What if American Beauty's are not really T206's?

[toppcat]

I was wondering about the possibility of an ACC miscategorization for the American Beauty's. With all the Cobb/Cobb and Coupon talk on here recently, what if Burdick got those two right but the AB's wrong?

[Comiskey]

I don't believe that the ACC designations are wrong, however, I do believe that the future of the T206 might break down the set even more. I think that burdick got it correct that this is a massive set that has 524 subjects. What I think will happen in the future will be a breakdown of the set into subsets. I think that it will eventually carry the designation of T206-1, T206-2, etc and each one of the subsets will be broken down with their designated backs. This is what I believe will be the "evolution" of the t206 set due to the great research of Ted, Scott and others.

[tiger8mush]

Dave, why might you not think the ABs are T206s? Their size? Just wondering

[teetwoohsix]

The thing about AB's that seem to leave no doubt in my mind that these are part of T206 is you have the 350 subjects on the back.The card being slightly slimmer,isn't too much of a reason for exclusion(IMHO)-there is an explanation for it,it just hasn't been figured out yet

Clayton

[canjond]

I think they are most certainly T206s as their back designation follows others (350 series and 460 series). As for them being thinner - there are countless reasons that could account for it. What if, right before ALC was about to do the print run, there press malfunctioned and the ATC had to quickly find a backup printer for a run or two?

[toppcat]

It was really the size argument that got me thinking about it and also in the context of a Cobb/Cobb. I realize it is a T206 but it just seems like it has some points against it. Was really just throwing it out there to see what reaction would come of it.

I think the T206-1, -2 nomenclature going forward is viable and really a great way to update the ACC without wrecking it.