Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon
What is the exact question we are arguing? That he got it wrong, it should be T206, both or what? I think he got it right but maybe we could change it based on new and more researched evidence. Maybe the thin stock on type 1's, the blue lettering on type 2's, the thinner but thicker card stock on type 3s and the spread of years of distribution is why he gave them their own designation? I don't know for sure but he did and I don't think he made a mistake.
|
What I am saying is he didn't get it right or wrong. He made a designation that is his catalog system. We all abide by it as definitive, but we probably need to relax that a bit. I think we can more safely argue the Type 1 Coupon is more like T206's than it is like T213-2 and 3's. There is more distinction in the other 2 Coupons relative to Type 1 than there is with Type 1 Coupon to the 16 ATC brands that comprise T206.
I think more time is needed, but to say Burdick got it right and Burdick is correct may not be accurate. It may be that Burdick simply did what he wanted to (Based on what Burdick knew at the time) when cataloging the Coupons together which is neither right or wrong.
As for the debate among collector's. It may be time for a poll which changes nothing according to Burdick's ACC, but does help collectors understand that it may not be a different type of (T206) card and just accept that as the gospel.
Edited to add : from Leon's 1960 Burdick ACC designation paper info, Burdick didn't even know how many cards were in the Type Coupon 1 Set (68) which easily shows their obscurity and possibly he didn't have full understanding of them. And who is to blame him? He had 1% of the information we have now, and did quite admirably btw