t205 vs t206...Which Do You Like Best?

[jingram058]

As I re-discovered many of my old cards the past couple of years, a question has been running through my head when it comes to what are, quite arguably, the most popular and important cards of the tobacco era. And that question is, which do you like best, t205 or t206, and why?

I lean toward t205 for 2 reasons, 1) the t205 artwork, and 2) a brief bio and a few stats like later cards, not just ads.

But I like them both!

[G1911]

T206 Action Poses > T205 > T206 Portraits, on fronts only.

T205 takes it due to the backs, they are a lot more fun than the T206's that are just the ads. You can still the back variation hunting with T205, but you get a little bit of information too.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I feel that the T205's are, especially when decently preserved, just stunning. There are a few T206's that can really blow me away, but not the entire set.

[slightlyrounded]

T205 without hesitation.

[riggs336]

If I were into collecting back variations I'd probably prefer T206. But I'm not so I like T205's more.

[3-2-count]

Being a portrait collector, its not even close in my opinion.

T206 by a landslide!

[GasHouseGang]

I have always preferred the T205's over the T206's, especially when I was buying them. I especially like having the biography on the back of the card.

[familytoad]

O5 for me.
I have never started the T206 but have some HOFers.
I have close to two base sets of T205 one of which is most of a master set.
I guess that means I like the gold borders best.

[DeanH3]

Tough choice. I do like the biographical info on the back of T205's. But the T206's have such an allure to me, especially the portraits. I'll go with a split decision win for the T206.

[MVSNYC]

I appreciate and really like T205's...but IMO, nothing holds a candle to T206...

[BobC]

I'm for the T205s myself. Besides the beautiful design, colors, and artwork, as others have already said, they include player bios and stats. You can love T206s all you want, but the T205 cards are truly the forerunner and very first appearance/example of what we think of as modern baseball cards today, in regards to including player information and statistics. In fact, it could be argued that T205s were also the model for all other modern cards for all other sports that now include player and statistical information as well.

T206 cards do not have any such similar historical significance in regards to card issues as they were preceded by the Old Judge cards from a few decades earlier, so they are certainly not the first major baseball set ever produced. Plus, the OJ cards used actual photos and not drawn images, making the OJs a forerunner of, and more akin to, what eventually became modern cards as well, and thus more historically significant than T206 cards ever were also.

I've wondered what it is that actually seems to have made the T206s so popular as a vintage card set though, and have theorized that it is mostly due to the sheer number of T206 cards produced that survived and are still in circulation today. More people were aware of T206 cards over the years because there are more of them out there than anything else, and pretty much anyone wanting one could find one. So my thinking is it would be familiarity that helped to make T206s so popular as opposed to anything special or groundbreaking about the cards themselves.

It has been discussed on the forum before how some cards/card sets can be too rare for their own good. Since no one can really ever find them, fewer people care or are ever attracted to collecting them, and thus demand (and value) can be extremely low. When discussing real vintage cards though, virtually anyone could come across T206s, and because they were known by most vintage collectors and somewhat more easily obtainable, new vintage collectors would most likely start with T206 cards as well due to their overall familiarity and availability. Familiarity and availability breeding more demand in an expanding marketplace. Of course, once computers and markets like Ebay arrived, the T206 familiarity and volume factors driving the set's appeal and demand among collectors was mitigated, but the set's popularity and appeal had already become firmly ingrained in vintage collector's minds and was here to stay. Along with the fact there are still so many T206s out there that anyone looking can pretty easily find them, and thus further fueled collector desire and satisfaction.

And that is a huge reason I'm not really interested in T206s, because they are so common and chased by everyone else. I find more satisfaction in other and more obscure and maybe not so popular issues as a collector. Why collect something everyone else collects when there are so many other more obscure, interesting, and significant sets and cards out there.

[Piratedogcardshows]

I go T206 as well. I like the simple ad backs.

[Leon]

I am evenly divided.... I still think the T205 Cobby is one of the very best looking cards in the hobby but I love me some T206 HOFers also....

[Republicaninmass]

As a completionist, t205 hands down. Missing the big four is too much of a disclaimer!

