Quote:
Originally Posted by teetwoohsix
I guess of course this could be true, but the problem is it boils down to speculation. I like to believe that Burdick knew a little more than we do about the issue being that he was a kid when these cards were produced, and he may have known these were their own issue (T213-1, T213-2, and T213-3).
He loved these cards enough to take the time to catalogue them all, so I accept the designation he gave them. I also feel they are not T206's.
Sincerely, Clayton
|
I'm not necessarily saying they are or aren't t206's. I'm not opposed one bit to them being a separate issue. I find myself on the fence, leaning towards inclusion though...BUT I will admit that while Burdick made errors in some classifications, he also had more info to go on by being closer to that era. He may not have personally remembered the exact time-lines for everything, but had others who were a little older to ask, and maybe that's why he made the designation. I don't know though.
Anyways, this is baseball. In fact this issue perfectly fits the history of baseball, and it's origins. Many questions remain, that unfortunately can NEVER truly be answered. There is no definite evidence either way, and it will forever be left to simple speculation and personal beliefs.
I'll finish with something a little off topic. Since we have no definitive answers about the origins of American Baseball, I'm perfectly content to accept this theory.
http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/ar...als-to-p,7017/