Appease me, please....one more time T206/T213/T215?
 

I didn't want to get into this discussion again and hijack Ted's great thread on the T206 reference, back/series updates. So, I will politely start this thread concerning my thought on T213-1 and T215 not being part of T206. Now, I as much as anyone, realize Mr.Burdick made some mistakes in his monster undertaking of the ACC. I fully understand that H801-7 should be a T-Card and W600 should be an M card. I got it. There are other things that should be changed too that are fairly obvious errors. I know we have discussed this a million times but there are folks on the board today that weren't on the board last time we discussed it. So, maybe it can benefit them in having this again, as well as appease me.

One of the ways Burdick cataloged cards was to do it by manufacturer, after he declared it an advertisement card, an insert card or a souvenir card. Of course the T206s were inserts. Of course t206s had many different ads on the back....but, as far as I know, they didn't have different color captions (unless it was an error) or different type stock. So tell me again how T213-1 is a T206, when Burdick didn't classify them that way? Same thing with the T215 series....the 2nd series has blue captions on front bottom. If anyone is tired of this debate please don't throw any rocks. It won't last too long and you don't have to click on this thread :).

My thought on t213-1's:

The only difference is the paper stock. (Though similar to an American Beauty being cut a bit slimmer)

Whats the same:
-Back design (Ted Z's has a nice lineup with AB, Cycle, etc. for comparison)
-Front Images correlate to t206 series
-Caption share same font, size and color
-Issued contemporaneously

I've always maintained that if Coupon had only released a single set of cards contemporary to the other T206 brands, Burdick would have included it with T206. But the additions of series 2 in 1914, and series 3 in 1919, complicated the issue. And I think that is the reason why we have T213-1, 2,and 3 instead.

however
 

However there are 2 other Coupon series, as Barry mentioned, and I also believe that is what led to the T213 classification. IS there a T206 back ad "series" with more than 1 series? (that sounded weird but ya'll know what I mean). Same thing with the T215 series.....Just trying to have a friendly debate here...

This has always been a debate where there are valid opinions on both sides. In fact, this is one of our better topics.

Crazy the wealth of knowledge you find on this board. While it is an interesting debate, I can't see the Coupon cards ever getting universally accepted as T206's because it would ruin everyone's established conception of "The Monster". Those poor souls who are attempting to put together back collections or even the daunting Master Set would be very sad indeed.

Leon - here's my argument

American Beauty, Sweet Caporal and Piedmont Type II's have bright gold borders around the outside and look nothing like a T206... Old Mill Type II's have bright red and/or orange borders...

All kidding aside, just as Burdick chose to group Coupons as Type I, Type II and Type III, he could have decided to classify different Sweet Caporal, Piedmont, American Beauty, etc issues as Type I, Type II, etc. He didn't. And this is where the problem comes in.

I still believe Burdick's own criteria broke down in certain instances, the biggest being that a Coupon Type I, IMO, is an extension of the T206 set. The time frame it was issued, the design, the factories, the manufacturer all match. Coupon's later issues changed the caption color instead of the border color.

Hey Jon
 

Hey Jon
I am trying to understand your logic here but I am not seeing it? Burdick classified those ones you mentioned based on their white borders and (possibly) the fact there weren't other series, as T213 and T215. That is my argument and I am not sure I would conclude anything different from your analysis. Actually, you might have helped make my argument, so I appreciate that :). And what about the paper-thin card stock issue pertaining to the T213-1's?

The Coupon's I would definitely consider counting as t206's. Mostly due to the fact that there are only 68 of them that mirror the master series, while not specifically being designated as anything other than "Base Ball Series" on the back. Which seems to fit the exact same pattern as many of the accepted t206 brands. The lack of a series number(ie:150,350...) or the use of the word assorted or assortment does concern me. But then again, I don't believe the El Principe cards mention a series number or assortment either. And due to the blue lettering I would not even really associate these with the type 2 or 3s. Basically, for all usable purposes the type-1 t213's are t206's. Although the paper stock issue does leave a lot of room for discussion.

Now for the Red Cross's. Despite being the exact same cards, the designation of "100 designs" on the back, leads me to believe that these indeed were intended to be their own set. While all other accepted T206 brands(plus the Coupons) are either generically designated as simply "Base Ball Series/Designs" or have the additional 150, 350, 350-460 or 460 Subjects while not necessarily having the corresponding number of cards available with those backs. Plus the 1912 factor really sets them aside.

This does bring me to one question though. Since the Red Cross's specifically state "100 designs", then why are there only 96? What happened to the other 4?

good points... but, except etc......
 

Very good points but it's always those little caveats that can't be explained away, at least so far, and to my liking. Look, the world isn't going to stop because I feel they are correctly classified and most others don't. It's just a nice friendly debate. I will admit the type 1's are close.....I just can't quite get there though..... :)

Leon - and here I thought you helped prove my point. If Burdick classified T206s "based on their white borders...", then Type I's should most def be included.

As for the thin stock - Coupon never made slide and shell cig packs, only paper - hence my theory why a thinner stock was used. AB's are thinner than other T206s, Polar Bears are the only ones with a solid color back - the T206 set is allowed to have small anomalies.

My take:

Agree the fronts match T206 for Coupon-1 and Red Cross-1 but Coupon would have been the only brand in quotes (trademarking method) and Red Cross, not only lists 100 subjects, but is a horizontal back, so they get their own numbers in the ACC. I think there is a much better argument the Coupon-1's should have been T206's than the Red Cross cards.

2 runs of 48 different would yield 96 subjects in Red Cross, as noted elsewhere. I guess they figured nobody would ever count them all.....

Now is Pirate complete at 96 or 97? Seems like it should be 96, don't the subject lists correlate?

I believe Burdick was absolutely correct in cataloging both T213-1 and T215-1 as separate issues. They are not T206's in my opinion. Extremely close and thus the great debate. Sorry I don't have time to elaborate further and will later if I can. Just wanted to cast my vote for "Not a T206."

