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

[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.

[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 )

[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

[rman444]

I think that if Burdick had known how serious people would be taking his work, and how anal and inflexible they would be about his ACC designations, he would have been a bit more careful and perhaps taken more breaks from his dark stuffy little room.

[barrysloate]

I would venture to say that if Coupon cigarettes only issued a single series of cards in 1910, and were never heard from again, Burdick would have unquestionably included them as part of T206. It is only because Coupon issued subsequent series in 1914 and 1919 did he face a dilemma: include them with his T206 designation, or join them with the later Coupon issues? If there is any correspondence about it from that era I'm sure he was asking other collectors what they thought. In the end he had to make a choice, and the three Coupon series became T213-1-2-3. That's my theory.

And regarding Leon's point that the ACC is sacrosanct and shouldn't be changed, I fall somewhere in the middle of the argument. There is no reason to make any major changes to it, as Burdick did an incredible job given how little was known about the history of cards. But a little tweak now and then couldn't hurt. I bet even he would be for that.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by rman444

I think that if Burdick had known how serious people would be taking his work, and how anal and inflexible they would be about his ACC designations, he would have been a bit more careful and perhaps taken more breaks from his dark stuffy little room.

We have to remember that Burdick wasn't just about baseball....Most of his work was with non sports, post cards etc.....Again, whomever made up the English Alphabet, and dictionaries, are guilty of the same thing. And we aren't changing them, that I am aware of . (of course unless you are from Texas...we sometimes have our own language)

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

And regarding Leon's point that the ACC is sacrosanct and shouldn't be changed, I fall somewhere in the middle of the argument. There is no reason to make any major changes to it, as Burdick did an incredible job given how little was known about the history of cards. But a little tweak now and then couldn't hurt. I bet even he would be for that.

Burdick always said his ACC was a work in progress. IMO he was a genius at collectible cards.

[barrysloate]

Burdick was a genius when it came to understanding the origins of those little cards that were issued with cigarettes and other products. And from what else I've read about him he was likely very intelligent, period. But his singlemindedness towards his project of putting all those albums together for the Metropolitan Museum, and doing almost nothing else with his life for almost thirty years (?), is a little scary.

Leon- so if Burdick himself admitted the ACC was a work in progress, making a few changes is not only a good thing but something he would have encouraged. He would have respected a collector and scholar like yourself, and expected that you and others after him would find something new to add to the history.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Burdick was a genius when it came to understanding the origins of those little cards that were issued with cigarettes and other products. And from what else I've read about him he was likely very intelligent, period. But his singlemindedness towards his project of putting all those albums together for the Metropolitan Museum, and doing almost nothing else with his life for almost thirty years (?), is a little scary.

Leon- so if Burdick himself admitted the ACC was a work in progress, making a few changes is not only a good thing but something he would have encouraged. He would have respected a collector and scholar like yourself, and expected that you and others after him would find something new to add to the history.

Barry- I could give into the "T213-1 is a T206 argument." It's close enough. But on many other issues do you really think there could be a consensus enough for a change? BTW, my post count is soaring today, I better find something worthwhile to do .

[Brian-Chidester]

I was surprised to see someone above post that they thought the T213-1 cards would go up in value if included in the T206 set.

[barrysloate]

Well consensus is always tough to get, regardless of the topic. But in the case of adding the Coupons to T206, wouldn't you say the board is at least 80% in favor? Couldn't we call that a super majority?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Well consensus is always tough to get, regardless of the topic. But in the case of adding the Coupons to T206, wouldn't you say the board is at least 80% in favor? Couldn't we call that a super majority?

Yes, I think the board is 80% or more in favor.
Yes, we can call it a super majority.
No, I am not quite ready ....but I am not the deciding factor. The collective hobby is.

[barrysloate]

Leon- between you and me, I don't think anybody is actually going to change it. We just like talking about it.

[Brian-Chidester]

It matters if you are in the business of selling. But if you just want to collect the 1909-12 baseball tobacco series, it really doesn't matter what the designation is.

[tedzan]

I'd like to differ with you......
" Leon- between you and me, I don't think anybody is actually going to change it. We just like talking about it "

With diligent investigative research and the right people, past errors in the hobby can be changed. I can personally attest to this.

1....You'll recall how the hobby for many years was totally confused regarding certain aspects of the 1949 BOWMAN BB set. When
Krause Pub. published my BB Cards article on this subject in the Spring of 1983, Jim Beckett corrected his 1983 Price Guide.

2....The hobby was confused (since back in the Burdick days) on the true issue date of the 1949 LEAF BB set. It took me about 20
years to convince the hobby that this set was issued strictly in 1949..period. About 12 years ago, Bob Lemke corrected the Stan-
dard Catalog to reflect this fact.


TED Z

[barrysloate]

Ted- correcting a price guide might be easier than correcting the ACC. How would one even go about it?

