T215 Red Cross actually a T206?

[tedzan]

1910 COUPON (T213-1)

Most of you guys know my opinion regarding the 1910 COUPON cards. In the past 6 years, I have posted several threads on this subject.

Check out these threads........
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=Quintuplicate
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon

It is a NO-BRAINER, these cards are indeed the 16th T-brand of the T206 set; as, they were issued in the Spring/Summer of 1910 (concurrently with the AMERICAN BEAUTY,
BROAD LEAF, CYCLE, and DRUM cards).
With all due respect to Burdick....he mis-classified this sub-set of 68 cards. Burdick's records indicate that they were issued "circa 1913-15"......this timeline is absolutely incorrect !
So, we'll give Burdick a "mulligan" on this one


This group of five T-brands were printed & issued circa Spring/Summer of 1910



RED CROSS (T215-1)




This issue is somewhat more complicated, as it derives subjects from the 150 series, 350 series, and the 460 series. Although, some of the RED CROSS cards were issued
in 1910, others were issued in early 1912 (evident by team trades reflected in their captions). So, I'm not ready to venture out on a limb and say the T215-1 should be
classified as part of the T206 set. Check out this thread........
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ight=red+cross



The 1910 COUPON....absolutely YES


TED Z

[barrysloate]

Why are T215 Red Cross not considered part of the T206 set, but brown background Red Cross are considered part of the T207 set? Is there a difference?

Quick side bar: as I'm typing in the words "Red Cross" I'm listening to an ad on the radio asking for donations to the Red Cross for Hurricane Sandy. Isn't that a coincidence?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Why are T215 Red Cross not considered part of the T206 set, but brown background Red Cross are considered part of the T207 set? Is there a difference?

Quick side bar: as I'm typing in the words "Red Cross" I'm listening to an ad on the radio asking for donations to the Red Cross for Hurricane Sandy. Isn't that a coincidence?

I'm 75 - 25 % leaning toward the the T215-1 RED CROSS 96 cards as an extension to the T206 set. Although, some of the team changes reflect trades as late as 1912,
the BROWN captioned aspects of these cards are consistent with the T206 format.

Consider this, if this issue is indeed part of the "T206 family"....we can extend the T206 timeline to "1909 - 1912".


TED Z





This includes approx. 35 cards that were derived from the 350-Only series and the Matty (white cap) from the 150/350 series.

[barrysloate]

I'm not certain Red Cross should be included in T206 either, but I would like someone to explain why we include it in the T207 set without even questioning it.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I'm not certain Red Cross should be included in T206 either, but I would like someone to explain why we include it in the T207 set without even questioning it.

Hi Barry-

My guess is simply because there is no other set that has the T207 fronts. Because the T213-1 and the T215-1 use the same fronts as T206, it's easier for people to try to build a case that these should have been included in the T206 set. I don't think they are T206's, but you won't convince the people who do.

TedZ.- I know your position on T213-1's, and I know you've studied these sets way longer than I have, but what about the paper stock on T213-1's. Why is it different? Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Hi Barry-

My guess is simply because there is no other set that has the T207 fronts. Because the T213-1 and the T215-1 use the same fronts as T206, it's easier for people to try to build a case that these should have been included in the T206 set. I don't think they are T206's, but you won't convince the people who do.

TedZ.- I know your position on T213-1's, and I know you've studied these sets way longer than I have, but what about the paper stock on T213-1's. Why is it different? Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton

The 1910 COUPON cards were not meant to be inserted as cardboard stiffiners in ATC's standard 10-cigarettes packs. Therefore, the thin cardboard stock.
None such cigarettes pack has ever been found. And, I don't think any will be.

Regarding the first distribution of the "COUPON" cigarettes that have been found are boxes labelled "COUPON" brand (circa 1908-1910) containing 100's of cigarettes.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Because the T213-1 and the T215-1 use the same fronts as T206, it's easier for people to try to build a case that these should have been included in the T206 set. I don't think they are T206's, but you won't convince the people who do.

Clayton - You hit the nail on the head. Many people fall into the "looks like a duck/must be a duck" camp. When in actuality there are other factors beyond the cards appearances that contradict them being part of the same set.

It's difficult to sway anyone's opinion on the subject as there are enough key points to craft an argument for or against.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Leon

No matter how much anyone in our hobby debates the issue it is abundantly clear what Burdick wanted. He knew the sets were similar and he still accounted for them the way he did.

Leon

But, according to his records, his timeline regarding the 1910 COUPON issue is faulty...."circa 1913-19". This timeline applies only to the T213-2 and T213-3 issues.
With all due respect to Jeff Burdick, this is where he got it wrong on the 1910 COUPON cards. And, I don't think you are questioning their 1910 date ?

