T206 Question ?

[insidethewrapper]

Why isn't each back in the T206 Set a separate set , instead of all being grouped as a T206 Set ? If Topps released a set this year with their different brands( Topps ,Bazooka, Ring Pop, PushPop, Juicy Drop Pop etc) on the back of the cards( with the same style on front), wouldn't they all be unique sets ?

[packs]

You have to remember that the set isn't a set in the same sense that 2019 Topps Heritage is. Heritage is released as a singular product. The T206 "set" is an amalgamation of cards that people have decided constitutes a set and the rules for the set are made up by those same people. There isn't really any reason why the T213 type 1's aren't T206s and the same is true for the T215 type 1's. Each of these variations feature the same exact fronts with the backs being the only difference, which is the same difference that exists between say Sovereign and Hindu, except people decided to make them (t213 and t215) different in their cataloging.

[steve B]

Topps has done that with some of the recent sets, and they are just considered as inserts, sort of part of the regular set.

While The T206 brands could all be individual sets, Burdick didn't catalog them that way. Probably because it was assumed all the fronts came with all the backs with only a handful of exceptions.

I don't have a t213 type 1, but aren't they thinner than the T206s? Between that and probably not quite figuring out the years of type 2 and type 3 I can see why those were thought of as different.

T215, I think was issued (Or not?) By a company that was not part of the same company that issued T206, so again a difference that would have put them as being different despite having the same fronts. Of course, they were probably also intended for a non-US distribution, so should have been classed as foreign cards instead of under the T designation.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by steve B

Topps has done that with some of the recent sets, and they are just considered as inserts, sort of part of the regular set.

While The T206 brands could all be individual sets, Burdick didn't catalog them that way. Probably because it was assumed all the fronts came with all the backs with only a handful of exceptions.

I don't have a t213 type 1, but aren't they thinner than the T206s? Between that and probably not quite figuring out the years of type 2 and type 3 I can see why those were thought of as different.

T215, I think was issued (Or not?) By a company that was not part of the same company that issued T206, so again a difference that would have put them as being different despite having the same fronts. Of course, they were probably also intended for a non-US distribution, so should have been classed as foreign cards instead of under the T designation.

T213 Type-1s are so thin that they feel like they're paper rather that cardboard. Ted Z. can explain this in much more detail.

[packs]

There are other sets with similar compilations too. The Ramly set is one example. There isn't a catalog differentiation between the Ramly cards and the TTT cards. Not really any distinction in the M101 set either, aside from numbering the types under the same umbrella (like if Sovereigns were T206-3).

[buymycards]

The problem with using the thin paper of the Type 1 Coupon's as a reason to exclude it from the T206 set doesn't hold water. What about American Beauty, which are narrower than other T206's. Should they also be excluded?

We have discussed this on the board many, many times. The reason for the T206 set being defined the way it is, is that one person, many years ago, with very limited information, made this decision. I am in awe of the work that Burdick did in regard to cataloging the sets, but in some cases, new information has come to light that Burdick wasn't aware of.

Rick

[bounce]

Originally Posted by buymycards

We have discussed this on the board many, many times.

Coupons are not just different because of paper, there are other differences including font/color of the names, etc. They are not the same as T206 on the front, however they are very similar.

Ty Cobb backs are always debated, most "purists" I think feel those cards are not really part of T206 because there's zero evidence they were ever issued in packs or tins. Lots of various theories on them, but that's one that IS normally included as T206 despite lots of reasons not to be.

Agree that ultimately the cataloging that was originally done stuck, and it's not likely changing any time soon.

[buymycards]

The Type I Coupon has the same color font as a T206. How is this different than a T206?

[Rhotchkiss]

Personally, I think both t213-1 and t215-1 should be t206s. They both have same pics and names, in black, on front, and we’re issued between 1909-11. Not sure when the Cobb back was issued, but it too has same front and black writing, so I am fine with it being considered a t206.

