Appease me, please....one more time T206/T213/T215?

[Abravefan11]

Ted - The reason for focusing on that single statement is that it goes to the heart of my argument for not including T213-1's as a T206. I felt it needed to be clarified.

If the T213-1's were comprised of just 350 Only subjects I would probably be on the side of their inclusion as T206's. But the combination of 150-350 subjects along with 350 Only subjects in the same print run is contradictory to how any back brand was printed in the whole of the T206 set.

This is in no way a definitive answer to this question that will probably be debated for many years to come. But it's the one point I can not personally get past when it comes to the T213-1 and T215-1 sets being considered as T206's.

[barrysloate]

Just to digress for a moment, I've never believed that Burdick's checklist was sacrosanct and couldn't be amended as new information became available. Burdick's cataloguing of insert cards was monumental and is surely one of the cornerstones of our hobby. But I'm sure if he were alive today he would say it is inevitable that some changes to his work would be needed over time.

Just look at the page Leon provided. Hustler is listed as a T206, Hindu was not known as a T205, and Red Cross was not known as a T207. We all readily accept that these were errors or omissions that needed updating. So why is it impossible to look at his cataloguing of T213 and say there might be an error there too?

Regardless of which side of the argument you are on here, I do not think in any way we have to look at Burdick's work as a finished product. Heck, our own Constitution has been amended a few dozen times. Why can't the ACC likewise be tweaked a little?

[White Borders]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Hustler is listed as a T206

Barry,

I also noticed Hustler in the ACC T206 list Leon posted , but I'm unfamiliar with it. Could you explain what it is, please?

Also in the list is the Ty Cobb back.

And Burdick counts 522 T206, whereas now we have 524. One of the additional two is the Joe Doyle. Is the other the Magie?

Thanks and Best Regards,
Craig

[barrysloate]

Craig,

Hustler is a tobacco brand that appears on certain non-baseball cigarette cards, but no T206 pose is known with that back.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by White Borders

I also noticed Hustler in the ACC T206 list Leon posted , but I'm unfamiliar with it. Could you explain what it is, please?

Craig,

Here's a thread on the Hustler back with some nice scans.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=123604

[T206Collector]

In my view, Tim has offered the only persuasive rationale for non-inclusion. He has identified a printing rule for the coupons that is different from all other t206 issues. Whether that leads you away from t206 or not, it is at least a concrete rationale. Tim's argument would be determinative if all t206 print runs adhered to the same schedule. Or did they? Is the wide net cast by Burdick large enough to encompass the manner in which coupons were printed in 1910?

[White Borders]

Barry & Tim,

Thanks for the info regarding the Hustler back ... I just went back to rerun my search and realized I had transposed the "s" and the "t" the first time which is why I didn't get any hits

Thanks again and best regards,
Craig

[buymycards]

I was reading a webpage called Tobacco Timeline http://www.tobacco.org/resources/his...story20-1.html
and it shows that ATC was broken up in 1911, and some of the tobacco companies, including Coupon, were awarded to Ligget and Myers.

Could it be that the Type 1's were printed by ATC and should be included in the T206 set and the Type 2's and 3's were printed by L&M and should be a separate issue?

Just a thought.

Rick

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by buymycards

I was reading a webpage called Tobacco Timeline http://www.tobacco.org/resources/his...story20-1.html
and it shows that ATC was broken up in 1911, and some of the tobacco companies, including Coupon, were awarded to Ligget and Myers.

Could it be that the Type 1's were printed by ATC and should be included in the T206 set and the Type 2's and 3's were printed by L&M and should be a separate issue?

Just a thought.

Rick

Rick

All these cards were printed by American Litho. (New York City) and then shipped to the Tobacco factories.
The main L & M plant (Factory #42) in Durham, NC did not print these cards.

Otherwise everything you said is true.

Regards,

TED Z

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Ted - The reason for focusing on that single statement is that it goes to the heart of my argument for not including T213-1's as a T206. I felt it needed to be clarified.

If the T213-1's were comprised of just 350 Only subjects I would probably be on the side of their inclusion as T206's. But the combination of 150-350 subjects along with 350 Only subjects in the same print run is contradictory to how any back brand was printed in the whole of the T206 set.

This is in no way a definitive answer to this question that will probably be debated for many years to come. But it's the one point I can not personally get past when it comes to the T213-1 and T215-1 sets being considered as T206's.