Originally Posted by Leon

......so are T213 and T215 each in their own group. Each of the latter 2 series have differences that would not fit into T206 (such as thinner stock or blue captions).

No one here is arguing about any simililarity between T206's and the T213-2, or T213-3, or the T215-2 issues (circa 1913 - 1919).

Regarding the thinner stock that the 1910 COUPON cards were printed on.....I will reprise what I have already posted......
The 1910 COUPON cards were not meant to be inserted as cardboard stiffiners in ATC's standard 10-cigarettes packs. Therefore, American Litho. printed
these cards on thin cardboard stock. It's as basic as that. This factor is not a big deal, as some on this forum try to make it out to be.

The "COUPON" cigarettes were packaged in boxes labelled "COUPON" (circa 1908-1910) containing 100's of cigarettes of this new ATC brand. Furthermore,
no 1910 "COUPON" (10-cigarette) packs have ever been found. And, I don't think any will be.


Best regards,

TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Clayton - You hit the nail on the head. Many people fall into the "looks like a duck/must be a duck" camp. When in actuality there are other factors beyond the cards appearances that contradict them being part of the same set.

It's difficult to sway anyone's opinion on the subject as there are enough key points to craft an argument for or against.

Thanks Tim, I appreciate that.

Barry, you're welcome, but I'm sure you thought the same thing And, it's the only thing I could come up with; I'm no expert by any means.

TedZ.- I'm probably wrong, but I've always been on the fence about these cards being "pack stiffeners".....I'm probably alone on this, but sometimes it doesn't make sense to me. First, the cards aren't that "thick" (in my opinion);I don't know how effective they would be as "stiffeners". Second, if they were stiffeners, why wouldn't Polar Bear cards be "thicker" than say, Piedmont or Sweet Caporal (or, any other T206 brand cards)? I would think that since they were packaged in pouches, they would make PB's thicker? And finally, what did Piemont (or any of the other T206 brands) use as a pack stiffener before T206 cards? It surely wasn't these coupons, they are paper thin.

These are some of the things that make it hard for me to believe that they would go out of there way to use a whole different paper stock, on this 1st series T-213, but still intend it to be a T206. It's just one of the things that don't make sense to me. Add on the fact that you have the other two series of Coupon, which seem to be a direct result of differentiating (intentionally) this series APART from T206,,,and this isn't even getting into T206 350 subject series.....

Just my thoughts, I just don't think these cards were meant to be T206's.

Thanks for the replies, I love this topic

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

The RED CROSS (T215-1) set consists of 96 cards. It is comprised of T206 subjects from the 150/350 series, 350-only series, 350/460 series,
and 460-only series. These cards were most likely issued in 2 series....1st series of 48 (or 36) subjects in 1910....the 2nd series of 48 (or 60)
subjects in early 1912.

The T215 cards were printed in New York City (as most of that era's T-cards), shipped to the Lorillard plant (Factory #10) in Jersey City (NJ),
and inserted in the Red Cross tobacco products. A large find of Red Cross cards occurred some years back in the Louisiana area.





This list of 96 cards is still a work in progress. The Standard Catalog is uncertain with respect to the T215-1 cards. However, a 96-card "complete"
set of the T215-1's "cousins", the "PIRATE" Tobacco set, has been confirmed. These T215 cards closely match that of the cards found in the "Pirate"
Tobacco set. I think it is fair to conclude that American Litho. printed both of these White-Bordered, Brown-Captioned cards in the same time-frame.

Ames (hands above head)
Baker
Ball
Bender (trees)
Bridwell (portrait-cap)
M. Brown (Chicago)
Byrne (Pittsburg)........................traded August 19, 1909
Camnitz (arm at side)
Chance (yellow portrait)
Chase (trophy)
Cobb (bat off shoulder)
Collins (A's)
Conroy (bat)
Crandall (portrait-cap)
Crawford (bat)
Cree
Davis (A's)
Devore
Donlin (bat)....(Pittsburg)..............traded Feb 17, 1912
Doolan (bat)

Doolan (fielding)
Dougherty (arm in air)
Doyle (portrait)
Doyle (bat)
Dubuc
Elberfeld (Wash.-fielding)
Evers (bat-yellow sky)
Ford
Fromme
Griffith (bat)....(Washington)..........traded in Feb 1912
Groom
Hartsel (Toledo)...........................acquired by Toledo in Dec 1911
Herzog (New York, NL)..................traded July 22, 1911
Hoblitzell
Hofman
Howard
Huggins (portrait)..(St Louis NL)......traded Feb 1910
Huggins (hands/mouth)
Hummell
Jennings (one hand)
Jennings (two hands)
Johnson (pitching)
Kelley
Konetchy (glove low)
Krause
Lajoie (bat)
Lake (St Louis-no ball)
Latham
Leifield (bat)
Lord
Magee (bat)
Marquard (portrait)
Marquard (pitching)
Mathewson (white cap)
Mathewson (dark cap)
McGinnity
McGraw (portrait-cap)
McGraw (glove)
Harry McIntyre (Chicago NL)
Matty McIntyre (Detroit)

