I've always thought that the closer to a source information is accrued, then generally the more reliable the information. I feel this way about Burdick and the ACC and especially how he grouped cards (yes, I realize some are incorrectly assigned). I have always thought he grouped T206 together as they shared a concerted marketing campaign from a parent apparatus and the same with T213 but of course there is no definitive proof of this. The fact that the Coupons are primarily viewed as Louisiana sets is revealing and likely reflects information accrued by early collectors as to what was to be grouped with what is an argument against their inclusion in the T206 universe.
Having said that, there is a lot of merit in the argument T213-1 could be reclassified as T206 with the biggest obstacle to my mind being the paper stock. But if you can get past that you could also argue types 2 and 3 belong with T206 as well as it is not unheard of for changes to occur from one series to the next and still have cards be considered part of the same set. I can cite 55 Bowman Baseball, 62 Topps Baseball and 69 Topps Football as modern examples where an obvious design change occurred from series to series and there are many sets or groupings where fonts and/or paper stock change from one series to the next. And who is to say what was planned for the ACC baseball series, both front and back-wise had the breakup and then the war not occurred?
Of course the post ACC breakup blue captioned Coupons further complicate the argument!
Personally, I consider the T213-1's are part of the Coupon universe but there is enough of an argument already in place that if further connections can be revealed a reconsideration would be in order.
Your experience may vary.....
|