T213-2/3, t214, and t215-2 were issued after 1911 and have the blue writing on front. No way these are t206s

[Leon]

So much hogwash (to me) in this thread. While Burdick didn't get everything correct (and absolutely knew that) he did get T206 correct. No, T213s or T215s are not, and never will be, T206. They are different cards and series. No gray area to me. To each their own.

[packs]

Why though? If it's the method of distribution, I could see Polar Bears being a distinct set too. The distribution was totally different from the other T206s in that the cards came in a pouch of tobacco and not a pack of cigarettes. What differences exist between type 1 issues of T213 and T215?

[Rhotchkiss]

Leon, in your opinion, why should T cards issued between 1909-11, with same t206 fronts, including black lettering, not be included as t206s? Specifically I am talking about T213-1 and T215–1. What makes these cards any less a T206 than American Beauties, other than they were not initially classified as such?

I am very open to opinions, but merely calling a stance hogwash is not evidence/persuasive. I know there are others threads and plenty of arguments, but why specifically do you think t213-1 and t215-1 are not t206s (besides initial classification)? Thanks

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Leon, in your opinion, why should T cards issued between 1909-11, with same t206 fronts, including black lettering, not be included as t206s? Specifically I am talking about T213-1 and T215–1. What makes these cards any less a T206 than American Beauties, other than they were not initially classified as such?

I am very open to opinions, but merely calling a stance hogwash is not evidence/persuasive. I know there are others threads and plenty of arguments, but why specifically do you think t213-1 and t215-1 are not t206s (besides initial classification)? Thanks

T213s were issued over a span of how many years? How many years were T206s issued.
No T206 has a blue caption on front. No T206 is paper thin. No T206 has multiple colors of print on front (with the different series).

T215s- Were issued later than T206. Have different colors of captions on front. Have different type card stock for the 2 series (though could be mistaking on that one as I haven't handled both versions recently)

Burdick knew exactly what he was doing on these series as, in the ACC, he said that 213, 214 and 215 were similar to T206. That is perfect proof he got them correct. He is the one that wrote the catalog and gave ample evidence why those series were cataloged differently. It is really not even close imho....but again, everyone can believe what they want to. I go by the facts.

[insidethewrapper]

My initial post was , why isn't each T206 back a set in itself ( ie. Polar Bear, Piedmont, etc, etc.) not which cards should be included in the T206 set. Please stay on the posted topic. If Coupon is on the back it is a Coupon Set, if Polar Bear then a Polar Bear set, etc. If this is the knowledge we have now, let's change it. IMO - Should be a checklist for each " Back" in the Catalogs. I think Ted has been trying to do this.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

My initial post was , why isn't each T206 back a set in itself ( ie. Polar Bear, Piedmont, etc, etc.) not which cards should be included in the T206 set. Please stay on the posted topic. If Coupon is on the back it is a Coupon Set, if Polar Bear then a Polar Bear set, etc. If this is the knowledge we have now, let's change it. IMO - Should be a checklist for each " Back" in the Catalogs. I think Ted has been trying to do this.

I agree! A Committee of sorts would be essential in the hobby to make such changes and also to help dictate what "alterations/conservations" are acceptable in the hobby. Problem is it might be difficult to assemble a committee of "honest" people to make such decisions.

[ullmandds]

JB did an amazing job with what he had at the time...but with what we know now...changes to the ACC should be made.

[packs]

It's one man's methodology not gospel. Things don't have to be thought of the same way he thought of them.

[edhans]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Leon, in your opinion, why should T cards issued between 1909-11, with same t206 fronts, including black lettering, not be included as t206s? Specifically I am talking about T213-1 and T215–1. What makes these cards any less a T206 than American Beauties, other than they were not initially classified as such?

I am very open to opinions, but merely calling a stance hogwash is not evidence/persuasive. I know there are others threads and plenty of arguments, but why specifically do you think t213-1 and t215-1 are not t206s (besides initial classification)? Thanks

There are cogent arguments for classifying T213-1 and T215-1 as T206s. To me, the primary reason that leads me to believe they are properly classified as distinct sets is that the selection of subjects does not fit into the print group rubric of the other backs.