Here is where you and I differ in American Litho's (ALC) printing process. You are saying your that the 48 cards depicting Major Leaguers and the 20 - Southern Leaguers
were intermixed on two 34-card sheets. From my research on ALC's printing press machinery, the tobacco cards of that era (T201's, T202's, T205's, T206's, T209's, T210's,
T211's,' T213's, T214's, and T215's) were printed in formats of 12 cards across a row (due to ALC's 19-inch wide press track). Therefore, their sheets were formatted in
12 across x 3 rows, or 12 x 4, or 12 x 5 (or as large as 12 x 6) card arrays.

A 48-card format is evident in the T206 series breakdown. For example......
150/350 series = 144 cards (48 x 3)
So. Lge. series = 48 cards (full 350 series subjects)
460-only series = 48 cards
Furthermore, there are......
T213-1 Major Leaguer's = 48 cards
T215-1 = 96 cards (2 x 48-card sheets)

I could continue with more numbers....but by now, I'm sure that many of those reading this have become bored.

If my theory (as presented here) is valid, and the numbers certainl support it....then I cannot accept your thesis regarding the T213-1 set.
It is obvious to me that the COUPON-1 back design was printed concurrently with the American Beauty, Broad Leaf, Cycle, and Drum back designs. And, we do have ALC's
records that the American Beauty 350 (frame) cards were issued in the Spring/Summer of 1910. This period was still in the 350-only series timeline. In 1910, the "COUPON"
Tobacco brand was recently acquired by the American Tobacco Co. So, ALC took a 48-card sheet with the Major Leaguer images; and, selected from a sheet of Southern
Leaguers the 20 images (depicting players in the Southern Association) to create the 68 cards in this set.

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the T213-1 cards does indeed fall within the T206 umbrella.


TED Z

[insidethewrapper]

As new data is received opinions and history can be changed. We all know now that Abner Doubleday had nothing to do with baseball but he is still considered (by some ?)to have invented the game. Wrong information takes a time to die. The same with Burdick, he was not always right ( especially with the year of release) on the T213-1.

Maybe the T213-1 should be listed as 1910 T206-2 Thin Paper Type ( Regional). Therefore it could be connected with the T206 set, but not be part of it.

[judsonhamlin]

Ted - That is my take:

Both T206 and T213-1 were printed by the same company for the same company at the same time, with the same obverse design and a substantially similar reverse design.
The stock didn't make any difference when theT216 were grouped together, so that doesn't seem dispositive here.

Judd

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Rick

All these cards were printed by American Litho. (New York City) and then shipped to the Tobacco factories.
The main L & M plant (Factory #42) in Durham, NC did not print these cards.

Otherwise everything you said is true.

Regards,

TED Z

I think what Rick was getting at, is that since the brand in question changed companies after the type-1's, and before the type-2's, it should be somewhat rational to treat them a two completely different issues, rather than "types" of the same designation. Basically, with this information, type-1's should not fall under the T213 blanket...Now, that they don't have a reliable designation, the question really is, should they fall into the t206's? or should they be assigned a new designation all-together?

[Abravefan11]

Ted - I feel very confident in my opinion that the T206 and T213-1's were printed in groups of 34. I have vetted this with several advanced T206 researches and collectors and when given the opportunity to lay out the facts to back up my opinion the conversations have been positive and my theory has held up to their scrutiny.

I at one time thought you were on to something with your 48 card theory but after looking closely at the evidence that you have provided and coupled that with what I have found I don't believe your theory is valid.

I am OK with you not wanting to let go of your position or if you don't want to take the time to give mine serious consideration, we can chose to respectfully disagree on this point.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I think what Rick was getting at, is that since the brand in question changed companies after the type-1's, and before the type-2's, it should be somewhat rational to treat them a two completely different issues, rather than "types" of the same designation. Basically, with this information, type-1's should not fall under the T213 blanket...Now, that they don't have a reliable designation, the question really is, should they fall into the t206's? or should they be assigned a new designation all-together?

David N

I think Rick has made an excellent point that reinforces that the T213-1 cards should be classified as T206's. After the American Tobacco Co. divestiture in 1911,
all subsequent tobacco card sets (T213-2 or -3, and T215-2) should logically have their own classification.

My question is....did Burdick take this into consideration ?

It doesn't appear so, regarding the T213-1 cards.


