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

[Leon]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Now, to "hang your hats" on such trivial differences regarding the COUPON-1 cards because they are printed on less rigid cardboard, or have quota-
tion marks on the word COUPON is grasping at straws.

Jon Canfield has provided a logical explanation for the softer cardboard stock......
"As for the thin stock - Coupon never made slide and shell cig packs, only paper - hence my theory why a thinner stock was used."


TED Z

First of all you didn't address your oversight of me hijacking your thread, quite to the contrary, this is a thread I started?

Secondly, I respect Jon's studies on tobacciana as much as anyone I know, however, the above statement that you quoted of his is exactly the reason I think it doesn't hold water. It would make no sense to put a paper thin card in a paper pack, it would make more sense to put a thicker one in there for reinforcement, and there is precedent for that. regards

[canjond]

Leon - actually, the thicker card would pose a problem. Coupon cigarette packs are very thin paper. The use of a thicker card would have likely torn the pack.

Imagine a newly printed card with sharp corners being inserted into a thin paper pack - it would easily have torn open the product. And, after all, the card was a companion piece to the cigarettes. So, if the insert was ruining good packs of cigarettes, well then we have a problem since the product being sold is the cigarettes, not the card, and who would buy a torn pack of cigarettes?

While I certainly agree with you that it would be logical to use sturdier cardboard for a thin paper pack, practically speaking, it would have ruined the product - so a thinner, more flixible cardboard would have been more proper. Also, let's not forget that while cigarette cards were originally conceived (so the rumor goes) to add a stiffener to cigarette packs, by 1909-1911, this was not the case. Cards were widely collected at this point, and inserting cards into packs had become a "cracker jack for adults." This is clearly evident by the fact certain issues had redemptions T3s, T4s, etc. for example. Cards were collectible - the practical use of the cardboard was a thing of the past.

[FrankWakefield]

Jon, thicker paper, the thickness of T206's would pose a problem for the cigarette packages of Coupon Cigarettes, and would pose another factor for including the cards in with the T206 grouping.

It seems to me that the "Coupon" division of the ATT decided they wanted cards too, like their full priced cousins (Piedmont, Sovereign, et al) so they eventually got cards too, although thinner, and without a series designation... maybe because they weren't part of the 150 - 350 - 460 series of the other brands.

Brands with a series designation:

American Beauty
Broad Leaf
Cycle
Drum
Piedmont
Sovereign
Sweet Caporal


Brands with no series designation:

Carolina Brights
El Principe de Gales
Hindu
Lenox
Old Mill
Polar Bear
Tolstoi
Uzit


Maybe those 7 with the series designation should be one thing, and the 8 with no designation should be something else.


Thanks, Ted, for digging up that old thread, and providing the link. It doesn't surprise me that the 17 to 5 is skewed towards adding T213's and/or T215's to the T206 grouping. Almost all vintage collectors either start with T206's, or gravitate to them. So those cards are somewhat of a first love. And collectors will like the idea of adding to them. Just like that crazy, glossy front, red portrait Ty Cobb card.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Almost all vintage collectors either start with T206's, or gravitate to them.

I wasn't aware of this fact, Frank. Good piece of information.

Thank you, sir.

[FrankWakefield]

Well what old card got you interested in old cards? If it wasn't T206's, how long thereafter before you got a T206?? And do you have any T206's now???

I think most collectors start with contemporary cards. Then they might work their way back a bit. Then, if they continue to expand their collecting range, they leap back to a favorite year or card style. Either that gets them to vintage cards, or their interest in the game and game history gets them there. A kid knows about the 'Wagner' card. And while they can't own one maybe, they can buy a card from the same 'set' (which is what we're discussing here, or were, until I was jumped).

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Maybe those 7 with the series designation should be one thing, and the 8 with no designation should be something else.

* * *

[C]ollectors will like the idea of adding to them.

The fact that Burdick applied the moniker "T206" to cover cards with and without series designations means that the lack of a series designation on T213-1 is completely irrelevant to a determination here.

In addition, T206 is (obviously) my true collecting love. I also really dig Burdick. I have absolutely no interest in adding to T206 or correcting a flawed Burdick. I just happen to think this one is pretty obvious, bordering on the undeniable.

