-1 RED CROSS 96 cards as an extension to the T206 set. Although, some of the team changes reflect trades as late as 1912,
the BROWN captioned aspects of these cards are consistent with the T206 format.

Consider this, if this issue is indeed part of the "T206 family"....we can extend the T206 timeline to "1909 - 1912".


TED Z





This includes approx. 35 cards that were derived from the 350-Only series and the Matty (white cap) from the 150/350 series.

[barrysloate]

I'm not certain Red Cross should be included in T206 either, but I would like someone to explain why we include it in the T207 set without even questioning it.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I'm not certain Red Cross should be included in T206 either, but I would like someone to explain why we include it in the T207 set without even questioning it.

Hi Barry-

My guess is simply because there is no other set that has the T207 fronts. Because the T213-1 and the T215-1 use the same fronts as T206, it's easier for people to try to build a case that these should have been included in the T206 set. I don't think they are T206's, but you won't convince the people who do.

TedZ.- I know your position on T213-1's, and I know you've studied these sets way longer than I have, but what about the paper stock on T213-1's. Why is it different? Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

The RED CROSS (T215-1) set consists of 96 cards. It is comprised of T206 subjects from the 150/350 series, 350-only series, 350/460 series,
and 460-only series. These cards were most likely issued in 2 series....1st series of 48 (or 36) subjects in 1910....the 2nd series of 48 (or 60)
subjects in early 1912.

The T215 cards were printed in New York City (as most of that era's T-cards), shipped to the Lorillard plant (Factory #10) in Jersey City (NJ),
and inserted in the Red Cross tobacco products. A large find of Red Cross cards occurred some years back in the Louisiana area.





This list of 96 cards is still a work in progress. The Standard Catalog is uncertain with respect to the T215-1 cards. However, a 96-card "complete"
set of the T215-1's "cousins", the "PIRATE" Tobacco set, has been confirmed. These T215 cards closely match that of the cards found in the "Pirate"
Tobacco set. I think it is fair to conclude that American Litho. printed both of these White-Bordered, Brown-Captioned cards in the same time-frame.

Ames (hands above head)
Baker
Ball
Bender (trees)
Bridwell (portrait-cap)
M. Brown (Chicago)
Byrne (Pittsburg)........................traded August 19, 1909
Camnitz (arm at side)
Chance (yellow portrait)
Chase (trophy)
Cobb (bat off shoulder)
Collins (A's)
Conroy (bat)
Crandall (portrait-cap)
Crawford (bat)
Cree
Davis (A's)
Devore
Donlin (bat)....(Pittsburg)..............traded Feb 17, 1912
Doolan (bat)

Doolan (fielding)
Dougherty (arm in air)
Doyle (portrait)
Doyle (bat)
Dubuc
Elberfeld (Wash.-fielding)
Evers (bat-yellow sky)
Ford
Fromme
Griffith (bat)....(Washington)..........traded in Feb 1912
Groom
Hartsel (Toledo)...........................acquired by Toledo in Dec 1911
Herzog (New York, NL)..................traded July 22, 1911
Hoblitzell
Hofman
Howard
Huggins (portrait)..(St Louis NL)......traded Feb 1910
Huggins (hands/mouth)
Hummell
Jennings (one hand)
Jennings (two hands)
Johnson (pitching)
Kelley
Konetchy (glove low)
Krause
Lajoie (bat)
Lake (St Louis-no ball)
Latham
Leifield (bat)
Lord
Magee (bat)
Marquard (portrait)
Marquard (pitching)
Mathewson (white cap)
Mathewson (dark cap)
McGinnity
McGraw (portrait-cap)
McGraw (glove)
Harry McIntyre (Chicago NL)
Matty McIntyre (Detroit)

