|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>My friend....let me simplify this for you...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />T206 - White borders ...different brands<br /><br />T213- Coupon cigarettes- 3 series..<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Now isn't that much cleaner and simpler?
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Ted, my friend,<br />Happy 4th back at you.<br />JimB
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I like to complicate things....too bad I wont be in Chicago next month, otherwise you and I could extend this debate over a<br />couple of drinks. Perhaps then, we could resolve this controversy. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Have a Happy 4th of July......<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim- one thing you said that was interesting is we are not sure what the criteria is for a T206, other than what has been assimilated from the time Burdick began his mammoth project to what we know today. Funny thing is, when the set was released circa 1910 it wasn't called anything. How do we know with certainty that everything we've learned about the set is what was intended back then? Could the original designers and printers ever imagined that the set would be talked about 100 years later? Could they ever imagine how valuable the cards would be? Certainly not.<br /><br />So whatever T206 means to us today is our recreation of what we think it was supposed to be. Did we get it right? Who knows.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Defining T213 is just as important as defining T206. T213-1 has many more differences(including paper stock)with T213-2 & -3 than it does with T206. Essentially the only similarity between T213-1 and -2 & -3 is the Coupon reverse/advertiser.<br /><br />All the subjects (68) in T213-1 are identical to T206 350 series subjects. The 20 Southern Leaguers are all from the Southern League--those T206 subjects from the Virginia League, South Atlantic League, and Texas League were excluded.<br /><br />With regards to T215-1 as being T206,I haven't completed my homework yet. But upon cursory review, there are enough differences to exclude them from T206--different captions, scattered subjects, etc.<br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Barry said,<br />"Jim- one thing you said that was interesting is we are not sure what the criteria is for a T206, other than what has been assimilated from the time Burdick began his mammoth project to what we know today. Funny thing is, when the set was released circa 1910 it wasn't called anything. How do we know with certainty that everything we've learned about the set is what was intended back then? Could the original designers and printers ever imagined that the set would be talked about 100 years later? Could they ever imagine how valuable the cards would be? Certainly not.<br /><br />So whatever T206 means to us today is our recreation of what we think it was supposed to be. Did we get it right? Who knows."<br /><br /><br />Barry,<br />On this, we are in complete agreement. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />JimB
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim- it's all about how we recreate history. We can research it exhaustively but will always get some things wrong.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>Very well said, Barry S.<br /><br />Yes, we will get things wrong just as Burdick himself and others did decades ago.<br />Perhaps what is most important at this juncture is the rising consensus which is coming about through this exhaustive research, as you so aptly put it<br />Barry S., and collegial inquiry which ultimately cares more about the truth,as best as we can define it, than any cavalier oneupsmanship.<br />And what a great college of inquiry has evolved over the years since ACC.<br />And what a great indebtedness we owe to those from the beginnings.<br /><br />best,<br /><br />barry
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>Perhaps the most important factor against T215-1's is the fact that the backs say "100 subjects", a number which is not associated with any of the T206 series. <br /><br />I am among those that consider the t213-1's as likely being part of the T206 promotion. I brought it up a couple years ago on the board and was basically called an idiot, but I guess the tide has turned. All this being said, nobody will ever actually call them T206 (even if everyone agreed).<br />-Rhett
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>If similarity is the deciding factor, then we should combine the 1933 Goudey and 1933 WWG sets, and the 1934 Goudey and 1934 WWG sets. Perhaps we should reclassify Tango Eggs as E106.<br /><br />And what do we do about 1921 and 1922 American Caramel E121s? There's the 1921 E121 Series of 80, and the 1922 E121 Series of 120. Should we now call it one complete 200 card set? Or should they be renamed E121-1 and E121-2, respectively?<br /><br />And why stop there? Let's combine the 1951 Topps Red Back and Blue Back sets. Maybe all OPC and Topps Venezuelan sets from the same year should be combined with their Topps counterparts. 1956 Topps is close enough to the 1955 Topps set -- let's call it the 1955-56 set.<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Jim Rivera</b><p>ABCD t206s are all factory no. 25 2nd district Va. and the Coupon is factory no. 3 district LA.<br />They may have some of the same fronts but I believe the factory 3 Louisianna seperates it from ABCD factory 25 VA T206s.<br />But there may still be a chance for type 1s tobe included because of EPDG out of factory 17 and Polar bear out of factory 6 were included.<br /><br />EPDG factory 17 district VA.<br />Polar Bear factory 6 district O.-is that New Orleans Louisianna?