I find the arguments against including T213-1's as T206s wholly unpersuasive and easily rebutable, primarily because there is already so much variation among the different backs -- such a wide net was thrown by Burdick to cover multiple series of cards, with player variations, series size, and cardboard size (AB), it seems almost negligent to exclude T213-1. The logic for including each of the 16 different back types simply belies the logic to exclude T213-1 -- the rationale for including the 16 different backs cannot coexist with a rationale for excluding T213-1.

Moreover, I think it is obvious that Burdick excluded the T213-1s based on the later-issued Coupon series (some of the T213-1 fans arguing for exclusion essentially admit as much), and would not have done so had he known that they were issued contemporaneously with the other T206s -- which it also appears obviously to me that he did not (indeed the different later series likely provided a means for confusion here). And no one has come up with a valid response to Jon's point that T205s should have been T206-2 by the "exclusion-by-reason-of-later-series" logic, since, e.g., Piedmont made both T205s and T206s.

And, if Burdick was persuaded by the paper stock, it was because he did not realize how they were packaged in paper and that they therefore needed to be thinner, as Jon, our resident packaging expert, expertly pointed out.

Finally, to suggest that we should blindly rely on Burdick because of the passage of time, the current graded card flips, or the apparent genius of the man, is to ignore the question being asked -- namely, whether our current reliance on this age-old numbering practice should be revisited based on current knowledge of issuance of these little cardboard beauties and, most obviously, because they look one-and-the-same.

[judsonhamlin]

I think if your position is that we should focus on the company/brand for whom the cards were produced, then you are likely to agree with Burdick and leave the system as is, possible warts and all.
If your position (like mine) is that the focus should be on the company that actually printed the cards, you come down on the side of lumping the various brands advertised thereon.

As I said earlier, I do see a precedent for "lumping" - R73 Indian Gum. Non-sports guys must be able to cite other multi-year, multi-series sets printed by the same company that have one ACC #.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

I find the arguments against including T213-1's as T206s wholly unpersuasive and easily rebutable, primarily because there is already so much variation among the different backs -- such a wide net was thrown by Burdick to cover multiple series of cards, with player variations, series size, and cardboard size (AB), it seems almost negligent to exclude T213-1. The logic for including each of the 16 different back types simply belies the logic to exclude T213-1 -- the rationale for including the 16 different backs cannot coexist with a rationale for excluding T213-1.

Paul thanks for the well thought out post. We are obviously on opposite sides concerning whether T213-1's should be considered as a T206 so could you address how the T213-1's don't fit the printing process of the T206's?

The T206 set as we know it was printed with over 36 unique ad backs and none of those backs were printed with 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time. Each group was printed for a run and then retired to make room for the next group all the way through the set. Once a group was retired it was not brought back. So how then does the T213-1 set fit into the T206 set when it deviates from this process?

[T206Collector]

You're going to have to hold my hand through this a little bit, okay?

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

The T206 set as we know it was printed with over 36 unique ad backs and none of those backs were printed with 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time.

I don't understand this sentence. I assume you get to 36 by taking into account the different factories, overprints, and advertising colors (red/brown hindu, brown/black old mill, etc.). I do not know what you mean that "none of those backs were printed with 150-350 and 350 only subjects at the same time." Red Cobb portraits were printed with these backs, right?

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Each group was printed for a run and then retired to make room for the next group all the way through the set.

Again, what about, e.g., Red Cobb?

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Once a group was retired it was not brought back. So how then does the T213-1 set fit into the T206 set when it deviates from this process?

Again, when was Red Cobb retired? And how does T213-1 deviate from this process?

Maybe you could help answer my questions by explaining how the production of EPDG and Polar Bear differ from the production of T213-1?

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

I'll try to keep this brief and if anyone cares for me to elaborate on anything just let me know.

The T206 set follows a very rigid rule when it comes to subject groups being discontinued. Once the print runs for the 150-350 Only group had concluded and the 350 Only group printing began the 150-350 Only cards were never printed again. Same goes for the transition to the 460 Series. No 150-350 or 350 Only subject is brought back during those print runs. The Coupon Type 1 set does just that. It combines 150-350 Subjects with 350 Only subjects. By the time the 350 Only group was being printed the Southern League players had been pulled from printing.

