T213-1 = t206?

[baztacula]

I know this has been debated, as I have read through old forum threads on the topic. I am on the side of those who feel the T213 "Type 1" variety should be included with the other T206 cards, probably including the 1910-12 Red Cross (T215-1), as well. Anyhow, since I collect T206 Tigers and I want as many different backs as I can get, I just picked up my first T213 Type 1 yesterday but I was somewhat surprised at the seemingly low price. If what I have read is true, and the 1910 Coupon (Mild) backs are in the Carolina Brights/Broad Leaf-range of scarcity, I expected this card to go considerably higher. I probably would have bowed out had that happened in the auction but it didn't. Are these cards not all that incredibly desirable... or did luck and timing result in a pretty good deal? (Final price of $137.43, which includes buyer's premium):

http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...16&lotNo=43016

Also, what do you think - are T213-1 really T206's that were miscategorized? Throw in a "yes" or "no" vote.

[buymycards]

You got a great deal on this card. Congratulations!

My feeling is that the Type 1's should have been grouped in with the T206's.

Rick

[Leon]

In the American Card Catalog Burdick noted T213 are similar to T206 so he made the distinction and fully understood the grouping. No, they shouldn't be reclassified in my opinion. Others will disagree .

[slipk1068]

American Beauty's have a narrower cut than other T206.

Strike 1.

American Beauty is a T206.

Polar Bear's were not released in cigarette packs.

Strike 1.

Polar Bear is a T206.

Type 1 Coupons were not released in cigarette packs.

Strike 1

Type 1 Coupons are on thinner card stock than T206.

Strike 2

Type 1 Coupons were not released in series but released all at once.

Strike 3

Type 1 Coupons are NOT T206.

[baztacula]

Leon, I did see that point in earlier T213-1 threads. I can certainly understand the positions of people on both sides of this all-important question. The thin card stock is the main issue, as I recall. However, I seem to also remember somebody pointing out that Mr. Burdick made a mistake in thinking that the Coupon (Mild) variety was issued a few years later than they actually were.

[rhettyeakley]

I voted yes, but don't really want to see it happen unless a major overhaul is done. IMO the Coupons "should" have been classified as T206 cards but since they weren't I don't really want to see that sole monumental change occurring.

I think the entire ACC should be an ongoing project with items being added to the ongoing lists until there is nothing left to add! No other hobby is beholden to a 75 year old cataloging system that hasn't had but a few additions over the years. We seem to be content calling cards E-Uncat. or T-Uncat forever, even though the item has been a known entity for 50+ years. In order to do that there would need to be some concensus and a "central body" that would be responsible for it, even Burdick was on board as he purposely left gaps in places for new ACC numbers to be added in.

[tedzan]

If they Quack like a Duck....Waddle like a Duck....Look like a Duck....then they are indeed a T206. Well, most of you know where I stand on this subject from my
1910 Coupon threads of several years ago on this forum.

Having said all that.......I essentially agree with Rhett......I don't expect that a change will ever be made. Nor, do I care.

In my mind, the 1910 "COUPON" cards are T206's; and, I have arranged the twelve T213-1 cards I have in with the 350-only Series cards of my T206 (hybrid) set.





....

..





T-Rex TED
.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by slipk1068

Type 1 Coupons are on thinner card stock than T206.


Type 1 Coupons were not released in series but released all at once.



Type 1 Coupons are NOT T206.

I definitely agree that they are not T206.
It's a tougher call with T215-1 Red Cross, which are of the same card stock but also not released in series like the T206s. But even if they could have been T206s, I think that rearranging J.Burdick's classification at this point serves no purpose.

[wonkaticket]

Not T206.

[DeanH3]

A T213-1 has more in common with a T206 than it does with a T213-2.

[ethicsprof]

a resounding yes

best,
barry

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

...I think the entire ACC should be an ongoing project with items being added to the ongoing lists until there is nothing left to add! No other hobby is beholden to a 75 year old cataloging system that hasn't had but a few additions over the years. We seem to be content calling cards E-Uncat. or T-Uncat forever, even though the item has been a known entity for 50+ years. In order to do that there would need to be some concensus and a "central body" that would be responsible for it, even Burdick was on board as he purposely left gaps in places for new ACC numbers to be added in.

+1

[t206blogcom]

Not T206.

[jp1216]

A great topic that has been debated for quite some time. Polling results show a pretty even split so far - as expected. I agree that the ACC should be an on going project and not law, but not sure (especially with 50/50 polling) that a change would ever be warranted. I own one T213-1 and include it in my T206 box. I lean to the 'should be included' group.

[baztacula]

Is this the most divisive question in the history of the hobby? 70+ votes in and we are split down the middle. Wise politicians should definitely avoid the topic in the next election.

[edhans]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I voted yes, but don't really want to see it happen unless a major overhaul is done. IMO the Coupons "should" have been classified as T206 cards but since they weren't I don't really want to see that sole monumental change occurring.

I think the entire ACC should be an ongoing project with items being added to the ongoing lists until there is nothing left to add! No other hobby is beholden to a 75 year old cataloging system that hasn't had but a few additions over the years. We seem to be content calling cards E-Uncat. or T-Uncat forever, even though the item has been a known entity for 50+ years. In order to do that there would need to be some concensus and a "central body" that would be responsible for it, even Burdick was on board as he purposely left gaps in places for new ACC numbers to be added in.

+2

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by tedzan

If they Quack like a Duck....Waddle like a Duck....Look like a Duck....then they are indeed a T206.
.

If you look at my avatar you will notice that my Waddell is Quacked, perhaps because he didn't Duck?