Posted By:
Jon CanfieldLeon - one more item as food for thought... You said above that "I politely disagree. T206 AB's were just cut thinner to fit in the packs. T213-1's were made on different cardstock altogether. I feel that is a bigger difference than a slight side to side measurement inequality".
I have heard this thoery for years that AB's are cut thinner to fit in the packs. However, I own an AB slide and shell pack, I know you have one, Richard has one, Barry Arnold has one and I'm sure others on this board own one. Measure your pack - compare it to the SC, the Old Mill, the Piedmont you have... I will guarantee you they are identical in size. I've compared both AB's I owned (although I only have one now). Both were identical in size to each other, and identical in size to every other slide and shell from the T206 era I own.
So, now that some of the AB packs have come to market (5 years ago, there were few, if any AB slide and shells around), I think that this myth should be put to rest... AB's were NOT cut thinner to fit into the packs since the packs are the same size as other T206 brands.
So, since we have tangible proof that AB's were not cut thinner because of the pack size, why then, are they thinner? I don't believe anyone would argue that they should be a separate set and not part of the T206's. However, I again believe that this tends to give more credence to the argument that Coupon Type 1's being on thinner stock is similar to AB's being thinner.