TED Z

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Ted - I feel very confident in my opinion that the T206 and T213-1's were printed in groups of 34. I have vetted this with several advanced T206 researches and collectors and when given the opportunity to lay out the facts to back up my opinion the conversations have been positive and my theory has held up to their scrutiny.

I at one time thought you were on to something with your 48 card theory but after looking closely at the evidence that you have provided and coupled that with what I have found I don't believe your theory is valid.

I am OK with you not wanting to let go of your position or if you don't want to take the time to give mine serious consideration, we can chose to respectfully disagree on this point.

Tim

You have your theory and I have mine....and, that's fine.

The larger mystery remains....why haven't any forms of uncut (partial or complete) T206 sheets surfaced ?

Ten's of millions of these tobacco cards we cherish so much were printed 100 years ago and I find it very strange that no sheets have survived.


Regards,

TED Z

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Tim

You have your theory and I have mine....and, that's fine.

The larger mystery remains....why haven't any forms of uncut (partial or complete) T206 sheets surfaced ?

Ten's of millions of these tobacco cards we cherish so much were printed 100 years ago and I find it very strange that no sheets have survived.


Regards,

TED Z

It does seem strange that the only uncut T206 survivor is the strip of five:

[triwak]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

As new data is received opinions and history can be changed. We all know now that Abner Doubleday had nothing to do with baseball but he is still in the HOF. The same with Burdick, he was not always right ( especially with the year of release) on the T213-1. Maybe the T213-1 should be listed as 1910 T206-2 Thin Paper Type ( Regional). Therefore it could be connected with the T206 set, but not be part of it.

Just a clarification: Abner Doubleday is not in the Hall of Fame. He's noted, of course, and the ball field is named after him. But he is not an inductee. Sorry - not trying to hijack this fascinating thread! ~ Ken

[Abravefan11]

I agree that it is strange that no uncut sheet has ever surfaced from such a large issue as T206. We know from cards like blank backs and Brown Old Mills that sheets or parts of sheets left the building, but it's fascinating that none have been found. I still hold out hope.

Rob D. - I have seen a strip larger than the five in the Wagner proof.

[caramelcard]

Tim,

It seems like your reasoning makes really good sense, but do you think that's what Burdick was thinking when he separated T213 from T206?

Rob

[Abravefan11]

Rob - I think Burdick as several others have said grouped the Type 1's separate from the T206 because the Type 2 and 3 cards existed. If there were no Type 2 or 3 then Type 1's would be part of the T206 set. So in my opinion he got the designation correct but for the wrong reason.

[caramelcard]

Fair enough, but wouldn't you suggest that T213-1 are closer to T206 than to T213-2 and T213-3?

[FrankWakefield]

I think that T213-3's seem 'closer' to T206's. And I don't at all think that T213-3's should be in with T206's.

At least with the -3's, the paper is the same, the caption is of the same style, and the front artwork is identical. With the -1's there is the paper difference.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by caramelcard

Fair enough, but wouldn't you suggest that T213-1 are closer to T206 than to T213-2 and T213-3?

This is where I think I view things a little differently than some. T213-1's are closer to "looking like" a T206 in all facets of it's composition than -2 and -3, but if it was not printed concurrently as part of the same set it's no more a T206 than either of the other two.

If we had the stones, paper, and equipment we could reproduce the images today and they would look and feel just like a T206, but I doubt anyone would say they are part of the set. This is why I feel putting so much emphasis on the appearance of the cards and how closely they do or don't resemble each other is not nearly as important as how the printing procedure and subject groups that make up the sets differ from T206.

[tedzan]

Sorry to chime in again, but what factual evidence do you have as proof of this......

" ...... but if it was not printed concurrently as part of the same set it's no more a T206 than either of the other two. "


The Standard Catalog dates this set as being issued in 1910 (as did Burdick). Over the years many of us "T206 dudes"
doing research on these cards have established that the 1910 COUPON set was very likel printed and issued during the
Summer of 1910.

Would you say that the was in the peak production period of the T206 set ?

Indeed it was, as this was the period that the 350 series was in production. And, I do not think you will deny that the
350 series of cards are the most plentiful of all the T206's.


TED Z

[FrankWakefield]

I think that Piedmont, Sovereign, Sweet Caporal... those were the regular production product for ATT. Coupons were a lesser product. They got the hand-me-downs. They didn't get their thinner cards until later in the process. Wouldn't surprise me if Coupon didn't get their cards until the first line companies started inserting the 460 series cards.

What seems contemporaneous to us 100 years later may well have been a few months apart at the time.