[mrreality68]

I love the variety of looks and poses on the T206

But to me the overall look of the 205's are fantastic

I would choose the 205's but it is closer than some above mentioned to me

[skelly423]

I really like T205s, but give me the Monster every time. I love the bright, bold colours. Unlike the t205s, there are action shots, sunsets, real rarities, hundreds of subsets, a bigger checklist, and the greatest card of all time. In my opinion, it’s not close

[hcv123]

Interesting thinking through the which and why

1) Card fronts (visually) - As a "set" I like the T205's much better with the following exceptions - There are a lot of portrait cards in the T206 set I like MUCH more than any cards in the T205 set. I am NOT a fan of the design variation on the T205 minor league cards. I LOVE the T205 Cobb (Leon - when you are ready - would love to own yours one day) and Young cards.

2) Card backs - T205 has the bio and stats, but T206 has all the back variants

3) Challenge of collecting - With the big 4, truly completing T206 is out of reach for most collectors where T205 is much more accomplishable. I personally love the thrill of the chase and if incorporating any modicum of front/back combos - T206 is an incomparable challenge.

4) Star power - here I have to give it to T206 hands down

5) Size - T206 gets it again in my book whether looking at a base -4 (520) set or a master set at over 5K cards.

Very interesting process for me, because my "gut" answer when I first read the question was T205, but breaking it down leaves me with T206 with a helping of T205 Cobb, Young and Matty.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

You can love T206s all you want, but the T205 cards are truly the forerunner and very first appearance/example of what we think of as modern baseball cards today, in regards to including player information and statistics. In fact, it could be argued that T205s were also the model for all other modern cards for all other sports that now include player and statistical information as well.

Do we know T205’s first cards preceded T201? T201 doesn’t have the write ups but it does have the stats. I don’t know the answer here, they are probably very close.

As for all sports in general, T205 wasn’t the first. There are some British sets with write ups of athletes that pre date it, there are some cabinet cards that aren’t really a full set, but even without them, T205 isn’t the first American sports card set with bios or stats. T218 (Q2 1910 for series 1) and T220 (late 1910) both precede it. The boxers include a write up and usually a list of fight results, the track athletes and swimmers a write up.

In the late 1880’s the N269 set included a biography of card back of all 50 pugilists, but not statistics.

Not saying these are the first either, can anyone think of earlier?

[atx840]

I like both but early on in my collecting days I gravitated more towards the T206s as I liked how bright and bold the colors were.

Later on I became hooked on the rarity of tough backs, combinations and the many print errors out there.

[oldphil]

Hi,
My recent acquisition indicates the way I’m leaning. Thanks Tim!

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by oldphil

Hi,
My recent acquisition indicates the way I’m leaning. Thanks Tim!

Is that a custom frame, or a size that is readily available?

Thanks!

[oldphil]

James,
The piece was framed when it arrived. The outside dimensions of the frame are 19.5” by 32.5”. Hope this helps.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by oldphil

James,
The piece was framed when it arrived. The outside dimensions of the frame are 19.5” by 32.5”. Hope this helps.

I thought it was large, but it's even bigger than I thought. Thanks!

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

As a completionist, t205 hands down. Missing the big four is too much of a disclaimer!

I also like to complete sets which is why I am working on T205s and not T206s, although the 3 tough variations in the T205 set don't make it an easy set to complete either if you want to have the master set. I guess since they are variations, you can call it a complete set without them, though, unlike T206s where the big four are part of the set.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

Do we know T205’s first cards preceded T201? T201 doesn’t have the write ups but it does have the stats. I don’t know the answer here, they are probably very close.

As for all sports in general, T205 wasn’t the first. There are some British sets with write ups of athletes that pre date it, there are some cabinet cards that aren’t really a full set, but even without them, T205 isn’t the first American sports card set with bios or stats. T218 (Q2 1910 for series 1) and T220 (late 1910) both precede it. The boxers include a write up and usually a list of fight results, the track athletes and swimmers a write up.

In the late 1880’s the N269 set included a biography of card back of all 50 pugilists, but not statistics.

Not saying these are the first either, can anyone think of earlier?

