T213-1 Post'em if you got'em

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

Nice type I's...I can't imagine this thread will be very long...I sold my one and only...Rockenfeld...these are pretty tough!

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

My lone example...

-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

[IMG][/IMG]

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg B.

There was a complete T213-I set sold in Mastro within the past 3 years, can't remember the details, but if someone has the catalogue it would give a pretty difinitive list...interesting topic.
Greg B.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeremy

Nothing "Mild" about em...



~ Jeremy ~

[Archive]

Posted By: josh

Leon,

Anytime I see a post with people wanting to show certain issues you always come in with some! Is there any issue you don't own? I am envious!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Yes, but not too many. As I have said over and over it's all about the addiction....uh...I mean hobby. Before I recently started selling my 19th century stuff I was down to only needing 2-3 cards to finish my pre-war ACC type set. There are almost an infinite number of backs, colors and variations to keep me busy too. Then we need to talk about upgrades etc.....My collecton pales in comparison to some others but I am very proud of what I have been able to acquire, especially as a newer collector. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

Two beaters to add to the list...

[Archive]

Posted By: jim

When you are born/raised in Buffalo, you stick with the local sporting athletic team... no matter what!
Not sure if this is Type 1?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Neat card...type 2's and 3's have blue lettering on front...type 1's are on thinner stock and have brown lettering...that is the easiest way to tell from the front...

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian E.

[Archive]

Posted By: jim

Having a firm grip on the obvious has never been my strong suit. Your powers of observation are superior to mine. Could you e-mail me a towel so I can wipe this egg off my face? Continue and I will move forward with my education.

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

Brian,

Nice Cobb. Mis-labeled by GAI as 1914...should be 1910.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I have made far worse mistakes on much easier cards. I will never forget the time I played off not knowing that Cy was Irv on my E97 black and white card....I had no clue when I bought it....but my 1k stupid buy was pretty decent by today's standards....as it came back in a 40 holder. I think that's what you call "dumb luck"...take care

[Archive]

Posted By: Alan U

[Archive]

Posted By: Trae R.

Wow, and why don't we call T213 Type-1's T206?!




---
"There ain't much to being a ballplayer, if you're a ballplayer."
-Honus Wagner

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

We don't classify T213-1 as T206 because Burdick didn't. Also, there are no T206's on stock that is as thin as T213-1......would be a guess.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Leon,
They may not be T206's, but they are certainly in the same family. I can't explain the change in stock other than the new advertising budget for the brand may have taken a hit after the breakup, or the later issues may have suffered from shortages due to WW1. Be well Brian

Here's the info I posted on the other thread:

Hi Dave,
No line drawn.... ATC owned Coupon before the breakup and Ligget& Myers afterward, but the same manager Mr. Irby was still in charge. In fact Mr. Irby was in charge before ATC bought him out, so nothing really changed much in LA. In fact I believe that much of the Tobacco wars in LA after the breakup between ATC and People's Tobacco contributed to the continuation of the cards being released as premiums. The 2 companies fought hard over LA and sued each other a number of times. Thank God, otherwise we might never have seen the t213's or t216's.... Be well Brian


PS Ted, pretty easy to add to your earlier thoughts

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

Coupon's being on a thinner stock(depth) is no different than American Beauty's being on a thinner (width) stock.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Leon, I understand you point re: Burdick but I believe this is one that Burdick may have gotten wrong. I also agree it would be hard changing people's classification since, afterall, T-213's have been classified as such for a long time now.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

The following 20 (T206) Subjects from the Southern League (8 teams) are included in the T213-1 set.

Bay (Nashville)
Bernhard (Nashville)
Breitenstein (New Orleans)
Carey (Memphis)
Cranston (Memphis)
Ellam (Nashville)
Fritz (New Orleans)
Greminger (Montgomery)
Hart (Little Rock)
Hart (Montgomery)
Hickman (Mobile)
Jordan (Atlanta)
Lentz (Little Rock)....sic..(Sentz)
Molesworth (Birmingham)
Perdue (Nashville)
Persons (Montgomery)
Reagan (New Orleans)
Rockenfeld (Montgomery)
Smith (Atlanta)
Thornton (Mobile)


TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

I do believe Burdick got this one wrong. The importance of properly classifying this issue a T206 trumps tradition. T206 is way to important an issue for this to be ignored because of "that's the way it has always been."

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

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 will compromise though....If we put T213-1 into T206 lets take out the Ty Cobb backs and make them a T206-2 ....

[Archive]

Posted By: Bruce Babcock

It's a type 2, not a type 1, but at least a close relative.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

FORGET IT ! !

There are many sets we have realized are incorrectly dated and NO effort is being made to correct them.....

N28 is an 1888 issue

N162 is an 1889 issue

E90-1 and E91 are 1908-1910 issues

A Goudey Lajoie (#106) is called a 1933 Goudey, when we all know it was issued with the 1934 Hi# series cards.

And, after 30 years of "pounding", I was able to convince many that the "1948-49" Leaf BB set is actually a 1949
issue....PERIOD. However, the Grading Co. will continue to perpetuate this myth by labelling their flips "1948-49".

So, I'm telling you guys that you are fighting a losing battle.

Anyway, consider this....a 518, or 520, or 522, or even a 524-card T206 sets tough enough....leave well enough
alone......a 590-card set (by including the T213-1) is impossible.