[Abravefan11]

Ted - The proof again for me is that at no time in the T206 run did they print both 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time.

As you know T206's began as preprinted sheets of front images that then had the back brands applied to them. This process is what helps us connect different back brands and trace the timeline and order of the T206 run.

No back brand in the T206 set contains both 150-350 subjects and 350 only printed on the same sheet so the preprinted sheets of front images could only be for Coupon Type 1's and not any other T206 back brand.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Coupons were a lesser product. They got the hand-me-downs.

Frank I agree with this and it makes more sense to me that the Coupon set was comprised of existing images from the T206 set to save costs rather than ALC and ATC deviated from their T206 printing process only for this product.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

The Standard Catalog dates this set as being issued in 1910 (as did Burdick). Over the years many of us "T206 dudes"
doing research on these cards have established that the 1910 COUPON set was very likel printed and issued during the
Summer of 1910.

Would you say that the was in the peak production period of the T206 set ?

Indeed it was, as this was the period that the 350 series was in production. And, I do not think you will deny that the
350 series of cards are the most plentiful of all the T206's.

TED Z

Sorry I neglected to answer your questions. Yes I agree the 350 series was the height of production in the T206 set. With that said I'm not sure what that would prove.

Concerning the "T206 dudes" I would have to know why they believe the Coupon Type 1 set was printed in the summer of 1910 to speak to that specifically.

[tedzan]

Tim

You have to be careful with this premise of yours, as it has an underlying fallacy......
"The proof again for me is that at no time in the T206 run did they print both 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time."


From the printer's viewpoint at American Litho (ALC), in the Summer of 1910, all 48 Southern Lger's (SL) were no longer 150/350
subjects. They were simply 350 series subjects, since ALC had then switched to printing PIEDMONT 350 backs on all 48 SL cards.

Recall, that one factor that we both agree on is....that ALC pre-printed sheets with the front images. The backs of these sheets
were blank, awaiting ALC's printing of the various T-brands (as the demand from the various tobacco Factory's came in). Actually,
as far as the printer was concerned, these pre-printed sheets had NO series identification, since they were blank-backed.

Since the COUPON Tobacco Co. was a new acquisition by ATC, they most likely cobbled together in a hurry this COUPON set to get
these cards out to the New Orleans factory. So, some smart designer at ALC checked-out the Sporting News (or a Reach BB Guide)
and selected 20 ballplayers (from the 48 Southern Lger's) that played in the Southern Association.....and, included them along with
the 48 Major Leaguers to create the T213-1 set. It's simply as neat as that. It's not "Rocket Science"


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Tim

You have to be careful with this premise of yours, as it has an underlying fallacy......
"The proof again for me is that at no time in the T206 run did they print both 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time."


From the printer's viewpoint at American Litho (ALC), in the Summer of 1910, all 48 Southern Lger's (SL) were no longer 150/350
subjects. They were simply 350 series subjects, since ALC had then switched to printing PIEDMONT 350 backs on all 48 SL cards.

TED Z

Ted my premise is not a fallacy. The 48 Southern League players were not printed at the same time as 350 Only players. Yes they both exist with Piedmont 350 backs but they were not printed at the same time. I'm not sure how that statement is a fallacy.

After the Southern League players were pulled from printing there was another print run before the 350 Only players were introduced.

Originally Posted by tedzan

Since the COUPON Tobacco Co. was a new acquisition by ATC, they most likely cobbled together in a hurry this COUPON set to get
these cards out to the New Orleans factory. So, some smart designer at ALC checked-out the Sporting News (or a Reach BB Guide)
and selected 20 ballplayers (from the 48 Southern Lger's) that played in the Southern Association.....and, included them along with
the 48 Major Leaguers to create the T213-1 set. It's simply as neat as that. It's not "Rocket Science"

It might not be "Rocket Science" but it doesn't take wild speculation to figure it out either. The Coupon set was being marketed in the heart of the Southern Association and there were 20 available images on hand at ALC of Southern Association players that had been used in the T206 set. In fact 8 of these 20 did not play in the Southern Association in 1910. They were all selected in early 1909 to be included in the T206 set. So no smart designer needed to grab a guide and decide who to include in the T213-1 set. They had long before been chosen.

So without getting off on too many tangents please answer this one question before we move on:

Was there a time in the printing of the T206 set that the Southern Association players were being printed simultaneously with the 350 Only players?