Don't disagree at all, but was thinking of the combining of the bios AND stats as what was a precursor of modern cards, and why they may be more historically significant that way. The T218 and T220 sets you referenced include athletes from multiple other sports, such as golf, boxing, track and field, and so on. And while some of these cards do include references to some fight results and such, my T205 reference was also referring to the way the stats were formatted as well, where they show annual stats of the player for past seasons, listed chronologically by year. Which is exactly how modern cards tend to be portrayed for the major U.S. sports of baseball, football, basketball, and hockey. I didn't think I'd have to expand my explanation as the listing of some fight results on the back of a boxing card doesn't really correlate to modern sports cards and how the seasonal stats of players are shown, along with their bio information. But if you really think those boxing cards were the examples and forerunners used in the creation of modern U.S. cards for major sports and how a player's stats are shown and listed, be my guest. To my eye though, you're trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, and using a sport that doesn't exactly correlate to modern sports that have huge issues of modern cards. I know they still produce boxing cards today, but they are certainly nowhere near as popular, nor produced in quantities evenly remotely close to the volume of cards produced annually for the more popular and mainstream sports. And though not all-inclusive, I did a quick search of some modern boxing cards and didn't really see anything like the listed fights on some T218 cards. So if those T218 cards aren't really the inspiration for design and stat reporting on modern boxing cards, I would seriously doubt they were a forerunner and precursor for stat reporting on other modern major sport cards.

Now if there does somehow turn out to be another set of earlier, major sports cards than the T205 cards that list bios and statistics like they do on modern major sport cards, I'll be surprised. But the fact that we have to ask others for input and help in discovering if any such earlier sets exists underscores how rare and obscure such a set must be. And to me at least, would make such other set(s) all the more unlikely to be a model and inspiration for how stats are portrayed and shown on most modern major sport cards today.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

Don't disagree at all, but was thinking of the combining of the bios AND stats as what was a precursor of modern cards, and why they may be more historically significant that way. The T218 and T220 sets you referenced include athletes from multiple other sports, such as golf, boxing, track and field, and so on. And while some of these cards do include references to some fight results and such, my T205 reference was also referring to the way the stats were formatted as well, where they show annual stats of the player for past seasons, listed chronologically by year. Which is exactly how modern cards tend to be portrayed for the major U.S. sports of baseball, football, basketball, and hockey. I didn't think I'd have to expand my explanation as the listing of some fight results on the back of a boxing card doesn't really correlate to modern sports cards and how the seasonal stats of players are shown, along with their bio information. But if you really think those boxing cards were the examples and forerunners used in the creation of modern U.S. cards for major sports and how a player's stats are shown and listed, be my guest. To my eye though, you're trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, and using a sport that doesn't exactly correlate to modern sports that have huge issues of modern cards. I know they still produce boxing cards today, but they are certainly nowhere near as popular, nor produced in quantities evenly remotely close to the volume of cards produced annually for the more popular and mainstream sports. And though not all-inclusive, I did a quick search of some modern boxing cards and didn't really see anything like the listed fights on some T218 cards. So if those T218 cards aren't really the inspiration for design and stat reporting on modern boxing cards, I would seriously doubt they were a forerunner and precursor for stat reporting on other modern major sport cards.

Now if there does somehow turn out to be another set of earlier, major sports cards than the T205 cards that list bios and statistics like they do on modern major sport cards, I'll be surprised. But the fact that we have to ask others for input and help in discovering if any such earlier sets exists underscores how rare and obscure such a set must be. And to me at least, would make such other set(s) all the more unlikely to be a model and inspiration for how stats are portrayed and shown on most modern major sport cards today.

Some of the T220’s list annual statistics, chronologically by year. You said all sports, thus the relative unpopularity of boxing seems to have nothing to do with what was originally posited. Besides baseball, different sports were popular a century ago.

If it’s about modern inspiration, that probably has nothing to do with T205’s whatsoever either. That probably goes back to 1952 Topps at the earliest. Most modern designs are not copying old styles at all anyways, but drawing on recent designs, except for the copy/paste heritage type sets. T205’s are not the model for 2021 Topps backs.

If asking others for input on questions of firsts is a problem, because a set might not be known by all, well, okay! There’s little point in anyone ever discussing anything at all by that logic.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

Some of the T220’s list annual statistics, chronologically by year. You said all sports, thus the relative unpopularity of boxing seems to have nothing to do with what was originally posited. Besides baseball, different sports were popular a century ago.

If it’s about modern inspiration, that probably has nothing to do with T205’s whatsoever either. That probably goes back to 1952 Topps at the earliest. Most modern designs are not copying old styles at all anyways, but drawing on recent designs, except for the copy/paste heritage type sets. T205’s are not the model for 2021 Topps backs.

