1950 ACC page
Burdick knew exactly what he was doing, take a look at the descriptions he used ie... the "T206 references". I feel this is more evidence he did exactly as I said. (kept it simple) Forget about all of the "factory this and factory that". Baseball is probably 10%, or so, of his total listings. He just didn't get that deep into it, imo. He collected data, put the cards next to each other to see how they looked, came up with a way to organize them, took into account a few other factors too, especially distribution method, years of distribution and manufacturer (technically distributor), and went about his cataloging. As you can see he didn't specify 3 types of T213, only 2. He lumped 2s and 3s together. Then he went onto say the T215's were the same. So once he figured out T213 he just followed his pattern for T215. He thought about them being classified as T206, he only chose not to. I don't think it was a mistake at all and he got it right, but understand there will always be some that think otherwise. Not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Kind of fun to debate though and thanks to all who have chimed in. Here is a 1953 page from the ACC, it is the same as the last version, from 1960. I don't have an earlier version but I doubt he changed the wording very much...regards
__________________
Leon Luckey
www.luckeycards.com
Last edited by Leon; 01-29-2011 at 11:08 AM.
Reason: changed ACC date from 1950 to 1953 as correction
|
01-28-2011, 07:58 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode