T213 related to T206 revisited w/1942 checklist info added..now w/Old Judges too

[Leon]

***1942 checklist info added at bottom***


As everyone knows there is a 1950 Book of Checklists authored by Charles Bray. Everyone probably also knows I was able to ascertain the personal copy of Walt Corson's. Both of these men were instrumental in the forming of the American Card Collectors Catalog, along with Burdick. I had to take the book out yesterday to help find who the 121st player was in the T204 set. It was handwritten as #121 in the book I have (Morgan, btw). That sort of made it easy, but I digress.

I got to thinking that maybe this very early book could reveal some more clues on the debate of T213 vs T206, and if we really should call the type 1 Coupons, T206s? After further study I guess it's obvious the founding fathers (as I call them) knew exactly what they needed to and decided to call T213 "Coupon" as I have always said they should be. Now, if we think they made a mistake, then I think we can debate that. What, to me, is not debatable is that they knew exactly what they were doing, and in thinking through it, did not make a mistake (in their minds) when categorizing them. I scanned these pages the best I could as I didn't want to harm the very tattered book anymore than it already is. That is why these scans will be poor....but at least the first list is mostly readable. The second list didn't come out as well but I am including it anyway....Special note to the handwritten, tiny note concerning the Irby Company. best regards (the book is all one size but my scans are anything but)

[barrysloate]

With regard to the T206/T213 debate, I've always wondered how the early collectors would have catalogued the Coupons if there never was a series 2 or 3. Would they still have gotten their own designation, or would they have been grouped with T206? We will never know for sure the answer to that one.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

With regard to the T206/T213 debate, I've always wondered how the early collectors would have catalogued the Coupons if there never was a series 2 or 3. Would they still have gotten their own designation, or would they have been grouped with T206? We will never know for sure the answer to that one.

Personally I think they would have been classified as T206 without the other two series.

[cfc1909]

Burdick got the Coupons right by not including them with t206s although maybe for the wrong reasons. It is complicated but if you study all the series in t206 you will understand why Coupons are not t206s.

Its a good debate but they are different issues.

[tedzan]

Leon

It's nice to hear that you have a qualified agreement with those of us who consider the 1910 "COUPON" cards as another branch of the T206 set


T-Rex TED

[cfc1909]

1. says they are on heavy paper. This is not so-the type 1 are on very thin stock like Virginia Extra and the Virginia Extra issue(t216) is much more scare-rare that 213-1.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by cfc1909

1. says they are on heavy paper. This is not so-the type 1 are on very thin stock like Virginia Extra and the Virginia Extra issue(t216) is much more scare-rare that 213-1.

Dunno Jim. I think they could be called heavy "paper". Had he said stock or cardboard, I would maybe think differently.

And Ted......to clarify my point above, I am not saying I think T213-1 are a type of T206. What I meant is that the way I read the statement from Burdick, above, with him referencing the other two T213 series, he might have thought differently had they not existed. With the other two series included I think he got it right. I guess I need to go back and read the minutia of the threads as to what Jim and Tim are referring to. I have a fair amount more of some early T206 writings. I will see if any will give any more info on these two issues and how they might relate to each other.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

With regard to the T206/T213 debate, I've always wondered how the early collectors would have catalogued the Coupons if there never was a series 2 or 3. Would they still have gotten their own designation, or would they have been grouped with T206? We will never know for sure the answer to that one.

Barry - My initial thought is that they would have classified them as T206, but I'm not sure the difference in paper stock is something they would have discounted so easily and may still have considered them a different issue. As you say we'll never know for sure.

I'll echo what Jim said that the T206 set composition is complex but when understood it casts significant doubt IMO that the T213-1's were part of the same set.