If asking others for input on questions of firsts is a problem, because a set might not be known by all, well, okay! There’s little point in anyone ever discussing anything at all by that logic.

I never expected or anticipated someone to try and bring up boxing, golf cards, or the like because those are not comparable to sports where you have seasons and stats shown as on the backs of cards like the T205s, and how similar they are to modern cards for baseball and other major team sports. I should know there are always going to be some who twist things for their own purposes or meanings so as to criticize others. Boxing's popularity now or then has nothing to do with this as listing the results of several fights is totally different than listing a player's annual stats in a season by season format, as shown on the T205 cards, which is what I was referring to. I don't think I've ever seen a modern baseball card issue that shows how all the players did game by game, which is what these boxing card stats you referenced do, show how the fighter performed event by event. Which as far as I'm concerned shows you either don't understand my point at all, or are just possibly trying to be a troll?

To me the idea that the T205 cards were the first ever to be like how they show bio info and annual statistics on cards today was one of the things that attracted me to them. Were they the true inspiration for how modern cards display a player's annual stats, maybe, maybe not, who really knows for sure? You citing 1952 Topps as the inspiration for modern cards is not accurate. I think of 1952 Topps as the start of modern cards, whose design may have been inspired by things like what was shown on T205 cards. That was the reference I was making and referring to. You want to call me out on what your differing thoughts and opinions are on what constitutes the way modern cards are described, go right ahead. It certainly doesn't make you right or me wrong. I can't, nor would I ever try to, prove that the way season stats were portrayed on the backs of T205 cards was the true inspiration for how they ended up being shown on '52 Topps cards, but you can't prove to me they weren't either. And since I'm not aware of an earlier set that ever showed seasonal player stats prior to how it was shown on the T205s, the T205s could have very well been an influence or even indirect inspiration to the '52 Topps production after all. I'm assuming that whenever people designing sports cards go to produce them that they often study and examine previous major card issues of others to possibly glean ideas and insights for their own new card issue (like listing player stats season by season), and to not erroneously copy other designs without full knowledge and intent in doing so. And as for asking others for information on earlier examples of sets, quit trying to be snarky by somehow inferring that I'm then making that out to be problem, which is exactly what you're trying to do. You are, or at least should be, better than that. I am pretty familiar with all the main baseball sets listed in the old SCD catalogs over the years, and am fairly confident that there isn't going to be any earlier baseball card issues that show individual player season's stats like they do on the T205s, along with player bios. But I also know that I clearly don't know everything (and in fact know very little), and am well aware there could be some weird, obscure, or only recently discovered set out there I've never heard of before that does have some similar seasonal player stats and bios on the back. But if there is, I think it fair to speculate that it is so rare and obscure, or possibly even unknown at the time, that the people designing the '52 Topps set (Sy Berger right?) wouldn't have been aware of and/or used it for potential design and layout ideas like they would have with a much more well known and popular set like the T205s. It is no problem, just something that makes logical common sense if some weird and obscure earlier issue does in fact exist, and contrary to what you're trying to say by twisting my words and meanings into what I never intended.

[Rhotchkiss]

T205's are very pretty indeed. Great looking cards. But T206 is the Granddaddy of all sets. It is the Monster. Its has the Wagner. It has the backs and well over 5000+ combinations. In my opinion, nothing, and I mean NO sports cards set, beats T206. And these guys all agree!

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

T205's are very pretty indeed. Great looking cards. But T206 is the Granddaddy of all sets. It is the Monster. Its has the Wagner. It has the backs and well over 5000+ combinations. In my opinion, nothing, and I mean NO sports cards set, beats T206. And these guys all agree!

Nothing like bringing the nuclear weapons to a knife fight. What a collection you’ve got

[JimC]

Originally Posted by Leon

I am evenly divided.... I still think the T205 Cobby is one of the very best looking cards in the hobby but I love me some T206 HOFers also....

Well sure, Leon, when the T205 looks like yours!

[JimC]

Originally Posted by skelly423

Nothing like bringing the nuclear weapons to a knife fight. What a collection you’ve got

Right??