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Why isn't each back in the T206 Set a separate set , instead of all being grouped as a T206 Set ? If Topps released a set this year with their different brands( Topps ,Bazooka, Ring Pop, PushPop, Juicy Drop Pop etc) on the back of the cards( with the same style on front), wouldn't they all be unique sets ?

T206 was selling tobacco, with a baseball incentive to buy. Topps was the opposite - they were never really selling chewing gum.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by packs

It's one man's methodology not gospel. Things don't have to be thought of the same way he thought of them.

I politely disagree. He wrote the catalog so, if it is the numbering we are talking about, it is gospel from who wrote it. But he also absolutely said it was a work in progress.
I feel we can make additions and corrections but we need to follow his methodology. It is a good one.
He used the Card Collectors Bulletins to make those modifications to the ACC. Of course he had supplements to most of those too (if not all of them). Those were separate and loose page additions.
So yes, I would like to (possibly) see W503 reclassified as E503. He classified W500 Trading or Strip Cards in the generic Trading and Strip Card category (those without classifications). And the W503 have long been considered regular E type cards. The W600 Sporting Life were classifiedGeneral Issues and he thought of them more as pictures than cards when he said "The General Issues were sold more as pictures and the Trading cards as trading cards." My belief is that W600s are cards but he thought of them as pictures. So, I see room for potential change on that one too,. And I am not against some other changes that make sense.....
That all said I think he got T206s, T213s, T214s and T215s correct.

What is a thread without cards!!


.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Leon

T213s were issued over a span of how many years? How many years were T206s issued.
No T206 has a blue caption on front. No T206 is paper thin. No T206 has multiple colors of print on front (with the different series).

T215s- Were issued later than T206. Have different colors of captions on front. Have different type card stock for the 2 series (though could be mistaking on that one as I haven't handled both versions recently)

Burdick knew exactly what he was doing on these series as, in the ACC, he said that 213, 214 and 215 were similar to T206. That is perfect proof he got them correct. He is the one that wrote the catalog and gave ample evidence why those series were cataloged differently. It is really not even close imho....but again, everyone can believe what they want to. I go by the facts.

Leon, I am taking only about T213-1 and T215-1 (that is, the type one of both cards). These were issued between 1909 and 1911 (I think both in 1910), and they have black caption and the fronts look exactly the same as t206 on all accounts.

I agree that T213 types 2/3 and T215 type 2s are NOT t206s. But I still don’t understand why you say the TYPE 1 of t213 and t215 are not

[packs]

How do people feel about Red and Brown Hindu backs being part of the same set? Or how about T207 Recruit and T207 Red Cross / Red Cycle backs?

There are no differences between the T213-1 and T215-1 cards and the corresponding T206 issue. Team designations mirror each other, poses mirror each other, there are no new subjects in either T213-1 or T215-1; what's the difference?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Leon, I am taking only about T213-1 and T215-1 (that is, the type one of both cards). These were issued between 1909 and 1911 (I think both in 1910), and they have black caption and the fronts look exactly the same as t206 on all accounts.

I agree that T213 types 2/3 and T215 type 2s are NOT t206s. But I still don’t understand why you say the TYPE 1 of t213 and t215 are not

The answer, at minimum to both your and packs questions, is card stock and print, at least to me. The T213-1 has different card stock than any T206. Also, both of those have 2nd series produced differently. Do any T206s?

[packs]

How do you feel about the team changes in the T206 series? Surely they were printed later? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the O'Hara and Demmitt St. Louis cards are only available with a Polar Bear back. Applying the same rules as the T213 and T215 designations, should this card be considered apart from the T206 set?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by edhans

There are cogent arguments for classifying T213-1 and T215-1 as T206s. To me, the primary reason that leads me to believe they are properly classified as distinct sets is that the selection of subjects does not fit into the print group rubric of the other backs.

