Love me some paper thin (T213-1) Coupons

[DixieBaseball]

It's been quite a dry spell and I was beginning to lose hope. Underneath a rock in Delray Beach, FL. a beat up Dutch Jordan rears his head. Some spirited bidding on a Tuesday night... Please show a Type 1 Coupon. I miss them.

1910-Coupon-Cigarettes-T213-1-Type-1-A-O-Tim-Jordan-Atlanta-Crackers-Southern

Item Sold

Winning bid:

US $372.69

[ 21 bids ]

[DeanH3]

Did you win it? If so congrats! And just to stir the pot....I think they should be T206's.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by DeanH3

Did you win it? If so congrats! And just to stir the pot....I think they should be T206's.

Pot stirrer!! Burdick didn't think they were. And he invented "T206".

and congrats on a tough card and pick up Jerome....

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Leon

Pot stirrer!! Burdick didn't think they were. And he invented "T206".

and congrats on a tough card and pick up Jerome....

+1

[Jobu]

Dean, you have got to quit taunting me with that Matty!!!

(Seriously though - show it as often as possible)

[DixieBaseball]

Guys - I wished I had won it, but I was a few bucks off! Besides... I have my own Dutch already! I have to resubmit this some time... Way off.

[tedzan]

Encased in plastic these rare gems are no different than "T206's"



....



TED Z
.

[The Nasty Nati]

100% a T206 in my opinion. Date of release, front font, lack of gloss, and uncanny border similarities of the Cycles, Drums, and American Beauty.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by The Nasty Nati

100% a T206 in my opinion. Date of release, front font, lack of gloss, and uncanny border similarities of the Cycles, Drums, and American Beauty.

not that this is meant to be this debate again...but I agree!!!!!

[RCMcKenzie]

Here are a few..
I think I paid about $30 for the Jordan I have in similar condition to the one that just sold. I must be getting old.

I still need Hickman & Rhoades to finish the set. Let me know if you have one for sale or trade. I will offer more than $30. Thanks, Rob.

[ullmandds]

rob...SO AWESOME to see them all together like that!!!!! 4th row from bottom middlish...i see 4 dupes...are they dupes???? Im not aware of team changes on type i's?

[JoeKerr]

Holy Cow.

[RCMcKenzie]

Pete, those are 4 Art Fletchers...I'm up to around 20 or so on set 2..I guess I actually needed that Jordan toward set 2, but I missed it, and I thought I checked ebay every week. The search continues I guess.

[tedzan]

Rob

Tremendous achievement my friend.

I designate you......the "Net54 1910 COUPON King".



,



TED Z
.

[Sean]

Here's my only one:

scan0001.jpg scan0002.jpg



It looks just like a T206;
It doesn't feel like a T206;
So is it a T206? You guys can argue that one. I really don't care. I just like the card.

[ullmandds]

id venture to say...without a doubt...that any t213-1 is more rare than the cobb w/cobb back!

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

id venture to say...without a doubt...that any t213-1 is more rare than the cobb w/cobb back!

Fuse Lighter!!!

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

id venture to say...without a doubt...that any t213-1 is more rare than the cobb w/cobb back!

Now that there are 22 confirmed Cobb / Ty Cobb cards...... your comparison "venture" regarding the 1910 COUPON cards is absolutely correct dude.

For example(s)......here are the POP numbers (PSA + SGC) for these 5 popular 1910 COUPON cards......


POP #'s = 12

.





POP #'s = 6 .................................................. .. = 3 .................................................. ............. = 5


....





POP #'s = 4

..



TED Z
.

