Good point Tony.

What is a T206?

• A card that was printed by ALC between the years 1909-11? or,
• A card that was issued inside packages of ATC branded tobacco products between the years 1909-11? or,
• both?

ALC is just a printer, and probably had a few clients, so it can't just be that they were printed by ALC because they could have been issued by another tobacco company. T206 cards must have the same issuer, and in this case it was ATC.

If the Coupon cards were printed by ALC, and issued/distributed by ATC inside tobacco products, between the years 1909 and 1911, then they should be T206.

Is there a definitive answer to any of those three questions at this point?

If it looks like an ATC brand, it's probably an ATC brand, therefore a T206...
 

MichelaiTorres83;1844471]Where does it say that date is a criteria?

What I am saying is Coupon was released most likely during the 1910-11 based off everything we know, and probably should be lumped in as the 17th ATC brand produced by American Lithographic, which would mean it is more closely related to those 16 brands that have been designated T206, and therefore should be part of the T206 set. It is far closer to the T206 group than the 1914 & 19 Coupon Type 2, 3, with glossy finish, blue lettering, and different minor league players featured in the set that are not featured in the T206 set. I think Burdick simply lumped Type 1's because of the name Coupon even though the Type 1's are way closer to the sixteen 1909-11 T206 Brands than even they are with the 1914 & 1919 Coupon Brands.


What we know :

1. It looks just like the other 16 ATC brands Burdick included in T206.
2. According to Lew Lipset's Encyclopedia of Baseball Cards, the entire Coupon group consist of 350 series.
3. Also, according to Lipset's EOBBC, the 20 Southern Leaguers featured in Coupon were issued with the 350 series subjects.
4. The Coupon has a Size variance, just like the other T206 brand, American Beauty. (Depth/Width)

Side Note :

*The T211 Red Sun set was released in New Orleans (early Spring due to dating of players in minor and majors) and the intended 2nd series was not released. Perhaps that was due to the ATC break up in May of 1911. If the T206 brands seized ball card production in 1911 from the ATC break up, then most likely the 2nd Series for T211 never got off the ground for the same reasons. This could be a likely reason for Coupons being in limited numbers if it is from the 350 series only, released at back end of 1910, early 1911. (In previous posts, I was wondering why Red Sun didn't release their 2nd series and also drawing a parallel with Coupon as 2 sets in New Orleans that didn't do very well in terms of cards released, and I suggested there was some event that disrupted that 2nd series of Red Suns, as well as more Coupons being released with packs/cartons of cigarettes. The only event I can find around that timeline is the ATC break up which was obviously a big deal as it disrupted the whole industry and T206 cards as we know them stopped in 1911. Apologies for the ramble...)

* More Info - In 1915 Category 4 Hurricane hit New Orleans... http://www.neworleansbar.org/uploads...20Irby_1-2.pdf

The Southern Leaguers are 150/350 subjects.

Attachment 340348

"Southern Leaguers " vs The Real Southern Leaguer's in the Southern Association
 

Pat - Are you referring to just the 20 Southern Association players in the Coupon set as 150/350 series or are you referring to the 48 players that are referred to as "Southern Leaguer's" in the T206 set? The Texas League, South Atlantic League, and Virginia league are commonly lumped in that verbiage as "Southern Leaguers" when in fact they actually are not. The 20 players featured in the Coupon set are from the Southern Association.

Also, maybe you or Ted can clear up what Lew Lipset meant when he said "It is not surprising to find this entire Coupon Series to consist of 350 series subjects."

Pat - What do you make of the Texas, Virginia, and South Atlantic League "SL" players not being present in this set, and only the 20 Southern Association players present which I believe were 350 series only, correct !?

Edited to add, if the 150 subjects are present what does this prove? It's still in the 1909-11 time frame. Does it imply there could have been more of the 150 subjects? Are all 68 cards featured as 350 subjects ? Did Lipset miss this? What correlation or theory are you trying to prove?

Jeremy, the 20 subjects were printed with Hindu and possibly Old Mill during the 150
series printing so they are 150/350 subjects.

Attachment 340350

Gotcha - Thanks for the newspaper ad info! So, that dates Coupons from 1909-1911 instead of 1910-11 as I originally thought.... (assuming 350 series was printed in 1910-11)

Do you know if the 20 Southern Association players were all printed during the 350 series? Perhaps that is what Lipset meant...

No the 350 only subjects in the coupons eliminate them from the 1909 date.

Here's the thread I posted when I found the Old Mill ad

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...light=Old+Mill

Ok, so back to my original theory 1910-11 !?

There is no proof on the date but it's speculated in early 1910.

I am good with that as it certainly indicates the T206 timeline rather than any other timeline. 1910 most likely, 1911 at latest. Nothing proven definitive, but not likely 1912-13, and a long way away from the 1914 & 1919 Coupon Type 2 & 3 releases which look nothing like the Coupon Type 1 release.

I am guessing that Cat 4 Hurricane in New Orleans in 1915 didn't help with any evidence of local Coupon advertisements such as a pictures, broadsides, local store coupons, etc. -

Were Jimmy Hart and Bill Hart printed with a Hindu back? I'm following the argument that we should just leave the nomenclature as it is. I don't follow the argument that Coupon 1 backs are some vastly separate set. I'm not a T206 expert, but I'm familiar with the cards and read T206Resource and stuff.
I was just hoping to learn more about the set because I collect it. If we don't learn more about it, that's okay too. Have a good one, guys.