As far as the back design is concerned it does look like the American Beauty, Broad Leaf, Cycle, and Drum, but that is where the set similarities end. We know that the A+B+C+D group front images were preprinted and then printed with all four back designs. The sets are a match with the same players included and excluded. The Coupon Type 1 set includes players that are no prints in the A+B+C+D group. This shows me that the Coupon set is unrelated other than back design.

I believe the Coupon Type 1's were a unique set created using existing T206 materials to save costs but not part of the T206 set.

Well said Tim. These cards have some "similarities"....but that's about it. And when you factor in that they came out with a second and third series (T-213) where they moved even further away from imitating a T206, it seems to me that Mr.Burdick got it completely right in the way he classified these cards.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Abravefan11]

Yes, I am taking into consideration all of the unique back designs within the T206 set.

The Red Cobb portrait is a super print. This card along with five others were introduced with the 350 Only group. When ATC and ALC retired the 350 Only group they carried over these 6 into the 350-460 group. This accounts for their being found with so many backs but doesn't contradict my point. The Red Cobb was not taken out of production and then brought back.

T213-1 deviates from this process because once the 150-350 Subjects were retired and the printing of the 350 Only players began, no 150-350 subject was ever printed again. T213-1 printed 150-350 subjects together with 350 Only subjects. This did not happen in the T206 set.

The two assorted backs that the 150-350 and 350 only cards shared were Old Mill and EPDG. However they were not printed all in one big batch. There were print runs for the assorted backs during each groups print runs. EPDG's for example would have been run during the 150-350 printing, again during the 350 Only, again during the 350-460, and again in the 460 Only runs. So the 150-350 subjects and 350 Only subjects were printed separately with assorted backs not at the same time. This was not the case with the T213-1's. They were printed all together at the same time.

Please let me know if I need to clarify anything further. I'm not the best at explaining myself on the forum apparently and I apologize for the confusion.

[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.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Well said Tim. These cards have some "similarities"....but that's about it. And when you factor in that they came out with a second and third series (T-213) where they moved even further away from imitating a T206, it seems to me that Mr.Burdick got it completely right in the way he classified these cards.

Sincerely, Clayton

Any chance that the blue letters used on the later series', point to the fact that they were intended to be their own individual issues? This lettering change seems to be an indication that the type-1's were part of the American Tobacco series that are now known as t206's. Thus the need for the lettering change. Call 'em lazy, call 'em what you will. Other brands changes styles all-together, Coupon took the easy way out by simply updating teams and letter colors, 4 years later...

[Leon]

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]

So....

1. 150-350 Subjects were retired and then the 350 Only Series began; but

2. Old Mill and EPDG deviate from this axiom; and

3. So does T213-1; but

4. T213-1 is different from OM and EPDG, because the latter were issued in batches rather than all at once; and therefore

5. T213-1 is not a T206?

Did I follow this logic? Are you basically pinning your argument to the assertion that OM and EPDG were issued in batches and T213-1 was issued all at once? If so, I do not see how you get from 4 to 5 above.

[T206Collector]

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?

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Any chance that the blue letters used on the later series', point to the fact that they were intended to be their own individual issues? This lettering change seems to be an indication that the type-1's were part of the American Tobacco series that are now known as t206's. Thus the need for the lettering change. Call 'em lazy, call 'em what you will. Other brands changes styles all-together, Coupon took the easy way out by simply updating teams and letter colors, 4 years later...

I guess of course this could be true, but the problem is it boils down to speculation. I like to believe that Burdick knew a little more than we do about the issue being that he was a kid when these cards were produced, and he may have known these were their own issue (T213-1, T213-2, and T213-3).

He loved these cards enough to take the time to catalogue them all, so I accept the designation he gave them. I also feel they are not T206's.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Abravefan11]

No, I must have confused you and I'll try to clarify.

1) Is true.

2) Old Mill and EPDG do not deviate. When the 150-350 run was being printed they printed backs with EPDG and some with Old Mill. 150-350 production stopped and was replaced by 350 Only subjects. Once they began printing these images they printed some with Old Mill and some with EPDG. They never printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time.

