Another question--
What if Burdick had classified T206's based on their series?
A classification scheme like that would "make" a Piedmont 150 series only subject more similar to a Sovereign 150 only subject than to a Piedmont 350 series issue.
I believe there are strong logical arguments for the current T206 classification, T206 by brand classification, and T206 by series classification.
The United States was a much "smaller" place in 1909-1911, and distances were much greater (100 miles away was much "further" than it is today). Regional distribution of products was meant to be just that. It was unlikely and impractical for some kid in Virginia to communicate with a kid in NY about what cards he had and needed, let alone discuss what brands were associated with what subjects. Furthermore, many states like to leave Louisiana out of the US today, and I would imagine it was much easier to do in Burdick's time. We are our own 3rd world country in many ways!
Maybe there is also an argument to support T206 classification by brand AND series--T206 Piedmont 150 only series, T206 Sovereign 150 only series, T206 Sweet Caporal 150 only series, Hindu Southern Leaguers, Piedmont 150/350 SLers, Pied 350 only SLers, Coupon 350 only series, Coupon SLer series (150/350 and/or 350 only), Polar Bear 350 only, etc....I think a T206 purist would choose to look at the set this way. Whereas a T206 collector would look at calling a T206 set a collection of all the possible "fronts." Only my bank limits me from collecting as a purist!
Regardless, IMHO T206 consists of sets within a set. No matter how you slice up the Monster, it will grow another limb/head.
All of these white border cards (E's and T's, sports and nonsports) from this period have stories to tell, and I believe that analysis of the subject across all spectrums may reveal some yet unsolved mysteries or at least reveal leads to answers.
Last edited by drdduet; 02-24-2010 at 11:22 AM.
Reason: punctuation
|