T206 Question ?

Rhotchkiss · #1 02-12-2020, 09:59 AM

Leon, in your opinion, why should T cards issued between 1909-11, with same t206 fronts, including black lettering, not be included as t206s? Specifically I am talking about T213-1 and T215�1. What makes these cards any less a T206 than American Beauties, other than they were not initially classified as such?

I am very open to opinions, but merely calling a stance hogwash is not evidence/persuasive. I know there are others threads and plenty of arguments, but why specifically do you think t213-1 and t215-1 are not t206s (besides initial classification)? Thanks

Leon · #2 02-12-2020, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Leon, in your opinion, why should T cards issued between 1909-11, with same t206 fronts, including black lettering, not be included as t206s? Specifically I am talking about T213-1 and T215�1. What makes these cards any less a T206 than American Beauties, other than they were not initially classified as such?

I am very open to opinions, but merely calling a stance hogwash is not evidence/persuasive. I know there are others threads and plenty of arguments, but why specifically do you think t213-1 and t215-1 are not t206s (besides initial classification)? Thanks

T213s were issued over a span of how many years? How many years were T206s issued.
No T206 has a blue caption on front. No T206 is paper thin. No T206 has multiple colors of print on front (with the different series).

T215s- Were issued later than T206. Have different colors of captions on front. Have different type card stock for the 2 series (though could be mistaking on that one as I haven't handled both versions recently)

Burdick knew exactly what he was doing on these series as, in the ACC, he said that 213, 214 and 215 were similar to T206. That is perfect proof he got them correct. He is the one that wrote the catalog and gave ample evidence why those series were cataloged differently. It is really not even close imho....but again, everyone can believe what they want to. I go by the facts.

Rhotchkiss · #3 02-12-2020, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon

T213s were issued over a span of how many years? How many years were T206s issued.
No T206 has a blue caption on front. No T206 is paper thin. No T206 has multiple colors of print on front (with the different series).

T215s- Were issued later than T206. Have different colors of captions on front. Have different type card stock for the 2 series (though could be mistaking on that one as I haven't handled both versions recently)

Burdick knew exactly what he was doing on these series as, in the ACC, he said that 213, 214 and 215 were similar to T206. That is perfect proof he got them correct. He is the one that wrote the catalog and gave ample evidence why those series were cataloged differently. It is really not even close imho....but again, everyone can believe what they want to. I go by the facts.

Leon, I am taking only about T213-1 and T215-1 (that is, the type one of both cards). These were issued between 1909 and 1911 (I think both in 1910), and they have black caption and the fronts look exactly the same as t206 on all accounts.

I agree that T213 types 2/3 and T215 type 2s are NOT t206s. But I still don�t understand why you say the TYPE 1 of t213 and t215 are not

packs · #4 02-12-2020, 01:42 PM

How do people feel about Red and Brown Hindu backs being part of the same set? Or how about T207 Recruit and T207 Red Cross / Red Cycle backs?

There are no differences between the T213-1 and T215-1 cards and the corresponding T206 issue. Team designations mirror each other, poses mirror each other, there are no new subjects in either T213-1 or T215-1; what's the difference?

Leon · #5 02-12-2020, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Leon, I am taking only about T213-1 and T215-1 (that is, the type one of both cards). These were issued between 1909 and 1911 (I think both in 1910), and they have black caption and the fronts look exactly the same as t206 on all accounts.

I agree that T213 types 2/3 and T215 type 2s are NOT t206s. But I still don�t understand why you say the TYPE 1 of t213 and t215 are not

The answer, at minimum to both your and packs questions, is card stock and print, at least to me. The T213-1 has different card stock than any T206. Also, both of those have 2nd series produced differently. Do any T206s?

packs · #6 02-12-2020, 01:49 PM

How do you feel about the team changes in the T206 series? Surely they were printed later? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the O'Hara and Demmitt St. Louis cards are only available with a Polar Bear back. Applying the same rules as the T213 and T215 designations, should this card be considered apart from the T206 set?