Hey Ed, not to put you on the spot, but can you explain this in greater detail?

[DeanH3]

Originally Posted by Leon

The answer, at minimum to both your and packs questions, is card stock and print, at least to me. The T213-1 has different card stock than any T206. Also, both of those have 2nd series produced differently. Do any T206s?

A thought to as why the second/third series were different might be because the y were produced after ATC was broken up, Maybe Ligget and Myers wanted them to be a little different on purpose. Just a thought.

[tedzan]

Hey Guys,

The Macon (Georgia) Telegraph newspaper was running advertisements introducing ATC's COUPON cigarette brand in the Spring of 1910. Thus, we have solid evidence that
the T213-1 cards were issued during the T206 print runs of their 350 Series.

The minor exception with the 1910 COUPON (with respect to the T206 cards) is that American Litho printed the 1910 COUPON cards on "thinner" cardboard. This was done
simply because these cards were not intended to serve as Cigarette pack " stiffeners ". The initial marketing of the COUPON cigarette brand was not in packs, instead these
cigarettes were packaged in the standard cigarette cartons (11" x 3" x 2") containing 100's of Cigarettes. We've discussed this topic numerous times on this forum.


The T206 Six Super Prints with the 1910 COUPON advertisement.

.



.













TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Leon

The answer, at minimum to both your and packs questions, is card stock and print, at least to me. The T213-1 has different card stock than any T206. Also, both of those have 2nd series produced differently. Do any T206s?

Card stock on t213-1 is legit, but how do you reconcile with American Beauty, which is skinnier than all other T206s? I think the best argument is that each of t213 and t215 has post 1911 versions. But the fronts of those versions look different, at least with the blue caption.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Card stock on t213-1 is legit, but how do you reconcile with American Beauty, which is skinnier than all other T206s? I think the best argument is that each of t213 and t215 has post 1911 versions. But the fronts of those versions look different, at least with the blue caption.

American Beauty's are allegedly smaller due to packaging constraints as per what Teddy said above. The one rebuttal to his (hey Ted) post is that the 3rd series of T213 were issued in 1919. I doubt T206s were.
Your (Ryan) other agreements are valid . I really need some more T206s so I don't keep showing the same ones over and over!!

[buymycards]

This is a little off topic, but it is interesting that, after the break up of ATC, the only tobacco companies that used the T206 images were the Louisiana brands, People's, Red Cross, Coupon, etc. So, after the success of the T206's, why were the T206 style cards only issued in Louisiana?

There must of been many other companies selling cigarettes, but none of them chose to include cards with their tobacco products, other than Fatima T200, T222, and the T330 Piedmont Art Stamps, none of which used the T206 images. The Fatima's and Piedmonts were issued in 1913 and 1914, which was before the U.S. entered WWI.

Even the T213-2's, which were issued between 1914 and 1916 were issued before the U.S. entered the war in August of 1917. The T213-3's were issued in 1919, after the war ended in 1918. T214's were issued in 1915 and T216's between 1911 and 1916.

There are several questions that can be asked about the above statements, but I certainly don't know the answers.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Leon

American Beauty's are allegedly smaller due to packaging constraints as per what Teddy said above. The one rebuttal to his (hey Ted) post is that the 3rd series of T213 were issued in 1919. I doubt T206s were.

Hey good buddy,

I don't think I will ever convince you the 1910 COUPON cards are really T206's.....and, you will never convince me otherwise.....Que Sera, Sera
Anyway, I'll make one more effort to sway you with this illustration......


-------------------------------------------------------- Issued Spring 1910






Followed by...…



Issued 1914 - 1915 ----------------------------------------- 1913 - 1914 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1919



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by buymycards

This is a little off topic, but it is interesting that, after the break up of ATC, the only tobacco companies that used the T206 images were the Louisiana brands, People's, Red Cross, Coupon, etc. So, after the success of the T206's, why were the T206 style cards only issued in Louisiana?