[ValKehl]

Here's a side-by-side Griffith comparison of my T206 Polar Bear to my (and Leon's ex - thanks again Leon for the trade! ) T215-1 Red Cross. The T206 is raw, whereas the T215-1 in in a SGC holder. And, this pic was taken with a camera, as I don't have a scanner. I can see a very slight difference in the yellow and orange background shading, but I would guess this is merely a printing issue. Also, as best as I can tell the the thickness of the T215-1 card appears to be the same as that of the T206.
Val

[rman444]

I would also add, with all due respect, that changing the year of issue for a single set is not quite the same as merging an already established set into the contents of what many consider to be the most significant set in the history of baseball card collecting. It is a whole different ballgame.

[barrysloate]

No question about it. Changing the dynamics of the T206 set would be headline news.

[tedzan]

As I think Barry will attest to, the 1949 BOWMAN changes were not simply a "year change". For years, probably dating back to Burdick,
there was a mystery surrounding this BB card set with respect to 15 (or more) variations that totally confused set collectors. My re-
search not only resolved these mysteries; but, enlightened the collecting public as to why and how these variations were printed at
the Bowman factory.

TED Z

[barrysloate]

Ted did solve the mysteries of the 1949 Bowman set. Back then cards that were purported to exist, such as Pesky Name on Front, were debunked by Ted. And as a side note, his article on the 1949 set was my bible when I first entered the hobby.

But getting back to my original point, how would one go about changing the ACC? Would it be like adding an amendment to the Constitution?

[rhettyeakley]

Leon, you are right about the T215-1 Griffith being different, but for the wrong reason!

I looked at them about a hundred times trying to figure out if they were "different enough" and then it hit me, in the T215-1 Griffith is w/ Washington, a team he went to in 1912 while on the T206 he is w/ Cincy. This difference combined w/ the back stuff I talked about earlier makes the T215-1 set a different set produced after the T206 an the Griffith dates it to 1912 (unless I am missing something).

Great thread!

-Rhett

[caramelcard]

Exactly Rhett.

Now, to me the team difference immediately locks T215-1 out of T206.

T213-1 doesn't have any team variance.

Rob

[drdduet]

The idea that the thin cardboard stock of T213-1 separates it from T206 doesn't sit well with me. That argument would also separate it from T213-2 and T213-3. That being said, there are many more differences in T213-1 and its catalogued counterparts than there is between T213-1 and T206.

[edhans]

Clearly the ACC should not be viewed as a static and immutable document. Wouldn't Burdick, if he were still alive, be updating his work in some fashion periodically? Like Barry, I'm not precisely certain how we go about it, but it would certainly be a worthwhile project to undertake. While we're at it, how about assigning numbers to the numerous "UNC" designations that Burdick never saw. There must be scores to hundreds of them.

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by caramelcard

Exactly Rhett.

Now, to me the team difference immediately locks T215-1 out of T206.

T213-1 doesn't have any team variance.

Rob

Agreed.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I'm probably being a spoil sport here, but after the first page of posts in this thread, the original topic seems to have been lost (outside of a couple of intermitent posts by Ted Z. and a couple of others) and the focus has turned to T206 and related sets and whether they should be combined or separate issues. I'm afraid that my efforts to bring this topic to the forefront are just going to fall by the wayside as this thread loses interest and we will really be no further along towards correcting the catalogues or grading company labels. Does anyone have any good suggestions on how we could get this subject moving forward with real results?

[rhettyeakley]

Phil I'm sorry you feel like your thread was hijacked. However if you look at the posts it seems like the T215-1 set should be dated a 1912 set so your thread did accomplish something.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I think the real test to seeing whether this thread accomplished anything is if this new T-card date information actually makes it into the card catalogues in the near future as well as grading company databases. That is my whole point, we have many of these threads that uncover a wealth of knowledge and discovery but once the thread ends, all is forgotten and the info never makes it out to the masses.

[barrysloate]

Phil- in order to get the grading services and baseball card catalogs to include this information and make the necessary changes, you probably would need to make a written presentation to them. It would have to be clearly documented with irrefutable evidence. I don't think that everything that transpires on this board is read that carefully and taken as gospel.

[Leon]

To get something changed by all in the hobby you might start with our very own board member, Bob Lemke (Hi Bob). I know Bob does exhaustive research, which can be slow, in order to change things in the big book and I think that is the correct method. Once it is changed in there then the grading companies will/might follow. I know SGC (and probably Beckett) look at that book for details. Beckett might look at their own book too but regardless I think you need to start with the SCD Big Book as it is the pre-war bible of today, especially since the ACC's author isn't around to change it. Just my 2 cents and trying to get back to Phil's dilemma .

[bcbgcbrcb]

Thanks, guys, now I think we are getting somewhere. If the time is taken to go back to past Net 54 threads that cover this topic for various vinatge baseball card sets, that a summary for each along with a link to the actual thread would be enough to present to Bob Lemke for consideration to updates in the SCD catalogue? It sounds like that step should come first before the grading companies would follow suit?