DeanH3 · #7 02-12-2020, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon

The answer, at minimum to both your and packs questions, is card stock and print, at least to me. The T213-1 has different card stock than any T206. Also, both of those have 2nd series produced differently. Do any T206s?

A thought to as why the second/third series were different might be because the y were produced after ATC was broken up, Maybe Ligget and Myers wanted them to be a little different on purpose. Just a thought.

tedzan · #8 02-12-2020, 04:48 PM

Hey Guys,

The Macon (Georgia) Telegraph newspaper was running advertisements introducing ATC's COUPON cigarette brand in the Spring of 1910. Thus, we have solid evidence that
the T213-1 cards were issued during the T206 print runs of their 350 Series.

The minor exception with the 1910 COUPON (with respect to the T206 cards) is that American Litho printed the 1910 COUPON cards on "thinner" cardboard. This was done
simply because these cards were not intended to serve as Cigarette pack " stiffeners ". The initial marketing of the COUPON cigarette brand was not in packs, instead these
cigarettes were packaged in the standard cigarette cartons (11" x 3" x 2") containing 100's of Cigarettes. We've discussed this topic numerous times on this forum.

The T206 Six Super Prints with the 1910 COUPON advertisement.

.

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Rhotchkiss · #9 02-12-2020, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon

The answer, at minimum to both your and packs questions, is card stock and print, at least to me. The T213-1 has different card stock than any T206. Also, both of those have 2nd series produced differently. Do any T206s?

Card stock on t213-1 is legit, but how do you reconcile with American Beauty, which is skinnier than all other T206s? I think the best argument is that each of t213 and t215 has post 1911 versions. But the fronts of those versions look different, at least with the blue caption.

Leon · #10 02-13-2020, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Card stock on t213-1 is legit, but how do you reconcile with American Beauty, which is skinnier than all other T206s? I think the best argument is that each of t213 and t215 has post 1911 versions. But the fronts of those versions look different, at least with the blue caption.

American Beauty's are allegedly smaller due to packaging constraints as per what Teddy said above. The one rebuttal to his (hey Ted) post is that the 3rd series of T213 were issued in 1919. I doubt T206s were.
Your (Ryan) other agreements are valid

. I really need some more T206s so I don't keep showing the same ones over and over!!

buymycards · #11 02-13-2020, 04:03 PM

This is a little off topic, but it is interesting that, after the break up of ATC, the only tobacco companies that used the T206 images were the Louisiana brands, People's, Red Cross, Coupon, etc. So, after the success of the T206's, why were the T206 style cards only issued in Louisiana?

There must of been many other companies selling cigarettes, but none of them chose to include cards with their tobacco products, other than Fatima T200, T222, and the T330 Piedmont Art Stamps, none of which used the T206 images. The Fatima's and Piedmonts were issued in 1913 and 1914, which was before the U.S. entered WWI.

Even the T213-2's, which were issued between 1914 and 1916 were issued before the U.S. entered the war in August of 1917. The T213-3's were issued in 1919, after the war ended in 1918. T214's were issued in 1915 and T216's between 1911 and 1916.

There are several questions that can be asked about the above statements, but I certainly don't know the answers.

tedzan · #12 02-13-2020, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon

American Beauty's are allegedly smaller due to packaging constraints as per what Teddy said above. The one rebuttal to his (hey Ted) post is that the 3rd series of T213 were issued in 1919. I doubt T206s were.

Hey good buddy,

I don't think I will ever convince you the 1910 COUPON cards are really T206's.....and, you will never convince me otherwise.....Que Sera, Sera

Anyway, I'll make one more effort to sway you with this illustration......

-------------------------------------------------------- Issued Spring 1910

Followed by...�

Issued 1914 - 1915 ----------------------------------------- 1913 - 1914 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1919

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

steve B · #13 02-14-2020, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Card stock on t213-1 is legit, but how do you reconcile with American Beauty, which is skinnier than all other T206s? I think the best argument is that each of t213 and t215 has post 1911 versions. But the fronts of those versions look different, at least with the blue caption.