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Excuse me if this has already been discussed, but has the date of issue for the Ty Cobb Back ever been verified? <br /><br />How do we know that it was issued during the same timeframe as the rest of the T206 brand runs of 1909-11?<br /><br /><br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>My skepticism of this back is based on my feeling that this T-brand was produced post ATC divesture (circa 1912); and<br /> therefore, does not fall under the T206 rubric.<br /><br />Its District 4, North Carolina implies a Plant near Durham....but, its Factory #33 is a mystery.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>"The thinner paper was to conform with product packaging (I believe someone pointed out evidence to support this)."<br /><br />Joe D- do you think that minute fraction of an inch (probably the thickness of a strand of hair), was to conform to product packaging?<br /><br /><br />Ted- interesting thread, who really knows...<br /><br /><br />Brian- when discussing golf scores here, please tell us what you shoot on a regulation course, not "chip & put"...thanks! <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />Happy 4th everyone!!! <br /><br />i'm going to a rooftop party later (high-rise building on 34th & the east river, 30th floor), RIGHT infront of the Macy*s Fireworks Display!<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Michael,<br /><br />"Joe D- do you think that minute fraction of an inch (probably the thickness of a strand of hair), was to conform to product packaging?<br />"<br /><br /><br />quick answer: yes.<br /><br />With any printed piece that is intended to be inserted into packaging - thought goes into the paper weight and how well it would work with the packaging. To think that they might just print up the cards and then afterward think about how it would fit into the packaging, would be - well..... simply ludicrous. So yes - I have to believe the packaging was a factor in the paper choice of the insert. <br /><br />As a matter of fact - I would bet anything the decision to go with the lighter paper had more to do with the product packing than it had to do with any potential burdick, leon, ted z, or N54 T-designation of the card. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>Joe- i'll defer to you, since it is your profession.<br /><br />now, if we were talking about how to design a chair leg, well, then you'd defer to me!<br /><br /><img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />happy 4th!<br /><br />when are we getting dinner???
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Michael -<br /><br />well its all theory (by all of us) - so who knows?<br /><br />I am sure there are other plausible explanations... but considering everything, I think the packaging conformity is the most likely reason for the lighter paper choice.<br /><br /><br />As far as chair legs... I will definitely defer to you!
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>"Excuse me if this has already been discussed, but has the date of issue for the Ty Cobb Back ever been verified? "<br /><br />No, no dating has ever been verified.<br />JimB
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Michael,<br /> Happy 4th... We'll be in the backyard watching the fireworks from the Club with most of our neighbors and friends. We'll leave a chair open for you... Be well Brian<br /><br />PS Actually we were playing from the tips at about 7000 yards... But I was happy to hit one through the clown's mouth...smiley...<br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>Bri, Joe, Jim, Ted...etc.<br /><br />everyone have a safe 4th!<br /><br />i'm gettign ready to watch the Hot Dog Eating Contest on ESPN!!! (12 Noon)
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>It is my understanding that the final ATC production runs of T206's occurred in the Spring of 1911. By then<br /> T-brands such as American Beauty, Piedmont, and Sweet Caporal were being produced by Liggett & Myers<br /> at the Durham, North Carolina plant....Factory #42, 4th District, N.C.<br /><br />The Ty Cobb brand identifies the 4th District, N.C......however, it is Factory #33. Therefore, we can assume<br />that this T-brand was produced in the Durham area in (an as of yet undisclosed #33 plant) some time in the<br />mid 1911 to 1914 time frame. <br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/factory42dist4nc.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br />FACTORY #42....DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/alandmpc.jpg"><br /><br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>If memory serves,<br /><br />I've been under the impression that the Cobb/Cobb was a 1914 creation.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>If the Ty Cobb backed card is a c. late 1911 to 1914 issue, then should all of the following sets, with blue lettering, be related?<br /><br />Ty Cobb Back<br />T213 Type 2<br />T214<br />T215 Type 2<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>scott brockelman</b><p>But. as much as I hate to admit it Coupon type 1 should be included in T206, The back is the same design. as is the front font color and the make up of players. The later blue font issue coupons would/should fall into the T215 genre. It is not the brand that dicates the designation but the format, otherwise why would we not place T205 American Beauty or T207 Broadleaf in the T206 category? Because they have a different design, not a different cigarette mfg.<br /><br />While I have put the Monster to rest, I will not pursue the Coupons to complete it. They are amazingly tough, probably in the area of Lenox, Carolina Brights, Red Hindu and Broadleaf, in the last 10 years I doubt I have owned over a dozen of them.<br /><br />Just my thoughts<br /><br />Scott