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

Hey guys,

First of all, Lew Lipset is absolutely correct...…

" According to Lew Lipset's Encyclopedia of Baseball Cards, the entire 1910 Coupon group consist of 350 series.
Also, according to Lipset's EOBBC, the 20 Southern Leaguers featured in Coupon were issued with the 350 series subjects. "

2nd....The 20 subjects in this set from the Southern Association were NOT all printed in 1909 with HINDU backs !
Only 16 of the 20 were. See the excerpt from my post # 156 reprised above.

This fact confirms Lipset's second statement quoted above.

Please, let's consider the actual facts in the printing of these cards, instead of going off on misleading statements.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I stand corrected I didn't check all 20 subjects but the fact is there are
150/350 southern league subjects in the coupon set.

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

Pat

Please don't misconstrue, I'm not trying to be negative....but, incorrect facts in this debate can only drive us "crazy" in our attempts to resolve this puzzle.

Yes, we all know there are 34 - Southern Leaguer's (SL) which were printed in 1909 when ALC produced the 150/350 series cards.

But, the bigger picture to consider in this argument is that ALC expanded the SL sub-set to 48 subjects when they started printing the 350 series cards.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

you are right ted. incorrect facts are not helpful.

Interesting thread
 

Lots of good discussion and back and forth amidst everything.

I would like to add only that having owned only a few, and watched the site somewhat religiously, the highest graded T213-1 I've seen posted is an SGC 50 Ed Reagan (http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...0&postcount=36). I remember another full-size one, but I couldn't find it quickly... maybe Pete can re-post it :D


The theories, conjectures, and discussion points around when various changes might have been imposed by the ATC breakup are interesting to think about with what might have already been in flight for T207 (i.e Napoleon, Anonymous, & Red Cross backs), but that's a subject for another thread.

--
Mike

Hi Mike

There is only an occasional thread regarding T207's on this forum. You know the T207's better than most of us here. How's about initiating more threads on these "mysterious" cards.

I say "mysterious" for several reasons.....one being that I do not think American Lithographic produced them. And, like you said "the ATC breakup" may have had some affect on why
the T207 set differs from the previous T-card sets of that era.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Yea. I think that is the point. Where is the criteria used to determine a t206 card from the source that did it, not what a random person copied from a Tough Stuff magazine and posted to Wikipedia.

I am not sure how else you determine if someone made a “mistake”. If he says this is my criteria, this is my analysis and its proven incorrect, that is a mistake.

There are 2 ways of reading that.

Wikipedia says that date for when they were issued, but it does not say it is a criteria used to determine a t206. Maybe the criteria for a t206 does not require a date and the date range given is simply supplimental information about the cards.

Is there anything documenting what the criteria was for either a T206 or T213 from Burdick himself? I really do not know and this is a serious question. If so can you post it?

Since you asked here is the definitive answer (to me), once again, why T213s aren't T206s. It is from the 1960 American Card Catalog. It isn't rocket science. I would say if Burdick didn't know of the differences, and didn't actually compare them to T206, there could be a case for the -1s to be different. He knew exactly what he was doing when he made them their own series with the others from it. I am not sure how anyone can dispute that fact when it has been written for 59 yrs.

I have not seen that before. Thanks for posting it.

Your post sounds as though we do not agree, so to clarify, we do agree.

Your image supports that the designation is more about the brand than a date for t206 even if yhe date range on t213s may have been a mistake.

It also shows that a date range for t206 is non existing in the designation like I suspected.

Thanks Ted for posting that info... That does confirm what I have been saying and thought that was the case. The fact that Burdick named the first coupon cards Type 1 and designated it T213 is not in question by me. What I am saying is all evidence leans towards the Coupon being another American Litho-ATC brand and the 350 series subjects suggest it was a brand from 1909-11 time frame, then I think we could all agree that Coupon is another brand just like the 16 brands Burdick designated T206. My point is, it's pretty obvious that Coupon brand is much more alike the rest of the T206 cards than it is the other two Coupon brands from 1914 & 1919. Also, don't forget that Burdick didn't even have a final count on the Type 1 Coupons (68) so he really wasn't as familiar with them as other ATC brands.

Actually Ted since you're concerned about accuracy Lipset didn't specify Hindu and although he didn't know it at the time we now have proof
that except for the six Texas League players all of the SL players were printed in 1909 during the 150 series including all 20 of the coupon
SL subjects and despite not knowing this fact Lipset still considered them a "unique issue".

Attachment 340456

Attachment 340457

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

Pat...….. "including all 20 of the coupon SL subjects"…….. WRONG !

So, where are the BROWN HINDU cards of these four Southern Association players.... Bill Hart, "Hub" Hart, Lentz, Rockenfeld ! ?

These four Southern Association subjects were NOT PRINTED or issued in the initial launch of the Southern League group of 34 cards in 1909.

I don't understand why you continue to ignore this fact. These 4 guys were not available until all 48 of the Southern Leaguers were issued circa early 1910 (with OLD MILL backs,
or with PIEDMONT 350 backs).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Hey Ted, everyone -It depends on how you look at it. Coupon Cigarettes and the Irby Branch were sold to Liggett & Myers on April 30th, 1911 from ATC

Ted, The Old Mill Southern League ad is dated August 14 1909 are you
suggesting that they printed 34 subjects with the Old Mill backs and then
waited six to nine months before they printed the other 14 subjects with
Old Mill Backs?

13 of the 14 are depicted on the team they played on in 1909 on their T206 cards and only 4 are
depicted on the team they played on in 1910 and that's because they
stayed on the same team they played for in 1909.

Attachment 340556

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

Pat

By your own admission you do not put together T206 sets......it's not your thing. Otherwise, you would have a different perspective on how these cards were produced.