[edjs]

I am too new to the hobby to really have an intelligent argument in the T206/not debate, but I think I have an intelligent question. Do the subjects in the Coupon type 1 exactly match any of the subjects for any specific back in the 1910 T206? I am looking at Rob's layout, and he says he needs two more to complete the set, and there are no where near 350 subjects there. So if they are 1910 T206, where are all the other subjects? I know Ted will know the answer to this, if I am asking my question right. Again, this is not meant as an statement against, just an honest question. What is the total number of Type 1s anyway? It looks like 96 from Rob's post. Thanks guys, and please don't rip into me for asking. I know this is a hot subject for many.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by edjs

I am too new to the hobby to really have an intelligent argument in the T206/not debate, but I think I have an intelligent question. Do the subjects in the Coupon type 1 exactly match any of the subjects for any specific back in the 1910 T206? I am looking at Rob's layout, and he says he needs two more to complete the set, and there are no where near 350 subjects there. So if they are 1910 T206, where are all the other subjects? I know Ted will know the answer to this, if I am asking my question right. Again, this is not meant as an statement against, just an honest question. What is the total number of Type 1s anyway? It looks like 96 from Rob's post. Thanks guys, and please don't rip into me for asking. I know this is a hot subject for many.

Burdick wrote/invented the ACC the numbering system. He knew T213s were similar to T206 as he said that in his listing where he defined them. I think it's funny how collectors twist and turn and make up all kinds of stories. But at the end of the day, Burdick classified Coupons correctly. There isn't 1, no not 1, T206 with thin stock like the type 1 coupons. Just like "A" isn't "B", T213 isn't T206. You guys can debate all you want, it still won't change anything. Burdick got it right. He knew what he was doing on this set when he named it.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Leon

Burdick wrote/invented the ACC the numbering system. He knew T213s were similar to T206 as he said that in his listing where he defined them. I think it's funny how collectors twist and turn and make up all kinds of stories. But at the end of the day, Burdick classified Coupons correctly. There isn't 1, no not 1, T206 with thin stock like the type 1 coupons. Just like "A" isn't "B", T213 isn't T206. You guys can debate all you want, it still won't change anything. Burdick got it right. He knew what he was doing on this set when he named it.

so maybe issues like t216 kotton...where different types have different stock thickness...were categorized incorrectly?

Well that doesn't really make sense does it?????

[Leon]

T216 is the same, in that instance, as T213. So yes, it does make sense.

Originally Posted by ullmandds

so maybe issues like t216 kotton...where different types have different stock thickness...were categorized incorrectly?

Well that doesn't really make sense does it?????

[DixieBaseball]

Rob,
Congrats on the 66 of 68 Coupon Type 1 set (and the 1/4 run on 2nd set)! Simply amazing. What is your time horizon for all this hard work? 20 years?? I have never known anyone to finish the type 1 set. I know of one or two folks that have made a meaningful impact on the set and I have talked with one board member about a known individual that claims to have a complete set, but it has not been confirmed by anyone else.

I went after the set for about 10 or so years, and got to around 55 cards, and then fizzled out. I kept some, auctioned some, sold a few to hobby friends. (We even did some deals, best I recall)

You may very well own 5-10% of the known Coupon Type 1 cards! LOL

[rman444]

T213-1 could be classified as a T206, and certainly fits the mold as far as size and surface finish even more so than American Beauty and Cobb Back. If not for the subsequent issue of T213-2 and -3, a T213-1 coupon back would more than likely have been only known as just another super rare T206 back.

Burdick cataloged his tens of thousands of cards some 80 years ago, without the help of internet, national card conventions and the far reaching arms of today's media. To think that Burdick, if he were alive today, would have the arrogance to think that he could not have made any mistakes, or that he would not have wanted or accepted updates/corrections to his ACC based on 8 decades of new finds, research and debate, is hard for me to believe.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by rman444

T213-1 could be classified as a T206, and certainly fits the mold as far as size and surface finish even more so than American Beauty and Cobb Back. If not for the subsequent issue of T213-2 and -3, a T213-1 coupon back would more than likely have been only known as just another super rare T206 back.

Burdick cataloged his tens of thousands of cards some 80 years ago, without the help of internet, national card conventions and the far reaching arms of today's media. To think that Burdick, if he were alive today, would have the arrogance to think that he could not have made any mistakes, or that he would not have wanted or accepted updates/corrections to his ACC based on 8 decades of new finds, research and debate, is hard for me to believe.

Totally agree!!! Incredible card btw!