3) T213-1 printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time. This did not happen at anytime in the T206 print runs with any back.

4) T213-1 are different than EPDG and Old Mill.

5) 1-4 lead me to conclude T213-1 are not T206's.

Once the images were pulled from production in the T206 set it makes sense for them to be reused as a low cost alternative to creating a new set from scratch for another project separate from T206.

[T206Collector]

....because I don't see the significance of what you see.

How do you know:

1. That T213-1 printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time; and

2. That this did not happen at anytime in the T206 print runs with any back?

[Leon]

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)

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by fkw

If Piedmont or Sweet Caporal also made cards in 1914 with a blue caption, Im sure Burdick would also have listed them with their own ACC # in the T213-T216+ range, and the brown caption 1909-11 Era version (T206) would be the type 1, ie T21X-1

The T213-1 and T215-1 ACC #s are correct.

This is on the money IMO.

Sincerely, Clayton

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I guess of course this could be true, but the problem is it boils down to speculation. I like to believe that Burdick knew a little more than we do about the issue being that he was a kid when these cards were produced, and he may have known these were their own issue (T213-1, T213-2, and T213-3).

He loved these cards enough to take the time to catalogue them all, so I accept the designation he gave them. I also feel they are not T206's.

Sincerely, Clayton

I'm not necessarily saying they are or aren't t206's. I'm not opposed one bit to them being a separate issue. I find myself on the fence, leaning towards inclusion though...BUT I will admit that while Burdick made errors in some classifications, he also had more info to go on by being closer to that era. He may not have personally remembered the exact time-lines for everything, but had others who were a little older to ask, and maybe that's why he made the designation. I don't know though.

Anyways, this is baseball. In fact this issue perfectly fits the history of baseball, and it's origins. Many questions remain, that unfortunately can NEVER truly be answered. There is no definite evidence either way, and it will forever be left to simple speculation and personal beliefs.

I'll finish with something a little off topic. Since we have no definitive answers about the origins of American Baseball, I'm perfectly content to accept this theory.
http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/ar...als-to-p,7017/

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I'm not necessarily saying they are or aren't t206's. I'm not opposed one bit to them being a separate issue. I find myself on the fence, leaning towards inclusion though...BUT I will admit that while Burdick made errors in some classifications, he also had more info to go on by being closer to that era. He may not have personally remembered the exact time-lines for everything, but had others who were a little older to ask, and maybe that's why he made the designation. I don't know though.

Anyways, this is baseball. In fact this issue perfectly fits the history of baseball, and it's origins. Many questions remain, that unfortunately can NEVER truly be answered. There is no definite evidence either way, and it will forever be left to simple speculation and personal beliefs.

I'll finish with something a little off topic. Since we have no definitive answers about the origins of American Baseball, I'm perfectly content to accept this theory.
http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/ar...als-to-p,7017/

Nice!! Thanks for the link. Not to take this too far off of the original topic, but what is to be made of the T216's? Here is a Louisiana tobacco issue that draws it's subject matter from the E90-1 and E92 caramel cards!! You also have one type with a glossy finish (similar to the T213-2) and the other is thin paper (similar to the T213-1)................but both with brown lettering at the bottom.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

....because I don't see the significance of what you see.

How do you know:

1. That T213-1 printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time; and

2. That this did not happen at anytime in the T206 print runs with any back?

I wish there was a simple way for me to answer those two questions but there isn't. I can tell you I have studied how ATC and ALC grouped and printed cards throughout the T206 print runs and feel everything I have told you to be factual to the best of my knowledge.

Based on this information and what I know about T213-1's they were printed in the same manner as the T206's and the T213-1's were printed on two different sheets. No matter how you group the set onto the two sheets in the manner ALC printed these cards you mix 150-350 and 350 Only subjects. Something that never happened (based on my research) in the printing of the T206 set.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

I wish there was a simple way for me to answer those two questions but there isn't. I can tell you I have studied how ATC and ALC grouped and printed cards throughout the T206 print runs and feel everything I have told you to be factual to the best of my knowledge.

