What if..Burdick had classified T206's with respect to their individual 15 T-brands ?

[tedzan]

This subject pops up occasionally, and can be very thought-provoking. Having put together 4 "complete" T206 sub-sets (PIEDMONT....
SOVEREIGN....SWEET CAPORAL Factory 30....SWEET CAPORAL 150 Factory 649), I am currently working on several other T-brand sub-
sets. So, I'll start this conversation with my thoughts on this.

Like most T206 collectors, I put together my 1st set (521 cards w/Magie) comprising of a mix of all 15 basic T206 brands. But, as many
of you know, the addiction to these cards does not stop there. After the novelty wears off, you want to continue. The Monster has its
hooks on you. So, I continued......

It has been a really great learning process, and I wish Burdick had catalogued the T206's by brand 75 years ago. This form of classifi-
cation would have encouraged many collectors to tackle these various sub-sets many-many years ago. By now, with great certainty,
we would have a real grasp on the card make-up of each of the 15 brands.

If Burdick had classified the T206's by brand, the Piedmont brand would be #1 (as it was foremost in J. B. Duke's ATC monopoly). Then,
followed as such:

Class.............Brand........................... Cards (in complete set)

T206-1........PIEDMONT.........................522

T206-2........SWEET CAPORAL fac. 30......469

T206-3........SOVEREIGN........................407

ETC., ETC......

Some might consider this "inane, silly, ridiculous, crazy, or whatever".....however, check-out the Standard Catalog. Bob Lemke has
already depicted and identified each of the 15 basic brands (alphabetically throughout the book). So, all we need now are the lists
of confirmed cards to be included in these sections in the Catalog.


So much for my thoughts....please post yours (whether pro or con)....let the discussion begin ?


TED Z

[CardTarget]

If he had classified them all differently, would we still call it "The Monster"? Or just a bunch of little gremlins?

I think it would take a little of the shine off of the set if it wasn't all considered one big giant set.

[drdduet]

{Some might consider this "inane, silly, ridiculous, crazy, or whatever"}

Those who feel that way can't help. I am on board for this type of analysis. Such work will prove to be illuminating.


"Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody has thought." --Albert Szent-Gyorgi

Keep up the strong work Ted!

[teetwoohsix]

Well,after giving this much thought,I realized that I am not as much against this idea as I am including cards from other sets into T206.I can't say I WANT this to happen,but could work with it.............

The problem I see is trying to complete the first subset would take years and years-just to have to begin the NEXT subset.Would many people complete the project before they die?Probably not.

The first three subsets have a card count of 1,398.I have been collecting the way TedZ said he collected his first set of 521.My goal was to obtain examples of each available back and one of each front.The goal seemed realistic.If Burdick had designated T206 into subsets,I'd be thinking "I'll NEVER finish this,unless I start not giving a crap about condition".I have a goal of staying in the V/G grade and above.That would have to go out the window fast.

So-would there be a "complete set" at 521-524,which could be one example of each front w/any back,,,,,,,,,,and then a "master set" which would be one of each confirmed front back combo,within each subset?This question may have been adressed in the other thread.I'd love to see where this goes.......

Sincerely,Clayton

[E93]

Originally Posted by CardTarget

If he had classified them all differently, would we still call it "The Monster"? Or just a bunch of little gremlins?

I think it would take a little of the shine off of the set if it wasn't all considered one big giant set.

I tend to agree. I think they would still be extremely popular, but it is interesting to speculate about how the collecting patterns would be different if there were 17 different sets (I would include Coupon type 1s personally).

Would those who want their sets to truly be complete not pursue Sweet Cap since that would definitely require a Wagner? One could argue that Wagner probably was never issued in Piedmont packs since, of the two known examples, one was certainly hand-cut, and the other is widely believed to have been cut off a strip or sheet of some sort.
JimB

[PolarBear]

I think this is the future of collection T206's. I'm not working on a set myself, but this is the way I would collect them. T205's as well for that matter.

And what about coupon backs.

[JasonL]

Each back is a different tobacco, and distribution was regional based upon brand, right?
So the T206 is not actually one large set, but rather a collection of the various Regional sets.

If all that is true and acceptable, then wouldn't it make sense that if you were a collector back in 1911, your available set would be whatever was distributed in your region with the brand of tobacco you can buy?

If so, then when these were issued, there were as many sets being collected as there are backs and distribution areas.

If all of that makes any sense at all, then I would say that the T206 is certainly a collection of sets, analagous to any of the more modern Regionals.