I'm not led to believe that either issue are truly t206's. But the evidence does lean to the fact that it's a distinct possibility in regards to the Type-1 Coupons. I'm pretty sold on the Red-Cross's not being t206's though..

Anyways Leon. Them are some great looking Coupon's you got there. For a 2, that type-1 Matty's pretty damn sharp.

If Piedmont or Sweet Caporal also made cards in 1914 with a blue caption, Im sure Burdick would also have listed them with their own ACC # in the T213-T216+ range, and the brown caption 1909-11 Era version (T206) would be the type 1, ie T21X-1

The T213-1 and T215-1 ACC #s are correct.

Leon
 

Your 1st sentece (2nd paragraph)......
" One of the ways Burdick cataloged cards was to do it by manufacturer,"......

....is where you (or Burdick) are mistaken. What you have stated here, is that Burdick thought these cards were "manufactured" at the Factory of the Brand they advertise.
I really doubt that Burdick's thinking was as you say. We all now know that these American Tobacco cards (T3, T201, T202, T205, T206, T209, T210, T213, T214, & T215)
were all designed, printed, and shipped from one location in New York City.
But, if you are right regarding Burdick's thinking (as some collectors still do), that these cards were produced at the Factory of that Brand....then it behooves us to correct
this fallacy. The 1910 Coupon set (of 68 cards) and the T213-1 set (of 96 cards) need to be re-classified as sub-sets of the T206 Monster.


TED Z

Them Coupon Thingees
 

Okay, so let me get this straight -- we all agree that:

1. T206s have over a dozen different backs; and

2. The T213-1 Coupons have identical fronts, including associated player and team designations, to corresponding T206 cards, and were issued within the 1909-11 time frame.

The first time I learned this, I immediately realized that there was a mis-classification here.

Let me try to end this debate --

1. Put a T213-1 Coupon Red Background Ty Cobb in a stack with the 16 other T206 Red Background Cobbs with every available back -- EPDG, Piedmont, Polar Bear, American Beauty, etc.

2. Grab a non-baseball card collecting fan from the general public.

3. Tell the person that one of the cards is not a T206, but the other 16 are.

I would bet you'll get as many or more votes for AB or PB than for your Coupon card....


There is simply no relevance to a classification based on a later series of cards issued in later years.

T213-1
 

T213-1 coupon is a T206 without equivocation.
as Paul M argues succinctly and persuasively:
They "have identical fronts, including associated players and team designations,to corresponding T206 cards, and were issued within the 1909-11 time frame." And i must say that the writing on the backs sure reminds me of the look of some of the T206 backs as Ted has elucidated quite well on several occasions on various threads.
I am not as certain about the red cross but lean toward their being included but do so with some equivocation presently. As the old professors would say:
it looks like a matter for further research and additional corroboration from peers in the refereed scholarly journals or scholarly reviewed monographs.
all the best,
barry

without equivocation? really?
 

Hi Barry
You know you are one of my favorite guys on the board, but when you see 3 very experienced collectors, out of the last 4-6 posts, completely disagree with the assumption that T213-1 is a T206, you can find there is no equivocation? I find that to be a rather fallacious syllogism.

The more I read this, and recall the last time this was hashed, the more satisfied I am that those of us who have an opinion on this are steadfast in their thinking, and aren't likely to change their thinking. Including me.

IF the only Coupon cards that we find were all Coupon type 1's, then I'd think they could, nay should be in T206. But those aren't the only Coupons (and no, I don't consider that conceding all that it takes to make Coupons, or ALL Coupons, into T206s. If Coupon 1's had "350" series (which would be consistent with their subjects, captions, and timeframe) then I might get there. But Coupon 2's have that gloss, and the blue... and the time-line on the 2's and 3's are way beyond that of the T206s. For me lumping Coupon's together seems sensible. Those Coupons issues years after T206s and the blue captions dragged the entire issue away from T206 and into their own thing, T213's.


It seems to me that some folks just 'want' them to be T206s. Like some folks want that glossy front, one of a kind, Ty Cobb backed Ty Cobb card to be a T206; I'm satisfied it isn't.

As for T215's, one oddity for me is the horizontally formatted back. That's always caused me concern. I could see, as above, that if the type 1 T215's were the only Red Cross cards, then I can see how they might have crept into T206. I understand what's got everyone agitated and stirred. But Red Cross continued with their type 2 cards. Which are different, and which are being printed much after T206 production has stopped. And these later printed type 2 cards are reason for a separate designation, T215, again dragging all Red Crosses into that one designation.

The chronology is a significant factor. I have doubts any modern printer would be able to print a card exactly like a T206 was printed. I think there are a couple of places that can do that quality of lithography, maybe. [It amazes me that a kid looks at a modern Topps card, and at a T206, and thinks the Topps card has superior printing, that old lithography is beyond what Topps could do... it's art.] If I were to print a new 550 series card on identical cardstock (I'll buy a bunch of T51's, bleach 'em clean, then soak 'em clean), with identical style, there's not a one of you who'd think that should be considered a T206. Why, because it was printed later, not contemporaneously, with our dear T206s. THAT's what's happened here. Those later issued Coupon and Red Cross cards pull the type 1's away from T206 and into their own designation.

It seems to me that some folks just "want" these cards to be T206s. Similar to how some folks want that Ty Cobb backed, glossy front, red border Ty Cobb card to be a T206; I'm satisfied it isn't.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j1...Tportraits.jpg
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j1...raitsbacks.jpg

Leon
 

I am inclined to think that all arguments on this thread, including my own,
exhibit syllogistic fallacy. My use of the word 'equivocation', however, is not
fallacious, since the fallacy of equivocation is committed when one uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time around. There is no such ambiguity offered in my use of the words in the initial sentence with which you find fault.
Further, 3 collector out of the 4 of the last 6 posts may well find fault with the data provided within the syllogism, as you, and even I do, but their arguments do not deal intentionally, nor obliquely with the issue of the fallacy of equivocation as I explicate above.