Based on this information and what I know about T213-1's they were printed in the same manner as the T206's and the T213-1's were printed on two different sheets. No matter how you group the set onto the two sheets in the manner ALC printed these cards you mix 150-350 and 350 Only subjects. Something that never happened (based on my research) in the printing of the T206 set.

Well, if you could affirmatively establish a printing rule for the T206 set that was not followed by any of the other T206 backs, you would have me somewhat convinced that they should be treated differently. However, since different backs had different print runs, I'm not that it really tells us anything substantive. Moreover, I suspect that Leon's point about the later T213 Series being Burdick's motivation for a different classification is why we have the different classifications. I would wager Burdick had no idea about the print runs you speak of. Thus, at best, Burdick may have been "right" but for what I believe were unjustified reasons.

[toppcat]

Burdick had help from many other collectors; I forget who helped him with the T Baseball cards but it was a prominent name as I recall. Don't forget that there could have been some access to information back them that we do not have today that helped divide up the ACC and the subgroupings.

Now I am following this and the related Red Cross thread with some interest as the debate is fascinating to me. A bigger question might be why are the type 1 Coupons and the Red Cross cards not assigned the same T number? Timing of the issues being later than T206 would have seemingly been a factor Burdick could have considered when classifying these two.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Thus, at best, Burdick may have been "right" but for what I believe were unjustified reasons.

That's basically what I said in post #40.

I wish I could better explain my position but I appreciate you giving me multiple opportunities to clarify my point. I think we got close to an understanding.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

That's basically what I said in post #40.

I wish I could better explain my position but I appreciate you giving me multiple opportunities to clarify my point. I think we got close to an understanding.

I'm open-minded about the issue. I just need something a bit more concrete than some of the circular reasoning expressed in this thread. I would also need proof of the printing differentials you speak of. Given his extreme understanding and passion about T206 backs, how is it that Ted and you don't see eye to eye on this issue? Where do you guys differ in terms of understanding T206/T213-1 differentiation? Is it the weight you each put on the (in)significance of the print runs?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

I'm open-minded about the issue. I just need something a bit more concrete than some of the circular reasoning expressed in this thread. I would also need proof of the printing differentials you speak of. Given his extreme understanding and passion about T206 backs, how is it that Ted and you don't see eye to eye on this issue? Where do you guys differ in terms of understanding T206/T213-1 differentiation? Is it the weight you each put on the (in)significance of the print runs?

I too remain as open minded about any subject like this as I can and enjoy reading anyone's perspective whether we agree or not. I'm not exactly sure where Ted and I differ on our opinions or if he has ever considered the point of view that I am coming from. I will have to go back and read his opinion and see if I can determine where we differ.

[marcdelpercio]

I must say that Tim's points have changed my opinion on this topic. I was previously firmly of the opinion that T213-1's should have been classified as a T206 subset and have strongly argued such on earlier threads. I believe that any card meeting the criteria of:

-released during 1909-1911 by an ATC brand
-sharing the same artwork, design, production, and distribution methods

...should by definition be considered a T206. All accepted T206 brands, regardless of other often discussed variances, do not deviate from these criteria. Tim's points regarding the continuity of production among the Coupons vs all other T206 brands seems to me to be irrefutable evidence that these cards were produced independently and with different guidelines than any other T206 subset. As such, despite the many obvious strong similarities, my opinion is now that these are correctly categorized as a separate set.

[FrankWakefield]

Dave, I think that Mr. Burdick used the World Tobacco Index as a starting point. Mr. Lipset used the WTI and a list from Richard Egan. I've not seen an Egan list for T cards...

[tedzan]

Your observation in Post #62 has not gotten much of a response. In my opinion, you have raised an excellent question.

But first, for those of you who are trying to follow this thread's discussions, but are unfamiliar with these tobacco cards
this illustration should help.


............T213-1 (1910)...............T215-1 (1910-12)....................T213-2 (1914-16).............T213-3 (1917-19).....................T214 (1915)



I can't find my T215-2 example, but it looks like the T215-1 card; however, its caption is printed in BLUE ink. As are all the T213-2,
T213-3, and the T214 cards.