[Leon]

Great looking Cobb.
Who is thinking anything concerning Burdick not knowing he made mistakes? He absolutely knew he probably did AND he wanted updates and corrections. Had he not mentioned the similarity of T213 to T206, I would be right there with you. ..I could be wrong but to me this is a strong argument for him knowing what he was doing on this one. He didn't make these analogies often in his descriptions (relatively speaking)...But at this point everyone can think what they want to. It's all fun!! This is from the 1960 version of the ACC..

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Pete, those are 4 Art Fletchers...I'm up to around 20 or so on set 2..

A 2nd set!?!? Guess I won't get much further on the set than the 5 I currently have haha.

Awesome picture!

[atx840]

Pretty sure I got this from you Rob. Awesome collection sir.

[DixieBaseball]

I agree and I believe it was just easier for him to catalog the Type 1 with the other 2 types and have their own designation. If Hindu had a release in 1914 and 1919 like the type 2 & 3 Coupons would Hindu have it's own designation? It's seems obvious to me that under the ATC umbrella of 16 brands of cigarettes, a 17th should be added since that brand (Coupon) looks just like a T206 and was released during the same period (1910). Furthermore, Factory 3, Louisiana is on the back of the Type 1 Coupon and we know that that factory known as the Irby Branch was owned by ATC at one time. All the other 16 brands were under the ATC umbrella. Logic simply dictates this is another brand that should be with the other 16 brands known as T206. What Burdick did was probably just lump the Type 1 in with the other 2 types for clarity to have their own designation as a group. If he were alive today, I believe he would chuckle and make the correction. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Originally Posted by rman444

T213-1 could be classified as a T206, and certainly fits the mold as far as size and surface finish even more so than American Beauty and Cobb Back. If not for the subsequent issue of T213-2 and -3, a T213-1 coupon back would more than likely have been only known as just another super rare T206 back.

Burdick cataloged his tens of thousands of cards some 80 years ago, without the help of internet, national card conventions and the far reaching arms of today's media. To think that Burdick, if he were alive today, would have the arrogance to think that he could not have made any mistakes, or that he would not have wanted or accepted updates/corrections to his ACC based on 8 decades of new finds, research and debate, is hard for me to believe.

[DixieBaseball]

Burdick wrote/invented the ACC the numbering system. He knew T213s were similar to T206 as he said that in his listing where he defined them. I think it's funny how collectors twist and turn and make up all kinds of stories. But at the end of the day, Burdick classified Coupons correctly. There isn't 1, no not 1, T206 with thin stock like the type 1 coupons. Just like "A" isn't "B", T213 isn't T206. You guys can debate all you want, it still won't change anything. Burdick got it right. He knew what he was doing on this set when he named it.

Did Burdick classify them correctly or just simply classify them? He is a man, who cataloged cards with limited resource decades ago. The paper theory is always an intriguing one, but may not have anything to do with the fact that the brand Coupon is one and the same as the other 16 ATC brands. We know there were 9 assorted brands and 7 brands that had series/subjects. Of the 9 assorted brands, some were regional in release like Hindu Cigarettes. Coupons were obviously more obscure than most of the other 16 brands. We don't know why thin card stock was used or how it was marketed/released/distributed in the Deep South. There may be a very good reason or perhaps it simply to save money by using less cardboard. The release date and look of the card front and back is spot on to what Burdick cataloged (the 16 ATC Brands) as T206. He has not opined on why the card stock was thin thus making it different. He has simply formed a catalog system to lump the 3 Coupon brands together to catalog them for collector use. I don't think the card stock had anything to do with it. The AB's are cut narrower so one could argue they shouldn't be in the T206 umbrella. Also, the Ty Cobb is a different texture, so throw that one out as well.

The Type 1 Coupons were obviously very limited in their release and it may have not been traditional in that they were in individual packs but perhaps Cartons or even Cases/Boxes of Cartons at Retailers (See rppc below of New Orleans retailer) Also it's conceivable they were similar to Ty Cobb Back tobacco cards in that they were promotional and released to retailers directly instead of in Tobacco Tins (Cobb back) or in cartons/boxes/cases of Coupons. These aren't wild theories, but reasonable ones when looking at the scarcity of the Type 1 Coupon (or the Ty Cobb back as well). Everything lines up except card stock which there may be a simple, yet good reason for which has nothing to do with this being an ATC brand. (Factory 3 - New Orleans, La. was considered a regional (Irby) branch of ATC, so that holds more weight with me than card stock theory. In fact it suggests the brand was right there with other regional brands, so why not put it where it rightfully belongs? I think we put too much faith in Burdick's catalog system as the card gospel when it's actually just a very good collector guide to cards.