**I edited this for the sake of accuracy. I originally posted that 10 of the 20 Southern Association players did not play in the league in 1910. The correct number is 8 as two remained in the league but played for different teams than the one listed on their card in the T213-1 set.

[Leon]

Really now, guys. The original question of this thread had to do with the thinking of T213-1 being classified, by Burdick, as a T206. It is painfully obvious ya'll don't care about the original question posed and are going off on more tangents than the number of liver pills Carter had. I think this is all great information about series', number of cards in rows, super duper Willy Wonka theories of short prints etc.....but it really has nothing to do with the original question. If ya'll really think Burdick gave that much thought to all of these elongated theories ya'll have surmised, then I need some of what ya'll are on. There is an elephant sitting in the corner of the room, his name is "Common Sense" and just like the emperor's clothes, no one sees it. I really feel it was as simple as Burdick seeing the different types of Coupon cards, seeing they didn't fit in with the T206's, and labeling them T213. He absolutely made a very concerted decision in how he classified them, keeping T206 in mind the whole time. Please carry on now .

[Abravefan11]

Leon -

Whether the original questions was why did Burdick classify T213-1's as T206 or was he correct in classifying them as T213-1's my goal in every post I have made has been to address one of those two questions or respond to questions as to why I believe how I do in either case. If it's "painfully obvious" that I am I off topic in either regard I'll gladly refrain from posting any further.

Great topic and one that will be debating for a long time to come I'm sure.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Leon -

Whether the original questions was why did Burdick classify T213-1's as T206 or was he correct in classifying them as T213-1's my goal in every post I have made has been to address one of those two questions or respond to questions as to why I believe how I do in either case. If it's "painfully obvious" that I am I off topic in either regard I'll gladly refrain from posting any further.

Great topic and one that will be debating for a long time to come I'm sure.

Hey Tim
I guess my original question could have been phrased differently.

I thought the question was- Did Burdick get the classifications correctly? And my answer is an unequivocal, yes, and they should be just as they are.

I think you and I are on the same side of the debate, but for different reasons? I just keep seeing all of these convoluted (but very logical and good) explanations, however, I think they miss the mark of the original question, that is all. (or at least the intent of the question)

Please do keep discussing it as that was part of the reason I started the thread. I feel the debate is deeper than Mr.Burdick took it, that's all. I respect yours and Ted's analysis as they involve some great reasoning and research. I am only hoping the bit of common sense theory, pertaining to why he did it and if it was correct, could be interjected too, that's all. He had a huge undertaking and I find it hard to believe he got that in depth, in thought, with these few series. He was more involved with other series than sports altogether. I feel we have to analyze how he was thinking more than how these series were printed, to reach the answer. Maybe I am wrong though?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by Leon

Did Burdick get the classifications correctly?

Leon - I answered that question several times during the discussion including Post #40 and #121 in which I said:

"Rob - I think Burdick as several others have said grouped the Type 1's separate from the T206 because the Type 2 and 3 cards existed. If there were no Type 2 or 3 then Type 1's would be part of the T206 set. So in my opinion he got the designation correct but for the wrong reason."

I don't believe he ever thought as deeply about whether to include them or not as some of us have.

I'm certainly not trying to get the discussion off topic and I have probably said enough about the matter. Again great topic and I'll step aside and let others continue the conversation from here.

[T206Collector]

Honestly, Leon, its like you haven't been reading the dialogue. To want this all to go away based on what burdick was or wasn't thinking at the time is lame. Duh.... We all agree why he made them 213, common sense and all. He wasn't an idiot. But that's hardly the end of the debate ....or what makes the original posted question interesting or entertaining.

To me, the interesting question is really whether the logic burdick utilized in classifying 206 can be faithfully applied to 213 -- not whether he was right or wrong in not doing so.

Originally Posted by Leon

Really now, guys. The original question of this thread had to do with the thinking of T213-1 being classified, by Burdick, as a T206. It is painfully obvious ya'll don't care about the original question posed and are going off on more tangents than the number of liver pills Carter had. I think this is all great information about series', number of cards in rows, super duper Willy Wonka theories of short prints etc.....but it really has nothing to do with the original question. If ya'll really think Burdick gave that much thought to all of these elongated theories ya'll have surmised, then I need some of what ya'll are on. There is an elephant sitting in the corner of the room, his name is "Common Sense" and just like the emperor's clothes, no one sees it. I really feel it was as simple as Burdick seeing the different types of Coupon cards, seeing they didn't fit in with the T206's, and labeling them T213. He absolutely made a very concerted decision in how he classified them, keeping T206 in mind the whole time. Please carry on now .

