Why aren’t T213 type 1 considered T206
 

I’ve been learning more and more about the T213 set, leading me to the T213 type 1 vs T206 debate. Trying to make sense of this and the varying opinions. As of yet the only argument I’ve come across for the distinction between the two sets making sense is the difference in card stock. But that there are also other T206 backs where the card measurements don’t add up ( American Beauty) but are still considered T206s. The information I’ve absorbed so far leaves me thinking these are probably T206s. But are there any other differences that help make the case for the distinction that I’m not aware of?

If you can figure out the search function, this has been discussed in depth over the years, including by some very knowledgeable people no longer with us -- might help answer the question.

Found it, thank you. And if I knew how to delete the thread I would (if that’s possible).

I can't seem to find the thread in question and would love to read it.

Any chance you could share the link?

Instead of deleting this thread, maybe add a link to the one you found...

There have been many, but I think this one might be the one.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ghlight=coupon

Burdick decided to call them something else. If he'd called them T206s, we'd all consider them T206s. If he'd called T206 Polar Bears T213s, we'd be having this discussion about those instead. If there hadn't ever been T213-2s or T213-3s I can't imagine he wouldn't have just lumped them in with the T206s.

T213 -1
 

They are, and always have been, a different set. Burdick wrote the Catalog. His rules.
.

this! to me...they are t206's and i include them in my small t206 collection. Def more t206 than the cobb w/cobb back card...imho.

Thank you!