There must of been many other companies selling cigarettes, but none of them chose to include cards with their tobacco products, other than Fatima T200, T222, and the T330 Piedmont Art Stamps, none of which used the T206 images. The Fatima's and Piedmonts were issued in 1913 and 1914, which was before the U.S. entered WWI.

Even the T213-2's, which were issued between 1914 and 1916 were issued before the U.S. entered the war in August of 1917. The T213-3's were issued in 1919, after the war ended in 1918. T214's were issued in 1915 and T216's between 1911 and 1916.

There are several questions that can be asked about the above statements, but I certainly don't know the answers.

Can Rick or anyone tell me why Red Cross are considered a Louisiana issue?

[buymycards]

As I understand it, a large find of T215's were discovered in Louisiana quite a few years ago, so they are considered a Louisiana issue.

Personally, I do not consider the T215's to be a Louisiana issue. They were printed in New Jersey, unlike the T211's, T213's, T214's, and T216's.

I have been putting together a type set of cards that were printed in Louisiana, and this set does not include T215's.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Card stock on t213-1 is legit, but how do you reconcile with American Beauty, which is skinnier than all other T206s? I think the best argument is that each of t213 and t215 has post 1911 versions. But the fronts of those versions look different, at least with the blue caption.

The AB cards are a minefield as far as using size to determine if they should be part of the set. There are regular T206s that are nearly as narrow as most ABs and narrower than some. There are also ABs that are much closer to full size.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by buymycards

As I understand it, a large find of T215's were discovered in Louisiana quite a few years ago, so they are considered a Louisiana issue.

Personally, I do not consider the T215's to be a Louisiana issue. They were printed in New Jersey, unlike the T211's, T213's, T214's, and T216's.

I have been putting together a type set of cards that were printed in Louisiana, and this set does not include T215's.

Of the five sets mentioned, the only one that I don't think was produced by ALC in NY would be the T216s, which remind me more of the E90's. I don't really see ALC loaning out the art or transfers to anyone else.

[Jgrace]

As someone relatively new to the T206 and other tobacco sets, this has been a very informative discussion for me. Thanks to all for passing on the knowledge

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by steve B

Of the five sets mentioned, the only one that I don't think was produced by ALC in NY would be the T216s, which remind me more of the E90's. I don't really see ALC loaning out the art or transfers to anyone else.

T216s are odd birds indeed. They do have the fronts of e90-1, as well as many other E cards and a few D cards. In fact, they are the only T cards with these fronts. And, that’s why I love all t216 Wagners, because aside from t206, which is impossible, t216 are, I believe, the only tobacco cards with Wagner on them.

Jgrace- sincere thanks for posting and I am glad this thread is helpful. I did not discover this site until after I fell headlong into t206s, and the knowledge on this site about pre 1922 issues (especially T and E cards) is the reason this is a top site I visit. Plus I have made many friends

[rats60]

Originally Posted by buymycards

The problem with using the thin paper of the Type 1 Coupon's as a reason to exclude it from the T206 set doesn't hold water. What about American Beauty, which are narrower than other T206's. Should they also be excluded?

We have discussed this on the board many, many times. The reason for the T206 set being defined the way it is, is that one person, many years ago, with very limited information, made this decision. I am in awe of the work that Burdick did in regard to cataloging the sets, but in some cases, new information has come to light that Burdick wasn't aware of.

Rick

The paper is the issue. E90-1 cards share the same fronts with other caramel issues and a tobacco issue. It isn't an issue that they are catalogued as different sets. In the 90s, I collected basketball cards because of Michael Jordan. I would never dream of putting a Topps card in a Topps Chrome set. The cards are nothing alike except for using the same picture. It is the same with t206 and Coupon Type 1. They aren't the same cards, they aren't the same set. I would never buy a coupon card to fill a hole in my t206 set.