[cfc1909]

this is the question

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

So without getting off on too many tangents please answer this one question before we move on:

Was there a time in the printing of the T206 set that the Southern Association players were being printed simultaneously with the 350 Only players?

[tedzan]

AS I HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED IN A PRIOR POST........

Originally Posted by tedzan

From the printer's viewpoint at American Litho (ALC), in the Summer of 1910, all 48 Southern Lger's (SL) were no longer 150/350
subjects. They were simply 350 series subjects, since ALC had then switched to printing PIEDMONT 350 backs on all 48 SL cards.

TED Z

..............................................1909 .........................1909..................... ....1910



THEREFORE,
THE 1910 COUPON SET IS A COMBINATION OF "350 SERIES" SOUTHERN LEAGUERS (20 cards) AND "350-ONLY SERIES" MAJOR LEAGUERS (48 cards).


TED Z

[barrysloate]

I think Leon hit the nail on the head, that is: did Burdick really analyze these sets as he was putting together the ACC? Almost certainly, he did not. Baseball cards were only a small part of the work he was doing, and I believe most of his work was done through observation, and as Leon said, simple common sense.

I respect the arguments that Ted, Tim and others made here, and regardless of which side of the argument you are on- either Coupon is or isn't part of T206- I can say with near certainty that Burdick didn't theorize all this stuff. It's a great exercise for Net54, and we are always adding new information to what we've known up to this point, but Burdick did not have many theories at all about any of these cards. His life's work was merely to assemble the cards and build the checklists. And to be sure that was no small task.

[T206Collector]

Nobody is saying that Burdick theorized any of this stuff, or frankly was wrong in his classification. For sure, the debate has often been conducted in terms of whether Burdick was right or wrong. When you peel back that question, however, it is clear that he had an appropriate justification for what he did. But then the real debate begins, which again is whether the laws that apply to 206 can be faithfully applied to 213-1.

If the only question is whether Burdick made a reasonable classification based on his knowledge and understanding at the time, well that question hardly warrants any kind if spirited debate at all - the evidence is overwhelmingly in Burdick's corner.

[tedzan]

You have the "wisdom" of Solomon.....well said.

The last time (July 2008) we a seriously debated this subject we ran it up to 132 posts............

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=90200

Now, we have exceeded that number of responses....it is certainly a thought-provoking subject.

With 20 inches of snow, and 12-foot drifts outside here in Pennsylvania, you get a warm feeling
by sitting in front of a keyboard, "talking baseball", and "re-inventing the wheel"


TED Z

[barrysloate]

Ted- both of our cars and buried under snow, and we can't get either of them out. It's wearing us down.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Was there a time in the printing of the T206 set that the Southern Association players were being printed simultaneously with the 350 Only players?

Sorry Leon I just can't leave it alone when it comes to making sure factual information is being put forth on the board.

Ted - You did not answer my question above with a Yes or No so I am left to assume one of two things from you post.

1 - You are avoiding the direct question of whether they were printed simultaneously and mudding the argument by lumping the SL and 350 Only players under the broad "350 Series" group.

2 - You believe that by being "350 Series" subjects that SL and 350 Only subjects were printed simultaneously.

As I have stated before the Southern League subjects were carried over from the 150 series into the very first print run of the 350 series. When that was completed the Southern League players were pulled from production never to be printed again in the T206 set. After that there was another print run of 150-350 subjects with "350 Series" ad backs. Then these subjects were discontinued and the 350 Only players were introduced.

At no time during the T206 printing process were Southern Association players on the same stone coming off the same press being printed on the same sheet as 350 Only Subjects. In the Coupon set they were on the same stone being printed on the same sheet.

Again Leon sorry for jumping back in but I feel nothing is more important than sharing and defending the facts of the T206 set.

[Leon]

Thanks for at least recognizing my question in my thread. Now that we are in agreement on, at least, Burdick's thoughts, I feel whole again .

As for the ongoing spirited debate, I think it's great and appreciate everyone's participation in it. I am sitting here at a Starbucks in Euless Texas, on their WIFI, while my wife and daughter are at a volleyball tourney down the street. There is so much politics involved that I do better leaving and getting some work done while they are there. Hope you guys in the NE stay warm and safe!!

