Appease me, please....one more time T206/T213/T215?

canjond · #1 01-28-2011, 02:50 PM

For those that believe that Burdick got the Coupon designation right, can anyone name another "T" set (or heck, even an "E" set for that matter), where Burdick grouped the set into types, and each type sub-set was issued with 5-year breaks inbetween?

To illustrate what I'm asking - Obaks, for example, are divided into T212 Type I, II and III. But type I was issued in 1909, type II in 1910, and type III in 1911. The release was consecutive.

In the case for Coupons - Burdick lumped them altogether into the T213 designation with different types, but give me an example of another set where type I was issued, then there was a 4 year gap before the type IIs were issued, and then a 5 year gap before the type IIIs were issued?

Again, this adds to my belief Burdick did not get the groupong for Coupons correct.

Leon · #2 01-28-2011, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canjond

For those that believe that Burdick got the Coupon designation right, can anyone name another "T" set (or heck, even an "E" set for that matter), where Burdick grouped the set into types, and each type sub-set was issued with 5-year breaks inbetween?

To illustrate what I'm asking - Obaks, for example, are divided into T212 Type I, II and III. But type I was issued in 1909, type II in 1910, and type III in 1911. The release was consecutive.

In the case for Coupons - Burdick lumped them altogether into the T213 designation with different types, but give me an example of another set where type I was issued, then there was a 4 year gap before the type IIs were issued, and then a 5 year gap before the type IIIs were issued?

Again, this adds to my belief Burdick did not get the groupong for Coupons correct.

I don't know of any other sets that this was done in, period. So I am not sure that proves anything at all. I also politely disagree about the theory of using paper thin cards in paper type packaging. I think it would be more likely to have the thinner cardboard/paper in a thicker pack. When I handled the Pirates pack I had, it was a paper type (thin) pack and had a cardboard type card in it.

**My theory is that Burdick classified Coupon backs as T213 when he saw them as the same sets (according to the ad on back), from different years, with different characeristics but the same mfg back. It's as simple as that...and thus they are in fact T213 and always will be. I am comfortable with it as well as all of the grading companies and many other knowledgeable collectors. There will never be 100% agreement. All that being said, I could still be persuaded to change my mind, though nothing I have read yet does that. Kind regards

T206Collector · #3 01-28-2011, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon

My theory is that Burdick classified Coupon backs as T213 when he saw them as the same sets (according to the ad on back), from different years, with different characeristics but the same mfg back. It's as simple as that...and thus they are in fact T213 and always will be.

Leon,
The flaw in your logic is that its basically circular - Burdick classified them as T213, therefore they must be T213. I think when distilled that your argument is that Burdick aligned them with similar sets from different years and there is nothing wrong with that. But if that's the case, was Burdick wrong for not calling gold bordered Piedmont cards T206-2? Will you admit that his decision not to call gold bordered Piedmont cards T206-2 was inconsistent with his decision to not call T213-1s T206s?

Leon · #4 01-28-2011, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Leon,
The flaw in your logic is that its basically circular - Burdick classified them as T213, therefore they must be T213. I think when distilled that your argument is that Burdick aligned them with similar sets from different years and there is nothing wrong with that. But if that's the case, was Burdick wrong for not calling gold bordered Piedmont cards T206-2? Will you admit that his decision not to call gold bordered Piedmont cards T206-2 was inconsistent with his decision to not call T213-1s T206s?

No, I said that it was as simple as Burdick saw "Coupon" on the backs of all 3 series, having the paper thin type 1's, the front captions being different (brown or blue), with much wider years of issuance, and therefore he labeled them correctly as T213 Coupons, as those characteristics did not fit in with T206. It's that simple.

As for T205, they have gold borders, and if you read his description in the ACC, that is the reason he labeled them the next series up. I really don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend? Just read what the gentleman wrote and it will explain everything. And of course he was human and made a few errors, however on these I don't think he did. Plus then you have to go into Hassan and HLC for the T205's and they weren't in T206, though I still think he labeled them according to their borders. (Again, I cheated, I read the ACC)

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
First Time Submission	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	03-06-2009 01:28 PM
O/T - best all time	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	33	01-06-2009 09:24 PM
* Time to fire up the Network 54 Cabal again....d311s this time *	Archive	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	5	12-01-2008 01:55 PM
My first time at the National	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	07-29-2008 04:15 PM
OT but it is time for the 134th Kentucky Derby	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	100	05-17-2008 07:45 PM