Net54baseball.com Forums - T213-1 Post'em if you got'em

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)

- Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - T213-1 Post'em if you got'em (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=90010)

T213-1 Post'em if you got'em

Posted By: robert a<img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/caramelcard/assortedcaramels/websize/t213backs.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/caramelcard/assortedcaramels/websize/t213front.jpg">

T213-1 Post'em if you got'em

Posted By: Jon CanfieldLeon - I would tend to argree with you that the fact that Type 2's and Type 3's were manufactured well after the T206 distribution would help clarify why Burdick did not include the Type 1's with the T206 set ***IF*** the Type 2's and 3's looked like the Type 1's. They don't - they are different in many ways; blue text, different card stock, different backs, gloss, etc. In fact, Type 2's and Type 3's look nothing like the Type 1's - or at least they do not appear similar in a substantial way. So, the fact that Coupon produced two more "sets" (Type 2 and Type 3) after the 1909-1911 distribution of the T206 set should not have played a role in Burdick's decision to not include Type 1's in the T206 set although I agree with you that it probably did. Piedmont, for example, produced the art stamp series in 1914 - well after the break-up of the ATC and after the T206 series was over but this didn't stop Burdick from deciding that Piedmont should not be included with the T206 set. Sure, you can argue that Piedmont T206's look nothing like the art stamps - but Type 2's and 3's look nothing like Coupon Type 1's! In fact, the time between the issuance of the Type 1's and Type 2's is 4 to 5 years (Type 1 in 1910, Type 2 in 1914/15) should support the fact that these should not have been grouped together by Burdick into 1 set. Type 3's were issued in 1919 - 9 years after the Type 1's. It is almost inconceivable to think that T213 were distributed over a 9 year period and during the course of the ATC break-up to boot! In fact, wouldn't that make Coupon's the longest distributed set if Burdick was correct and Coupon's should be correctly identified as a distinct set? Most evidence seems to say that Type 1's and Type 2's and Type 3's were, in fact, all distinct issues. I know each of us can have our own opinions but I believe that Burdick dropped the ball and errored in not including Type 1's in the T-206 set. To borrow from a post in the other A-B-C-D thread: (+) for INCLUDING Coupon Type 1's in the T206 set: 1--same size as standard T206 2--same images as T206's 3--identical inking for front caption 4--identical advertiser frame on reverse 5--same overall card design 6--same maker 7--born in 1910 8--Type 2 and Type 3 coupon were issued 4-5 years and 9 years, respectively, AFTER the type 1's and are visually very different in almost all aspects from Type 1's (-) for NOT INCLUDING Coupon Type 1's in the T206 set: 1--thinner card stock - possibly explained by my theory that thicker stock would have torn the relatively thin paper wrapping of the Coupon cigarette pack which was not a slide and shell as shown above. 2--historically associated with T213-2 and T213-3 (perhaps due to Burdick incorrectly grouping Type 1's with 2's and 3's)

T213-1 Post'em if you got'em

Posted By: robert aTed, The Lentz card is Little Rock for both T213-1 and T206. Are you thinking of Lipe when you say Richmond? There are no differences for the player/teams between T206 and T213 type 1. Robert

T213-1 Post'em if you got'em

Posted By: Jon CanfieldLeon - one more item as food for thought... You said above that "I politely disagree. T206 AB's were just cut thinner to fit in the packs. T213-1's were made on different cardstock altogether. I feel that is a bigger difference than a slight side to side measurement inequality". I have heard this thoery for years that AB's are cut thinner to fit in the packs. However, I own an AB slide and shell pack, I know you have one, Richard has one, Barry Arnold has one and I'm sure others on this board own one. Measure your pack - compare it to the SC, the Old Mill, the Piedmont you have... I will guarantee you they are identical in size. I've compared both AB's I owned (although I only have one now). Both were identical in size to each other, and identical in size to every other slide and shell from the T206 era I own. So, now that some of the AB packs have come to market (5 years ago, there were few, if any AB slide and shells around), I think that this myth should be put to rest... AB's were NOT cut thinner to fit into the packs since the packs are the same size as other T206 brands. So, since we have tangible proof that AB's were not cut thinner because of the pack size, why then, are they thinner? I don't believe anyone would argue that they should be a separate set and not part of the T206's. However, I again believe that this tends to give more credence to the argument that Coupon Type 1's being on thinner stock is similar to AB's being thinner.