American Lithographic (ALC) pre-printed sheets of their T206 series fronts. From these sheets depicting players in their 350 series,
350/460 series, and the 460 series....ALC then printed on their backs the COUPON, RED CROSS, and VICTORY brands.
Furthermore, in one case for the T215 sets, ALC selected a Mathewson (White Cap) from the 1st series (150/350) of the T206 set.
And, the T213-1 set comprises only of images from the 350-only series in the T206 set.

Referring back to Jon's point, it is evident in the illustration that there are significant gaps in the timeline between the T213-1 set
and the subsequent T213-2, or the T213-3 sets.

Jon, no other identically classified BB card sets by Burdick have this wide a gap in their timeline. Therefore, the only logical answer
to your question is......
"Burdick blew it", in his attempt to lump the T213-1, (-2), and (-3) sets together.

What else can I say. There are distinct differences between the three T213 cards. The 1910 COUPON looks like a T206 in all respects,
both front & back.

The T213-2 with its glossy front reminds me of an OBAK card.

The T213-3 is is thinner cut than the T213-1 and usually has a "washed-out" look on its front.

Hey guys, I leave it up to you to mull-over this.

TED Z

[Abravefan11]

NM

[FrankWakefield]

I've seen several T215's with an indentation in the edges, where maybe a rubber band or string was used to hold a bunch of them together. Obviously not the case with the pristine T215's, but when you see worn ones it seems that frequently that dent is there, as in that Miller card.

[Leon]

Burdick knew exactly what he was doing, take a look at the descriptions he used ie... the "T206 references". I feel this is more evidence he did exactly as I said. (kept it simple) Forget about all of the "factory this and factory that". Baseball is probably 10%, or so, of his total listings. He just didn't get that deep into it, imo. He collected data, put the cards next to each other to see how they looked, came up with a way to organize them, took into account a few other factors too, especially distribution method, years of distribution and manufacturer (technically distributor), and went about his cataloging. As you can see he didn't specify 3 types of T213, only 2. He lumped 2s and 3s together. Then he went onto say the T215's were the same. So once he figured out T213 he just followed his pattern for T215. He thought about them being classified as T206, he only chose not to. I don't think it was a mistake at all and he got it right, but understand there will always be some that think otherwise. Not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Kind of fun to debate though and thanks to all who have chimed in. Here is a 1953 page from the ACC, it is the same as the last version, from 1960. I don't have an earlier version but I doubt he changed the wording very much...regards

[insidethewrapper]

So what year were the T 213-1 cards released ? Burdick states 1914-15 and I've seen also 1910.

[novakjr]

Leon, the photo of that ACC page, actually points more towards him being wrong in not listing type-1 as t206. Especially considering he listed them all as being produced in 1914-15. That leads me to believe that he made his designation based on mis-information. Either that, or everyone that currently believes type-1's are from 1910 is wrong.

[chaddurbin]

it's funny in these t206/ted threads you can always count on one thing...ted being dismissive of anyone with a different view than his and he stops engaging them. maybe if he was more open-minded he could learn a couple new things instead of throwing out wild guesses and theories and presenting them as facts (and when being shown wrong he ignores them...rinse repeat).

i agree with tim/frank/rhett/jim side

[T206Collector]

Tim,

Does Teds point about t213-1 comprising only 350 series t206 cards jibe with your theory--or does that answer my previous question?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Tim,

Does Teds point about t213-1 comprising only 350 series t206 cards jibe with your theory--or does that answer my previous question?

No it does not. The T213-1 set included all 20 Southern Association players from the 150 and 350 print runs. 16 of those 20 were printed in the 150 series Brown Hindu print run. The other 4 along with the first 16 were included in the 1st print run of the 350 series that included only 150-350 players. This group was printed with Piedmont 350 and Old Mill backs. After that these 20 and the other 28 Southern League players were discontinued from the T206 set.

From there other 150-350 subjects continued to be printed with additional backs like Sweet Caporal 350 and Sovereign 350. When these print runs were completed the 150-350 subjects were retired and the 350 Only subjects began their run. Once the 350 Only run began the 150-350 images were not printed again.

I'm not exactly sure how one could say that the T213-1 set is comprised of 350 Only subjects. All 68 were printed together so you can not exclude the 20 Southern Association players simply to make the rules work for your argument. They were printed in the set and must be considered.