Having "completed" 5 - T206 sets (and working on near "complete" 6th set), I can tell you that tracking down PIEDMONT 350 vs. OLD MILL backed Southern Leaguers
is an interesting experience. I could go into a lengthy dissertation on this subject, however it has been a long day and I'm tired. Besides, it has become apparent to me
that when I post some meaningful and valid factors on these cards, you ignore what I have said and go on to some other diversion.

So, the answer(s) you are looking for in your last post are addressed by Scot Reader in his excellent book "Inside T206" (pages 44-46)........so check-it-out.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Ted,

I have a copy of Scots inside T206. There's a lot of valuable information in
it and I have read it several times. I believe Scot wrote it in 2006 and last
updated it in 2009. A lot of new information is and has been discovered
since then including the Old Mill ad.

I don't see how I'm creating a diversion by responding to something you
quoted from my previous post perhaps it's you that's creating the diversion
because you don't have an answer to the question.

Coupon's 20 Southern "Association" Leaguers...
 

I have mentioned before I came up just a bit short of finishing the 68 Coupon Type 1 cards after a decade or so of trying, but in my passion for collecting these rare beauties was able to finish a run of the 20 SL players and these 2 cards without a doubt were the two toughest cards for me to find. I have only seen 3 Gordon Hickman cards in my lifetime and only 1 Hub Perdue (pictured). I am hopeful a few more exists so I can lay eyes on them! Love these rare T206's!

There are several Perdue and Hickman T206's on ebay right now. :)

Good one, Pat. Very funny. Here's my Hub Perdue. This is what they call a "set filler".

Nolonger a set filler!!! A highlight of someones back run/ collection these days!!

Looks fine to me Rob, well loved with no paper loss.

if i needed that one for a set, i'd happily include it

Perdue
 

Rob - Of course, I knew you had a Hub! Only the 2nd Hub I have ever seen... Thank you for sharing! One heck of a filler...:rolleyes:

Congrats on the SL subset, Jer, I knew you could do it! Here are the most difficult cards in this set according to the combined sgc and psa pop reports

LaPorte 0
Hoffman 1
McIntyre 2
Hickman 2
perdue 2
rossman 2
schmidt 2
molesworth 2
rhoades 2
greminger 2
willett 2
smith 2
charles 3
cree 3
most Cobb 12

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

Hi Rob

Thanks for posting that "scarcity" list. It's nice to know that my 1910 COUPON collection includes 3 of the toughest subjects (according to the pop reports).
Which reminds me, I most likely will have Rossman and Willett graded, eventually.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...NWillett25.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...Willett25b.jpg




http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...onMcIntyre.jpg.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...nMcIntyreb.jpg




http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...50Sov50x_2.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...0Sov50xb_2.jpg




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Ted, What's the transfer on your Rossman coupon? I think it might be an
EPDG transfer.

Cobb coupon
 

Rob - Great pics, and scarcity list! Does anyone know of any ungraded Cobb Coupon cards in the Universe? I don't, except for the one that was in that completed set done many years ago, which I believe now has been broken up and sold in pieces if memory serves...

The Cobb count could be representative of the max amount of Coupon's per player and the Cobb possibly, has a few that have been double graded/crossed over, etc. - My assumption would be there are 8-15 Coupon Cobb's including all graded/raw examples. You have to figure there are more Cobb's than other common players, so when I think of the definition of rare, I would say 8-15 examples is right in the sweet spot. I figure the average number of Coupons for most players is around 4-8.... What event happened to make these so limited? Break up of ATC, stop production? (May-1911). Hurricane of 1915?? It appears Coupons and Red Suns have similar production with Red Suns having a few more examples... Both are rare. Red Suns stopped production of the intended 2nd series at 75 cards. Was this at/around the time Coupon's were just starting production? 1911 ??? So many questions, but I feel like the darts are all around the bulls eye and we just need more time and research to connect the dots... Ramble end.

It looks like paper addition on the front but with the smaller scan it's hard to tell it could be paper loss but either way it looks like it was stuck to an EPDG
at some point.

Attachment 341678

Attachment 341679Attachment 341680

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

Pat

Here are larger front/back scans of the Rossman card. Rossman is an EPDG no-print; therefore, how can it have an EPDG transfer ?

The Rossman card was printed with very few backs. Most likely because he was traded by Detroit to the St. Louis Browns (August 20, 1909).
Plus, his Major League career ended Sept, 3, 1909.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...manbreiten.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...onrossmanb.jpg

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Ted, It's a "storage" transfer not a factory transfer.

Some of these subjects are extremely tough with other backs too.
Try and find some of these subjects with Tolstoi backs. Ted said he
searched for twelve years and never even saw a scan of Rossman with
a Tolstoi back.

Here are the combined pop reports on some of the Coupon type 1 subjects with
Tolstoi backs.

Cree - 2
Donovan - 2
Dubuc - 2
Dunn - 1
Engle - 3
Hoffman - 0
Hunter - 1
Killian - 3
Laporte - 1
Rossman - 0
Thomas - 0
Willett - 1
Wilson - 3

Dunn, Rossman and Thomas were only recently confirmed with Tolstoi
backs in the past year.

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

Pat

You have a better eye than I.

Nice catch on the EPDG transfer on my Rossman card.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Pat - That is very interesting. What do you make of such a ridiculously low pop for those players? Tolstoi is in that middle range of tough backs which shouldn't be too difficult to find, yet these are super rare. Have you been able to see if these players were possibly "late" into production for some baseball reason? i.e. traded, called up, etc. ?! Perhaps Tolstoi added them to production late !?