Perhaps more importantly, we have become mighty good friends over the years!!!!
all the best,
barry

ok
 

Hey 'Ole Friend,
I think I will just go with ya' on this one. First ones on me when we meet!! Happy collecting,
LL

Leon
 

Since you didn't reply to my earlier post here, I guess you are of the opinion that these WHITE-BORDERED, BROWN-CAPTIONED
Tobacco cards that were issued in 1910 to 1912 were designed and printed at each Tobacco factory.

Furthermore, you are the one (not Barry A.) who are fallacious, using a brief response and faulting him.
Even your partner, Scott, favors these cards as being "T206's"......
" Many thanks Ted,

This in and of itself should be considered a major reference in regards to the matrix of T206's.

For the record I fall into including T213-1 and 215-1 as part of this comprehensive production. If one did not have knowledge of
Burdick's guide, and laid them out as you have in the scan of backs you would absolutely believe them to be part of the family. "


A larger representative survey would result in better representation of this controversy.

Oh, by the way, THANKS for hi-jacking my thread.

TED Z

I'll try to keep this brief and if anyone cares for me to elaborate on anything just let me know.

The T206 set follows a very rigid rule when it comes to subject groups being discontinued. Once the print runs for the 150-350 Only group had concluded and the 350 Only group printing began the 150-350 Only cards were never printed again. Same goes for the transition to the 460 Series. No 150-350 or 350 Only subject is brought back during those print runs. The Coupon Type 1 set does just that. It combines 150-350 Subjects with 350 Only subjects. By the time the 350 Only group was being printed the Southern League players had been pulled from printing.

As far as the back design is concerned it does look like the American Beauty, Broad Leaf, Cycle, and Drum, but that is where the set similarities end. We know that the A+B+C+D group front images were preprinted and then printed with all four back designs. The sets are a match with the same players included and excluded. The Coupon Type 1 set includes players that are no prints in the A+B+C+D group. This shows me that the Coupon set is unrelated other than back design.

I believe the Coupon Type 1's were a unique set created using existing T206 materials to save costs but not part of the T206 set.

Let's also not overlook the fact that Coupon Type I's say "Base Ball Series" on the back. Type IIs and IIIs did not retain this. Further proof, IMO, that Coupon I's were issued in the same "series" as T206s since every T206, regardless of brand, states "Base Ball Series."

I might be more inclined to agree with those who feel content with Type I's being classified with other Coupon types if the IIs and IIIs had retained this language - but the later types didn't. Only the Type Is have it.

Again, I see no difference between Sweet Caporal and Piedmont issuing cards in both the T206 and T205 sets - clearly different sets and the cards look different. Same with Type Is and IIs/IIIs - different sets and the cards look different.

Exactly. And in the absence of later Coupon sets from the post-T206 era, I think there is no doubt that Burdick and everybody since would consider them to be T206s.

My vote goes with Coupon Type 1's as T206.
JimB

I do love this debate and always have, but I do have a question.

According to the experts on the board, what would it take to make the T213-1's a T206? Would it be some kind of documentation from ATC as to orders, print runs, or marketing action plans produced by the leadership team of the ATC in late 1909? Would it be something else (AB wet sheet transfer?)? I am just wondering. In my work life, I am not a fan of debating, I just like to know what it takes to sway opinion to believing in a fact, and then work to that goal. I am not saying that this would ever be produced, but just wondering what it would take.

O hell, that sounded like a work email! Please forgive me!!! Also, I would love to see some answers to this question.

Hope all is well,
Bob

For the past few weeks [months?], I have been watching Ted's threads about the various confirmed back lists for each 'accepted' T206 brand. As he got closer to list number 14 I started to wonder if he'd then post a Coupon Type 1 and/or Red Cross Type 1 list. And once that happened, I wondered who would be the one to post the "are they or aren't they" thread. I don't think we'll ever get consensus on the issue, much like we'll never get consensus on who should and shouldn't be in the hall of fame. I guess that's what makes baseball -- and baseball cards -- fun. So many angles, so many opinions, so many debates. And sometimes they can even be friendly ones ;)

When this argument came around the last time, I found myself wanting to believe that T213-1 and T215-1 *should* be T206s. That's right, I said it. I *wanted* to believe. I hoped that some shred of unquestionable proof would be presented to seal the deal, but none ever did. At the same time, I didn't see that there was that one piece of unquestionable proof to prove the opposite, either. And as such, for me, I'm not convinced one way or the other, which allows me to believe what I want. And as Frank [I believe it was] stated earlier, some people just want them to be T206s. I'm one of those people.

However, out of respect for the work that Burdick did, I won't call them T206s. In my mind they are all 1909-12 American Tobacco Company White Borders. And maybe it's only because the fronts are so identical, but that's good enough for me for now.


Regards,

Richard.

Honestly Bob - not even sure a wet sheet like you pose would do the trick. There is no question the cards were printed at American Litho in NYC... same place the "accepted" T206s were printed. It's easy to speculate that the cards were being printed at the same time, and a wet sheet transfer happened that way. After all, there are T206s backs that have laxative ads printed on them - originating from some other print run that American Litho must have contemporeanously been doing.

I think this is certainly one of those friendly debates where the sides will forever stay apart.

Well said, Richard.

Bob, can you look at it from the other perspective, what proof would convince you that T213-1's and T215-1's should be as Mr. Burdick designated them, and not T206's???

I agree 100% with that statement even if I feel strongly that they are not T206's. As I've stated in my previous post the T213-1's contradict how the T206's were printed and I won't be able to get past that I don't think. But if someone else can that's all good too. It's a fun conversation.

