Coupon Type 1: Paper Theory

[usernamealreadytaken]

I struggle with the argument against considering T213-1 part of the T206 family. I won't reiterate all the points on why they should be in, but rather the two reasons they are not:

1.) Cause Burdick said so (though I think he simply lumped them in a series because of subsequent "Coupon" issues. I contend that if Sweet Caporal issued slightly different series' a few years later they would befall the same fate.)

2.) They are thinner. Well, we all know that (mis)classification on this basis is not sound because of American Beauty cards, which are undeniably T206.

To my point: Coupon cards were the "PallMall's" or "USA Gold's" of ATC brands; the cheapies in the product line. Three things point to this:

A.) They were primarily sold in LA (rural south); probably the poorest areas in the US at the time;
B.) The relative "bland"-ness and simplicity of the back design relative to other T206's;
C.) Thinner paper stock for the premiums (cards) was used.

Think about the "toy or prize" in a kid's frozen dinner, cereal box or Happy Meal: the "better" the product, the nicer the premium inside...

[Abravefan11]

I don't think the Coupons should be considered part of the T206 set for two reasons.

1) Burdick classified them as something different. Unless you're going to create a new classification system that's the way it is.

2) ATC and American Litho had a set of standards that they did not deviate from when printing the T206 issue. Several subsequent sets used the same images for different products but were not part of the T206 issue. They were a different project and had their own set of standards. Paper stock, team and player description color, etc.

[usernamealreadytaken]

I tire of the "cause Burdick said so" argument. Get past what the series is named, or by who, and get it right.

ATC had standards which they didn't deviate from? Of course SIZE of their cards wasn't one of these standards. Btw, are these standards you speak of found in Burdick's catalogue or are they your tests for t206?

[Abravefan11]

1) I don't know the standards Burdick used thus I can't question them.

2) These are my observations and my opinion. Yes they deviated on the size of the cards with the American Beauty series but given the timeline and players included it's evident (to me) that these are part of the same group. This is all just my opinion, maybe shared by others, maybe not.

[FrankWakefield]

I think you misunderstand the origins of Coupon Cigarettes. Duke's Trust was the end result of capitalism gone wild. We all think we support capitalism. Left to its own, the end result would be a monopoly. Without a bit of regulation the big 3 auto companies of my youth would have banged it out until one survived, then that survivor would have a monopoly. Duke started taking over other cigarette producers. Coupon Cigarettes happened to be the name of the company down Louisiana way (can't you hear Corky Laing banging away) that Duke took over. Those ATC brands with which we're all familiar (eg Piedmont, Cycle, "Sweet Caporal", "American Beauty"... ) these were regional brands. These brands were where they were, and had a market, before they were acquired by the ATC. Duke's outfit didn't decide in 1909 to make a lesser quality cigarette, call it Coupon, and sell it down south...

And while similar to T206 cards in design, I'm satisfied and content with Mr. Burdick's separation of the Coupon cards from T206. (not from "other" T206)

[fkw]

A blind person can tell the difference between a T213-1 and the other 16 T206 brands.

The paper stock is all I need to see/feel for me to know it is not the same series.

Its a separate set that has for many years been collected separately.

No need to change the ACC#, Burdick got it right IMO.

[ethicsprof]

If someone were willing and capable of creating a new classification system to replace Burdick's, making the Coupon 1 part of whatever T206s are to be called makes sense to me. The arguments for the inclusion of Coupon 1
have been delineated elsewhere numerous times (granted arguments against
have been delineated as well).
The greater issue is convincing any of us to redo the quite masterful work of Burdick which took a great many years of his life ,contributing in part to his
arthritic exhaustion and death some 2 months or so after completion of the task.
Any takers?!

best,
barry