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>You stated my case, better than I have....and, with a lot less words.<br /><br />Thank you,<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>Hey Richard,<br /><br />Not sure what you mean there.<br />Have you seen a Ty Cobb Backed card with blue lettering? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>If there were no T206s produced in N.C., we might have stronger reason to suggest that Ty Cobb brand is not a T206, but what we have is evidence that they were produced in N.C. Thus, we still do not have definitive dating information.<br /><br /><br />Of course inclusion of the Ty Cobb brand means that those who collect backs would have a card that is 5x as tough as the Wagner to get for completion of a back set. For the completist, that could be an ongoing frustration, much like the big 4 are for a lot of T206 set collectors (of front images). I now feel like I need a Coupon to complete my back set.<br />JimB
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I have several responses to this statement of yours.....<br /><br />"If there were no T206s produced in N.C., we might have stronger reason to suggest that Ty Cobb brand<br /> is not a T206, but what we have is evidence that they were produced in N.C. Thus, we still do not have<br /> definitive dating information."<br /><br /><br />1st....The T206's (backs) I show in the above post were not produced in North Carolina. They were pro-<br />duced in NYC (as were T205, T213, T214, T215, and T3's). Then they were shipped to their respective <br />T-brand Factories.<br /><br />2nd....The Red Ty Cobb/Ty Cobb was also produced in NYC. The Ty Cobb Plug Tobacco was produced at<br /> Factory #33 in Durham, NC. <br />This Ty Cobb card was then shipped to NC and may have been packaged within this Tobacco's Tin, or may<br /> have been handed out by a vendor selling this Plug Tobacco.<br /><br />3rd....Dating info....my best guess is that this unique Ty Cobb card was produced no earlier than mid-1911,<br /> and no later than late 1912.<br /> The mid-1911 date is dictated by "District 4, NC" on this card's back. And, is bounded by the late 1912 date<br /> since the caption on the front of this card is not printed in BLUE ink.<br />I think the BLUE ink captions were first printed on T-cards produced in 1913 by American Lithographic.<br /><br />TED Z <br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>T213-1's come up every now and then so you will be able to get one if you want. Don't count on a high grade one though, because as has been stated numerous times, unlike their distant cousin the t206'S, they are on paper thin stock and generally found in grades of 3 or less.......High grade for them would be a 4-5, imo.....regards
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>In the 1996 REA auction Rob Lifson theorized(albeit loosely) that the Ty Cobb back was distributed in Georgia. Cobb was from Georgia, they were found in Georgia and the book they were found in was in honor of a Georgia Congressman who had recently passed away.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>The Georgia Senator you are referring to was Richard Russell, who amassed a large collection of T-cards, as a teenager<br /> during 1909-1914. I have acquired several T206's from his collection.<br /> I personally do not think that the Ty Cobb "Smoking Tobacco" card was packaged in the Ty Cobb Cut Plug Tobacco Tin.<br />For the few cards that have been found would have tobacco stains on them. And, this is why I said that they may have<br />been handed out by a vendor selling this Plug Tobacco.<br /><br />This mystery continues.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /> <br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Ted,<br />I realize American Lithograph printed all the cards in NY and sent them to tobacco factories. I was probably not clear enough with my words above, but that is beside the point. I don't doubt the strong likelihood that your dates are in the ballpark. From the evidence we have, those are reasonable guesses. But I just do not think the evidence is conclusive. It would be nice to find actual documentation in the form of legal papers that would clearly date the production run of the Ty Cobb brand. Beyond that, we are probably left with speculation.<br />JimB
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim- while I have speculated the Ty Cobb back may have circulated later than the 15 T206 brands, I admit it is purely a guess. Nobody has been able to document when it was distributed.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Actually, as I think about it further, if we go by Ted's data that the blue name/team on T213-2,3 is the indicator of a shift beginning in mid-1912, then it seems the conclusion would be that Ty Cobb brand would be a T206 issue from early 1911.<br />JimB
