Coupon Type 1--Notes & Facts

[drdduet]

After reviewing my notes--

Theory--Coupon type 1 (AND TYPE 1 ONLY!) is an "assorted back" of T206.

Coupon was a brand of cigarettes owned by the American Tobacco Company in 1909-1910. Cards were distributed via factory #3.

Cards were distributed in packs as were most T206's--Polar Bear was distributed in pouches.

Coupon Type 1 is composed of 68 cards printed in 1909-1910--I'm leaning towards mid-August 1909 based on Reader's "Inside T206"--inferred based on series distribution (phase II release--350-only, 350/460 SP, 350-only SL).

42 of the 68 are 350 series regular print only T206 subjects. 6 of the 48 are the super prints (Cobb red, Chase blue and dark cap, Matty dark cap, Evers Chicago on shirt, & Chance yellow portrait). 16 are the 150/350 SLers, and 4 are from the 350-only Southern League Group--all are from teams of the Southern Association of the Southern Leagues.

The 4 SLer Coupon subjects not from the T206 150/350 series SLers are Hart, Hart, Lentz, and Rockenfeld. There are the only Southern Association SLers in the 14 subjects of the T206 350 only SLers.

T206 350 only series subjects Byrne, Mowrey, and Rossman have been confirmed with a very limited number of 350 only backs, Coupon is one of them.

4 of the 5 (Abstein, Maddox, Miller, & Phillipe) 350 only series Pirates are unusually plentiful with the Piedmont 350 backs. Wilson is the exception, he is included in the Coupon type 1 series.

The 42 subjects that are 350 only T206 subjects appear to be a random selection, representing the major leagues.

Coupon type 1 cards are 1-7/16" x 2-1/8" (T206 American Beauty is narrower) and are printed on thin (almost paper) cardboard, the rest of T206's were printed on relatively thick card stock. They have the same font color, size, and style of the standard T206.

etc, etc, etc.

While my notes aren't listed here in completion, these make some of the main points. Most of my research is from 30+ years of studying T206: Resources include this board, "Inside T206" by Scot Reader, the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards, "The Monster", the ACC, "The Encyclopedia of Baseball Cards" by Lew Lipset, the T206 Museum, etc.--AND NO!, I don't presume them to be T206's just because they look alike--not that their would be anything wrong with that!

Please feel free to comment, add, discuss....

[caramelcard]

Darren,

In regards to this: "Theory--Coupon type 1 (AND TYPE 1 ONLY!) is an "assorted back" of T206."

Obviously since it doesn't have a series/subject designation (ie 150/350/460) we can look at it as assorted if we group it with T206, but here's an interesting note:

All the backs that are assorted say either "assorted," or use the word "assortment" except for EPDG and this one.

Not that this excludes the type 1 coupons from the set, but if the guys on the other side of the argument were smart they'd use this to their advantage.

Rob

[E93]

Originally Posted by drdduet

After reviewing my notes--


The 4 SLer Coupon subjects not from the T206 150/350 series SLers are Hart, Hart, Lentz, and Rockenfeld. There are the only Southern Association SLers in the 14 subjects of the T206 350 only SLers.

My brain might be in meltdown mode at the end of the day (I just finished reading two articles on philological methodology that I assigned to my grad students for a seminar tonight), but can you re-phrase this point. I did not get it.

Thanks,
JimB

[drdduet]

Yes JimB,

There are 48 Southern Leaguers in T206. Of those, 34 subjects are in the 150/350 SLer group and 14 are in the 350 only SLer group--as per "Inside T206" by Scot Reader.

Of those 48, Coupon type 1 contains 20 of those SLers--16 from the 150/350 SLer group and 4 from the 350 only SLer group. Those 20 are all the Southern Association player across both T206 SLer groups. Thus Coupon (type 1), most likely because of its regional distribution ,chose to include all the Southern Association minor leaguers from T206.

[drdduet]

Hi Rob,

And only Polar Bear contains O'Hara and Demmitt St. Louis, only EPDG was distributed by factory #17, only American Beauty is narrow, only Sweet Cap have overstrikes, only Polar Bear has white lettering on the reverse, all but Polar Bear were distributed with cigarettes, all but Hindu were issued in the same color print, etc.

Thus is the mystery and magnificence of T206.

[caramelcard]

You meant to say, "Thus is the mystery and magnificence of T206-1, T206-2, T206-3, T206-4, T206-5, T206-6, T206-7, etc, etc."

Or should we call it "the set formerly known as T206?"

[QUOTE=drdduet;784804]all but Hindu were issued in the same color print,

QUOTE]

Didn't some one find that AB T206's had 2 different green types? Also this excludes the OM's also

[drdduet]

Yes Andrew,

You are correct that would be 3 of the existing T206 brands having issued different colored print on the reverse--AB-green, lighter green; OM-brown, black; and Hindu-red, brown. My mistake.