The AB cards are a minefield as far as using size to determine if they should be part of the set. There are regular T206s that are nearly as narrow as most ABs and narrower than some. There are also ABs that are much closer to full size.

insidethewrapper · #14 02-12-2020, 10:08 AM

My initial post was , why isn't each T206 back a set in itself ( ie. Polar Bear, Piedmont, etc, etc.) not which cards should be included in the T206 set. Please stay on the posted topic. If Coupon is on the back it is a Coupon Set, if Polar Bear then a Polar Bear set, etc. If this is the knowledge we have now, let's change it. IMO - Should be a checklist for each " Back" in the Catalogs. I think Ted has been trying to do this.

ullmandds · #15 02-12-2020, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

My initial post was , why isn't each T206 back a set in itself ( ie. Polar Bear, Piedmont, etc, etc.) not which cards should be included in the T206 set. Please stay on the posted topic. If Coupon is on the back it is a Coupon Set, if Polar Bear then a Polar Bear set, etc. If this is the knowledge we have now, let's change it. IMO - Should be a checklist for each " Back" in the Catalogs. I think Ted has been trying to do this.

I agree! A Committee of sorts would be essential in the hobby to make such changes and also to help dictate what "alterations/conservations" are acceptable in the hobby. Problem is it might be difficult to assemble a committee of "honest" people to make such decisions.

ullmandds · #16 02-12-2020, 10:20 AM

JB did an amazing job with what he had at the time...but with what we know now...changes to the ACC should be made.

packs · #17 02-12-2020, 10:23 AM

It's one man's methodology not gospel. Things don't have to be thought of the same way he thought of them.

Leon · #18 02-12-2020, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

It's one man's methodology not gospel. Things don't have to be thought of the same way he thought of them.

I politely disagree. He wrote the catalog so, if it is the numbering we are talking about, it is gospel from who wrote it. But he also absolutely said it was a work in progress.
I feel we can make additions and corrections but we need to follow his methodology. It is a good one.
He used the Card Collectors Bulletins to make those modifications to the ACC. Of course he had supplements to most of those too (if not all of them). Those were separate and loose page additions.
So yes, I would like to (possibly) see W503 reclassified as E503. He classified W500 Trading or Strip Cards in the generic Trading and Strip Card category (those without classifications). And the W503 have long been considered regular E type cards. The W600 Sporting Life were classifiedGeneral Issues and he thought of them more as pictures than cards when he said "The General Issues were sold more as pictures and the Trading cards as trading cards." My belief is that W600s are cards but he thought of them as pictures. So, I see room for potential change on that one too,. And I am not against some other changes that make sense.....
That all said I think he got T206s, T213s, T214s and T215s correct.

What is a thread without cards!!

.

edhans · #19 02-12-2020, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Leon, in your opinion, why should T cards issued between 1909-11, with same t206 fronts, including black lettering, not be included as t206s? Specifically I am talking about T213-1 and T215�1. What makes these cards any less a T206 than American Beauties, other than they were not initially classified as such?

I am very open to opinions, but merely calling a stance hogwash is not evidence/persuasive. I know there are others threads and plenty of arguments, but why specifically do you think t213-1 and t215-1 are not t206s (besides initial classification)? Thanks

There are cogent arguments for classifying T213-1 and T215-1 as T206s. To me, the primary reason that leads me to believe they are properly classified as distinct sets is that the selection of subjects does not fit into the print group rubric of the other backs.

Sean · #20 02-12-2020, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edhans

There are cogent arguments for classifying T213-1 and T215-1 as T206s. To me, the primary reason that leads me to believe they are properly classified as distinct sets is that the selection of subjects does not fit into the print group rubric of the other backs.

Hey Ed, not to put you on the spot, but can you explain this in greater detail?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

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 05:39 PM
Oh No! Not another T206 Question!	iggyman	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	20	12-02-2011 10:47 AM
T206.org question	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	11-26-2007 07:17 PM
T206 question	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	16	12-26-2005 01:51 PM
T206/HOF question?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	09-22-2001 09:16 PM