I would think an AB wet sheet transfer on a coupon would be very suspect. Brands just wouldn't have been likely to get mixed like that.
I've totally revised my thinking aboout wet sheet transfers/ offset transfers recently. I showed why in a recent thread that drew no attention.

I'm on the fence about Coupon and Red Cross Type 1s being T206s. The best argument against the coupons that I've seen is the timing of the print run and what cards are included. That puts the production outside of normal T206 production so I'd be inclined to lean towards the no side.

Does any ATC paperwork exist? I wonder how the brands were chosen to include T206s or not. Was it part of a company wide overall marketing campaign, or were there individual brand managers who had a choice.
I can see maybe the Coupon manager either getting approval in late or deciding later on that he wanted certain groups of players and cheaper stock. That might sway me into thinking they are t206s.

I'm also a bit biased against the idea. Firstly from tradition. Silly, perhaps, but I like silly old traditions. Secondly because I have no Type 1 Coupons or Red Cross. I've come to grips with the probability that I'll always be 3 backs short of a complete back set, adding 2 more fairly tough ones would be a bit of a setback.

Steve B

Steve B

Duality Theory for Coupon Type 1 and Red Cross
 

I propose that Coupon Type 1's are both T213-1's and T206's. Same goes for Red Cross' being both T215's and T206's.

This is easily explained using quantum mechanics.

Sir Isaac Newton (Leon) claimed that light (Coupon Type 1 or Red Cross) behaved as particles (T213-1 or T215, respectively).

Contemporaneously (I kinda like that word), Christian Huygens (Ted Z) was steadfast in that light (Coupon Type 1 or Red Cross) behaved as waves (T206).

Eventually the work of great minds such as Planck (No, not the pitcher), Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein, and others brought forth the Duality Theory, which recognized that light (Coupon Type 1 or Red Cross (remember this post is about baseball cards)) behaves as both particles (T213-1 or T215, respectively) and waves (T206).

And I just realized that Physics and Physical Chemistry would have been a lot easier if I had collected these T-Cards back when I was in college :D

Best Regards,
Craig

SGC's labels are incorrect. These cards were not put out by the "Coupon Cigarette Company," but by the American Tobacco Company, same as T206's. Anyone know why they started labeling them that way?

Tim C......et al
 

1st......Your...." Once the print runs for the 150-350 Only group had concluded and the 350 Only group printing began the 150-350 Only cards were never printed again."

Not true....the T215-1 set has a confirmed Matty (white cap) card in it.

2nd......Your...." The Coupon Type 1 set includes players that are no prints in the A+B+C+D group. "

Not so....Most of the 48 Major League (ML) subjects in the T213-1 set can be found with AB 350, BL 350, CY 350, and DRUM backs.
Furthermore, I count as many as 15 of these 48 ML subjects that are in the T215-1 set.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey people, if we are to have a serious debate on this subject lets get our facts straight. So far, all I have seen is some people have some sort of loyal following to Burdick;
and, are averse to changing anything he proclaimed. But, he was NOT INFALLIBLE.
Others think, that the school of thought that COUPON-1 and RED CROSS-1 belong to the T206 family, lean that way because...." some people just want them to be T206s ".
The MONSTER is complicated enough, so what sane collector would want to add more T-brands to this complex mix ? ?

In my mind the one factual piece of evidence is illustrated in this scan. One artist employed by American Litho. designed these 5 backs in the Spring of 1910. And, 1000's of
WHITE-BORDERED, BROWN CAPTIONED T206 cards with these advertising backs were inserted in their respective cigarette packs in the Summer of 1910.

<img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/at206quintuplicatedesign.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

TED Z

Frank,
Nice reply (and also the others, thanks), see my thoughts below!

Craig,
It is easy to see our different areas of work based on our replies! Hope all is well my friend.

I was once asked in a Lit class what Hemmingway had in mind when he wrote one of his short stories. My reply was (to this one instance), that he had nothing in mind, he was just writing to make a few bucks and pass some time. As much as I hate to say it, I am inclined to think that the ATC was marching to the same beat.

Our well loved T cards, produced by the ATC were just slinging material. There was no grand plan, as much as I wish otherwise. I think with the thin stock of the T213-1's, could have just as easily been used for a percentage of the 350 Cycles. I think they had a tiny run request from the Coupon brand manager (!) and just happened to have some crap stock on hand from the board vendor and ran the Coupons to run it out, being that the on hand stock was equal to the 350 series order requested by the boys in NOLA. After all the cards were going down to BFE LA, so who cares about quality control!

I have checked the replies to my last post and see plenty of beating around the bush. I am well aware of the reasons not to include the T213-1's, but what would make them T206's without question?

As always, bottoms up,
Bob

Ted I always treat you with respect on the board regardless of how much I may disagree with you. Please show me the same respect and heed your own request to "get our facts straight" before posting. At least if you're going to respond regarding my posts give me the courtesy of reading it first or asking me to clarify before telling me to get my facts straight.

1) The first quote you posted by me was referring to the T206 set. The 215-1 set as you stated does include a Matty which is contradictory to how the T206 set was printed.

2) Yes the T213-1 set does include SOME of the players included in the T206 ABCD group but it more importantly includes some that were not printed in that group. That is a far more important point that shouldn't be ignored.

T215-1's are NOT T206's due to the updated teams and their years of distribution (neither are the Pirate backs), as for the T213-1's I agree 100% with Barry when he stated the following...

Had any of the other T206 manufacturers later produced a set similar to the T213-2 or T215-2 or Victory Tobacco they also would have probably been catalogued seperately as T21X-1 as well.

-Rhett

My simple question is this, if Burdick would have written his book in 1912 instead of when he did, would he have classified Coupon Type 1's as T206 or T213?

I can easily see him counting Coupon Type 1's as T206's if he had written the book in 1912 and then, if he updated the book in 1920 or so, counting Coupon Type 2's and 3's as a new category - T213's.