[GasHouseGang]

But the T206's containing "nuclear weapons" is why I prefer the T205's. For years the T205's have been more affordable. There have always been some of the highest, if not THE highest priced cards in the hobby in the T206 set. You might actually be able to complete the T205 set without needing to mortgage your house or be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

[Vintagecatcher]

It's pretty much a toss up for me. Like the 1911 Obaks and T207s better than both the T205s and T206.

Patrick

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

I never expected or anticipated someone to try and bring up boxing, golf cards, or the like because those are not comparable to sports where you have seasons and stats shown as on the backs of cards like the T205s, and how similar they are to modern cards for baseball and other major team sports. I should know there are always going to be some who twist things for their own purposes or meanings so as to criticize others. Boxing's popularity now or then has nothing to do with this as listing the results of several fights is totally different than listing a player's annual stats in a season by season format, as shown on the T205 cards, which is what I was referring to. I don't think I've ever seen a modern baseball card issue that shows how all the players did game by game, which is what these boxing card stats you referenced do, show how the fighter performed event by event. Which as far as I'm concerned shows you either don't understand my point at all, or are just possibly trying to be a troll?

To me the idea that the T205 cards were the first ever to be like how they show bio info and annual statistics on cards today was one of the things that attracted me to them. Were they the true inspiration for how modern cards display a player's annual stats, maybe, maybe not, who really knows for sure? You citing 1952 Topps as the inspiration for modern cards is not accurate. I think of 1952 Topps as the start of modern cards, whose design may have been inspired by things like what was shown on T205 cards. That was the reference I was making and referring to. You want to call me out on what your differing thoughts and opinions are on what constitutes the way modern cards are described, go right ahead. It certainly doesn't make you right or me wrong. I can't, nor would I ever try to, prove that the way season stats were portrayed on the backs of T205 cards was the true inspiration for how they ended up being shown on '52 Topps cards, but you can't prove to me they weren't either. And since I'm not aware of an earlier set that ever showed seasonal player stats prior to how it was shown on the T205s, the T205s could have very well been an influence or even indirect inspiration to the '52 Topps production after all. I'm assuming that whenever people designing sports cards go to produce them that they often study and examine previous major card issues of others to possibly glean ideas and insights for their own new card issue (like listing player stats season by season), and to not erroneously copy other designs without full knowledge and intent in doing so. And as for asking others for information on earlier examples of sets, quit trying to be snarky by somehow inferring that I'm then making that out to be problem, which is exactly what you're trying to do. You are, or at least should be, better than that. I am pretty familiar with all the main baseball sets listed in the old SCD catalogs over the years, and am fairly confident that there isn't going to be any earlier baseball card issues that show individual player season's stats like they do on the T205s, along with player bios. But I also know that I clearly don't know everything (and in fact know very little), and am well aware there could be some weird, obscure, or only recently discovered set out there I've never heard of before that does have some similar seasonal player stats and bios on the back. But if there is, I think it fair to speculate that it is so rare and obscure, or possibly even unknown at the time, that the people designing the '52 Topps set (Sy Berger right?) wouldn't have been aware of and/or used it for potential design and layout ideas like they would have with a much more well known and popular set like the T205s. It is no problem, just something that makes logical common sense if some weird and obscure earlier issue does in fact exist, and contrary to what you're trying to say by twisting my words and meanings into what I never intended.

Annual stats in a season format. Not a weird or obscure issue, it is one of the more common T issues made by the exact same company.

Still haven't seen evidence the earliest cards of T205 precedes T201; I'm not sure which came first. If you don't like it, that's fine. You can write as many paragraphs as you want about how pointing out earlier examples is trolling, asking others for their opinions shows the point is obscure and insist modern cards are using T205 as inspiration for their back designs. Enjoy that. I'm really only interested in evidence of what the first stat back sets were, both for baseball and for sports in general. We go back to the 1880's with Cabinets, but those with those backs generally weren't full sets. We have British sets and some N sets using the write up element, and some other T sets using both. T205 isn't the first for sports; I'm unsure if it is for Baseball.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by skelly423

Nothing like bringing the nuclear weapons to a knife fight. What a collection you’ve got

Lol, thanks. But David makes a good point too. Both sets are pretty awesome.

[BCauley]

I don't think I can really decide between the two. Probably depends more on the day/week/month and how I'm feeling at any given time. Hell, I went through a stretch where I liked the T207s more than the other two. As much as the T206 portraits are my favorite niche out of tobacco cards, I'd take the T205 Mathewson over his portrait any time as I just like the look of it a lot more.