[E93]

All classification and categorization is, to some extent, a function of subjective imputing or superimposition. Now I am getting philosophical...
JimB

[barrysloate]

If T206 were collected and catalogued by back only, how would T206 be differentiated from any of the sets that shared the same fronts?

Collectors would still go after the Piedmont and Sweet Caporal sets, but what collector today would try to finish the Lenox set, or the Uzit? And if one weren't working on the Polar Bear set, would he care about the Demmitt or O'Hara variations? They wouldn't even be a part of his set.

And finally, the Ty Cobb King of the Smoking Tobacco World set would be complete at one card.

[E93]

I agree with Barry. The only people who would pursue the tougher brands would be type collectors like Leon. As it is now, many T206 set collectors, myself included, want at least one example of each of the different T206 brands in their set.
JimB

[barrysloate]

There also probably wouldn't be the designation T206. You might have 15 different ACC numbers. It would change the complexion of the set.

[drdduet]

Had this been the method of the original classification I speculate that the tougher brands (Uzit, Drum, Lenox, etc.) would not have had such a large associated premium. While they probably would still go for high dollar, they wouldn't be $1000+ commons--I feel collectors would have paid less attention to them on the whole.

Within the "sets" themselves, series and factory #'s would have become much more important...and thus provided us with "new" hobby gems. For example a Sweet Caporal Master set would be born in which much more attention would be brought to Factory #25 an overprints, etc, etc, etc.

[tiger8mush]

How about:

T206-1 = 150 Series
T206-2 = 350 Series
T206-3 = 460 Series
T206-4 = 68 Series (Coupon)

Everyone else was throwing out options, so i figured I would too

[caramelcard]

We've discussed this idea many times on this board.

I really think that if Burdick thought about it, he decided against it because so many collectors at the time (and now) were collecting a player set.

If it were changed, we would still have to call the player set something.

Rob

[E93]

To a certain degree Burdwick's decision to consider it as one set accords with that of the issuer, ATC. After all, when they added new cards (fronts), they changed the backs to indicate that the set as a whole had grown. In fact, there are nowhere near 460 subjects in the "460 series", but that is close to the number of total subjects in the T206 set including those issued in the 150 and 350 series (I realize none of those numbers were perfectly accurate). So, perhaps Burdwick's intuition was correct in designating all cards with similar looking fronts issued between 1909-11 by the ATC via its tobacco brands to be "T206s". That seems to have been the thinking of the ATC, that it was one massive set of baseball subjects used to advertise the whole host of their tobacco brands of the period.

JimB

P.S. Similar questions could be asked about N172. In that case, one could make more compelling arguments for multiple different sets on a number of grounds.

[tedzan]

My understanding of the 150--350--460 series is that these numbers represented a "ballpark" number of cummulative Subjects.

That is......

1st Series.....150 Subjects......actually 156 cards

2nd Series.....350 Subjects......actually 208 cards.....(totals approx. 350)

3rd Series......460 Subjects......actually 109 cards.....(totals approx. 460)


TED Z

[E93]

Ted,
Thank you for the exact counts. I knew somebody would come through with those and had a suspicion it would be you.
JimB

[drdduet]

"Everyone else was throwing out options, so i figured I would too"

Hi Rob, interestingly enough the Coupon Type 1 (68) is made up of 42 350 only subjects, the 6 superprints, and the 20 Southern Association Southern Leaguers.

[toppcat]

I've always thought that the closer to a source information is accrued, then generally the more reliable the information. I feel this way about Burdick and the ACC and especially how he grouped cards (yes, I realize some are incorrectly assigned). I have always thought he grouped T206 together as they shared a concerted marketing campaign from a parent apparatus and the same with T213 but of course there is no definitive proof of this. The fact that the Coupons are primarily viewed as Louisiana sets is revealing and likely reflects information accrued by early collectors as to what was to be grouped with what is an argument against their inclusion in the T206 universe.

Having said that, there is a lot of merit in the argument T213-1 could be reclassified as T206 with the biggest obstacle to my mind being the paper stock. But if you can get past that you could also argue types 2 and 3 belong with T206 as well as it is not unheard of for changes to occur from one series to the next and still have cards be considered part of the same set. I can cite 55 Bowman Baseball, 62 Topps Baseball and 69 Topps Football as modern examples where an obvious design change occurred from series to series and there are many sets or groupings where fonts and/or paper stock change from one series to the next. And who is to say what was planned for the ACC baseball series, both front and back-wise had the breakup and then the war not occurred?