Why a new category? Because he would have already counted the first series Coupons as T206's and then he would either have had to drag them out and put them in the new category or put the two later series in T206 also. If he did this, then he might also have had to include T215's in the T206 series since the Type 1's are similiar to T206's.

The problem then, as I see it, is WHEN Burdick wrote his book. He wrote it years after the cards were produced and lumped them together based on the advertisements on the backs instead of the size, player content and similiarities on the fronts.

David

I agree completely with Rhett and Barry as to why Burdick cataloged the T213-1 and T215-1 as he did. My opinion is he did the right thing but more than likely for the wrong reason.

I come down firmly on the side of including T213-1 and T215-1 as part of the T206 family. The similarities, to my thinking, outweigh any of the differences in stock or team caption. Although I am not a non-sport collector, I think a useful parallel might be the R73 Indian Gum set. Despite the differences in the color of the banner ad at the bottom of the cards, background color changes and the various "series of..." reverses, all 400+ varieties were produced by Goudey in the '30's and all are called R73. Even the post-war version gets a R773 designation. Here, regardless of the brand advertised and the caption and stock, the cards we now call T206, T213-1 and T215-1 were all produced by ALC in the 1909-12 time frame. To me, the rationale seems to be similar. Why lump one set and not the other? I think Burdick got wrapped up in the brand/factory designations as the primary identifying feature of the cards and ignored or was unaware of the printing point of origin for these cards as being the overriding common denominator.

I am also a no on the 215 card.
Bob

Leon and Ted
 

Just got in after a lengthy class and must say that what i missed here seems much more interesting. Even though i taught the class. :(
Just had to say thanks Leon for the offer of free libations at the appointed time---and thanks Ted for the kind words of support.

all the best,friends

barry

I agree with Rhett's point about caption updates. And with Tim... And it is obvious t see that we all still think of this much as we did last time we thrashed with it.

I don't buy the idea of what if Mr. Burdick wrote the book in 1912... he'd have lumped them all together. To me that is an argument for separating them, how things can be better seen and understood with the perspective of time.

As for Ted's great scan of backs back there in post #35....
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j1...catedesign.jpg
These bad boys bolster keeping Coupon's separate from T206s. All of those cards up there mention series 350, but for one. And that one is the one with those quotes. And that brand kept on with glossy front cards with the same images, blue captions with the same images, and updated captions years after T206 production. Those rascals seem different to me.


I think the Coupon cards and the Red Cross Cards were made by pilfering the artwork and style that had gone before with our traditional white border tobacco cards.

"These bad boys bolster keeping Coupon's separate from T206s. All of those cards up there mention series 350, but for one. And that one is the one with those quotes. "

I don't really see what the quotes have to do with anything. Now If the quotes completely surrounded "Coupon (Mild) Cigarettes Baseball Series", then maybe I could agree that the quotes were relevant. But they don't. Now, I understand what you're trying to get at when it comes to Coupon's being the only one with that design to not have the 350. But it just seems too arbitrary to me. Now while not having the same advertisement design, the El Principe cards don't have any series designation, nor do they mention anything about "Assortments" either. Basically, every issue other than El Principe has a series designation or the simple use of the word Assortment(or assorted). Should that be considered a separate issue because it stands alone in that regard amongst the accepted brands?

Complete and total laziness in the design of the 1914 and 1919 series of Coupon seems to be the root source of all this mess. Although, the paper-stock with the type-1 is a damning issue all it's own. But that alone isn't reason enough to disclude Coupons from the Monster without more evidence against it.


Red-Cross to me still doesn't belong with the T206's.

Ted you say Hey People but use Tims quote about getting facts straight.
You saying, getting your facts straight, doesn't mean your facts are correct.

You use the t215-1 Matty white cap as an example of the 150 back along with the 350 and the 460s in the 215 set. This alone separates the 215 set-That does not happen anywhere in the 206 set. There are no 150s printed along with later series backs. Once the 150 fronts were stopped being used the set does NOT use them again. That is how we knew the Red Hindu Matty portrait was a fake. Even when the RH Matty was in a graded holder we knew it was no good because of this rule and you use an example from 215 to prove your point when actually it separates the 215 from 206.

You can address other collectors that have a different opinion however you want but "getting your facts straight" is disrespectful. How would you feel if you were addressed this way.
Hmm. let me see, I bet if that happened you would tell them they are "reinventing the wheel".

My opinion is 213 and 215 are related to 206, in front image only. If you know 150s are not issued later in the 206 set you can see how and why Burdick separated these issues.

These sets are very complex and Burdick got this one right.

I think I can make my point a little more clearly.

At the time the T213-1 set was printed the 20 players from the Southern Association had been discontinued from the T206 set.

At the time the T215-1 set was printed many of the images in the set like those from the 150 and 350 series had been discontinued from the T206 set.

At no time in the printing of the T206 set did ATC or ALC bring back images once they were discontinued.

In my opnion the use of these discontinued images shows me that these two sets were put together with existing images created for the T206 set, however were not part of the T206 set.

Yes. The chronology separates T213's and T215's from the T206s.

I am hoping this is a joke as it is one!! I specifically started this thread so as NOT to hijack the other one. As for the time line I didn't address, I think it has been addressed quite well already. I doubt there will be a consensus on this subject so I will defer to what Burdick did and what is continuing in the hobby. Proof is in the pudding.....

Jefferson Burdick did a heck of a job classifying sportscards (pre-WWII and post-war). His classification of Non-sports cards is even more impressive.
No one here denies this, we all owe Mr. Burdick a great debt of gratitude. Along with Buck Parker, Lionel Carter, Frank Nagy, etc., etc.

Having said that, there are a small % of flaws in his dating, or clarifying certain mysteries regarding certain BB cards. Regarding the T213-1 & T215-1,
can anyone show that Burdick was aware that these sets were issued in 1910, and 1910-12, respectively ?
Furthermore, was Burdick even aware that the majority of the American Tobacco Co. (ATC) cards were printed by one lithographer (American Litho.)
in New York City.
I'm not sure he did....and, this is the crux of this entire controversy.