Regards,

T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

Ted,

In my own little world, I have been and will continue to consider them T206's. Whether or not the collecting community jumps on board with the few matters little. BUT it sure is fun to study, discuss, etc.

Edited to add--
adding T213-1's to T206 doesn't add any more subjects to the T206 set unless, of course, one is considering a master set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

There are front differences between some T213-1's and the T206's. One that comes to mind is the South. Lger....Lentz.
His T206 card (issued first in 1909), has him with the Richmond team. His T213-1 card (issued in 1910), he is with Little
Rock.
I think there are a few more such team changes, either on So. Lgers. or Major Lgrs.

TED Z.

[Archive]

Posted By: Sean

How about T215 Type 1's (Red Cross)...should they actually be a T206 back?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Sean - I would not include the T215's as there are less similarities between the T215's and the T206's than there are with the T213-1's. In fact, I can draw very few similarities between the Red Cross design and the T206's; the back frames are different, the back's mention "100 designs", etc. Interestingly though, the back frames and the blue lettering of the T215-II's do match the Type II and III Coupons...

[Archive]

Posted By: B D

http://www.t207.com/e102.shtml





BcD

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

Good point Ted Z. Any idea of how many T213-1's of the 80+ subjects differ? Nice to think it could be like O'Hara and Demmitt T206 team/caption variations issued only with Polar Bear backs.

[Archive]

Posted By: B D

BcD

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

Since I no longer own any T213-1 cards, and I wanted to participate...

My best Coupon card (fact. 8 overprint)

[Archive]

Posted By: BCD

You got us beat with that baby~

how's this for a high grade Momma!





BcD

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

Any other type 1 Coupons out there. The last few scans have been type II and type III's, not what I was looking for, but cool nonetheless.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

So T213-1s came out in 1910 before the ATC breakup? Other than thin cardstock, what is the other justification for a different ACC designation?
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Unless we find some notes from Burdick buried somewhere I doubt we will ever know. He made many decisions which would probably be different with information known today. If I had to guess it would be because they are a totally different stock which inclined him to give them a different #. That's just a guess though....

[Archive]

Posted By: judson hamlin

No scan, but my one 213-1 is a Howell. I agree that Burdick probably punted on this one. If 206 is an ATC issue and Coupon (and, for that matter, Red Cross), then I think they should have been merged. I'll guess that the subsequent re-issue in 1914 and 1919 significantly influenced the decision to split them from T206

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

If they were considered to be T206s, does anyone know how many additional team variations would be added to the set?
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

The majority of T213-1's (except the 20 - So. Lgers.) are the same Subjects that fit the "A-B-C-D" pattern of the T206's in the 350-only Series.
I don't think this is a mere coincidence....it was by design.


TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

Thanks Ted. I believe that evidence suggests this to be a T206 issue. Sure, there are some differences, but there are differences between all T206 brands. In your opinion, should T213-1 be T206?

[Archive]

Posted By: Alan U

If the T213-1's were considered a T206, how rare is the T213-1 back in comparison to some of the others?

-Alan

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

I'd say between Carolina Brights and Broadleaf....but of course had they been collected as T206 they'd be impossible (a la Uzit and Drum).

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

My few T213s are type 2.

But trying to lump T213-1s in with T206 would be unfortunate. They are different altogether. Leon's distinction between thinner card stock for T213s and the less wide American Beauty T206s is correct, as I see it. I think Mr. Burdick has is correct, although he may not have gotten there for the right reasons. We'll never know.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Frank - I'm not sure if I follow your argument as to how the thinner cardstock, alone, would make T213-1's different altogether. Is there some other supporting evidence besides the thin stock?

Also, there is important information that I have overlooked until reading your post which I believe would lend at least some credence to the argument that Coupon Type 1's were part of the T-206 distribution and my information goes specifically to the "thinner cardstock" argument.

When researching Coupon cigarette packs, I found that Coupon packs were not slide and shells made out of cardboard like the rest of the T-206 brands but were instead soft packs. I have a scan of a Coupon cigarette pack that is part of a private collection which helps prove this.

The thinner stock used on Type 1's may be due to the fact that a thicker stock would have torn the soft paper of the Coupon cigarette packs. After all, it has always been said that AB backed cards are not the same size as other T-206 cards because the cigarette boxes were smaller (even though my AB box seems to be the same size as my other T206 packs).

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Whoever made the point above about the date of mfg for the cards also is onto something, imo. As far as I know there were no T206's made after, what 1911-12? The last 2 series of T213's are dated later. That in itself could have been why Burdick made them a different series, and a good point too. Series 1 of T213 is generally thought at 1910, Series 2 at 1914-1916 and series 3 at 1919. Burdick might very well have known this and made a new series ACC# because of it....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Leon,
True... But you would have to ignore Coupon's Ties with ATC to come up with that. Kotton and Coupon dueled for years in LA after the breakup, and seemed to copy each other as they continued. One thing is for sure... They were both "favored companies" in LA or the feud would have ended much sooner. People have a way of doing things down there...

Be well Brian

PS I think the Type 1's started as an extension or part of the T206's and continued further due to the competition with Kotton.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Here is a 1910-era Coupon pack:



Note that it matches the Type 1's in that it is "mild". Also, note that this is NOT a slide and shell configuration. It is a soft pack, which is why I theorize that Coupon's may have been produced on thinner stock since regular stock would have torn the pack when packaged...