Of course the post ACC breakup blue captioned Coupons further complicate the argument!

Personally, I consider the T213-1's are part of the Coupon universe but there is enough of an argument already in place that if further connections can be revealed a reconsideration would be in order.

Your experience may vary.....

[drdduet]

"What if..Burdick had classified T206's with respect to their individual 15 T-brands ?"

I don't think he could have been faulted. Take Polar Bear for example, the Polar Bear series include two unique subjects--O'Hara and Demmitt St. Louis and was distributed in pouches.

American Beauty has its own unique size.

Piedmont and Sweet Caporal lay claim to unique subjects as well--Wagner and Plank.

Each brand has its own series inclusions/exclusions and its own back color and design, distribution "networks" differ, regional issuance, etc.

Ted's ABCD theory separates brands by series distribution and design. Also, his Piedmont Primacy theory separates this issue from the others.

The brands can be separated from those that list the series (Piedmont, Sweet Caporal, etc) and those that don't (Polar Bear, Uzit, Coupon, etc...-the assorted backs).

Maybe....

[tedzan]

Gentleman....it's not rocket science

We have a simple set of factors that should define a T206 card. My contention is, that these 4 criteria
determine if a BB card qualifies as a T206......

1st....White border

2nd....Brown caption

3rd....Issued within the timeframe....Spring of 1909 -- Summer of 1911

4th....Card's back advertises an ATC owned tobacco brand during this timeframe


Therefore, we must include COUPON (T213-1), RED CROSS (T215-1), and the Ty Cobb (Ty Cobb back)
to the established 15 tobacco brands of the T206 set.


TED Z

[caramelcard]

Ted,

Apparently it is rocket science because...

T215-1 has Clark Griffith with Washington which puts the set in 1912.

Rob

[PolarBear]

This discussion parallels how coin collecting evolved in the late 19th century. I did an extensive analysis of that in another thread. I'm too lazy to look it up just now though.

[ethicsprof]

Darren,
an amazing wealth of notes you offer and a most illuminating recapitulation of
30+ years (Coupon Type 1--Notes and Facts thread).
a little help with your overall 'feel' for the notes which you offer.
utilizing Ted's definitional criteria for T206s listed on this thread (white border;brown caption; issued within spring of '09 and summer of '11; card's back advertises an ATC owned back during the time frame) along with your copious notes, do you find Ted's criteria necessary but not sufficient definitionally or do you find the criteria both necessary and sufficient?
Or do you feel your notes point to another possibility? Obviously, my focus is on the Coupon 1 classification.
many thanks for the great threads on these topics fellows.
best,
barry

[teetwoohsix]

Great point Robert A.!!!

This is another thing-since the T215-1's are set between 1910-1912,how can this work,as far as introducing them into T206?

I still vote to leave things as is with the classifications of these cards.A complete set should be one example of each front with whatever back.Subsets are always an option one has when collecting,but why make it be "the norm"?Wouldn't most people see it as too much of a daunting task,and therefore turn and run?

These recent threads about T206,T213's,T215's make me think of these lyrics-some will recognize them,some won't-
"If only you believe like I believe, baby,we'd get by
If only you believe in miracles,baby,so would I"

Have a great night folks!!!
Sincerely,Clayton

[tedzan]

The T215-1 set was printed and issued in several series during 1910 to 1912.

Regarding your comment on Clark Griffith....
Ban Johnson (AL President) liked Griffith; and, started in the Summer of 1911 to persuade Griffith to switch to the AL to manage
the Washington team for the 1912 season.

REFERENCED......
Oct 30, 1911 - Clark Griffith is named manager at Washington‚ beginning a stand in the Capital as manager‚ then owner‚ that will
last until his death in 1955.


Regards,

TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

So TedZ-I know that you have put a lot of time into this,and would like to know what type of resolution would satisfy your theories?

Meaning-what do you think should happen?How would you break things down,what would be included into T206,what wouldn't,what would happen to the rest of their "old" series (T213-2,T213-3,T215-2,etc.)?I only ask because I think you have put so much thought into this that I bet you already have drawn up the "plans".

I know the majority is probably not with me on my position,but that's ok.I just wish more T206 collectors would chime in-I know there are lots more reading this thread.Come on people,lets hear what you think!!!!