You make a good point on the American Beauty cards. I noticed that when I started collecting t206 35 years ago and I deliberately avoided buying any of those cards for my set. If there is any change to be made with the backs in the set, in my opinion it should be excluding the card backs that are not like the others, American Beauty and Ty Cobb, not adding more backs that have little in common with t206. I have no problem leaving them as is, it is Burdick's work not ours.

[sreader3]

For anyone interested, I have posted some thoughts on this topic here:

http://www.t206insider.com/store/c1/insider#research/

Cheers.

Scot

[RCMcKenzie]

Nice article on T206, Scot, I enjoyed reading it. I'm fine with the nomenclature remaining, but as a back collector, I go by the backs for all cards, T205, T206, T207, T213, T216, T218, T219...

If I find a T218 Tolstoi, I put it in a separate box from my T218 Mecca etc...When TedZ lines up all the backs to show the same design, either they are all together, or all separate. I'm fine with separate. I don't even go by the fronts in t216, I group them by the 5 backs. T216 are 5 different sets to me. It's a fun discussion. The only Latin I know is tempus fugit...Rob

I'm fine with just letting it be.

[62corvette]

I will add what I can—most of you are far more advanced than I. In winter 1971 I picked up 1100 tobacco cards from a retired farmer outside of Max, ND. He got the cards as a kid in NYC. There were a few fish, soldiers, etc. but about 1050 of them were T205 and T206. A pretty wide variety of backs, including the first T205 Hindu reported in the hobby. No other baseball, no T-213 or T-215. I know there is nothing definitive in that, and is primarily anecdotal, FWIW.

[buymycards]

Originally Posted by 62corvette

I will add what I can—most of you are far more advanced than I. In winter 1971 I picked up 1100 tobacco cards from a retired farmer outside of Max, ND. He got the cards as a kid in NYC. There were a few fish, soldiers, etc. but about 1050 of them were T205 and T206. A pretty wide variety of backs, including the first T205 Hindu reported in the hobby. No other baseball, no T-213 or T-215. I know there is nothing definitive in that, and is primarily anecdotal, FWIW.

That must have been a huge thrill. Thank you for sharing that!

But, just because there weren't any Coupons or Red Cross cards doesn't mean much. Were there Uzits, Broadleaf, Drum, etc.? If not, it doesn't mean that they aren't part of the T206 set. I'm not trying to argue with you. Just expressing my opinion.

It must have been exciting to go through 1100 cards, one by one, seeing who was on the front and then turning them over to check out the backs. I get excited when I find a group of 1989 Topps at a garage sale, and I would probably need CPR if I came across 1100 tobacco cards.

[62corvette]

Originally Posted by buymycards

That must have been a huge thrill. Thank you for sharing that!

But, just because there weren't any Coupons or Red Cross cards doesn't mean much. Were there Uzits, Broadleaf, Drum, etc.? If not, it doesn't mean that they aren't part of the T206 set. I'm not trying to argue with you. Just expressing my opinion.

It must have been exciting to go through 1100 cards, one by one, seeing who was on the front and then turning them over to check out the backs. I get excited when I find a group of 1989 Topps at a garage sale, and I would probably need CPR if I came across 1100 tobacco cards.

I had no idea what they were. I subscribed to “The Trader Speaks”, so I went home and did research. No Uzits or Drums, but several Broadleafs—-and no shortage of Piedmonts or Sweet Caps. I had to force $20 on him. He wanted to give them to me. Called him and told him that I owed him more money, and he said he kept them all those years, just hoping to find someone who wanted them.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by 62corvette

I will add what I can—most of you are far more advanced than I. In winter 1971 I picked up 1100 tobacco cards from a retired farmer outside of Max, ND. He got the cards as a kid in NYC. There were a few fish, soldiers, etc. but about 1050 of them were T205 and T206. A pretty wide variety of backs, including the first T205 Hindu reported in the hobby. No other baseball, no T-213 or T-215. I know there is nothing definitive in that, and is primarily anecdotal, FWIW.

Wonder what that find would be worth today? Thanks for sharing.

.