Now, to "hang your hats" on such trivial differences regarding the COUPON-1 cards because they are printed on less rigid cardboard, or have quota-
tion marks on the word COUPON is grasping at straws.

Jon Canfield has provided a logical explanation for the softer cardboard stock......
"As for the thin stock - Coupon never made slide and shell cig packs, only paper - hence my theory why a thinner stock was used."

Quotations on the COUPON brand are there because in the Summer of 1910, this tobacco brand was not yet part of the ATC monopoly. Quotations
were also applied to the PIRATE brand, since it was a British owned tobacco company.


<img src="http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/apiratecigpack.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

<img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/at206quintuplicatedesign.jpg" alt="[linked image]">


It's interesting that when we debated this subject in July 2008, there was 132 responses, of which there were 22 unique opinions.....17 in favor
of including the T213-1 cards in the T206 family. And, 5 keeping the T213-1 cards separate.
Link........
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon


TED Z

First of all you didn't address your oversight of me hijacking your thread, quite to the contrary, this is a thread I started?

Secondly, I respect Jon's studies on tobacciana as much as anyone I know, however, the above statement that you quoted of his is exactly the reason I think it doesn't hold water. It would make no sense to put a paper thin card in a paper pack, it would make more sense to put a thicker one in there for reinforcement, and there is precedent for that. regards

Leon - actually, the thicker card would pose a problem. Coupon cigarette packs are very thin paper. The use of a thicker card would have likely torn the pack.

Imagine a newly printed card with sharp corners being inserted into a thin paper pack - it would easily have torn open the product. And, after all, the card was a companion piece to the cigarettes. So, if the insert was ruining good packs of cigarettes, well then we have a problem since the product being sold is the cigarettes, not the card, and who would buy a torn pack of cigarettes?

While I certainly agree with you that it would be logical to use sturdier cardboard for a thin paper pack, practically speaking, it would have ruined the product - so a thinner, more flixible cardboard would have been more proper. Also, let's not forget that while cigarette cards were originally conceived (so the rumor goes) to add a stiffener to cigarette packs, by 1909-1911, this was not the case. Cards were widely collected at this point, and inserting cards into packs had become a "cracker jack for adults." This is clearly evident by the fact certain issues had redemptions T3s, T4s, etc. for example. Cards were collectible - the practical use of the cardboard was a thing of the past.

Jon, thicker paper, the thickness of T206's would pose a problem for the cigarette packages of Coupon Cigarettes, and would pose another factor for including the cards in with the T206 grouping.

It seems to me that the "Coupon" division of the ATT decided they wanted cards too, like their full priced cousins (Piedmont, Sovereign, et al) so they eventually got cards too, although thinner, and without a series designation... maybe because they weren't part of the 150 - 350 - 460 series of the other brands.

Brands with a series designation:

American Beauty
Broad Leaf
Cycle
Drum
Piedmont
Sovereign
Sweet Caporal


Brands with no series designation:

Carolina Brights
El Principe de Gales
Hindu
Lenox
Old Mill
Polar Bear
Tolstoi
Uzit


Maybe those 7 with the series designation should be one thing, and the 8 with no designation should be something else.


Thanks, Ted, for digging up that old thread, and providing the link. It doesn't surprise me that the 17 to 5 is skewed towards adding T213's and/or T215's to the T206 grouping. Almost all vintage collectors either start with T206's, or gravitate to them. So those cards are somewhat of a first love. And collectors will like the idea of adding to them. Just like that crazy, glossy front, red portrait Ty Cobb card.

I wasn't aware of this fact, Frank. Good piece of information.

Thank you, sir.

Well what old card got you interested in old cards? If it wasn't T206's, how long thereafter before you got a T206?? And do you have any T206's now???

I think most collectors start with contemporary cards. Then they might work their way back a bit. Then, if they continue to expand their collecting range, they leap back to a favorite year or card style. Either that gets them to vintage cards, or their interest in the game and game history gets them there. A kid knows about the 'Wagner' card. And while they can't own one maybe, they can buy a card from the same 'set' (which is what we're discussing here, or were, until I was jumped).

The fact that Burdick applied the moniker "T206" to cover cards with and without series designations means that the lack of a series designation on T213-1 is completely irrelevant to a determination here.

In addition, T206 is (obviously) my true collecting love. I also really dig Burdick. I have absolutely no interest in adding to T206 or correcting a flawed Burdick. I just happen to think this one is pretty obvious, bordering on the undeniable.

I find the arguments against including T213-1's as T206s wholly unpersuasive and easily rebutable, primarily because there is already so much variation among the different backs -- such a wide net was thrown by Burdick to cover multiple series of cards, with player variations, series size, and cardboard size (AB), it seems almost negligent to exclude T213-1. The logic for including each of the 16 different back types simply belies the logic to exclude T213-1 -- the rationale for including the 16 different backs cannot coexist with a rationale for excluding T213-1.

Moreover, I think it is obvious that Burdick excluded the T213-1s based on the later-issued Coupon series (some of the T213-1 fans arguing for exclusion essentially admit as much), and would not have done so had he known that they were issued contemporaneously with the other T206s -- which it also appears obviously to me that he did not (indeed the different later series likely provided a means for confusion here). And no one has come up with a valid response to Jon's point that T205s should have been T206-2 by the "exclusion-by-reason-of-later-series" logic, since, e.g., Piedmont made both T205s and T206s.

And, if Burdick was persuaded by the paper stock, it was because he did not realize how they were packaged in paper and that they therefore needed to be thinner, as Jon, our resident packaging expert, expertly pointed out.