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>That's pretty interesting, and it could suggest a circa 1911 issue. Exactly how it was distributed, and why the brand consists of a single pose, are the questions most intriguing to me.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>We are having a tough enough time here selling the fact that 1910 COUPON cards are the 16th T-brand of the T206 set.<br /><br />Adding the Ty Cobb/Ty Cobb card to this mix is too much for some to accept. Let's focus on the COUPON's first.<br /><br />This unique Red Ty Cobb card is "food for thought" for another day.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p><br />The logical case for joining the 1910 Coupons with the other 15 tobacco brands in the 1909-11 ATC baseball release seems persuasive; however, I don't think the 1910 Coupons can simply be relabelled as T206s since the ACC is the foundational document for the "T" classification scheme and it tells us that a 1910 Coupon is not a T206 but rather a T213-1. To argue that a 1910 Coupon is a T206 is kind of like arguing that since there are parallels between the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution we should start calling the Fourteenth Amendment the Fifth. If one wants to say that the 1910 Coupons are part of the "1909-11 ATC White Borders Set" I would be more receptive.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>Scot,<br /><br /> You say that you don't think the 1910 Coupons can simply be relabelled as T206s since ACC is the Foundational document for the "T" classification scheme. I think that we can acknowledge key works as foundational yet move to make necessary changes when a consensus of scholarship demands it.<br />In a similar sense,I think that your own very important work has already demanded significant changes in important works such as the Monster which many see as foundational in its own niche.<br />Granted, we may well be still in the early stages of developing a consensus<br />regarding the Coupon---206 issue but it is becoming quite convincing already. At some future date, it will become apparent that relabelling is necessary methinks. Textual criticism is replete with examples of major and minor amendments/relabellings to foundational works.<br />I say these things with particular respect to you as your own work has done more to revamp and clarify T206 scholarship than any other and has already itself become the key foundational work for its niche. <br />Perhaps someone may argue that we need not relabel ACC but create a new<br />foundational volume in its place. Although there are a number of errors in<br />ACC, I do not think that they are numerous enough to require more than a <br />relabeling or reclarifying via an 'appendix' or what I have referred to elsewhere as an Errata section.<br /><br />best,<br />barry<br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Scot,<br />One error is your reply: the ACC mentions sixteen, not fifteen brands in the T206 set. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br />JimB
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Ed Hans</b><p>As long as we're fixing a few errors in the ACC, there are scores, if not hundreds, of issues that Burdick never knew about that deserve a numeric designation.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Scot,<br /><br />"To argue that a 1910 Coupon is a T206 is kind of like arguing that since there are parallels between the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution we should start calling the Fourteenth Amendment the Fifth."<br /><br /><br />I am glad you brought up the constitution!<br /><br />Isn't it wonderful that the writers of the constitution allowed for amendments..... that they knew over time - the written work itself would be more viable if it could be amended.<br /><br />I am guessing burdick would have understood and believed in amendments as well (just a guess).<br /><br /><br />Its just that some hobby traditionalists - don't want nuttin changed no matta what.<br /><br /><br />Thats okay for a card hobby I guess (in the grand scheme of things... so what?).....<br />Thank goodness it is not the case for the constitution.<br /><br /><br />My preference would be for a more amendable system. And as far as this thread goes - my belief is that a coupon is a T206.<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br />Joe<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p>My objection to moving T213-1s into the T206 camp is procedural rather than substantive. The objection would go away if the ACC were FORMALLY AMENDED to move T213-1s into the T206 camp. If I may stretch the Constitution analogy a little further (hopefully not beyond recognition), henceforth calling a T213-1 a T206 without formal amendment to the ACC would be tantamount to changing the Constitution by judicial fiat.