Modifications to Vintage Baseball Card Sets' Year(s) of Issue

[rhettyeakley]

Leon, do you have a scan of the T215-1 tht has the different background?

The thing kind of going against the T215-1 as being part of T206 to me has always been the fact that the back states "100 subjects" which is not seen on any other T206 back. Other than that I had never noticed any differences between the T206 and T215-1 card fronts and assumed they were likely another variation of the T206 "set"

-Rhett

[teetwoohsix]

I think you are right Rhett.I think the 100 subjects (or 100 Designs,as shown on the back) and maybe even the Factory No.10,5th.Dist.,N.J., is what separated them from being an actual extension of the T206 set.

[toppcat]

Well, there is no excuse for the Standard Catalog or grading co's to get dates wrong on Old Judges anymore since the definitive reference on them was published last year. I suspect the next big book will reflect this.

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Leon, do you have a scan of the T215-1 tht has the different background?

The thing kind of going against the T215-1 as being part of T206 to me has always been the fact that the back states "100 subjects" which is not seen on any other T206 back. Other than that I had never noticed any differences between the T206 and T215-1 card fronts and assumed they were likely another variation of the T206 "set"

-Rhett

Hi Rhett... like I said to Leon up above, it was more of a gut-shot guess on my part, as I've done no real hard research on T215-1. It's just that every card I've seen over the years has matched its T206 counterpart exactly for the fronts. Leon's assertion that there are background variations certainly changes things.

As for stating that "100 subjects" were offered, I don't see that as necessarily deterring T215-1 from being a back variant in T206. Other tobacco backs in T206 don't say how many subjects, but they offer far fewer total than 100. In fact, there isn't one uniform back that offers all 524 fronts.

[Leon]

I don't own this T215-1 Griffith anymore(and took the T206 scan from ebay). The T215-1 belongs to another board member but it was in my collection for years. You can see the background shading be different......however it is more pronounced (much more) on different cards. I am not sure this isn't just a printing plate issue though. Even regardless of this I have never heard T215 be talked about as being T206.....as the T213-1 has..
best regards

ps..btw Brian- as you are throwing out different scenarios about different issues I applaud you for it. I am the type that thinks everything should be questioned and inspected . Now, about an actual change, I am much slower.

[Exhibitman]

I think those are printing issues. I have some T206s with marked variations on the printing of background stuff. I will try to post one later.

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't own this T215-1 Griffith anymore(and took the T206 scan from ebay). The T215-1 belongs to another board member but it was in my collection for years. You can see the background shading be different......however it is more pronounced (much more) on different cards. I am not sure this isn't just a printing plate issue though. Even regardless of this I have never heard T215 be talked about as being T206.....as the T213-1 has..
best regards

ps..btw Brian- as you are throwing out different scenarios about different issues I applaud you for it. I am the type that thinks everything should be questioned and inspected . Now, about an actual change, I am much slower.

Thanks, Leon.

In truth, I actually see no way that these designations will ever be changed. So ensconsed are they in the trading, grading and pricing of these cards, I can't imagine wiping the slate clean of their past and getting everyone in the hobby to agree on a new designation.

But again, I was just throwing it out there with regards to T215-1. I have never owned one myself and know very little about the series besides what I've read in Burdick's book and have seen at card shows, on eBay and in auction catalogues. To my eyes, it just looked like the same thing that had happened with Coupon also happened with Red Cross. That being that the 1st series was printed between 1910-12, with the same fronts as T206, just distributed in areas not touched by the other cigarette distributers. My gut feeling about both T213-1 and T215-1 is that they would have been T206 back variants had there not been the second series (for both) and the third series (for T213). In other words, Red Cross and Coupon would be like Uzit or American Beauty.

[tedzan]

To refresh your thinking, here is the link to my thread on this subject......http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon

It's time to reclassify this set of 68 cards and identify them as the the 16th T-brand of the T206 set. The front images of these cards
are derived from the T206 series of "350 Subjects". The back design is consistent with the four other T206 brands printed and issued
during the Summer/Fall of 1910. Therefore, they are a bona fide white-bordered set under the T206 rubric. The only argument against
this, is that they were printed on very slightly thinner cardboard stock than T206's. In my opinion this is a weak argument that smells
like a "Louisiana red-herring".

At the risk of being a broken record on this subject, I will leave you with this illustration, since a picture is worth a 1000 words........



TED Z

[Brian-Chidester]

Ted... any thoughts on the T215-1 Red Cross and Pirate backs?

[rhettyeakley]

The T215-1 set is more like the T206 set than the T213-1 other than the 100 subjects notation on back. The reason that the 100 number is significant to me is that no other T206 back has that distinction. There is the 150 back, the 350 back and the 350-460 back. Sure there are some t206 backs that don't state a number but T215-1 being the only one saying 100, and the horizontal back (also not on any T206 backs) are both somewhat of a deterrent to referring to that set as a T206 set to me. Also, the ACC is fairly random, we could be making a case for the T215-2, T213-2 and T214 sets being from the same set as well just w/ different backs--but this will never happen.
-Rhett

[erstevens]

Alternatively, based on back similarities, maybe American Beauty, Broadleaf, Cycle, and Drum cards should be classified as T213s...

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

The T215-1 set is more like the T206 set than the T213-1 other than the 100 subjects notation on back. The reason that the 100 number is significant to me is that no other T206 back has that distinction. There is the 150 back, the 350 back and the 350-460 back. Sure there are some t206 backs that don't state a number but T215-1 being the only one saying 100, and the horizontal back (also not on any T206 backs) are both somewhat of a deterrent to referring to that set as a T206 set to me. Also, the ACC is fairly random, we could be making a case for the T215-2, T213-2 and T214 sets being from the same set as well just w/ different backs--but this will never happen.
-Rhett

Well, T213-2 and -3, as well as T214 and T215-2 were printed all between 1913 and 1919, plus with the blue text, they have more apparent discrepencies than T213-1 and T215-1.