Thanks Ted.
I think you and I agree with the following:
1.) T206s were produced in a remarkably complex and precise manner (as it relates to subjects/series/issues/front-back combinations), and
2.) T213-1s should be properly classified as a T206 back.
Any idea that there could have existed a 1910 Coupon subject who is not also a T206 subject upsets both of the notions above - it would not conform to the parallels between the T206 and T213-1, and therefore, would put the nail in the coffin as to the argument that 213-1s are actually T206s. As it stands now, the fact that there is not a 1910 Coupon Jackson (despite his popularity) supports the argument.
That said, I understand where you are coming from - IF Joe Jackson happened to appear on a T206 and/or T213-1, it would be an incredibly desirable card (analogous to the idea of a 1914/15 Cracker Jack Babe Ruth).
|