[Abravefan11]

There was a thread not too long ago regarding two different shades of green for the Sovereign backs. Ted Z described one as green and the other as apple.

[sreader3]

Just to recap, the 34 150/350 Southern League subjects were printed with Brown Hindu, Old Mill Southern and (in relatively small quantities) Piedmont 350.

The 14 350-only Southern League subjects were printed with Old Mill Southern and (in relatively large quantities) Piedmont 350. They were not printed with Brown Hindu.

Since Piedmont production dwarfed Hindu production, the 14 350-only Southern League subjects are more prevalent than the 34 150/350 Southern League subjects, despite their availability with one fewer back type.

Scot

[E93]

Originally Posted by drdduet

Yes JimB,

There are 48 Southern Leaguers in T206. Of those, 34 subjects are in the 150/350 SLer group and 14 are in the 350 only SLer group--as per "Inside T206" by Scot Reader.

Of those 48, Coupon type 1 contains 20 of those SLers--16 from the 150/350 SLer group and 4 from the 350 only SLer group. Those 20 are all the Southern Association player across both T206 SLer groups. Thus Coupon (type 1), most likely because of its regional distribution ,chose to include all the Southern Association minor leaguers from T206.

Thanks much.
JimB

[FrankWakefield]

Hogwash.

[teetwoohsix]

There is no way one can argue with the facts presented on the similarities & timeframes of which T213-1 coupons were made,and how they compare to T206 in regards to dates,artwork,distribution,etc.,etc.,.....

I also have a feeling if EPDG had another design or two or three and had used blue or red or purple ink to list the players name and team designation that Burdick would have felt EACH EPDG would then need to be grouped into its own catagory,therefore EPDG would've been EXCLUDED from the T206 set-I only use this as an example.We would have the same result that we now have with the T213-1's,T213-2's and T213-3's.You could use any singular tobacco brand in place of EPDG for this example-like Tolstoi.

That is the point I'm trying to make.It is not an error,it makes the most sense(in my opinion).If there were no 2nd and 3rd series Coupon,the type one Coupon would HAVE ALREADY BEEN a T206.

I would like to hear what the benefit of reclassifying the type 1 Coupon as a T206 would be?

Sincerely,Clayton

[drdduet]

Hi Clayton,

The benefit to classify T213-1 as T206? I think it would benefit the collecting world by classifying it more accurately. As a T206 collector it would make a difference on what I consider a complete back collection. As a New Orleans brand collector, it would cost me a whole lot more to continue to acquire T213-1's.

The true benefit is in the scholarly activity.

[drdduet]

On another note, I'm in total agreement with the Standard Catalogue of Baseball Cards where it states that Coupon types 1, 2, and 3 are each distinct issues.

Thanks Scot, As I read your latest edition of "Inside T206" I couldn't help but "see" where Coupon Type 1 fits snuggly into T206. Your work is truly outstanding.

[teetwoohsix]

Thanks for answering my question,I do appreciate that.

Everything you've said makes perfect sense.I do respect your opinion,as well as the facts.Looking forward to seeing where all of this goes.........

Sincerely,Clayton

[drdduet]

A summary of the 68 cards that make up Coupon Type 1

68 total cards

20 of them are SLers--Coupon type 1 contains all the Southern Association SLers of T206. 16 are from the 150/350 SLer group of T206 and 4 are from the 350-only SLer group.

6 of them are the T206 Superprints. Coupon type 1 contains all the T206 superprints.

42 remaining cards are all 350 only subjects of T206. I'm not sure why these 42 of the 208 350-only T206 series were designated for inclusion in Coupon Type 1, but I am actively pursuing clues.

It's understandable to have the Southern Association SLers included, certainly advisable to include the 6 superprints (the most popular players of the time), but why randomize 42 of 208 subjects? The answer may come with closer inspection of the included and excluded subjects as well as documented T206 brand patterns....

[teetwoohsix]

Alright,here is a breakdown of the 21 teams represented in T213-1 with the amount of players represented for each team.......

1)Detroit-8
2)Cincinnati-7 (2 are Huggins)
3)Brooklyn-5
4)N.Y.Amer.-5 (2 are Chase)
5)N.Y.Nat'l-5 (2 are Meyers)
6)Montgomery-4
7)Nashville-4
8)Boston Nat'l-3
9)New Orleans-3
10)Phila.Amer.-3
11)Atlanta-2
12)Chicago Nat'l-2
13)Little Rock-2
14)Mobile-2
15)St.Louis Amer.-2
16)St.Louis Nat'l-2
17)Memphis-2
18)Washington-2
19)Birmingham-1
20)Cleveland-1
21)Pittsburg-1

So,it seems like Detroit & Cincinnati have the most players represented,and Birmingham,Cleveland,and Pittsburg have the least players represented.
Maybe this will help when trying to figure out the signifigance of players included and excluded.Note-The 5 teams with the most players represented do not represent the Southern League.