McLean
Merkle (throwing)
Meyers
Miller
Mowrey (St Louis, NL)...................traded Aug 22, 1909
Mullin (bat)
Murray
Oakes
O'Leary (hands on knees)
Paskert
Pelty (vertical)
Purtell
Quinn
Reulbach (no glove)
Rucker (throwing)
Schaefer (Washington)
Schulte (back view)
Sheckard (glove)
Frank Smith (Cincinnati).................traded May 11, 1911
Speaker

Stahl (glove)
Steinfeldt (bat)....(St. Louis, NL).....tryout, circa Feb 1912
Street
Sweeney (New York AL)
Tannehill (Chicago AL)
Tinker (bat on shoulder)
Tinker (bat off shoulder)
Wagner (bat on right)
Warhop
Wheat
Doc White (pitching)
Willetts
Wilson
Wiltse (portrait)
Wiltse (pitching)
Cy Young (glove)


I reiterate, this checklist is a work in progress; therefore, I would appreciate any updates to it. Especially, I'm looking for more team changes.....
that are different from the original T206 captions.

Also, showing or telling of your T215-1 cards here are surely appreciated.


TED Z

[barrysloate]

Thanks Clayton.

[Leon]

No matter how much anyone in our hobby debates the issue it is abundantly clear what Burdick wanted. He knew the sets were similar and he still accounted for them the way he did. Maybe a few series should have been cataloged differently but they aren't. Just as T206 Old Mills are T206 and the Red Border Old Mills are T210, so are T213 and T215 each in their own group. Each of the latter 2 series have differences that would not fit into T206 (such as thinner stock or blue captions). I don't own the Griffin anymore..

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Hi Barry-

My guess is simply because there is no other set that has the T207 fronts. Because the T213-1 and the T215-1 use the same fronts as T206, it's easier for people to try to build a case that these should have been included in the T206 set. I don't think they are T206's, but you won't convince the people who do.

TedZ.- I know your position on T213-1's, and I know you've studied these sets way longer than I have, but what about the paper stock on T213-1's. Why is it different? Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton

The 1910 COUPON cards were not meant to be inserted as cardboard stiffiners in ATC's standard 10-cigarettes packs. Therefore, the thin cardboard stock.
None such cigarettes pack has ever been found. And, I don't think any will be.

Regarding the first distribution of the "COUPON" cigarettes that have been found are boxes labelled "COUPON" brand (circa 1908-1910) containing 100's of cigarettes.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Because the T213-1 and the T215-1 use the same fronts as T206, it's easier for people to try to build a case that these should have been included in the T206 set. I don't think they are T206's, but you won't convince the people who do.

Clayton - You hit the nail on the head. Many people fall into the "looks like a duck/must be a duck" camp. When in actuality there are other factors beyond the cards appearances that contradict them being part of the same set.

It's difficult to sway anyone's opinion on the subject as there are enough key points to craft an argument for or against.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Leon

No matter how much anyone in our hobby debates the issue it is abundantly clear what Burdick wanted. He knew the sets were similar and he still accounted for them the way he did.

Leon

But, according to his records, his timeline regarding the 1910 COUPON issue is faulty...."circa 1913-19". This timeline applies only to the T213-2 and T213-3 issues.
With all due respect to Jeff Burdick, this is where he got it wrong on the 1910 COUPON cards. And, I don't think you are questioning their 1910 date ?

Originally Posted by Leon

......so are T213 and T215 each in their own group. Each of the latter 2 series have differences that would not fit into T206 (such as thinner stock or blue captions).

No one here is arguing about any simililarity between T206's and the T213-2, or T213-3, or the T215-2 issues (circa 1913 - 1919).

Regarding the thinner stock that the 1910 COUPON cards were printed on.....I will reprise what I have already posted......
The 1910 COUPON cards were not meant to be inserted as cardboard stiffiners in ATC's standard 10-cigarettes packs. Therefore, American Litho. printed
these cards on thin cardboard stock. It's as basic as that. This factor is not a big deal, as some on this forum try to make it out to be.