Sincerely,Clayton

[E93]

Ted,
I am admittedly ignorant on the T215 Red Cross cards. Clearly they were still (only?) being issued in 1912. Can you explain why it is believed they began to be issued in 1910? Do you know why they were grouped with the Pirate cards? Are they the same 100 cards with both backs?
Thanks,
JimB

[drdduet]

"do you find Ted's criteria necessary but not sufficient definitionally or do you find the criteria both necessary and sufficient?"

Hi Barry,

I agree with Ted on his criteria, but do feel it is incomplete. I'll elaborate further soon. The subject inclusion is important to me and thus it must in some way match the subject inclusion in T206 and its series.

[drdduet]

As for as T215-1, I have not seen sufficient evidence that it belongs in T206. Off the top of my head I know, for example, that it contains only one Chase and no Evers but does contain the other 4 T206 super prints--thus has a "series fracture" that does not make total sense. T213-1 does contain all of the 6 T206 super prints, no "series fracture."

While "series fractionation" may be present, a "series fracture" excludes it--IMHO. I use the term "series fractionation" to simply mean a "series fracture" that makes sense--for example T213-1 includes 4 of the 14 T206 350 only Southern Leaguers, but these 4 are all of the Southern Association players of those 14. A "series fracture" in this example would be if T213-1 contained 2 of the 14, but there was no logic to deduce why?

Thus,

A "series fracture" is exclusionary, and "series fractionation" is not necessarily so.

[tedzan]

The T215-1, and its British counterpart with the PIRATE backs, comprise of the same 96 card fronts.

Both these sets are white-bordered with Brown captions. Approx. half of the fronts were derived from
the 350 series of the T206 set, and the other fronts were derived from the 460 series. Therefore, my
guess is that the T215 set was printed and issued in 2 series....1st in 1910 and the 2nd series in 1912.







TED Z

[drdduet]

If T215-1 is a T206 issue then that Griffith, Washington because a very rare desirable T206 variation. It's not unheard of for one T206 brand to have a "monopoly" on a subject--just look at Polar Bear with O'hara and Demmitt.

Just to be certain--Red Cross was owned by ATC in 1910-1912, correct?

If that is so, there is still some kinks in the issue that need to be straightened out for me to consider T215-1 T206, like the series fracture of the superprints.

It would take a whole lot more convincing if it were suggested the T215 Pirate was T206--brand not owned by ATC.

[tedzan]

Indeed, the Clark Griffith (batting) card in the T215-1 is identified with Washington. Therefore, this card was issued in
the 2nd series (Winter 1911 or Spring 1912).

Red Cross was part of the ATC monpoly in 1910. After ATC's divesture in May 1911, I'm not sure where Red Cross was
assigned to.
That reminds me, did you know that after May 1911, COUPON Tobacco was assigned to the Liggett & Myers Co.

Furthermore, you noted that Evers (of the 6 super-print fame) is not in the T215-1 set. Well, that is very strange since
it is in the T215 Pirate set. And, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that both these 2 sets have identical subjects.


TED Z

[ethicsprof]

Ted,your final point is most interesting.
Darren, utilizing the criterion of subject inclusion and seeing that there is a series fracture of the superprints in T215-1 Red Cross with the missing Evers,
what then do you do with Ted's 'monkey wrench';viz, Evers presence in the Pirate set.
Does this effect your contention that subject inclusion should be a criterion
added to Ted's 4 criteria?
many thanks,

best,
barry

[drdduet]

No it does not. Both the Standard Catalogue and SGC Registry checklist DO NOT have the exact same subjects for T215-1 Red Cross and T215 Pirate issue.

So, at this point I still hold to my fracture/fractionation theory in addition to Ted's criteria. I must say that T215 is on my short list though for further research into a unifying theory.

[sreader3]

What defines a "set" of cards? I will posit that the talisman is manufacturer's intent. That is, did the manufacturer mean for given cards to be part of the same set--or different sets?

With what we call T206, the difficulty resides in divining the intent of ATC--at least after the 150 series. In the beginning, ATC jointly marketed roughly 150 Major League baseball subjects with Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign backs. This was a fairly well-defined "set"--and in my view there is little doubt that most would consider these subjects as one "set" if ATC had stopped there.

But then things got messy. To meet regional demand, ATC introduced some of the 150 Major League subjects along with a new group of 34 Southern League subjects with the Brown Hindu back. Was this initial Brown Hindu release part of the same "set"? Perhaps--or maybe not.