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

Jeremy

Here are 27 subjects in the 1910 COUPON set which were NOT printed with these following 350 series backs…..
CAROLINA BRIGHTS, EL PRINCIPE DE GALES, OLD MILL, POLAR BEAR. But were printed with the TOLSTOI back.

Do we have enough imagination to figure this strange incongruity, or is this a case where...."Only the Monster Knows !" :)

Byrne
Charles
Donovan (throwing)
Doolan (fielding)
Fletcher
Hoffman (St Louis AL)
Howell (portrait)
Huggins (portrait)
Huggins (hands at mouth)
Hunter
Killian (portrait)
Knabe
Lennox
Marquard (portrait)
McBride
McElveen
McIntyre (Detroit)
Mitchell (Cincinnati)
Mowery
Myers (bat)

Paskert
Rhoades (hands at chest)
Rossman
Schmidt (portrait)
Starr
Street (portrait)
Summers


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Jeremy, it's not just the players I listed that was just a sample most
of the 350 only subjects are difficult to find with a Tolstoi back here
are the combined pop reports of another group of confirmed Tolstoi's.

Anderson - 4
Bush - 0
Blackburne - 4
Cross - 4
Easterly - 1
Hoblitzel - 2
Kisinger - 1
McElveen - 3
Mowrey - 4
Oakes - 3
Ritter - 4
Smith, Heinie - 0
Zimmerman - 2

The didn't begin printing the Tolstoi backs until sometime during the 350
only series and I think it might have been towards the end of the 350
only printing as that would explain why most of them are scarce with
Tolstoi backs.

Pat - one of the things that surprised me the most after trying to work on a Providence master set was how tough the Tolstoi backs are for that 350 group.

To keep from hi-jacking Teds other thread any further I moved this here where it's on topic. Until you get free time to look at the Journal which I think is the most important information there is in trying to date the time frame of the type 1's here's a rundown of some of the information in it.

The pages in it are from early 1909 through 1912 here's the two index pages I posted in the other thread

Attachment 460068

Attachment 460069

Some of the pages have examples of the cards pasted to them but the t206
pages were all removed and sold. Here's one of the pages I posted in the other
thread an American Beauty page with a Willetts pasted to it who as you know is in the t213-1 set.

Attachment 460103

I know your a Southern League collector so here's an Old Mill page from the journal.

In partial it reads Began packing nat'l players same as those in piedmonts
began packing Jan 8th 1910 Began shipping Jan 9th 1910

Began packing one nat'l + 1 so league pict 3/15/1910 shipping 3/17/1910
Discontinued 12/14/10

Attachment 460087

If the type 1's were printed in 1910 they almost certainly should be in this journal.





Since Ted seems to be reluctant to view the journal and points to the stylistic design similarity's as one of the reasons they were printed in 1910 all the brands are on the index pages except Coupon.

Attachment 460104

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

Hey Pat

Where do you come-off saying I am "RELUCTANT" to respond to this journal you posted. I already reviewed it in the other thread you posted it in.....and,
THERE'S NOTHING THERE THAT DISPELS THAT THE 1910 COUPON CARDS WERE PRINTED AND ISSUED IN 1910 ! That list is IRRELEVANT ! !

Where is a DATE on it ? Where are the other American Tobacco Co. (ATC) brands on that list ? For example....POLAR BEAR....RED CROSS (T215)...."PIRATE"...."TY COBB"

The fact that POLAR BEAR is missing on this journal list certainly indicates that this journal list would have been dated PRIOR TO THE SUMMER of 1910.

Anyhow, this list that you are "raving about" tells us NOTHING about when the "COUPON" cards were printed (or issued). ! Absolutely, nothing ! !

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________

Furthermore,

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...onhugginsb.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...cobbtycobb.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...cobbtycobb.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...atecigpack.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...atecigpack.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...t215pirate.jpg


Hey guys,

Those QUOTES surrounding these three Brand names are very significant. These QUOTES indicate that these are new ATC brands which had not yet received
an officially Registered TRADEMARK. Most people do not understand the importance of this, for it does INDEED set a timeline when these cards were printed
and issued.

Regarding the COUPON brand, it would be Circa Spring - Summer 1910.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

The dates are on the pages with instructions on what to put in the packs and cartons. you need to look at the whole journal.

The journal dates are from 1909-1912 with the latest packing date of 8/12
on the Nebo brand. It is my understanding that the dates on the T215's are
approximate too and maybe the journal helps narrow the time frame down for them.

As for the Polar Bears first off that's a pouch scrap tobacco I don't know all of
the Tobacco brands on the index pages are any of the other brands pouch scrap Tobacco that had
cards inserted in them?

also several years ago when I was researching the print flaws I said the Polar
Bears didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the t206 brands.

You point out the similarity's in the Polar Bears to the Coupon perhaps the reason is they weren't printed and distributed with the other t206 brands.

Here's what I posted in 2015

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

Pat

The journal list you are referring to (labelled Index) has 30 brands on it.

It has NO DATE identifying it....and it does NOT include the POLAR BEAR brand. The POLAR BEAR brand was a MAJOR brand,
the likes of which was printed on the backs of 250 subjects in the T206 set.

The timeline of the first series of POLAR BEAR cards has been established as beginning circa Spring -Summer 1910. Therefore,
that journal list of 30 brands that you are touting were generated prior to the Spring of 1910. Then of course it would not have
any information regarding COUPON (or RED CROSS, or PIRATE, or TY COBB SMOKING TOBACCO).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

My god Ted who's the one making a "fool" of himself take your blinders
off and read the whole journal not just the index page or read my posts that have some of them in it.


Here I've circled the dates on a couple of them but take the time and read
the whole journal it's been available on here for years.