The "COUPON" cigarettes were packaged in boxes labelled "COUPON" (circa 1908-1910) containing 100's of cigarettes of this new ATC brand. Furthermore,
no 1910 "COUPON" (10-cigarette) packs have ever been found. And, I don't think any will be.


Best regards,

TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Clayton - You hit the nail on the head. Many people fall into the "looks like a duck/must be a duck" camp. When in actuality there are other factors beyond the cards appearances that contradict them being part of the same set.

It's difficult to sway anyone's opinion on the subject as there are enough key points to craft an argument for or against.

Thanks Tim, I appreciate that.

Barry, you're welcome, but I'm sure you thought the same thing And, it's the only thing I could come up with; I'm no expert by any means.

TedZ.- I'm probably wrong, but I've always been on the fence about these cards being "pack stiffeners".....I'm probably alone on this, but sometimes it doesn't make sense to me. First, the cards aren't that "thick" (in my opinion);I don't know how effective they would be as "stiffeners". Second, if they were stiffeners, why wouldn't Polar Bear cards be "thicker" than say, Piedmont or Sweet Caporal (or, any other T206 brand cards)? I would think that since they were packaged in pouches, they would make PB's thicker? And finally, what did Piemont (or any of the other T206 brands) use as a pack stiffener before T206 cards? It surely wasn't these coupons, they are paper thin.

These are some of the things that make it hard for me to believe that they would go out of there way to use a whole different paper stock, on this 1st series T-213, but still intend it to be a T206. It's just one of the things that don't make sense to me. Add on the fact that you have the other two series of Coupon, which seem to be a direct result of differentiating (intentionally) this series APART from T206,,,and this isn't even getting into T206 350 subject series.....

Just my thoughts, I just don't think these cards were meant to be T206's.

Thanks for the replies, I love this topic

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

TedZ.- I'm probably wrong, but I've always been on the fence about these cards being "pack stiffeners".....I'm probably alone on this, but sometimes it doesn't make sense to me. First, the cards aren't that "thick" (in my opinion);I don't know how effective they would be as "stiffeners".

Cardboard stiffiners inserted in Cigarette packs date back to the 19th Century. In 1887-1888 some genius was smart to place (or print) images on these 2 1/2" x 1 1/2"
pieces of cardboard of Sports figures, Militarymen, Movie Stars, Animals, etc. OLD JUDGE, GOODWIN, and KIMBALL were some of the first to do this.

And, recall that the Cigarette packs (circa 1909-1919) had 2 cards inserted in them.

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

And finally, what did Piemont (or any of the other T206 brands) use as a pack stiffener before T206 cards?

Prior to the T206 era there were numerous Non-Sports premiums used for this purpose. Check out a NON-SPORTS catalog and you will be surprised what was available.

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

These are some of the things that make it hard for me to believe that they would go out of there way to use a whole different paper stock, on this 1st series T-213, but still intend it to be a T206.It's just one of the things that don't make sense to me.

I have already reponded to you regarding this in my Post #16. Was I clear enough in my response ?
If not, I will try once more.

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Add on the fact that you have the other two series of Coupon, which seem to be a direct result of differentiating (intentionally) this series APART from T206,,,and this isn't even getting into T206 350 subject series.....

Just my thoughts, I just don't think these cards were meant to be T206's.

Thanks for the replies, I love this topic

Sincerely, Clayton

The T213-2 & T213-3 were printed and issued post T206 era (circa 1913-1919). The 1910 COUPON set was printed and issued during the T206 era (Spring/Summer 1910)
when American Lithographic was running their 350 Series cards. What else do you need to know ?


TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Cardboard stiffiners inserted in Cigarette packs date back to the 19th Century. In 1887-1888 some genius was smart to place (or print) images on these 2 1/2" x 1 1/2"
pieces of cardboard of Sports figures, Militarymen, Movie Stars, Animals, etc. OLD JUDGE, GOODWIN, and KIMBALL were some of the first to do this.

