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