The Type 1 Coupon was merely an assorted ATC brand with regional (limited obviously) release like Hindu, but much less in volume. I think as the debate continues, the T213-1 is slowly becoming a T206. There is too much common sense and logic behind it. Too much is made of Burdick's catalog system. It's not definitive. It's a guide to help fellow collector's. It's a good thing, but to swear by his ACC designations is naïve. Ultimately release date, and look of the Coupon is spot on. Card stock can easily be debated since there is no evidence why thin card stock was used.

[kell75]

Congrats on the Cobb I was the cosigner to REA. It helped me finish my restoration on my 1978 Bandit Trans Am. I do miss it.

[Leon]

What is the exact question we are arguing? That he got it wrong, it should be T206, both or what? I think he got it right but maybe we could change it based on new and more researched evidence. Maybe the thin stock on type 1's, the blue lettering on type 2's, the thinner but thicker card stock on type 3s and the spread of years of distribution is why he gave them their own designation? I don't know for sure but he did and I don't think he made a mistake.

Originally Posted by DixieBaseball

Burdick wrote/invented the ACC the numbering system. He knew T213s were similar to T206 as he said that in his listing where he defined them. I think it's funny how collectors twist and turn and make up all kinds of stories. But at the end of the day, Burdick classified Coupons correctly. There isn't 1, no not 1, T206 with thin stock like the type 1 coupons. Just like "A" isn't "B", T213 isn't T206. You guys can debate all you want, it still won't change anything. Burdick got it right. He knew what he was doing on this set when he named it.

Did Burdick classify them correctly or just simply classify them? He is a man, who cataloged cards with limited resource decades ago. The paper theory is always an intriguing one, but may not have anything to do with the fact that the brand Coupon is one and the same as the other 16 ATC brands. We know there were 9 assorted brands and 7 brands that had series/subjects. Of the 9 assorted brands, some were regional in release like Hindu Cigarettes. Coupons were obviously more obscure than most of the other 16 brands. We don't know why thin card stock was used or how it was marketed/released/distributed in the Deep South. There may be a very good reason or perhaps it simply to save money by using less cardboard. The release date and look of the card front and back is spot on to what Burdick cataloged (the 16 ATC Brands) as T206. He has not opined on why the card stock was thin thus making it different. He has simply formed a catalog system to lump the 3 Coupon brands together to catalog them for collector use. I don't think the card stock had anything to do with it. The AB's are cut narrower so one could argue they shouldn't be in the T206 umbrella. Also, the Ty Cobb is a different texture, so throw that one out as well.

The Type 1 Coupons were obviously very limited in their release and it may have not been traditional in that they were in individual packs but perhaps Cartons or even Cases/Boxes of Cartons at Retailers (See rppc below of New Orleans retailer) Also it's conceivable they were similar to Ty Cobb Back tobacco cards in that they were promotional and released to retailers directly instead of in Tobacco Tins (Cobb back) or in cartons/boxes/cases of Coupons. These aren't wild theories, but reasonable ones when looking at the scarcity of the Type 1 Coupon (or the Ty Cobb back as well). Everything lines up except card stock which there may be a simple, yet good reason for which has nothing to do with this being an ATC brand. (Factory 3 - New Orleans, La. was considered a regional (Irby) branch of ATC, so that holds more weight with me than card stock theory. In fact it suggests the brand was right there with other regional brands, so why not put it where it rightfully belongs? I think we put too much faith in Burdick's catalog system as the card gospel when it's actually just a very good collector guide to cards.

The Type 1 Coupon was merely an assorted ATC brand with regional (limited obviously) release like Hindu, but much less in volume. I think as the debate continues, the T213-1 is slowly becoming a T206. There is too much common sense and logic behind it. Too much is made of Burdick's catalog system. It's not definitive. It's a guide to help fellow collector's. It's a good thing, but to swear by his ACC designations is naïve. Ultimately release date, and look of the Coupon is spot on. Card stock can easily be debated since there is no evidence why thin card stock was used.