[drdduet]

Detroit would make sense as they made it to the 1909 World Series. These little pieces of card board were put in the packages to sell cigarettes, so the more popular the team and subjects the more desire to buy another pack.

As a period Charlotte Observer reveals--it wasn't just smokers buying cigarettes, kids went crazy over them as well--kids would buy the packs for a nickel, remove the cards, then resell the cigarettes at half price--I'm paraphrasing.

[teetwoohsix]

So,that would sort of make me think this series may be closer to the 1910 issue date more so than 1911?

[drdduet]

Absolutely and as early as 1909.

[tedzan]

There was never any question that this set was NOT any other than a 1910 issue. The 48 Major Leaguers in this set
were selected from the 350 series, which we know for certain was printed and issued as early as the Winter of 1909
and through most of 1910.

If this set included subjects from the T206 460 series, then perhaps it was issued in 1911. But, I must repeat, there
are no 460 subjects in it.
Furthermore, do not be confused by the 6 super-prints in this set. When this set was printed, the 6 super-prints were
strictly 350 series cards. It wasn't until later in the timeline of the T206 series that American Litho. extended these 6
super-prints into the 460 series.


TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Thanks for clarifying that Ted,I appreciate it.The reason I was slightly confused on the date was from what I read in the Encyclopedia of Baseball Cards,Vol.3........it states "a probable date of issue is 1910 or 1911".

After your explanation,I feel 100% certain you are correct.

Thank you-
Clayton

[judsonhamlin]

This question goes to the T213-2 and T213-3 question and how that does or does not complicate the issue. I'm not a non-sports guy as a rule, but I do know that some series on the non-sports side were issued and re-issued over time - I think Indian Gum or one of the aviator series might be what I have in mind. How did the ACC deal with multiple series from a single producer over a number of years? Does that help us in this debate?

[FrankWakefield]

If a fellow was handed half a dozen T206s, and half a dozen T213-1s, he could sort them into the two types with his eyes closed. But he couldn't sort the T206s into tobacco brands (except for American Beauty's) without looking at the backs. The cards are.... wait for it.... different. T206s mention their series, and the brands lack the quotes; they are.... different from their T213-1 cousins.

[drdduet]

"If a fellow was handed half a dozen T206s, and half a dozen T213-1s, he could sort them into the two types with his eyes closed. But he couldn't sort the T206s into tobacco brands (except for American Beauty's) without looking at the backs. The cards are.... wait for it.... different."

Good Morning Frank,

But we don't have to do it with our eyes closed. And why couldn't it state "except for American Beauties and Coupon?"

The diversity of all the different T206 brands (AB's width, PB's 'coloring in', EPDG's lack of series notation, etc...) is what makes the set so special.

The theory of holding then in your hand and sorting them blindly--well I not certain that means anything--try it with caramels, blue captioned white borders, post 1956 Topps, etc--I probably could tell a '52 Topps from a '56 Topps that way, but I don't have to, I'm not blind.

All brands of T206 cards are different in one way or another.

[FrankWakefield]

Well it means something to me, drdddd....

If a fella can distinguish one from the other without looking then there must be a bit of a difference, even after you get done telling us how much they're alike.

As for some more similarities for you... both use the English language; both are generally of a portrait perspective, rather than landscape; both depict baseball players exclusively; both have their captions at the bottom... all true of lots of other ballcards, too.

[drdduet]

Hi Frank,

I'm not asking you to agree with me or even see things like I do, so I wouldn't expect you to comment unless its meaningful. Statements like "hogwash" without explanation and your recent rant will only cause friction--not that there is anything wrong with that but it sheds a negative light.

I'm not one for leaving well enough alone--I question everything. There has been a wealth of knowledge gained and documented since Burdick's work and believe the subject warrants attention. You have nothing to lose either way, I have ambition to pursue this and if I find things out along the way, I'll be happy to share.

[FrankWakefield]

I'm ok with that....

You started this out listing all of the way the cards are alike. But when you get done, they're still different. For me, I see that, I can feel that, and I understand why Mr. Burdick listed them separately.

The other thread talks about American Litho printing all of these cards. I've always been on board with that. Sweet Caporal didn't print cards, they distributed them. Ted is dead on trying to convince any who doubts, or mistakenly think otherwise. I think some folks get mislead when someone reads where Sovereign made ball cards, or Piedmont made ball cards. American Litho made the cards.

Lest someone have an epiphany over the fact that Coupon cigarettes were manufactured under the ATC umbrella 1910-1911ish, just like T206s... the gold border and brown border tobacco cards were distributed then, too, under the ATC umbrella, reckon they must be T206s too?

Simply, from looking at a front, some T206s and some T213-1s look identical. For me, the difference in card stock is a significant difference, the quotes instead of a series is a significant difference, the two bunches of cards aren't the same to me at all. And they never will be. The "hogwash" was because the notes and facts weren't complete, but were selective, begging a desired result. Seemed obvious to me.