And, recall that the Cigarette packs (circa 1909-1919) had 2 cards inserted in them.




Prior to the T206 era there were numerous Non-Sports premiums used for this purpose. Check out a NON-SPORTS catalog and you will be surprised what was available.




I have already reponded to you regarding this in my Post #16. Was I clear enough in my response ?
If not, I will try once more.



The T213-2 & T213-3 were printed and issued post T206 era (circa 1913-1919). The 1910 COUPON set was printed and issued during the T206 era (Spring/Summer 1910)
when American Lithographic was running their 350 Series cards. What else do you need to know ?


TED Z

Ted, no need to get hostile. As I said in the begining of my post, I've always "been on the fence" about pack stiffeners- and that I was "probably alone on this" meaning- I'm unclear about certain things.

I am aware of the non-sport issues, and I am aware of the "pack stiffeners" theory (I call it theory, no one else) and maybe they were "pack stiffeners". But, after you picking apart my response, I'm still not convinced that T213-1's were printed on different stock because "they weren't" pack stiffeners

I've read many places that T206 cards were printed "at the factories". Now, that's been changed to "everything was printed at the ALC". I thought, well, maybe there was some truth to "something" being printed at the factories, and it made sense to me that maybe some of the backs (later on in the series, 350-460) could have been printed at the factories, seeing that it's one solid color, one pass. Send the pre-printed sheets to the factories to have the backs printed accordingly. NO ONE agrees with me on this And I can't prove it. Anyhow, I'm just trying to point out to you that my OPINION is not usually the popular one So no need to get bent out of shape

And if no 10 count pack of Coupon's has been found, as you said, how can you be sure that's why they used a thinner paper stock? Still confused.......

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

I want to move away from the "pack stiffeners" thing, but I wanted to point out that "soft pack" cigarettes are still sold to this day- with NO stiffeners used at all. The tight packaging (thin tin foil, wrapped in a thin paper package, wrapped in thin celophane) is all you need.

I like to think that these cards were just what they were advertised as:

Handsomely lithographed pictures in colors of famous professional baseball players in the major leagues, now in all 5c packages of SWEET CAPORAL, PIEDMONT, and SOVEREIGN Cigarettes....

Every baseball enthusiast in the United States should secure this superb series of pictures *pack stiffeners* Start collecting today !!!!! lol

Sincerely, Clayton

[RCMcKenzie]

t215cranf.jpg

t215cranb.jpg

Brief history, One of my first vintage buys was at the Astrodome Marriot show around 1981. I bought an Evers superprint coupon 1 back instead of a piedmont back b/c it was 1/3 the price. Prices have caught up in the last few years to about carolina brights prices.

I basically agree with Scot Reader's assessment (my paraphrasing) that, yeah, they messed up, but the horse has already left the barn and we'd have to start all over with a new catalog system.

[E93]

Barry,
Regarding T207 Red Cross, though I am no expert on the set my guess as to why their inclusion has not been questioned is that there are no other sets that use T207 fronts, and the Red Cross backs are just like other T207s with bios and stats, right?
JimB

[E93]

Originally Posted by tedzan

1910 COUPON (T213-1)

It is a NO-BRAINER, these cards are indeed the 16th T-brand of the T206 set; as, they were issued in the Spring/Summer of 1910 (concurrently with the AMERICAN BEAUTY,
BROAD LEAF, CYCLE, and DRUM cards).

TED Z

Ted,
With all due respect, don't you mean the 17th T206 brand. Aren't you forgetting the Ty Cobb brand, also produced in the Spring of 1910 concurrent with the brands you mentioned and also produced by the ATC. I don't want to open another can of worms here and we have hashed this out many times before on this forum. Just wanted to catch the oversight.