Finally, to suggest that we should blindly rely on Burdick because of the passage of time, the current graded card flips, or the apparent genius of the man, is to ignore the question being asked -- namely, whether our current reliance on this age-old numbering practice should be revisited based on current knowledge of issuance of these little cardboard beauties and, most obviously, because they look one-and-the-same.

I think if your position is that we should focus on the company/brand for whom the cards were produced, then you are likely to agree with Burdick and leave the system as is, possible warts and all.
If your position (like mine) is that the focus should be on the company that actually printed the cards, you come down on the side of lumping the various brands advertised thereon.

As I said earlier, I do see a precedent for "lumping" - R73 Indian Gum. Non-sports guys must be able to cite other multi-year, multi-series sets printed by the same company that have one ACC #.

Paul thanks for the well thought out post. We are obviously on opposite sides concerning whether T213-1's should be considered as a T206 so could you address how the T213-1's don't fit the printing process of the T206's?

The T206 set as we know it was printed with over 36 unique ad backs and none of those backs were printed with 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time. Each group was printed for a run and then retired to make room for the next group all the way through the set. Once a group was retired it was not brought back. So how then does the T213-1 set fit into the T206 set when it deviates from this process?

Help me
 

You're going to have to hold my hand through this a little bit, okay?

I don't understand this sentence. I assume you get to 36 by taking into account the different factories, overprints, and advertising colors (red/brown hindu, brown/black old mill, etc.). I do not know what you mean that "none of those backs were printed with 150-350 and 350 only subjects at the same time." Red Cobb portraits were printed with these backs, right?

Again, what about, e.g., Red Cobb?


Again, when was Red Cobb retired? And how does T213-1 deviate from this process?

Maybe you could help answer my questions by explaining how the production of EPDG and Polar Bear differ from the production of T213-1?

Well said Tim. These cards have some "similarities"....but that's about it. And when you factor in that they came out with a second and third series (T-213) where they moved even further away from imitating a T206, it seems to me that Mr.Burdick got it completely right in the way he classified these cards.

Sincerely, Clayton

Yes, I am taking into consideration all of the unique back designs within the T206 set.

The Red Cobb portrait is a super print. This card along with five others were introduced with the 350 Only group. When ATC and ALC retired the 350 Only group they carried over these 6 into the 350-460 group. This accounts for their being found with so many backs but doesn't contradict my point. The Red Cobb was not taken out of production and then brought back.

T213-1 deviates from this process because once the 150-350 Subjects were retired and the printing of the 350 Only players began, no 150-350 subject was ever printed again. T213-1 printed 150-350 subjects together with 350 Only subjects. This did not happen in the T206 set.

The two assorted backs that the 150-350 and 350 only cards shared were Old Mill and EPDG. However they were not printed all in one big batch. There were print runs for the assorted backs during each groups print runs. EPDG's for example would have been run during the 150-350 printing, again during the 350 Only, again during the 350-460, and again in the 460 Only runs. So the 150-350 subjects and 350 Only subjects were printed separately with assorted backs not at the same time. This was not the case with the T213-1's. They were printed all together at the same time.

Please let me know if I need to clarify anything further. I'm not the best at explaining myself on the forum apparently and I apologize for the confusion.

For those that believe that Burdick got the Coupon designation right, can anyone name another "T" set (or heck, even an "E" set for that matter), where Burdick grouped the set into types, and each type sub-set was issued with 5-year breaks inbetween?

To illustrate what I'm asking - Obaks, for example, are divided into T212 Type I, II and III. But type I was issued in 1909, type II in 1910, and type III in 1911. The release was consecutive.

In the case for Coupons - Burdick lumped them altogether into the T213 designation with different types, but give me an example of another set where type I was issued, then there was a 4 year gap before the type IIs were issued, and then a 5 year gap before the type IIIs were issued?

Again, this adds to my belief Burdick did not get the groupong for Coupons correct.

Any chance that the blue letters used on the later series', point to the fact that they were intended to be their own individual issues? This lettering change seems to be an indication that the type-1's were part of the American Tobacco series that are now known as t206's. Thus the need for the lettering change. Call 'em lazy, call 'em what you will. Other brands changes styles all-together, Coupon took the easy way out by simply updating teams and letter colors, 4 years later...

even if....
 

I don't know of any other sets that this was done in, period. So I am not sure that proves anything at all. I also politely disagree about the theory of using paper thin cards in paper type packaging. I think it would be more likely to have the thinner cardboard/paper in a thicker pack. When I handled the Pirates pack I had, it was a paper type (thin) pack and had a cardboard type card in it.

**My theory is that Burdick classified Coupon backs as T213 when he saw them as the same sets (according to the ad on back), from different years, with different characeristics but the same mfg back. It's as simple as that...and thus they are in fact T213 and always will be. I am comfortable with it as well as all of the grading companies and many other knowledgeable collectors. There will never be 100% agreement. All that being said, I could still be persuaded to change my mind, though nothing I have read yet does that. Kind regards

So....

1. 150-350 Subjects were retired and then the 350 Only Series began; but

2. Old Mill and EPDG deviate from this axiom; and

3. So does T213-1; but

4. T213-1 is different from OM and EPDG, because the latter were issued in batches rather than all at once; and therefore

5. T213-1 is not a T206?

Did I follow this logic? Are you basically pinning your argument to the assertion that OM and EPDG were issued in batches and T213-1 was issued all at once? If so, I do not see how you get from 4 to 5 above.

Leon,
The flaw in your logic is that its basically circular - Burdick classified them as T213, therefore they must be T213. I think when distilled that your argument is that Burdick aligned them with similar sets from different years and there is nothing wrong with that. But if that's the case, was Burdick wrong for not calling gold bordered Piedmont cards T206-2? Will you admit that his decision not to call gold bordered Piedmont cards T206-2 was inconsistent with his decision to not call T213-1s T206s?