<br /><br />That said, I think this Board, with its breadth and depth of knowledge, is ideally suited to devise a comprehensive classsification system for vintage baseball cards that is more rational than the ACC and could, after creation, serve as the new foundational document.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Scot -<br /><br />very well said.<br /><br />I agree with you completely.<br /><br /><br />The opinions I posted were just that... opinions for discussion.<br /><br /><br />I am with you on the procedural concern you mention and wouldn't want to see it any other way.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>I somewhat agree with Scot's reasoning. But I also think that it should stay separate. The two issues are alike enough that they both can have a "T" at the beginning. <br /><br />The T213-1s seem distinct to me because of the thinner stock (no matter the reason) and their regional distribution, which was different from Piedmonts, Sovereigns, and the like. I well understand that they look quite a bit like a T206. <br /><br />I'd rather have T213-1s remain T213s, and get a new designation for the -2s and -3s.<br /><br /><br />But this thread begs the question of what about a new catalog. The New Card Catalog of 19th and 20th Century Baseball Cards. I'd volunteer for a committee of 'us' to put together such a work. I'd just as soon not address other sports and non-sports. And I'd like it to stay close to Mr. Burdick's efforts as much as would be practicable. 'We' could work on such a book, then publish it via Lulu... That is what we need. But I'd like to draw a line with the year 2000 (the last year of the 20th century) as the most recent limit. Drawing a line at 1980 might be easier on us. "We'd" have a helluva time with designations for all of the chase sets from the 80s and 90s.<br /><br />Could we on this board come up with a committee of us for such a work??
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Frank - nice idea; why not draw the line even earlier? Perhaps pre-1950?
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>1950 would be fine with me. I think book sales and interest might be boosted if we edged over into the Topps issues a bit. Maybe the thing to do would be to go through the 1973 Topps. I think that was a year Topps issued the cards in series, 1974 was an 'all at once' kind of thing.<br /><br />1950 would stop in the middle of Bowmans... but 1973 or 2000 would stop in the Topps string, so what would that matter? Maybe let the 'committee' draw the line as a first thing to haggle out.<br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I've always thought that the 1974 Topps set was a "semi-series" type issue. Since the Washington Nationals (initial press run) variations<br /> only partially included the subsequent press run of San Diego Padres cards in this set.<br /><br />And, 1975 Topps with it's experimental MINI issue is worthy of being included.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Then let's go with something that runs through the 1975 card issues (used in its old sense). That would keep us short of those chase cards....<br /><br />And maybe we need a new thread on this topic. I apologize if I've hijacked your thread, Ted.<br /><br />I can envision a new catalog coming from this... As much as I'm adverse to change, it might be good in the long run.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>If you look at 1974 Topps as a series, it was certainly an unintentional one. There was a rumor that the Padres were moving to Washington, and Topps just wanted to make sure they were on top of it.<br /><br />When the team stayed in San Diego, they were forced to correct their error.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>No need to apologize Frank....I think we had run the course on the 1910 COUPON subject, anyway.<br /><br />Barry, the first 15 of the 22 San Diego cards were initially printed as Washington Nationals. The higher # cards (above<br /> #389) only exist as SD Padres (including Winfield's rookie). Therefore, to my way of thinking, there must of been more<br /> than one Series issued in the 1974 set....otherwise, there would be 22 Washington Nationals.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>That's right- not all the players were issued with Washington. Good point.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Millerhouse</b><p>I found myself amused at the apparent reluctance of some to amend card designations assigned by Burdick. Try, for example, looking up an N172 in the American Card Catalog. In truth, I'm not sure whether or not that number was used, but my memory is that Burdick used the "N" prefix to indicate cards issued in South America. Regular old Old Judge cards were denoted as #172s, with the same type of designation applied to all 19th Century issues: #28, #29, #43, #162, #167, #172, #173, etc.<br /><br />Not sure upon whom one can blame this change, but everyone has certainly accepted it without so much as a nod to Jefferson Burdick.<br /><br />Regards all,<br /><br />Dan
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>Bert Sugar added the N to the 19th century stuff. A catalog should be ever-changing and ever-expanding, or it loses its utility. <br><br>Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:29 PM. |