Attachment 460231

Attachment 460232

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

Pat

I don't see any connections between those small "piecewise" journals and the large journal (listed with the 30 brands) labelled "INDEX", which
you touted as being "evidence" for your cause. Show me how they are connected ?
So, the dates on those are irrelevant to anything we are discussing with respect to when the 1910 "COUPON" cards were printed and issued.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Just an observation from a fan of the Ledger pages. It seems to be a true index, as the page number on the American Beauty card page “95” corresponds to the American Beauty entry on the Index “95-119” but I also see a date of 1912 at the top of the second page.

This is correct James when you look at the whole journal the index page is more or less in chronological order and they added a page number to the index when they changed what was inserted in packs of that particular brand. It starts with entry's from 1909 and ends in 1912. This is why in my opinion if Coupon type 1's were distributed in 1910 they should be in this journal.

The page with 1912 on it is the second index page which would be when they created that index page.

I guess what I didn’t explicitly say was that it also connects the pieces to that index page

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

Jason

Perhaps you can get an answer from Pat.....because I have asked him to explain why the POLAR BEAR brand is missing from that list of 30 brands (supposedly
reflecting "entry's from 1909 and ends in 1912").

But, Pat avoids answering that simple question.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I posted my opinion on that in post #211 I highlighted in red for you.

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

"You point out the similarity's in the Polar Bears to the Coupon perhaps the reason is they weren't printed and distributed with the other t206 brands."


Pat

Sorry, but I did not get what you were driving at with that, when I first read it. And, I still don't understand what you are
alluding to regarding similarity between 1910 COUPON cards and POLAR BEAR cards (other than they are both T206's).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I thought I remembered you comparing them but I couldn't find where you
did so I was wrong about that.

Sometimes we get lucky and find definitive proof of something in writing like the packing and shipping dates in the journal but most of the time
you're just putting together bits and pieces to form an opinion.

Ryan just posted his multi - overstrike back southern leaguers in another thread.
Attachment 460413

The backs are from a test print scrap, we have no way of knowing when each
back was test printed but I think it's fair to assume it was close to the same time.


The three backs on Ryan's cards are Piedmont, Old Mill and EPDG, those three backs are in a group together on the index page along with Hindu.

Attachment 460414

The more meticulously I look through the journal the more things seem to come together. When I first found out about it on here I printed it out and
since then I have looked through it on several occasions when I was researching other things but over the past few day's I've been taking a much closer look at everything in it.

It's really a shame that many of the t206 pages and others like Red Sun were removed from the journal. Some of them have been sold in auction
so we have images of them but others like Sovereign, Broad Leaf and Drum as far as I know haven't.

Looking at the pages that are available explains some things and adds to a lot of what we do know.

I posted it earlier but here are a couple more things about it that I noticed.


Up until recently the southern leaguers were thought to have been printed in 1910 with the Old Mill backs but in 2018 I found this ad.
Attachment 460586

The August 14 1909 date in that ad coincides with the date on the ledger that says they first started packing and shipping the Old Mill southern leaguers 7/09.

The Old Mill ledger page could also explain why the "exclusive 12" subjects in the 460 only series are very tough with an old Mill back because the ledger page indicates they discontinued packing the Old Mills on 12/14/1910.

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

Thank you Pat....for confirming what I posted in my thread regarding the Exclusive 12 cards in the 460-only Series back in 2013. The UZIT backs are almost impossible to find
with these 12 subjects, and the OLD MILL appears to 2nd in line in terms of scarcity.

Furthermore, I also noted then that the T80 cards are extremely difficult to find with OLD MILL backs.

No problem Ted as I said it certainly could explain the difficulty of the
"exclusive 12" subjects with an Old Mill back. But I do have to ask why
do you accept this information from the journal but you won't accept
the absence of the Coupons in it?

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

Pat

As I have already said....that undated list of 30 brands (ATC) without POLAR BEAR data indicates to me that it reflects information prior to the introduction of the
POLAR BEAR tobacco cards (circa SPRING 1910).

We cannot ignore this timeline. I will get into this later today, as I have to leave right now.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Ted, I told you several times the dates are there, Polar bear isn't and I gave you my opinion why. I have more to post maybe I'll convince you yet.

I'm still waiting to hear from Jeremy since he's the one that completed a set or near set of the type 1 southern Leaguers.

Here's the Carolina Brights page that was removed from the album and was sold in an auction. The part of the page that had the packing and shipping dates was removed.
Attachment 460655


But another Carolina Brights page with cards I'm not familiar with was still in the journal
Attachment 460656

Someone crossed it out but on the side it says began packing Ball pictures
Piedmont back backs in Carolina Brights 12/8(or18) 1909 it goes on to say
began packing 2 ball pictures with C.B. backs

Attachment 460657

Ted, I found some more information why Polar Bear probably wouldn't be in the ATC Journal.

It wasn't an ATC brand until 1914
Attachment 461867

I also said like Coupon I think it's possible that the Polar Bears weren't printed with the other t206's.

Now I'm not saying this is proof but the Owner of Polar Bear Tobacco Eddie
Wilbern was a Baseball fan who even talked about buying the Brooklyn Dodgers.
Attachment 461868

So he could have decided to use the past success of the cigarette inserts to promote his product and also could have been the reason for team changes on Demmitt and O'Hara.

He was known to promote his products in interesting ways.

Attachment 461869

Some more evidence that Polar Bear could have been printed separately and even after t206's is a recently discovered original 150+
find of t206's and around 30 t205's with the 120+ t206's "almost Exclusively" Polar bear.

