What if..Burdick had classified T206's with respect to their individual 15 T-brands ?

[drdduet]

"Everyone else was throwing out options, so i figured I would too"

Hi Rob, interestingly enough the Coupon Type 1 (68) is made up of 42 350 only subjects, the 6 superprints, and the 20 Southern Association Southern Leaguers.

[toppcat]

I've always thought that the closer to a source information is accrued, then generally the more reliable the information. I feel this way about Burdick and the ACC and especially how he grouped cards (yes, I realize some are incorrectly assigned). I have always thought he grouped T206 together as they shared a concerted marketing campaign from a parent apparatus and the same with T213 but of course there is no definitive proof of this. The fact that the Coupons are primarily viewed as Louisiana sets is revealing and likely reflects information accrued by early collectors as to what was to be grouped with what is an argument against their inclusion in the T206 universe.

Having said that, there is a lot of merit in the argument T213-1 could be reclassified as T206 with the biggest obstacle to my mind being the paper stock. But if you can get past that you could also argue types 2 and 3 belong with T206 as well as it is not unheard of for changes to occur from one series to the next and still have cards be considered part of the same set. I can cite 55 Bowman Baseball, 62 Topps Baseball and 69 Topps Football as modern examples where an obvious design change occurred from series to series and there are many sets or groupings where fonts and/or paper stock change from one series to the next. And who is to say what was planned for the ACC baseball series, both front and back-wise had the breakup and then the war not occurred?

Of course the post ACC breakup blue captioned Coupons further complicate the argument!

Personally, I consider the T213-1's are part of the Coupon universe but there is enough of an argument already in place that if further connections can be revealed a reconsideration would be in order.

Your experience may vary.....

[drdduet]

"What if..Burdick had classified T206's with respect to their individual 15 T-brands ?"

I don't think he could have been faulted. Take Polar Bear for example, the Polar Bear series include two unique subjects--O'Hara and Demmitt St. Louis and was distributed in pouches.

American Beauty has its own unique size.

Piedmont and Sweet Caporal lay claim to unique subjects as well--Wagner and Plank.

Each brand has its own series inclusions/exclusions and its own back color and design, distribution "networks" differ, regional issuance, etc.

Ted's ABCD theory separates brands by series distribution and design. Also, his Piedmont Primacy theory separates this issue from the others.

The brands can be separated from those that list the series (Piedmont, Sweet Caporal, etc) and those that don't (Polar Bear, Uzit, Coupon, etc...-the assorted backs).

Maybe....

[tedzan]

Gentleman....it's not rocket science

We have a simple set of factors that should define a T206 card. My contention is, that these 4 criteria
determine if a BB card qualifies as a T206......

1st....White border

2nd....Brown caption

3rd....Issued within the timeframe....Spring of 1909 -- Summer of 1911

4th....Card's back advertises an ATC owned tobacco brand during this timeframe


Therefore, we must include COUPON (T213-1), RED CROSS (T215-1), and the Ty Cobb (Ty Cobb back)
to the established 15 tobacco brands of the T206 set.


TED Z

[caramelcard]

Ted,

Apparently it is rocket science because...

T215-1 has Clark Griffith with Washington which puts the set in 1912.

Rob

[PolarBear]

This discussion parallels how coin collecting evolved in the late 19th century. I did an extensive analysis of that in another thread. I'm too lazy to look it up just now though.

[ethicsprof]

Darren,
an amazing wealth of notes you offer and a most illuminating recapitulation of
30+ years (Coupon Type 1--Notes and Facts thread).
a little help with your overall 'feel' for the notes which you offer.
utilizing Ted's definitional criteria for T206s listed on this thread (white border;brown caption; issued within spring of '09 and summer of '11; card's back advertises an ATC owned back during the time frame) along with your copious notes, do you find Ted's criteria necessary but not sufficient definitionally or do you find the criteria both necessary and sufficient?
Or do you feel your notes point to another possibility? Obviously, my focus is on the Coupon 1 classification.
many thanks for the great threads on these topics fellows.
best,
barry