![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Ted Zanidakis
It is my understanding that the final ATC production runs of T206's occurred in the Spring of 1911. By then |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Darren
If memory serves, |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Richard
If the Ty Cobb backed card is a c. late 1911 to 1914 issue, then should all of the following sets, with blue lettering, be related? |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: scott brockelman
But. as much as I hate to admit it Coupon type 1 should be included in T206, The back is the same design. as is the front font color and the make up of players. The later blue font issue coupons would/should fall into the T215 genre. It is not the brand that dicates the designation but the format, otherwise why would we not place T205 American Beauty or T207 Broadleaf in the T206 category? Because they have a different design, not a different cigarette mfg. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Ted Zanidakis
You stated my case, better than I have....and, with a lot less words. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: robert a
Hey Richard, |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: JimB
If there were no T206s produced in N.C., we might have stronger reason to suggest that Ty Cobb brand is not a T206, but what we have is evidence that they were produced in N.C. Thus, we still do not have definitive dating information. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Ted Zanidakis
I have several responses to this statement of yours..... |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: leon
T213-1's come up every now and then so you will be able to get one if you want. Don't count on a high grade one though, because as has been stated numerous times, unlike their distant cousin the t206'S, they are on paper thin stock and generally found in grades of 3 or less.......High grade for them would be a 4-5, imo.....regards |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: paulstratton
In the 1996 REA auction Rob Lifson theorized(albeit loosely) that the Ty Cobb back was distributed in Georgia. Cobb was from Georgia, they were found in Georgia and the book they were found in was in honor of a Georgia Congressman who had recently passed away. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Ted Zanidakis
The Georgia Senator you are referring to was Richard Russell, who amassed a large collection of T-cards, as a teenager |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: JimB
Ted, |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: barrysloate
Jim- while I have speculated the Ty Cobb back may have circulated later than the 15 T206 brands, I admit it is purely a guess. Nobody has been able to document when it was distributed. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: JimB
Actually, as I think about it further, if we go by Ted's data that the blue name/team on T213-2,3 is the indicator of a shift beginning in mid-1912, then it seems the conclusion would be that Ty Cobb brand would be a T206 issue from early 1911. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: barrysloate
That's pretty interesting, and it could suggest a circa 1911 issue. Exactly how it was distributed, and why the brand consists of a single pose, are the questions most intriguing to me. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Ted Zanidakis
We are having a tough enough time here selling the fact that 1910 COUPON cards are the 16th T-brand of the T206 set. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Scot Reader
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: barry arnold
Scot, |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: JimB
Scot, |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Ed Hans
As long as we're fixing a few errors in the ACC, there are scores, if not hundreds, of issues that Burdick never knew about that deserve a numeric designation. |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Joe D.
Scot, |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Scot Reader
My objection to moving T213-1s into the T206 camp is procedural rather than substantive. The objection would go away if the ACC were FORMALLY AMENDED to move T213-1s into the T206 camp. If I may stretch the Constitution analogy a little further (hopefully not beyond recognition), henceforth calling a T213-1 a T206 without formal amendment to the ACC would be tantamount to changing the Constitution by judicial fiat. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Joe D.
Scot - |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Frank Wakefield
I somewhat agree with Scot's reasoning. But I also think that it should stay separate. The two issues are alike enough that they both can have a "T" at the beginning. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Matt
Frank - nice idea; why not draw the line even earlier? Perhaps pre-1950? |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Frank Wakefield
1950 would be fine with me. I think book sales and interest might be boosted if we edged over into the Topps issues a bit. Maybe the thing to do would be to go through the 1973 Topps. I think that was a year Topps issued the cards in series, 1974 was an 'all at once' kind of thing. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Ted Zanidakis
I've always thought that the 1974 Topps set was a "semi-series" type issue. Since the Washington Nationals (initial press run) variations |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Frank Wakefield
Then let's go with something that runs through the 1975 card issues (used in its old sense). That would keep us short of those chase cards.... |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: barrysloate
If you look at 1974 Topps as a series, it was certainly an unintentional one. There was a rumor that the Padres were moving to Washington, and Topps just wanted to make sure they were on top of it. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Ted Zanidakis
No need to apologize Frank....I think we had run the course on the 1910 COUPON subject, anyway. |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: barrysloate
That's right- not all the players were issued with Washington. Good point. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Millerhouse
I found myself amused at the apparent reluctance of some to amend card designations assigned by Burdick. Try, for example, looking up an N172 in the American Card Catalog. In truth, I'm not sure whether or not that number was used, but my memory is that Burdick used the "N" prefix to indicate cards issued in South America. Regular old Old Judge cards were denoted as #172s, with the same type of designation applied to all 19th Century issues: #28, #29, #43, #162, #167, #172, #173, etc. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: boxingcardman
Bert Sugar added the N to the 19th century stuff. A catalog should be ever-changing and ever-expanding, or it loses its utility. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
E94s continue to get strong prices | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 41 | 05-11-2007 12:53 PM |
T205 Wheat -eBay follies continue | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 01-29-2007 05:30 AM |
Let the debate continue--Greatest Season Performance | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 73 | 07-08-2005 05:04 AM |
Goodwins - Let the debate continue (but don't digress this time!) | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 04-21-2004 12:13 PM |
A Great Debate? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 08-22-2002 11:15 PM |