It seems odd that if they were printed with the t206's that there weren't other brands of t206's in it but there were other brands of t205's which were printed after
the t206's.

https://blog.justcollect.com/blog/pe...ard-collection

Hey guys,

History of Polar Bear.....and Factory No. 6, 1st District, Middletown, Ohio

Paul Sorg and John Auer began producing cut plug tobacco in Middletown, Ohio, in the late 1870’s. In 1898, Continental Tobacco Company (one of the main
holding companies under the American Tobacco Company umbrella) purchased the Middletown plant. In early 1899, Luhrman & Wilburn Tobacco Company
of Cincinnati (one of the largest scrap tobacco manufacturers) was purchased by Continental. Continental then moved the Luhrman & Wilburn operations to
the Middletown factory. Upon the break-up of ATC in 1911, the plant ownership changed to the P. Lorillard Company, which operated it until 1951.

Note: the owners of the American Tobacco Company and the American Lithographic Company (ALC) , J. B. Duke and J. P. Knapp, respectively were very close
business partners during the years of production of Tobacco cards. The POLAR BEAR cards of the T206 set were printed by ALC during 1910 - 1911.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________________________

The cards of Demmitt & O'Hara provide us an insight into the timeline when the POLAR BEAR (PB) cards were printed. The New York versions of Demmitt & O'Hara
are 350-only Series subjects, which were printed prior to the PB press runs.

Circa Summer 1910 timeline is confirmed by the Demmitt & O'Hara St Louis variations....since both of which were printed ONLY with PB backs.

Demmitt & O'Hara were traded during the off-season in 1909. They both started the 1910 season with their respective St Louis teams. Early May of 1910, both of
them were re-assigned to the Eastern League. Demmitt to Montreal and O'Hara to Toronto.

This narrow window of their play with their St Louis teams in May 1910 absolutely confirms the timeline of these Demmitt and O'Hara cards to the Summer of 1910.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...StLouisSGC.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...McGlynn25x.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...tLouisSGCA.jpg


Imperial Tobacco (C46)....Eastern (International) League cards
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...mmittohara.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

You can address me Ted I think I've shown I willing to discuss our opinions and I think I always provide my reasons whether they're right or wrong.

Where do we have proof of the distribution dates on the Polar Bears? Demmit and O'hara isn't proof.
We have proof through ads and the ATC journal on the distribution of most if not all of the other t206 brands.

The Polar Bear brand was organized by Wilbern
Attachment 462088

and it's obvious he was a baseball fan and spent money promoting baseball
so why isn't it possible he was involved with re-using the t206 images in the
Polar Bear Brand?
Attachment 462089

When You compare Polar Bear to the other t206 brands you have

1 Demmitt and O'hara

2 the only t206 brand inserted directly with the tobacco in a pouch

3 A different back printing process than all the other backs (the lack of ink
makes up the advertising while with all the other backs the advertising is printed in ink)

4 Print flaws that are found on all other brands aren't found on Polar Bears
but the Dopner error/flaw is only found on Polar Bear.

I think anybody that does research especially on the older cards knows that although it's helpful dating a distribution on the teams players played for at the time isn't always accurate.


For decades most people including you thought the Southern Leaguer printing started in late 1909-early 1910 with the Old Mill backs until I found the ad that showed they were distributed in the summer of 1909 with Old Mill backs and the ATC journal shows the same thing.


So what's your explanation for Polar Bear and Coupons absence in the journal now that you've seen that the dates are there for all the other tobacco products and the t206's coincide with newspaper and sporting life ads that were promoting them.

If we assume authenticity and accuracy (there are some conflicts with data on the card backs in non-baseball sets compared to what the journal states), over 3/4 of the ATC journal is missing, based on the page numbering that goes to at least 380 in the surviving pages. Personally, I don't see how was can say a set is not in there, and that its lack of inclusion is evidence it is from a separate run as a result. We do not know the table of contents pages (which appear to have been amended as pages were added) are all present. We would need the entirety of the book to say this with any degree of certainty.

Second, Polar Bear absolutely was an ATC brand in the T206 distribution period, Continental was a subsidiary of the ATC they used to manage multiple smaller brands. That does not mean PB's were printed at the same time as other backs, but this does not seem to hold weight as a reason to support a claim it is a separate release.

If PB's were from years years later, like in 1914 as was alluded, like T214, T213-2 etc., the selection and team captions are very, very odd. I can't see why Demmitt (he wasn't in the majors in 1911, 1912, or 1913) and O'Hara (never played a game in the majors after 1910) would be updated for late 1909 (Demmitt was swapped Dec. 16, 1909, not sure on O'Hara) trades and the numerous other players who changed teams or left the league were re-printed without any updates years later. That seems even odder to me. I've always thought PB was just printed at the end of the production run that included O'Hara and Demmitt. The PB cards also do not betray the low-quality print that the ALC 'reprint' issues had, like T213-2, T213-3, T223. This does not rule it out, of course.

I'm not seeing much evidence to support the notion, certainly not a preponderance that the general understanding in the hobby is wrong or has less evidence than this claim. I don't have enough money into T206 to have a dog in the fight, I'm open to the notion if the evidence supports it. I'm just not seeing that evidence. I'd be happy to be proven wrong and learn something new, PB's are the coolest looking back in my book and I go out of my way to add them over other backs.


EDIT: After looking at my copy of the .pdf'd ledger again, it is obvious the table of contents with brands is not complete and at least 1 full page of it is missing. This makes the claim that PB is NOT in the ledger even more difficult to sustain.

Greg, yes there are a lot of pages missing in the journal but there's still a lot of information in the pages that are there. I don't see where you're getting that there is a table of contents page missing. As I said in our previous discussion you have to look over all of the pages thoroughly and take in account the information from other pages.. I haven't found any inaccuracies on the dates in the journal but I do see where there is some inaccuracy in how you're reading what's in it.