[DixieBaseball]

Originally Posted by Leon

What is the exact question we are arguing? That he got it wrong, it should be T206, both or what? I think he got it right but maybe we could change it based on new and more researched evidence. Maybe the thin stock on type 1's, the blue lettering on type 2's, the thinner but thicker card stock on type 3s and the spread of years of distribution is why he gave them their own designation? I don't know for sure but he did and I don't think he made a mistake.

What I am saying is he didn't get it right or wrong. He made a designation that is his catalog system. We all abide by it as definitive, but we probably need to relax that a bit. I think we can more safely argue the Type 1 Coupon is more like T206's than it is like T213-2 and 3's. There is more distinction in the other 2 Coupons relative to Type 1 than there is with Type 1 Coupon to the 16 ATC brands that comprise T206.

I think more time is needed, but to say Burdick got it right and Burdick is correct may not be accurate. It may be that Burdick simply did what he wanted to (Based on what Burdick knew at the time) when cataloging the Coupons together which is neither right or wrong.

As for the debate among collector's. It may be time for a poll which changes nothing according to Burdick's ACC, but does help collectors understand that it may not be a different type of (T206) card and just accept that as the gospel.

Edited to add : from Leon's 1960 Burdick ACC designation paper info, Burdick didn't even know how many cards were in the Type Coupon 1 Set (68) which easily shows their obscurity and possibly he didn't have full understanding of them. And who is to blame him? He had 1% of the information we have now, and did quite admirably btw

[Leon]

I will concede more time is needed. Of course what he cataloged may not be accurate when put in context of other things. All I am saying is that I am not convinced because of my stated view and the reasons given. And btw, I think collectors can accept type 1s as being T206. It doesn't hurt my feelings. But in conversation I will give my views based on information I have. I think the whole Coupon set is kind of interesting.

Originally Posted by DixieBaseball

What I am saying is he didn't get it right or wrong. He made a designation that is his catalog system. We all abide by it as definitive, but we probably need to relax that a bit. I think we can more safely argue the Type 1 Coupon is more like T206's than it is like T213-2 and 3's. There is more distinction in the other 2 Coupons relative to Type 1 than there is with Type 1 Coupon to the 16 ATC brands that comprise T206.

I think more time is needed, but to say Burdick got it right and Burdick is correct may not be accurate. It may be that Burdick simply did what he wanted to (Based on what Burdick knew at the time) when cataloging the Coupons together which is neither right or wrong.

As for the debate among collector's. It may be time for a poll which changes nothing according to Burdick's ACC, but does help collectors understand that it may not be a different type of card and just accept that as the gospel.

[DixieBaseball]

Leon - It makes for compelling debate for sure. Facts are lacking on both sides of the debate and this is why I believe we need to condition Burdick's ACC designation that Type 1 Coupons are not part of the other 16 ATC brands that comprise the group called T206. It's seems more likely they should be than not in my opinion. Would love to hear other hobby opinions...

Originally Posted by Leon

I will concede more time is needed. Of course what he cataloged may not be accurate when put in context of other things. All I am saying is that I am not convinced because of my stated view and the reasons given. And btw, I think collectors can accept type 1s as being T206. It doesn't hurt my feelings. But in conversation I will give my views based on information I have. I think the whole Coupon set is kind of interesting.

[tedzan]

"Paper thin...."

The "paper thin" stock argument used by some to disprove that these cards are T206's is a "red herring" !

The 1910 COUPON cards were never meant to be cigarette pack "stiffeners" (as the regular T206's were).

That's because these COUPON cigarettes in 1910 were not marketed in Cigarette packs. And, I predict that none such pack will be found.

In the Spring of 1910, these cigarettes were marketed packaged loosely (by the 100's) in cartons labelled "COUPON" Cigarettes.


TED Z
.

[DixieBaseball]

Ted,
Your info lends to my theory that the Coupon Type 1 cards were either in Coupon Carton's or Coupon Boxes or given to retailers of Coupon Cigarettes as promotional items, thus the limited availability.