[novakjr]

Tim. Roughly, how many cards were on a sheet?

I'm starting to think that some sort of mathematical equation could help us figure this out a little better.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Tim. Roughly, how many cards were on a sheet?

I'm starting to think that some sort of mathematical equation could help us figure this out a little better.

34 different images repeated multiple times.

[caramelcard]

Burdick classified type 1 coupons as T213 because it was easier for folks reading his catalog to identify the cards with the other coupon issues.

I think he could've gone the other way just as easily, but didn't because he decided to group the coupon premiums together. Not only with coupons but on other occasions too.

He classified E92s together because they share front images and it would be easier for folks reading his catalog to identify the group of cards together, but it doesn't really make much sense knowing what we now know about the four subsets.

My point is...that some of his classifications don't make any sense.


Do T213s belong to T206?

If we're gonna be this picky about the naming of each issue then to me this argument makes no sense anyways. All the the different premiums should've been designated as separate issues and not grouped together in the first place.

T206-1 (Piedmont) T206-2 (Sweet Cap.) T206-3 (Old Mill SL) T206-4 (Coupon), etc, etc.

Why are Old Mill T206 cards more T206 than coupon type 1s? Because Coupon sponsored other cards that looked kind of similar to the T206 era tobacco premiums? That's not a good enough argument imo.

I could see arguing against it if there was a team change or player change, but there's not. They're the same type of cards.

Rob

[FrankWakefield]

I think the World Tobacco Index, which antedates the American Card Catalog, the WTI grouped cards by the tobacco brand.

So maybe the right way to address this all would be to give each brand its own distinct number. Not T206-1, T206-2.... but T400 for American Beauty, T401 for Broad Leaf, T402 for Coupon, T403 for Cycle, T404 for Drum...

Maybe, to the extent Mr. Burdick fouled things, he did it by lumping the different brands into T206, T205, and T207.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

it's funny in these t206/ted threads you can always count on one thing...ted being dismissive of anyone with a different view than his and he stops engaging them. maybe if he was more open-minded he could learn a couple new things instead of throwing out wild guesses and theories and presenting them as facts (and when being shown wrong he ignores them...rinse repeat).

i agree with tim/frank/rhett/jim side

I just got in and read this. I don't understand what your problem is ? I cannot respond to someone's comments directed at me if I'm not at home.

And, of course I know that the 20 Southern Leaguers in the T213-1 set are 150/350 series subjects. This set also comprises of 42 Major Leaguers that are strictly
from the 350-only series of the T206 set. And, an additional six Major Leaguers that Scot Reader has identified as the 6 "super-prints". These 6 subjects were init-
ially from the 350-only series. Then American Litho. extended these 6 subjects into the 460-only series.

Apparently, you haven't been reading any of my threads on the 1910 COUPON (T213-1) set. Here are some links you can click onto and read my previous posts on
this subject.....then perhaps you can apologize.

2010
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon

2008
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon

2008
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ghlight=t213-1


I just happen to think that the T213-1 cards are are part of the T206 set (and there are quite a few people here who do agree with this premise).

You apparently don't, and that's fine, too. But, do you have to resort to your diatribe against me (in post #88) ?

I have never, ever said anything to demean you (or otherwise) at any time that I have posted on this forum. So, where the heck are you coming from ? ?


TED Z

[FrankWakefield]