[cdn_collector]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

As I have stated before the Southern League subjects were carried over from the 150 series into the very first print run of the 350 series. When that was completed the Southern League players were pulled from production never to be printed again in the T206 set. After that there was another print run of 150-350 subjects with "350 Series" ad backs. Then these subjects were discontinued and the 350 Only players were introduced.

At no time during the T206 printing process were Southern Association players on the same stone coming off the same press being printed on the same sheet as 350 Only Subjects. In the Coupon set they were on the same stone being printed on the same sheet.

Many on this board have probably forgotten more about this hobby than I have ever known, so please pardon me if I'm out of line, but how can you possibly know this?

I find your argument both compelling and intriguing -- I just don't understand how this is the first time I've read this stated with such certainty. I assume 'stone' refers to the actual printing plates/blocks used to produce the card fronts, but I didn't think anyone knew about their configuration.

Respecting that you've said it would take too much to explain, can you post the abstract version of the explanation, please? I am really really curious to hear more details.

Regards,

Richard.

NB. I'm supposed to be narrowing the focus of my collection. It is these kind of threads that prevent me from being able to completely disassociate with the monster. Leon, as the fellow that started this thread, I am holding you responsible for the most recent person to 'encourage' my addiction

[steve B]

Stone would be the actual lithographic stone which served as a printing plate.
They were a special grade of limestone, specially prepared for use in printing. The portion of one I've seen (NOT T206 or any other card) was tan and about 2 inches thick with a very smooth surface. The design to be printed was acid etched into them. When the print run was done they would typically be ground or etched flat and reused.

Modern plates have a limestone like surface on an aluminum plate. And a stick of limestone is still used as a chalk to repair scratches etc.

Figuring out the exact layout can be challenging, as you need to know the size first, then have access to lots of the product. And even then as you can see differences of opinion will arise. Caused by questions like how much margin was left for trimming, how many sheets of how many subjects, stuff like that. I haven't seen anywhere near enough cards - especially in original collections. But the main experts in the debate have, and spending enough time with their data will help some.


Steve B

Steve B

[tedzan]

From the printer's viewpoint at American Litho (ALC), in the Summer of 1910, all 48 Southern Leaguers (SL) were no longer "150/350 subjects".
They were simply in the production timeline of the 350 series subjects, since ALC had then switched to printing PIEDMONT 350 backs on all 48
SL cards.
And, there is a very good likelihood that these printers had no concept of "150/350 series" or "350-only series", etc., etc. These are terms that
hobbyist have devised in the past 60-70 years in order to better understand The Monster.

During 1910, an ALC printer would take a 48-card sheet (pre-printed with front images of the 48 SL players) and placed it (blank-back up) on
his press ready to print the PIEDMONT 350 backs on to this sheet....per requests from Factory #25 in Richmond, Virginia.

Try to understand that 100 years ago these stockpiles of pre-printed sheets did NOT have any "series" identification as we refer to them now.
They were produced and available to meet the demand of the various Tobacco Factory's.



.......... Ted Breitenstein ................................... 1909 ............................... 1909 ....................... 1910





....... Shaughnessy .................. 1909 ......................... 1909 ........................ 1910



My research and discussions with many T206 experts over the past 31 years has formed my opinion that the COUPON-1 cards are part of the
T206 set. Furthermore, the Burdick info that Leon posted reinforces this opinion, as it reveals to us that Burdick was misinformed on the timeline
of the COUPON-1 cards. And, made a "mistake of convience" by lumping this set in with the 1914-1919 issues (T213-2 & T213-3).

This is my 3rd response to your question; nonetheless, you keep repeating it. That tells me that my response to you is being ignored, otherwise
you would engage in further discussion. Therefore, I'm wasting my time....and, at this point, continuing this, is futile. It ends here....as I will be
away for a couple of days.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Ted - I find it disappointing that you feel the need to be so patronizing and think the things that I have to share regarding the T206 set are a waist of your time. I will however continue to try and "reinvent the wheel" if that means sharing research based on facts and not wild speculation.

Richard - As for your question "but how can you possibly know this?" I'm enjoying a great day with my kids and a response to your questions will take a little time to put together but I will get to it later today.

[cdn_collector]

Thanks for such a prompt response, Steve.

And Tim, I look forward to yours. I'll continue to wait patiently, as I appreciate that you've got your priorities in order. Enjoy the rest of the day with your kids!

Regards,

Richard.