See RPPC where Boxes of Coupons are pressed against the glass with probably Cartons of cigarettes in them like these:

[tedzan]

Great pictures....thanks for posting these cartons....they reinforce my argument as to why American Litho printed the 1910 COUPON cards on thinner cardboard stock.

Furthermore, many 1910 COUPON cards are found with similar paper loss on the upper part of their backs.....for example, here are a few from my collection:

.

.

.



The consistency of this paper loss on these cards has me thinking that it's because some of these cards were glued onto these cigarette cartons.

Your uppermost carton appears to have such a "glue spot" in its upper right corner.


TED Z
.

[RCMcKenzie]

Thanks, y'all..
Jeremy, If you recall I traded you this Hickman a few years ago..If you still have it and want to trade or sell it back let me know.
Most of these I scooped up on ebay in the 90's and early 2000's..a few I've had since the 80's..There was a complete set offered by Mastro years ago and the Mathewson I have came from that lot years later thru B&L. I don't know if that whole set was completely broken up or not....Rob.

[DixieBaseball]

Hello Rob,
Great to hear from you! You have done a heck of a job assembling those little paper thin beauties! I would love to see all those either : submitted to SGC and labeled the McKenzie Collection on the Flip or all of them cracked out and put into a album. Also would love to see all of them in a group scan side by side front and back up close. Just for drooling purposes

I certainly remember doing many T213 Type 1 trades and sales with you among others in this thread. I believe we both benefited in our deals and if memory serves I sold you some very nice conditioned T213's as well as some 3 for 2 and 2 for 1 type trades. Good times... Wished I had more to trade. I still own the Hickman in my SL collection and if I ever trade or sell it, I will contact you first! Also, please email me if you ever find the Rhoades to get you down to one card needed.

Let's keep this great thread going and share more net 54 board members Type 1 Coupon examples. (Here's my 2nd contribution to this thread - Charlie Fritz who spent the 1909 season with the Pelicans & Turtles)

[cfc1909]

on April 21 2006 Legendary / Mastro offered a complete 68 card Coupon type 1 set at auction. For some reason that can not be viewed anymore but you can still read about it on the google page,

If you read and understand the print groups of the t206 set you will clearly see Burdick got it right. Coupon type 1 is not part of the t206 set.

[tedzan]

Major Leaguers (48 subjects)






Southern Association (20 subjects)






TED Z
.

[DixieBaseball]

Originally Posted by cfc1909

on April 21 2006 Legendary / Mastro offered a complete 68 card Coupon type 1 set at auction. For some reason that can not be viewed anymore but you can still read about it on the google page,

If you read and understand the print groups of the t206 set you will clearly see Burdick got it right. Coupon type 1 is not part of the t206 set.

That complete set was dismantled over the last several years. I would have love to know who assembled it and how they did it. (details) It would be interesting to know those details and possibly see old checklists, hear stories, etc.

As for anyone owning a complete set today, I don't think there is anyone out there. Obviously it can be done. It just takes patience and a lot of time and resource. Rob will be the next to achieve it. Perhaps that will be the 2nd time its done!

[jp1216]

My C.H.O.P. set of Carey.

[RCMcKenzie]

Jeremy, sounds good. I'm glad you still have the Hickman. You and many other board members have helped me get some of the lower pop cards as I get closer to finishing the set. If I do complete it, I will consider it a group effort. I have thought about driving up to Dallas to let Beckett slab them while I wait, but I would not want to ship them off. Here is the Matty that was in the picture of the complete set offered by Mastro.

[DixieBaseball]

Nice Matty! How long you owned that bad boy? That entire set was sold 10 years ago, so it would be interesting to see where all the parts went. (It wouldn't be that hard if there were any pictures of the set floating around)

- Would love to know if anyone out there has a back stamp like this one ?

[ullmandds]

love love the type 1's.

[ullmandds]

i cleaned the scanner bed just for these babies!!!!

[tedzan]

A "pink" 1910 COUPON......


.



TED Z
.

[tedzan]

Winter is still here in Pennsylvania with snow on the ground....but, here is Summers





TED Z
.