Most of the time on this board, I find myself either agreeing with stuff Ted says because I already thought that, or because he's convinced me. On this T213/T215 stuff, in this thread, I find my self satisfied that the thin cards issued down Louisiana way followed by thicker blue captioned cards and then later cards... I don't consider those T206s. He and I can disagree on this without fussing at one another. We can do it without baiting one another with a snide post that adds nothing... I consider Ted a good friend, but I'm not persuaded by what has been set forth. Sometimes, to me, it seems that folks challenge Ted not because they disagree with the point he's making, but because he's Ted. Like they're trying to out-think him because of his prestigious stature in our small collecting world. And several times I've thought Leon started this thread just to get one thread going about cards, he tossed out some scraps to us hungry dogs, and here we are snapping and growling. Peace.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Most of the time on this board, I find myself either agreeing with stuff Ted says because I already thought that, or because he's convinced me. On this T213/T215 stuff, in this thread, I find my self satisfied that the thin cards issued down Louisiana way followed by thicker blue captioned cards and then later cards... I don't consider those T206s. He and I can disagree on this without fussing at one another. We can do it without baiting one another with a snide post that adds nothing... I consider Ted a good friend, but I'm not persuaded by what has been set forth. Sometimes, to me, it seems that folks challenge Ted not because they disagree with the point he's making, but because he's Ted. Like they're trying to out-think him because of his prestigious stature in our small collecting world. And several times I've thought Leon started this thread just to get one thread going about cards, he tossed out some scraps to us hungry dogs, and here we are snapping and growling. Peace.

A thread like this is exactly what we all needed. No! not so we can all piss each other off, but because it makes for great debate. I'm guaranteeing the majority of us are coming out of this thread with more knowledge about the type-1 coupons than we did coming into it.

[FrankWakefield]

I hope you're right, David, about folks learning about the Coupon and Red Cross cards.

I consider the purpose of this place is to be a forum for knowledge and ideas. And there's some card savvy folks here. It bothers me when the snapping drives a few away for a time.

[Abravefan11]

Frank - I don't know if any of your post was directed at me but I will say the following. The T206 set is my passion and I spend a great deal of time researching all aspects of the issue. If someone posts something regarding the set and my findings differ from theirs I feel it is the best interest of everyone that I offer a different point of view. It's not to be combative or argumentative but put forth all the available information for the board to digest and decide. If someone posts something and I have a differing opinion I am going to post whether they are a board icon or new member. With that said even those with differing opinions should show respect as I believe we are all working towards the same goal of knowledge.

[tedzan]

Frank

Thanks for you kind words....well said.

Originally Posted by tedzan

Your observation in Post #62 has not gotten much of a response. In my opinion, you have raised an excellent question.

But first, for those of you who are trying to follow this thread's discussions, but are unfamiliar with these tobacco cards
this illustration should help.


............T213-1 (1910)...............T215-1 (1910-12)....................T213-2 (1914-16).............T213-3 (1917-19).....................T214 (1915)



I can't find my T215-2 example, but it looks like the T215-1 card; however, its caption is printed in BLUE ink. As are all the T213-2,
T213-3, and the T214 cards.

American Lithographic (ALC) pre-printed sheets of their T206 series fronts. From these sheets depicting players in their 350 series,
350/460 series, and the 460 series....ALC then printed on their backs the COUPON, RED CROSS, and VICTORY brands.
Furthermore, in one case for the T215 sets, ALC selected a Mathewson (White Cap) from the 1st series (150/350) of the T206 set.
And, the T213-1 set comprises only of images from the 350-only series in the T206 set.

Referring back to Jon's point, it is evident in the illustration that there are significant gaps in the timeline between the T213-1 set
and the subsequent T213-2, or the T213-3 sets.

Jon, no other identically classified BB card sets by Burdick have this wide a gap in their timeline. Therefore, the only logical answer
to your question is......
"Burdick blew it", in his attempt to lump the T213-1, (-2), and (-3) sets together.

What else can I say. There are distinct differences between the three T213 cards. The 1910 COUPON looks like a T206 in all respects,
both front & back.

The T213-2 with its glossy front reminds me of an OBAK card.

The T213-3 is is thinner cut than the T213-1 and usually has a "washed-out" look on its front.

Hey guys, I leave it up to you to mull-over this.

TED Z

Tim

I guess the following statement in this cited post of mine stirred up some controversy......
" And, the T213-1 set comprises only of images from the 350-only series in the T206 set. "

I probably should have clarified it; but, for the sake of brevity I was mainly referring to the 48 Major League subjects. You have read many of my Tobacco card posts;
and, it should be obvious that I wasn't referring to the 20 Southern Leaguers in the T213-1 set. Of course I know that these 20 subjects are from the 150/350 series
of the T206 set. I have written about them in the past.

In any event, I'm sorry if by my brevity in this case, caused some consternation.


Regards,

TED Z