[t206blogcom]

I have to go with T206s; been a fan since I was kid. There's something about their simplicity, the white borders, the beautiful backgrounds that draw me in. I tried to get into T205s, but they didn't do anything for me. The design is too busy for me.

[Exhibitman]

I'm a T206 portrait fan. I prefer the simple, clean design with many classic Horner portraits turned into those very detailed images. T205 loses me because the portraits are not as detailed and for its approach to each league. The cards from the AL, NL and ML all look like they are from different sets. I also find the color borders distracting. My preference over T207 would be the end panels from T202s (which i think are the most interesting T designs of all):



As for N cards foretelling modern cards, The N269 Lorillard set is one I enjoy because the cards are roughly modern in dimensions and have bio backs

[Harford20]

My Icon/Avatar is a T205 Mathewson for a reason. I am a "variations" collector, and started with T206 HOF back runs. I transitioned into the T205 HOF back runs about 7 years ago and have rarely faltered since (think I have purchased 3 T206 HOF cards in the past 7 years, and close to 80 T205 HOF cards). T205 > T206 for me.

Although the T206 iconic cards are appealing, I will have to continue to admire those of Rhotchkiss.

Dave

[jingram058]

That Sullivan card is very, very cool, Adam!

[joejo20]

I cant decide

[Yoda]

Having handled thousands of cards from both sets, have to go, mostly because of the cogent points made by Bob C. and my own gut, with the T205's. I think the Addie Joss is really a special card with his tragic passing and the reverse of his card with a nice eulogy. Every tobacco card collector should have one.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

T205's are very pretty indeed. Great looking cards. But T206 is the Granddaddy of all sets. It is the Monster. Its has the Wagner. It has the backs and well over 5000+ combinations. In my opinion, nothing, and I mean NO sports cards set, beats T206. And these guys all agree!

DITTO....to what Ryan said.

I have put together 5 different T206 sets since 1981. And, only one T205 set, because the T205 cards just don't have the "charm" that the T206 cards do.
These images are crisp, and there is something magical about them.













TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[drcy]

I think the T206 is the greatest, plus my favorite, set ever made.

However, one can collect both plus other issues.

[Casey2296]

I'll choose T206 portraits because of the Horner Studio connection. I'll agree with Bill that I would rather have a T205 Matty instead of a T206 portrait

[GasHouseGang]

Well clearly the T205's are falling behind in pictures posted to prove the point, so here are a few to even the score. That should be enough for a little while. At least until Ted Zanidakis or Ryan (Rhotchkiss) jumps in again!

[orioles70]

Gotta go with T205

Completeable - yes
Challenging - yes
Variations - yes
Rarities - yes
Tough backs - yes
Different designs - yes
Facsimile signatures - yes
Bio and stats on back - yes
Condition sensitive - yes


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Leon]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

Well clearly the T205's are falling behind in pictures posted to prove the point, so here are a few to even the score. That should be enough for a little while. At least until Ted Zanidakis or Ryan (Rhotchkiss) jumps in again!

Absolutely love T205s with those crisp almost unblemished borders....
Such a hard choice between the 2 sets.

[jchcollins]

Disclaimer: I don't really collect prewar for the most part - because I couldn't afford it as a kid, and then I certainly couldn't afford it when I got back into the hobby in my late 30's a few years back. For my money I'd rather get midgrade cards of HOF'ers from the postwar era than beat cards of players I've never heard of from prewar - but I digress. I did grow up learning a lot about these sets, and have had the odd cards pass through here and there in my collection:

I would not disparage T206 as one of the great sets of all time. It was the first major national issue of cards that kids could for the most part get their hands on, and of course the Wagner made it iconic - and probably is the reason that poor condition commons from the set go for $50 and up (on eBay I can't find many even that cheap...) today. It's probably the most important set historically, in part due to those reasons.

My choice here would be T205 however, because if nothing else I would say it's sorely underrated in comparison to T206 and as perhaps the greatest follow-up set of all-time. There are still elements of T205 being reasonable and down to earth that no longer exist with T206, IMO. I think you all have pretty well covered that.

[nebboy]

Both have iconic cards in it respective set. But I’m on the T205 side of the fence.