T206 Question ?

[insidethewrapper]

Why isn't each back in the T206 Set a separate set , instead of all being grouped as a T206 Set ? If Topps released a set this year with their different brands( Topps ,Bazooka, Ring Pop, PushPop, Juicy Drop Pop etc) on the back of the cards( with the same style on front), wouldn't they all be unique sets ?

[packs]

You have to remember that the set isn't a set in the same sense that 2019 Topps Heritage is. Heritage is released as a singular product. The T206 "set" is an amalgamation of cards that people have decided constitutes a set and the rules for the set are made up by those same people. There isn't really any reason why the T213 type 1's aren't T206s and the same is true for the T215 type 1's. Each of these variations feature the same exact fronts with the backs being the only difference, which is the same difference that exists between say Sovereign and Hindu, except people decided to make them (t213 and t215) different in their cataloging.

[steve B]

Topps has done that with some of the recent sets, and they are just considered as inserts, sort of part of the regular set.

While The T206 brands could all be individual sets, Burdick didn't catalog them that way. Probably because it was assumed all the fronts came with all the backs with only a handful of exceptions.

I don't have a t213 type 1, but aren't they thinner than the T206s? Between that and probably not quite figuring out the years of type 2 and type 3 I can see why those were thought of as different.

T215, I think was issued (Or not?) By a company that was not part of the same company that issued T206, so again a difference that would have put them as being different despite having the same fronts. Of course, they were probably also intended for a non-US distribution, so should have been classed as foreign cards instead of under the T designation.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by steve B

Topps has done that with some of the recent sets, and they are just considered as inserts, sort of part of the regular set.

While The T206 brands could all be individual sets, Burdick didn't catalog them that way. Probably because it was assumed all the fronts came with all the backs with only a handful of exceptions.

I don't have a t213 type 1, but aren't they thinner than the T206s? Between that and probably not quite figuring out the years of type 2 and type 3 I can see why those were thought of as different.

T215, I think was issued (Or not?) By a company that was not part of the same company that issued T206, so again a difference that would have put them as being different despite having the same fronts. Of course, they were probably also intended for a non-US distribution, so should have been classed as foreign cards instead of under the T designation.

T213 Type-1s are so thin that they feel like they're paper rather that cardboard. Ted Z. can explain this in much more detail.

[packs]

There are other sets with similar compilations too. The Ramly set is one example. There isn't a catalog differentiation between the Ramly cards and the TTT cards. Not really any distinction in the M101 set either, aside from numbering the types under the same umbrella (like if Sovereigns were T206-3).

[buymycards]

The problem with using the thin paper of the Type 1 Coupon's as a reason to exclude it from the T206 set doesn't hold water. What about American Beauty, which are narrower than other T206's. Should they also be excluded?

We have discussed this on the board many, many times. The reason for the T206 set being defined the way it is, is that one person, many years ago, with very limited information, made this decision. I am in awe of the work that Burdick did in regard to cataloging the sets, but in some cases, new information has come to light that Burdick wasn't aware of.

Rick

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Why isn't each back in the T206 Set a separate set , instead of all being grouped as a T206 Set ? If Topps released a set this year with their different brands( Topps ,Bazooka, Ring Pop, PushPop, Juicy Drop Pop etc) on the back of the cards( with the same style on front), wouldn't they all be unique sets ?

T206 was selling tobacco, with a baseball incentive to buy. Topps was the opposite - they were never really selling chewing gum.

[Jgrace]

As someone relatively new to the T206 and other tobacco sets, this has been a very informative discussion for me. Thanks to all for passing on the knowledge