Then ATC introduced a 350 series with a broader array of backs that included the original Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign backs, as well as several others.. And complicating matters even further, this 350 series extended the print runs of some, but not all, of the original 150 Major League subjects. Still the same "set"? Hmmm ....

Ted's four T206 criteria make some degree of sense because they are proxies for manufacturer's intent. However, I am not sure that these criteria are controlling in any meaningful sense. And because manufacturer's intent will probably never be known (if indeed ATC can be said to have ever had a discernable intent), a definitive answer to the question at hand will likely prove elusive.

Just my two cents.

[drdduet]

The controversy on whether or not T213-1 is actually a T206 is not new. Hobby historians like Lew Lipset didn't push the argument further than how it was classified in the ACC--that's a shame.

Furthermore at no time in history have we had the technology and the opportunity for knowledge and discussion as we do now.

Scot makes a valid point. Intent of manufacturer may only be assumed at this point--unless mission statements, corporate guidance, etc are discovered. The best we can do is theorize, and that's fun IMHO. I believe the stimulation of thought to be good for the hobby. Not that many of us need another reason to look at our cards, but maybe when we look at them this time it's in a different light.

[PolarBear]

I like sreader's argument about manufacturer's intent, but lets take a more pragmatic approach.

The manufacturer's intent was to make as much money as possible through the distribution of cards in their respective brands. I don't think they gave much consideration to how it would affect the classification of the overall "set".

I'm sure that people *had* to be confused and disappointed when they realized they couldn't find 350 or 460 subjects no matter how many Broadleaf packs they opened.

So, rather than focusing on intent, we should look at how the cards would have actually been collected as distribution allowed.

I doubt people were buying random packs of different brands just to find subjects they didn't have.

In fact, I'd bet that any original collections of T206's that have been found would be all, or mostly all, of one brand.

Classifying T206's by brand is not only the closest way to show how they would have actually been collected when originally distributed, but it's also the key to understanding *how* they were distributed.

[tedzan]

Scot.....your two shiny copper pennies are always appreciated. And, this comment of yours evoked some thoughts from my youth......"And
because manufacturer's intent will probably never be known".

True....we may never really know. However, I like to relate the impact of the T206 cards in 1909 to the impact that the 1952 Topps cards
made on us kids in 1952, and the BB card industry back then....if you will.

The popularity of these larger and more colorful cards in 1952 was amazing. The Topps Co. was probably most surprised. Topps responded
by reprinting their 1st series (thus Red Backs) and extending their set to 407 cards. Furthermore, Topps was very clever by holding off the
4 most popular BB players then (Mantle, Mays, Jackie Robinson and Bobby Thomson) till their Fall issue. My memories of this are clear (as
one's mind regresses, the older you get, and the memories of your youth return to you).

Bowman immediately responded by enlargening their smaller cards to compete with Topps. Followed by other company's (Bazooka, Dan Dee,
Hires, Red Man, Red Heart, Stahl-Meyers, Wilson Weiners) that got into the larger BB card market in the 1950's.

Finally, my point from making the above comparison, is that ATC realized the overwhelming impact that those little, colorful BB cards made
in 1909/1910 (especially with the young kids). So, we do have a a fairly accurate grasp of the "manufacturer's intent"....and, it was simply
to provide as many BB cards (or attractive non-sports premiums) in every tobacco package in the ATC system to enhance their sales.


Best regards,

TED Z

[barrysloate]

Were the manufacturers even giving a moment of thought to the concept of a set? Weren't they just thinking of the cheapest way to sell as many cigarettes as possible? I think it is the collecting community, a few generations later, who determined what comprised a complete set.

The people who issued the cards and stood to profit from them looked at these little cardboard swatches much differently than we do today. They weren't collectors, they were businessmen.

[barrysloate]

Just to add to my previous post:

A set such as E93, for example, was conceived as a set from the outset. There were thirty cards planned, all were carefully listed on the back of each card, any collector who cared knew which cards he needed, all of them were readily available, and no more were added in a later series. That is the definition of a set.

T206 was never issued as a set in that traditional sense. When the first series of cards were released in the fall of 1909, nobody had any idea there would eventually be some 523 cards, nobody knew there would be subsequent series, nobody knew that additional tobacco brands would join in the promotion, there was no rhyme or reason to the number of poses a player would have, etc. T206 was not a planned set, but an evolution. It just got bigger and more complex as time passed. Do you think any kid collecting back then knew if he had a complete set? Only collectors a generation or two later were able to piece it all together.