[Abravefan11]

Richard – Again thanks for your question and I will answer it as best I can. Feel free to ask me to clarify anything.

Your question was “How do I know that the 150-350 Southern Association subjects were not printed simultaneously as the 350 Only subjects in the T206 set?”

I will start broad and work my way to the more detailed parts of the explanation.

The T206 set was printed in three different series 150, 350, and 460. However the subjects groups were not just printed in each of these series. Some carried over from one series to the next. Years of collectors and researches compiling data on the possible front/back combinations of each image has made it possible for us to group the subjects. Traditionally we use the terms:

150 Only
150-350
350 Only
350-460
460 Only

These groups have clear delineative patterns that have lead to this terminology. It’s these patterns that show us the groups where printed for a period of time and then discontinued to make room for the next group of subjects. If this was not the case then we would have random subjects showing up aross the different series or even the entire printing of the set. Once a group was removed and the next group began being printed the discontinued images were not printed again. For example we don’t see any 150-350 series images brought back for a print run during the 350 Only, 350-460, or 460 Only groups.

Now that we have established that the groups were printed separately let’s explain the common backs like Piedmont 350 in which you can find multiple groups. Many collectors have the misconception that when the Piedmont 350, one of the other common backs, or an Assorted back were printed in the “350 Series” that all of the images were printed in one big group. Keep in mind that this was an ongoing project that lasted for 3 years and the flag ship back brands were printed over and over again. When the 150-350 series transitioned into the “350 Series” ad back printing they were printed with Piedmont 350 backs. When the next print run began of 350 Only subjects they were printed with Piedmont 350 ad backs. When the 350-460 subjects were introduced they were printed with Piedmont 350 ad backs. This results in a large group of Piedmont 350 subjects but they were not all printed at the same time but rather in small groups over a long period of time.

A great example of how subjects from different groups could receive the same ad back but were printed during different print runs, are the Sovereign 350 back group. When the 350 Only subjects were discontinued and the 350-460 group began printing ALC changed the color ink. It was a subtle difference but draws a very clear line between the two print runs. You will not find a 350 Only subject with an apple green Sovereign back and you will not find a 350-460 subject with a forest green Sovereign back. Two distinct print runs that if it weren't for the color change in ink could be thought to have been printed at the same time.

The assorted back brands were printed in the same manner. During a print run of 150-350 some of the cards would receive an assorted back ad. During the 350 Only run a group would receive the same back ad. At the end of the entire T206 run there would be a large number of subjects printed with a particular ad back but they were printed during their respective groups print run.

Now let’s talk about the 48 southern league subjects and specifically the 20 Southern Association players. Originally all 48 of the southern league players were intended to be printed in the 150 series Brown Hindu group. That number was reduced to 34 and the other 12 were not printed for the first time until the “350 Series” began.

For more on that you can read this thread.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=125317

When the “350 Series” began printing the first print run was comprised of subjects from the 150-350 group and the additional 12 southern league subjects. Take a look at the back of Leon’s card.



This looks like a mess to a lot of people but to me it’s a beautiful snapshot of the time the 150 Series was transitioning to the 350 Series. The first subjects printed in the 350 Series were printed with Piedmont 350, Old Mill, and EPDG backs. You will see all three back ads printed on Leon’s card. Two groups of cards show this to be true.

The Southern League players were printed with the Piedmont 350 and Old Mill backs. Once this run was complete they were not printed again. The next group included the 9 350 short run players. Linadaman, Dahlen (Boston), Karger, Mullin (horizontal), etc. These players were included in this initial run and printed with Piedmont 350 and EPDG backs. You will not find any of these subjects with other ad backs that 150-350 subjects can be found with such as Sovereign 350 or Sweet Caporal 350 Factory 25 or 30.

All of the above is why I believe that the Southern Association players were never printed on the same sheet as the 350 Only subjects during the T206 set.

Am I right? You can decide for yourself. I highly recommend anyone that cares to look this deeply into the composition of this set and other relating sets to do their own research. There is a lot of bad information out there coming from well respected sources. Do I know everything about the set? Absolutely not and I am going to make mistakes or be proven wrong about something I post. When that happens there will be at least one and probably few that will relish in their Aha!! moment. That's fine with me as I just really care about knowing what's right more than being right. That means that if you have any insight into this set you can contact me via the board, email, or PM and I will gladly listen whether you're a 20 year veteran of the hobby or just starting out. Nobody can figure this out on their own.

All the best.