In the other thread you made a couple of inaccurate points about the journal.


The two T53 dates you point out are when they were discontinuing two different products and substituting T53's in their place.

On this one they are discontinuing the Auto drivers and substituting the cowboy's.
Attachment 462203

and on this one they're discontinuing the Lighthouse's and substituting the cowboy's.
Attachment 462204

and as I pointed out in the other thread March 27 and 28 wasn't the only dates they distributed the T36's that was just the days they started packing and shipping them.

also from our previous discussion I don't see any proof of "impossible" dates in the journal.

I think that if the Polar Bears and Coupons were printed in the same timeframe as the t206's it would be quite a coincidence that they are the only two missing from this journal however I was never suggesting they were printed in 1914 as you state I was suggesting they may have been printed shortly after the T206's or at a different facility than the t206's.

Each individual person put's a different weight on information they find in their research but for me written information from the time of occurrence like this journal is at the top for me. The information in the card catalogs with some things are a best guess based on the information known at the time but that doesn't mean we have to stop looking or accepting new information when it becomes available.

1) You posted the two Contents/Index pages that survive in 209. There is not another page in the surviving journal. Note that they record nothing before page 52. I find it extremely unlikely this is complete, and the first 51 pages of a ledger were just blank.


2) If 3/4 of the journal, and some of the index at least, is missing how can we reasonably state Coupon and Polar Bear do not appear in the journal? This is going beyond the evidence.


3) I got the 1914 implication when you stated in 229 that " I found some more information why Polar Bear probably wouldn't be in the ATC Journal. It wasn't an ATC brand until 1914." I apologize if I misunderstood, but the inference seemed to be it wasn't an ATC brand (it factually was), and was thus not printed under the ATC/ALC parternship until it was. I already stated I think PB was printed at/near the end of the 350 run which you apparently do not agree with, so I'm not sure what your timeframe is if it is not this.


4) Yes, they are substituting a Hassan series for the Hassan T53's on two different dates, significantly apart. The pages attached in your post 234 give two different release dates for the Hassan T53 series. T53 release "Started Packing Mch. 29" and "Started Delivering March 29" according to letter 1. According to letter 2, T53's "Started Packing May 23, 1911" and "Started Delivery, May 29, 1911", producing two different release dates. Both cards in the journal are F30's. We may see different possible explanations and indications of what it can mean for other sets, but your claim that my claim they have two different release dates in the journal is an "inaccuracy" is plainly false. Are you alleging that the date a set "started packing" and "started delivery" in the journal is not a release date? Will this standard be applied to the T206 pages?


5) Yes, I strongly agree T36's were not a two day issue. That was the thesis. I said this in the part you bolded, and are claiming is an inaccurate statement (It's an opinion statement on an uncertain issue, not a claim to fact by the way) I made. Note that the sentence you bolded to claim is incorrect begins "I suspect...". A Posey letter states T77 is being replaced with T36 in Hassan 30 on March 27, 1911. T53 is then replaced in Hassan 30 with T36 on March 29, 1911, which is a 2 day gap. One of the Posey letters state they are being packaged and delivered March 27, in place of T218-3, with a Mecca 30 card pictured. The next letters states Mecca has exhausted the supply of T36 and is issuing T42 March 31st, a 4 day gap.


6) I 100% agree on the supremacy of primary sources, I do not see how you are inferring I am favoring secondary sources and catalogs over primary with your next statement. You already already know well that my argument is the conflict on the cards themselves, not a date in a catalog, which I have never once cited. Who is arguing that we should "stop looking" for new information? When have I ever done this, since you are replying to me? If we're going to do this, can we stick to evidentiary grounds in good faith? I disagree with you, I do not claim you are not seeking truth and are trying to shut down the search for new information. People can simply and politely disagree.

I find the cards themselves the best tell, as this journal is of unknown provenance, unknown custody, and unknown authenticity (and was apparently modified and had pages ripped out by at least one owner to sell for profit). A card can not have been packed and delivered before events in its back text happened. T218-1 and T218-2 (Or T220-2, if it is read that way, it is even more impossible) both appear to have impossible release dates given on pages 70 and 89 that do not mesh with the text on card backs that reference specific events after that date. T218-1 is given dates in January, and May (which someone seems to have notated with an update to be June 22), 1910. Card backs reference after January, that date is not possible but the others are. T218-2 could not be released June 16, 1910 (which is before one of the dates given for series 1 even, on page 85) because the backs run through at minimum July 4, 1910. If the reference to a Tolstoi series of this name means T220-2, that could not have been released in June, because it notes events through August of 1910. There are others that I think are a bit off that are not hard evidence, like T220-2 being a March, 1911 issue in a another Posey letter, that seems awfully late based on the card content. Most of the other card sets in the journal are not of a subject kept up-to-date with recent events and so do not provide much of a clue either way on the details of release. If authentic, and I am not even saying it is not authentic, I am saying I do not know and there is little evidence either way on the provenance and authenticity of this item and thus it should not be automatically assumed this source is Gospel, there appear to be some inaccuracies in it. I do not think the data here is paramount to what is stated on card backs. I do not see how it reasonably could be.


7) I have seen 0 evidence Polar Bear's were "printed at a different facility", they seem to clearly be from American Lithographic like the rest of the cards. If printed after the other 350 cards (I suspect they were), I do not see why we would think they were done by someone else and so perfectly copied the T206's. Or are we saying American Lithographic had another facility that they actively printed the white-border series at? If so, how could we possibly conclude which backs were printed at this second shop? 3/4 of the journal, at minimum, is missing. A ton of ATC/ALC sets are not in the surviving pages.