If anyone is interested in more details on the issues concerning the Cobb back, see my article on T206Resource.com
http://www.t206resource.com/Article-...ing-World.html

JimB

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by E93

Barry,
Regarding T207 Red Cross, though I am no expert on the set my guess as to why their inclusion has not been questioned is that there are no other sets that use T207 fronts, and the Red Cross backs are just like other T207s with bios and stats, right?
JimB

Hi Jim- I agree that makes perfect sense for the T207 series, but since T-215 shares many of the same fronts as T206, why did Burdick not include this as part of T206? Is it because some are found with brown captions, and some with blue ones? And I wonder given the extreme rarity of T207 Red Cross, did Burdick even know of their existence? It's possible he never even saw one.

[Abravefan11]

Barry - My guess would be that if Burdick was aware of the T207 Red Cross back, that there wasn't anything about those cards that led him to believe they were a separate issue. Possibly he just saw the Red Cross as one of several brands used in the same issue like many other sets of the time.

With T215-1 and T213-1, as many others have said before me, there were differences that may have led to him classifying them the way he did. With both sets it could have been due to there also being other types. The T213-1's could have been the paper stock and the T215-1's could have been the caption changes. We'll never know for sure what he was thinking.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by E93

Ted,
With all due respect, don't you mean the 17th T206 brand. Aren't you forgetting the Ty Cobb brand, also produced in the Spring of 1910 concurrent with the brands you mentioned and also produced by the ATC. I don't want to open another can of worms here and we have hashed this out many times before on this forum. Just wanted to catch the oversight.

If anyone is interested in more details on the issues concerning the Cobb back, see my article on T206Resource.com

JimB

Jim....Jim........you are asking for Net54 "chaos"

No "oversight".....I seriously considered mentioning the red Cobb/Ty Cobb card; but, as is evident here....it's a tough game just trying to get some guys on
this forum to have an open mind regarding the 1910 COUPON issue. Typically, these skeptics allude to...."don't confuse me with the facts".

You and I are on the same track regarding the red Cobb/Ty Cobb card as an integral component of the T206 set.

I was convinced of this when I researched Sen. Russell's collection in 1907. For anyone interested, see this thread on Senator Russell's card collection......
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ell+collection

The speculation in the hobby for many years about the Ty Cobb card was....that it was issued in the post T206 era. After reading Sen. Russell's biography,
it was obvious to me that he essentially collected his 497-card T206 set during 1910 as a teenager living near Atlanta (GA). Indeed this convinced me that
the red Cobb with the Ty Cobb back card was issued in 1910. Russell's T206 set includes the red Cobb/Ty Cobb card and the rare Joe Doyle N.Y. Nat'l card.


Incidently, Jim..I do not agree with your premise that the red Cobb image first appeared on the Ty Cobb back card. The the 6 super prints (which include
the T206 red Cobb) were printed on a sheet of certain 350-only series cards that can be dated to very early in 1910 (if not as early as late 1909).


TED Z

[barrysloate]

Thanks Tim. I agree some of the confusion occurs because there were multiple designs for both T213 and T215, and that's why they were not included with T206. With the T207 Red Cross, there is no confusion. But I was curious if other experts had any other thoughts or insights.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Jim....Jim........you are asking for Net54 "chaos"

No "oversight".....I seriously considered mentioning the red Cobb/Ty Cobb card; but, as is evident here....it's a tough game just trying to get some guys on
this forum to have an open mind regarding the 1910 COUPON issue. Typically, these skeptics allude to...."don't confuse me with the facts".

You and I are on the same track regarding the red Cobb/Ty Cobb card as an integral component of the T206 set.

I was convinced of this when I researched Sen. Russell's collection in 1907. For anyone interested, see this thread on Senator Russell's card collection......
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ell+collection

The speculation in the hobby for many years about the Ty Cobb card was....that it was issued in the post T206 era. After reading Sen. Russell's biography,
it was obvious to me that he essentially collected his 497-card T206 set during 1910 as a teenager living near Atlanta (GA). Indeed this convinced me that
the red Cobb with the Ty Cobb back card was issued in 1910. Russell's T206 set includes the red Cobb/Ty Cobb card and the rare Joe Doyle N.Y. Nat'l card.