T213-1 Post'em if you got'em

Posted By: David SmithThese are the only two Coupon cigarette cards I own. A Type 1 Engle and a Type 2 Needham. David <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1213772708.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1213772722.JPG">

T213-1 Post'em if you got'em

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisYou've have me figured out.....Lipe and Lentz are both red backgrounds and are adjacent cards in my T206 album, so I must of "blurred" them. Thanks, Ted Z

T213-1 Post'em if you got'em

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisI think we all agree that the first Coupon series (66 cards) were produced by Amer. Litho. as ATC tobacco premiums for this Louisana based Tobacco Co. As I have stated, these cards were printed in the Summer of 1910 (coincident with the T206's that fit my "A-B-C-D" observation. Two proofs of this......is the commonality of the artwork of their backs....and the fact that, with the exception of the 20 Southern Leaguers, the majority of these T213-1 Subjects conform to the aforementioned T206 A-B-C-D pattern. Link from A-B-C-D thread, showing backs...... <a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1213138762/last-1213660837/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1213138762/last-1213660837/</a> Having said all that, the one "missing link" that hits us when we compare these 5 backs, is the lack of a "350 SUBJECTS" on the COUPON back. And, perhaps Burdick separated this issue from the T206 set based on this observation ? T-Rex TED

T213-1 Post'em if you got'em

Posted By: leonGuys, I don't understand all of the theories that are being put forth about the Coupons. I think it's as easy as Burdick sitting down with a bunch of tobacco cards. He put them all in groups according to dates of mfg AND mfg/brand......not one OR the other. He found the later Coupon series to be printed at a later date. They all had the Coupon advertising, ie put out in Coupon Cigarettes and classified them together. No need for print similarities or anything else. It isn't, and wasn't, rocket science. They are all Coupon Cigarette cards and classified as T213-x...... As for the thickness, or thinness, I am not sure that would have mattered as much because, as Jon pointed out, and verified, the AB packs were the same thickness....although in my brain housing group it does seem that they are a little thinner. I can double check that this evening.....but am sure ole Jon did the same... Still a good friendly debate though there is no reason why T213-1 should be a T206 for that reason (brand/nfg). If anyone looks in the ACC.....they will see that, for the most part, Burdick classified cards according to mfg/brand. Coupon was the brand....and is classified as T213. I want to reiterate my main thought why Coupon series 1 is still T213. Burdick classified cards according to brand/mfg. I feel he did NOT drop the ball and got it correct.....

T213-1 Post'em if you got'em

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisI have "no dog in this hunt"......but, I value Brian W's knowledge on this subject..... "True... But you would have to ignore Coupon's Ties with ATC to come up with that. Kotton and Coupon dueled for years in LA after the breakup, and seemed to copy each other as they continued. One thing is for sure... They were both "favored companies" in LA or the feud would have ended much sooner. People have a way of doing things down there..." The following is a lengthy litigation document (initiated Jan. 1912) regarding the People's Tobacco Co. conflict with ATC.... href="<a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=246&invol=79" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=246&invol=79</a>" target="_new" I find it very interesting that T213-type cards are American Lithographic Subjects, while T216-type cards are American Caramel Subjects. Does this fact further reinforce this story, or what ? I certainly think it does. TED Z

T213-1 Post'em if you got'em

Posted By: DarrenHey Robert, Nice group of "T213-1"s.