 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6
02-11-2020, 03:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Here we go again!
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
__________________
Rick McQuillan T213-2 139 down 46 to go. 
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| T206 SGC to PSA Question | NYYFan63 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 9 | 09-15-2018 04:39 PM |
| Oh No! Not another T206 Question! | iggyman | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 20 | 12-02-2011 09:47 AM |
| T206.org question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 11-26-2007 06:17 PM |
| T206 question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 12-26-2005 12:51 PM |
| T206/HOF question? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 09-22-2001 08:16 PM |
Threaded Mode