Incidently, Jim..I do not agree with your premise that the red Cobb image first appeared on the Ty Cobb back card. The the 6 super prints (which include
the T206 red Cobb) were printed on a sheet of certain 350-only series cards that can be dated to very early in 1910 (if not as early as late 1909).


TED Z

Ted, great stuff as usual. The bottom line is that no one's around who was involved in these decisions, and the evidence left us is sparse. You and Tim both have great theories, and I'm sure there's a lot of truth in both of them. Perhaps some day we'll locate some scraps of lost documentation that clear this all up, but quite honestly....I hope we don't.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Ted, great stuff as usual. The bottom line is that no one's around who was involved in these decisions, and the evidence left us is sparse. You and Tim both have great theories, and I'm sure there's a lot of truth in both of them. Perhaps some day we'll locate some scraps of lost documentation that clear this all up, but quite honestly....I hope we don't.

"I hope we don't"

Sorry guy, but I don't agree. I usually, if not 99% of the time, agree with everything you say. However, my 30+ years of E-Engineering mentality cannot accept that.

My brain desires to have ryhme and reason behind these events. And, thanks to our empirical experience, the Internet, and brain-storming between veteran hobbyist
that are willing to share info, we have a fair amount of circumstantial evidence which we can form intelligent theory's of what transpired 100 years ago.
And for that matter, 125 years ago when Sportscard premiums were first introduced into Tobacco packs.

Take care ole buddy,

TED Z

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by tedzan

"I hope we don't"

Sorry guy, but I don't agree. I usually, if not 99% of the time, agree with everything you say. However, my 30+ years of E-Engineering mentality cannot accept that.

My brain desires to have ryhme and reason behind these events. And, thanks to our empirical experience, the Internet, and brain-storming between veteran hobbyist
that are willing to share info, we have a fair amount of circumstantial evidence which we can form intelligent theory's of what transpired 100 years ago.
And for that matter, 125 years ago when Sportscard premiums were first introduced into Tobacco packs.

Take care ole buddy,

TED Z

Ted, I completely agree that we have enough evidence to form intelligent theories. I am also GLAD to hear your response that you disagree - it's good that you feel so strongly about the results of your research.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by tedzan

"I hope we don't"

Sorry guy, but I don't agree. I usually, if not 99% of the time, agree with everything you say. However, my 30+ years of E-Engineering mentality cannot accept that.

My brain desires to have ryhme and reason behind these events. And, thanks to our empirical experience, the Internet, and brain-storming between veteran hobbyist
that are willing to share info, we have a fair amount of circumstantial evidence which we can form intelligent theory's of what transpired 100 years ago.
And for that matter, 125 years ago when Sportscard premiums were first introduced into Tobacco packs.

Take care ole buddy,

TED Z

I think where we get a bit sideways in the discussions is defining the issue itself. Is the thing we are discussing "what Burdick should have done" or is it "What Burdick did, and why?"

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
How many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they're forever banned?
The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind.



.

[barrysloate]

Nice poem Leon...did you write that?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Nice poem Leon...did you write that?

I wrote it last night on my date with uh....... Morgan Fairchild (who was born in Dallas, btw)

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by Leon

I wrote it last night on my date with uh....... Morgan Fairchild (who was born in Dallas, btw)

Ladies and Gentlemen....Leon Zimmerman!!!!!

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by tedzan

"I hope we don't"

Sorry guy, but I don't agree. I usually, if not 99% of the time, agree with everything you say. However, my 30+ years of E-Engineering mentality cannot accept that.

My brain desires to have ryhme and reason behind these events. And, thanks to our empirical experience, the Internet, and brain-storming between veteran hobbyist
that are willing to share info, we have a fair amount of circumstantial evidence which we can form intelligent theory's of what transpired 100 years ago.
And for that matter, 125 years ago when Sportscard premiums were first introduced into Tobacco packs.

Take care ole buddy,

TED Z

I thought I sensed E-E logic afoot. I be the black sheep in a family of engineers. Pop got his Doctorate in EE from Johns Hopkins. I majored in Michelob at Zoo Mass Amherst. I do however retain the logical thought process. I wonder why the T206s are all classified the same identifer. Someone correct me if I am wrong, Sweet Caps came with Sweet Caporal tobacco. Piedmont with Piedmont. Old Mill with...oh you get the idea. Why wouldn't each brand, if not each series (150/350/460) have it's own designation? There should at least be a T206-1 and so forth.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Bocabirdman

I thought I sensed E-E logic afoot. I be the black sheep in a family of engineers. Pop got his Doctorate in EE from Johns Hopkins. I majored in Michelob at Zoo Mass Amherst. I do however retain the logical thought process. I wonder why the T206s are all classified the same identifer. Someone correct me if I am wrong, Sweet Caps came with Sweet Caporal tobacco. Piedmont with Piedmont. Old Mill with...oh you get the idea. Why wouldn't each brand, if not each series (150/350/460) have it's own designation? There should at least be a T206-1 and so forth.

As I said before, it's not rocket science. If anyone wants to really know why Burdick did what he did, it's all on the board if anyone cares to read. Do a search on Card Collectors Bulletins and read the ones from the late 30s and the 1945 time frame (which was right before the current numbering system was put into place, by him). And his very first writings, before ANY numbers were in place, are also on the board in perpetuity. The little icon on the far right, that says, "Archives" is where you will find a lot of Burdick's thoughts...(near the bottom) ...and here is a link.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=146010


.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by Leon

I think where we get a bit sideways in the discussions is defining the issue itself. Is the thing we are discussing "what Burdick should have done" or is it "What Burdick did, and why?"

Good question Leon.

[Bocabirdman]

It is easy to forget that his world had no internet. All communication was done by US Mail or face-to face. The amount of man-hours involved in amassing such an extensive, near complete catalogue of the sets he put together must be staggering. For me to nit-pick as I did in my earlier post was not intended to belittle his efforts nor his results. They have served the hobby plenty good enough for all these years. Un-catalogued sets have emerged but, all in all, his percentage is pretty damn impressive. Whether or not The Red Cross cards should be an extension of the T206 set is moot. Burdick classifed it with its own identifier, ergo, it is its own "T"-set. I surely am not seeing anyone un-ringing that bell anytime soon. Now if we were sitting here in 2012 without Burdick's work laid out before us, I could see it being done differently. However it is and we aren't , so 'nuff said.

[sreader3]

I think you guys are overthinking it. Burdick probably decided to keep the three species of Coupons under the same genus. Hence the 1910 Coupons were grouped with the later Coupons as T213. Burdick likely appreciated that the T213-1s were brethren of T206s but prioritized keeping the Coupons together.

EDITED TO ADD: I don't have a dog in the T213s-are(not)-T206s or T215s-are(not)-T206s hunt, but do think that 100+ years of precedent in treating T213s and T215s as separate and distinct will trump any arguments about commonality.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by sreader3

I think you guys are overthinking it. Burdick probably decided to keep the three species of Coupons under the same genus. Hence the 1910 Coupons were grouped with the later Coupons as T213. Burdick likely appreciated that the T213-1s were brethren of T206s but prioritized keeping the Coupons together.

From reading Burdick's writings/thoughts I think you are absolutely correct. He just wanted everything to be easy for collectors to understand. Keeping things together accomplished that. For OCD folks it's a difficult situation at best. Everything doesn't fit perfectly. He very frequently said he knew he made mistakes and his work was a work in progress. If we could ever get SCD, SGC, Beckett and PSA on the same page, we might be able to actually make changes that are needed. I am not optimistic though.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.