And here we are, a century later, still debating it.

[E93]

Good points Barry. I do think, however, that because they changed the backs by periodically adding to the number of total subjects (150, then 350, then 460, and the various permeations), that even the ATC considered it to be a single over-arching project of issuing advertising premiums with their tobacco products.
JimB

[drdduet]

Good, solid points.

The manufacturers of the day were motivated by profit (nothing has changed).

The cards of the day were premiums, not the product(that has changed).

The success of the original T206 "issue" (the 150 series), as evidenced by period periodicals and newspaper articles, prompted increased distribution as a manner of increased revenue. Thus the "pilot" study was a success and ATC followed suit with its top brands.

The manufacturer did not intend on the idea of a "set", thus the collecting community has the task of making this determination.

[barrysloate]

Jim- one interesting point to consider: the 150 series did not have 150 cards; the 350 series didn't bring the total to 350 cards; and the 460 series likewise didn't comprise 460 cards. These were just marketing ploys, to let the public know that they were still producing more cards and introducing new players. Even the manufacturers really weren't sure where it was headed, and at what point it would end.

[E93]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Jim- one interesting point to consider: the 150 series did not have 150 cards; the 350 series didn't bring the total to 350 cards; and the 460 series likewise didn't comprise 460 cards. These were just marketing ploys, to let the public know that they were still producing more cards and introducing new players. Even the manufacturers really weren't sure where it was headed, and at what point it would end.

Yes, that is true, but it does not change the fact that it seems to have been conceptualized as a unified project - not one where the issuer determined that since there are far less than 100 different fronts subjects with Drum backs that we should not put "350 Subjects" on the back. The evidence suggests that they conceptualized the project as a unified project across specific brands.
JimB

[barrysloate]

Well they certainly knew the project was popular, and was getting bigger. I doubt they had any idea that when they began issuing cards in the fall of 1909 they would still be popular and in demand a year and a half later. I think the set's ultimate size was a result of its continued popularity. Had it bombed it would have ended with series 150.

[E93]

The bottom line is that people can think about it, conceptualize it, and collect it any way they want. There are justifications for a lot of ways of organizing it. Ted has collected sets by brands. He is surely not the only one. Others may collect by series, etc.

Personally, I agree with the way Burdwick classified the cards with the exception that I think Coupon type 1s should have also been included. Had Coupon type 2 or 3 never been issued, it would not even be a topic of conversation.
JimB

[barrysloate]

My thoughts were based on Scott Reader's point that a set is the product of the manufacturer's intent. In the case of T206, the manufacturer began with a rough idea of what the set would look like and how it would be distributed. The enormous popularity it would ultimately experience took it beyond what was originally envisioned.

[drdduet]

Another question--

What if Burdick had classified T206's based on their series?

A classification scheme like that would "make" a Piedmont 150 series only subject more similar to a Sovereign 150 only subject than to a Piedmont 350 series issue.

I believe there are strong logical arguments for the current T206 classification, T206 by brand classification, and T206 by series classification.

The United States was a much "smaller" place in 1909-1911, and distances were much greater (100 miles away was much "further" than it is today). Regional distribution of products was meant to be just that. It was unlikely and impractical for some kid in Virginia to communicate with a kid in NY about what cards he had and needed, let alone discuss what brands were associated with what subjects. Furthermore, many states like to leave Louisiana out of the US today, and I would imagine it was much easier to do in Burdick's time. We are our own 3rd world country in many ways!

Maybe there is also an argument to support T206 classification by brand AND series--T206 Piedmont 150 only series, T206 Sovereign 150 only series, T206 Sweet Caporal 150 only series, Hindu Southern Leaguers, Piedmont 150/350 SLers, Pied 350 only SLers, Coupon 350 only series, Coupon SLer series (150/350 and/or 350 only), Polar Bear 350 only, etc....I think a T206 purist would choose to look at the set this way. Whereas a T206 collector would look at calling a T206 set a collection of all the possible "fronts." Only my bank limits me from collecting as a purist!

Regardless, IMHO T206 consists of sets within a set. No matter how you slice up the Monster, it will grow another limb/head.

All of these white border cards (E's and T's, sports and nonsports) from this period have stories to tell, and I believe that analysis of the subject across all spectrums may reveal some yet unsolved mysteries or at least reveal leads to answers.

[barrysloate]

Dividing the set by series would be just as viable as sorting it by brands. That's the beauty and complexity of it.