I guess of course this could be true, but the problem is it boils down to speculation. I like to believe that Burdick knew a little more than we do about the issue being that he was a kid when these cards were produced, and he may have known these were their own issue (T213-1, T213-2, and T213-3).

He loved these cards enough to take the time to catalogue them all, so I accept the designation he gave them. I also feel they are not T206's.

Sincerely, Clayton

No, I must have confused you and I'll try to clarify.

1) Is true.

2) Old Mill and EPDG do not deviate. When the 150-350 run was being printed they printed backs with EPDG and some with Old Mill. 150-350 production stopped and was replaced by 350 Only subjects. Once they began printing these images they printed some with Old Mill and some with EPDG. They never printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time.

3) T213-1 printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time. This did not happen at anytime in the T206 print runs with any back.

4) T213-1 are different than EPDG and Old Mill.

5) 1-4 lead me to conclude T213-1 are not T206's.

Once the images were pulled from production in the T206 set it makes sense for them to be reused as a low cost alternative to creating a new set from scratch for another project separate from T206.

I might need some examples...
 

....because I don't see the significance of what you see.

How do you know:

1. That T213-1 printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time; and

2. That this did not happen at anytime in the T206 print runs with any back?

No, I said that it was as simple as Burdick saw "Coupon" on the backs of all 3 series, having the paper thin type 1's, the front captions being different (brown or blue), with much wider years of issuance, and therefore he labeled them correctly as T213 Coupons, as those characteristics did not fit in with T206. It's that simple.

As for T205, they have gold borders, and if you read his description in the ACC, that is the reason he labeled them the next series up. I really don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend? Just read what the gentleman wrote and it will explain everything. And of course he was human and made a few errors, however on these I don't think he did. Plus then you have to go into Hassan and HLC for the T205's and they weren't in T206, though I still think he labeled them according to their borders. (Again, I cheated, I read the ACC)

This is on the money IMO.

Sincerely, Clayton

I'm not necessarily saying they are or aren't t206's. I'm not opposed one bit to them being a separate issue. I find myself on the fence, leaning towards inclusion though...BUT I will admit that while Burdick made errors in some classifications, he also had more info to go on by being closer to that era. He may not have personally remembered the exact time-lines for everything, but had others who were a little older to ask, and maybe that's why he made the designation. I don't know though.

Anyways, this is baseball. In fact this issue perfectly fits the history of baseball, and it's origins. Many questions remain, that unfortunately can NEVER truly be answered. There is no definite evidence either way, and it will forever be left to simple speculation and personal beliefs.

I'll finish with something a little off topic. Since we have no definitive answers about the origins of American Baseball, I'm perfectly content to accept this theory.
http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/ar...als-to-p,7017/

Nice!! Thanks for the link. Not to take this too far off of the original topic, but what is to be made of the T216's? Here is a Louisiana tobacco issue that draws it's subject matter from the E90-1 and E92 caramel cards!! You also have one type with a glossy finish (similar to the T213-2) and the other is thin paper (similar to the T213-1)................but both with brown lettering at the bottom.

Sincerely, Clayton

I wish there was a simple way for me to answer those two questions but there isn't. I can tell you I have studied how ATC and ALC grouped and printed cards throughout the T206 print runs and feel everything I have told you to be factual to the best of my knowledge.

Based on this information and what I know about T213-1's they were printed in the same manner as the T206's and the T213-1's were printed on two different sheets. No matter how you group the set onto the two sheets in the manner ALC printed these cards you mix 150-350 and 350 Only subjects. Something that never happened (based on my research) in the printing of the T206 set.

Well, if you could affirmatively establish a printing rule for the T206 set that was not followed by any of the other T206 backs, you would have me somewhat convinced that they should be treated differently. However, since different backs had different print runs, I'm not that it really tells us anything substantive. Moreover, I suspect that Leon's point about the later T213 Series being Burdick's motivation for a different classification is why we have the different classifications. I would wager Burdick had no idea about the print runs you speak of. Thus, at best, Burdick may have been "right" but for what I believe were unjustified reasons.

Burdick had help from many other collectors; I forget who helped him with the T Baseball cards but it was a prominent name as I recall. Don't forget that there could have been some access to information back them that we do not have today that helped divide up the ACC and the subgroupings.

Now I am following this and the related Red Cross thread with some interest as the debate is fascinating to me. A bigger question might be why are the type 1 Coupons and the Red Cross cards not assigned the same T number? Timing of the issues being later than T206 would have seemingly been a factor Burdick could have considered when classifying these two.

That's basically what I said in post #40. :)

I wish I could better explain my position but I appreciate you giving me multiple opportunities to clarify my point. I think we got close to an understanding.

I'm open-minded about the issue. I just need something a bit more concrete than some of the circular reasoning expressed in this thread. I would also need proof of the printing differentials you speak of. Given his extreme understanding and passion about T206 backs, how is it that Ted and you don't see eye to eye on this issue? Where do you guys differ in terms of understanding T206/T213-1 differentiation? Is it the weight you each put on the (in)significance of the print runs?

I too remain as open minded about any subject like this as I can and enjoy reading anyone's perspective whether we agree or not. I'm not exactly sure where Ted and I differ on our opinions or if he has ever considered the point of view that I am coming from. I will have to go back and read his opinion and see if I can determine where we differ.

I must say that Tim's points have changed my opinion on this topic. I was previously firmly of the opinion that T213-1's should have been classified as a T206 subset and have strongly argued such on earlier threads. I believe that any card meeting the criteria of:

-released during 1909-1911 by an ATC brand
-sharing the same artwork, design, production, and distribution methods

...should by definition be considered a T206. All accepted T206 brands, regardless of other often discussed variances, do not deviate from these criteria. Tim's points regarding the continuity of production among the Coupons vs all other T206 brands seems to me to be irrefutable evidence that these cards were produced independently and with different guidelines than any other T206 subset. As such, despite the many obvious strong similarities, my opinion is now that these are correctly categorized as a separate set.