1) The contents pages are about a particular brand/timeframe it's possible the first 50 pages were general information but even if they
weren't with the order of the other t206's (and other issues) I'm pretty certain the Polar Bear or Coupon weren't on those pages.

2) In my opinion they would absolutely be on the first contents page all the other t206's (except maybe Broad Leaf I don't know for sure if there was
another issue printed before t206's with a Broad Leaf back) are in chronological order based on their t206 distribution.

3)The Tobacco company information is a mess to try and figure out from that time. The American Tobacco Company had full control of some products and
partial control of others and they were trying to hide some information because of the forced divide, The way I read the clip I posted they didn't gain full control of The Continental Tobacco Company until 1914.


4) The release date for the T53's is March 29 so if you bought a pack of 10 Hassan cigarettes that was packed before that date you would get an
Auto Driver or a Light house in that pack if you bought one after that date you would get a Cowboy or a Light House in that pack until May 23 when they
discontinued packing the Light House cards. I haven't checked all the packing dates on the Hassan inserts but if there wasn't something substituted right
after the Light House cards were discontinued then every pack would have a Cowboy in it. My point is they didn't stop and restart packing the Cowboy's
they were packed from March 29 until they were discontinued permanently. They just shared the packing with different cards over that period.

5) I think 4 covers this one.


6) The first part was a general statement and I respect if you disagree.

For the second part ATC was only packing the cards so they were dependent on what ALC was printing for them. In most cases it wasn't a one time supply
of a particular set ALC was printing them and supplying ATC with what they printed and cards within that set changed that's where were get some of the
rarities found in most sets. In other words series 1 t218 cards weren't all necessarily printed in one printing.
So lets say there were three phases of series one the third phase is where the cards that you question the dates on would have come from.

7) I'm not suggesting the Polar Bears weren't printed by ALC I'm suggesting they might have been printed at one of their other facility's like the one in PA.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...can+Lithograph

What are some of the ton of ATC/ALC sets from 1909-1911 that aren't in the journal?

It seems reasonable to believe that Index is a full representation of the ledger's contents, if only just for practical purposes...they used it regularly and needed to get to pages quickly. A hidden "Coupon" or Polar Bear page just seems unlikely given all of the other brands' representation.

If that's the case then figuring out where these two brands were printed becomes the fun historical hunt. I hadn't seen this posted yet, so I thought I'd share. Everyone knows Knapp and ATC printed everything, here is a direct connection to the Coupon's W.R. Irby New Orleans branch, which I hadn't seen before. "The Knapp Co Lith NY"

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/00...g?v=1622992208

That is cool Jason thanks for posting that.

1) Nobody can possible know what is in pages 1-51, or if it ended at 380. None of us possibly can.

2) Same

3) That does not answer when the allegation is that Polar Bear was printed. We have walked back the 1914 not ATC claims, and so it isn't 1914. But it also isn't T206 time because it is not in the surviving elements of the ledger and wasn't done at the time they were. So when is it? Somewhere between 1911-1913?

4) They can't "start delivering" a Hassan 30 card in May if that Hassan 30 card was already being delivered in March and there was a continuous release and they have been doing so since March. Perhaps their verbiage is just imprecise and it was a continuous release (clearly alongside other sets). We do not know, the evidence is simply not here to be certain. We are all guessing on what is present.

5) The difference with T36 is we have claims of end dates, but I'm not sure it matters much.

6) There is zero evidence to indicate sets were not released as series, but in timed smaller waves instead. This is simply the assumption that best fits treating the ledger as gospel-source to explain everything. The only SP card in T218-1 is Handy, who was pulled between the Mecca and Hassan runs. Johnson (Green) was added late (He did not replace Handy) and is a super print. 3 cards had amendments made during the print run creating variations. None of this suggests wave release. Nothing in T206 suggests a handful of subjects were issued at a time, and then the next wave added and so on either. There is no actual evidence of waves being added late, much less a preponderance. There is no evidence Phil McGovern was a late addition whatsoever.

7) T68, T99, T219, some C issues they printed in this time frame like C52, T220-1 to name some examples from the top of my head I care about. Many later issues are not in what survives like T207, T227. Again though, we factually do not know what was in this complete ledger if its authenticity is assumed. Maybe T68 was included, I don't know, nobody does.



A gospel source methodology, in which all other evidence is seen through the lens of needing to conform with the gospel-source, even if those explanations appear to contradict other facts and probabilities or are much less likely than simpler explanations, is an inherently flawed methodology. I agree with some of the claims coming from what is in the ledger (quite a few, actually), but some of the claims being made do not stand up to a reasonable evidentiary standard (I would use a preponderance standard, personally). That Polar Bear is not present in the 1/4 (at absolute most, we do not and cannot possibly know how long it actually was originally) of this work whose surviving contents pages are clearly not complete does not mean it was not produced as T206. One cannot claim to know what was and was not in this work when most of it is gone, and the table of contents is plainly missing at least one page. Disagreeing with someones interpretations of an incomplete book with unknown provenance and authenticity is not tantamount to favoring secondary and tertiary sources over primary. And so on and so forth. Is there a single shred of evidence to support a claim that since PB is not T206 (a rather fluid, after-the-fact construct) outside of this series of stacking assumptions based on presence in the ledger remnants? None has been produced.

I missed the claim that PB shouldn’t be considered T206 because they weren’t in the ledger. Or that the ledger had anything to do with the “T206” definition at all.

I certainly think it’s a T206 along with “Coupon” Type-1 - they just may not have been packed at the Ledger’s place of distribution.