McLean
Merkle (throwing)
Meyers
Miller
Mowrey (St Louis, NL)...................traded Aug 22, 1909
Mullin (bat)
Murray
Oakes
O'Leary (hands on knees)
Paskert
Pelty (vertical)
Purtell
Quinn
Reulbach (no glove)
Rucker (throwing)
Schaefer (Washington)
Schulte (back view)
Sheckard (glove)
Frank Smith (Cincinnati).................traded May 11, 1911
Speaker

Stahl (glove)
Steinfeldt (bat)....(St. Louis, NL).....tryout, circa Feb 1912
Street
Sweeney (New York AL)
Tannehill (Chicago AL)
Tinker (bat on shoulder)
Tinker (bat off shoulder)
Wagner (bat on right)
Warhop
Wheat
Doc White (pitching)
Willetts
Wilson
Wiltse (portrait)
Wiltse (pitching)
Cy Young (glove)


I reiterate, this checklist is a work in progress; therefore, I would appreciate any updates to it. Especially, I'm looking for more team changes.....
that are different from the original T206 captions.

Also, showing or telling of your T215-1 cards here are surely appreciated.


TED Z

[barrysloate]

Thanks Clayton.

[Leon]

No matter how much anyone in our hobby debates the issue it is abundantly clear what Burdick wanted. He knew the sets were similar and he still accounted for them the way he did. Maybe a few series should have been cataloged differently but they aren't. Just as T206 Old Mills are T206 and the Red Border Old Mills are T210, so are T213 and T215 each in their own group. Each of the latter 2 series have differences that would not fit into T206 (such as thinner stock or blue captions). I don't own the Griffin anymore..

[E93]

Originally Posted by tedzan

1910 COUPON (T213-1)

It is a NO-BRAINER, these cards are indeed the 16th T-brand of the T206 set; as, they were issued in the Spring/Summer of 1910 (concurrently with the AMERICAN BEAUTY,
BROAD LEAF, CYCLE, and DRUM cards).

TED Z

Ted,
With all due respect, don't you mean the 17th T206 brand. Aren't you forgetting the Ty Cobb brand, also produced in the Spring of 1910 concurrent with the brands you mentioned and also produced by the ATC. I don't want to open another can of worms here and we have hashed this out many times before on this forum. Just wanted to catch the oversight.

If anyone is interested in more details on the issues concerning the Cobb back, see my article on T206Resource.com
http://www.t206resource.com/Article-...ing-World.html

JimB

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by E93

Ted,
With all due respect, don't you mean the 17th T206 brand. Aren't you forgetting the Ty Cobb brand, also produced in the Spring of 1910 concurrent with the brands you mentioned and also produced by the ATC. I don't want to open another can of worms here and we have hashed this out many times before on this forum. Just wanted to catch the oversight.

If anyone is interested in more details on the issues concerning the Cobb back, see my article on T206Resource.com

JimB

Jim....Jim........you are asking for Net54 "chaos"

No "oversight".....I seriously considered mentioning the red Cobb/Ty Cobb card; but, as is evident here....it's a tough game just trying to get some guys on
this forum to have an open mind regarding the 1910 COUPON issue. Typically, these skeptics allude to...."don't confuse me with the facts".

You and I are on the same track regarding the red Cobb/Ty Cobb card as an integral component of the T206 set.

I was convinced of this when I researched Sen. Russell's collection in 1907. For anyone interested, see this thread on Senator Russell's card collection......
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ell+collection

The speculation in the hobby for many years about the Ty Cobb card was....that it was issued in the post T206 era. After reading Sen. Russell's biography,
it was obvious to me that he essentially collected his 497-card T206 set during 1910 as a teenager living near Atlanta (GA). Indeed this convinced me that
the red Cobb with the Ty Cobb back card was issued in 1910. Russell's T206 set includes the red Cobb/Ty Cobb card and the rare Joe Doyle N.Y. Nat'l card.


Incidently, Jim..I do not agree with your premise that the red Cobb image first appeared on the Ty Cobb back card. The the 6 super prints (which include
the T206 red Cobb) were printed on a sheet of certain 350-only series cards that can be dated to very early in 1910 (if not as early as late 1909).


TED Z

[barrysloate]

Thanks Tim. I agree some of the confusion occurs because there were multiple designs for both T213 and T215, and that's why they were not included with T206. With the T207 Red Cross, there is no confusion. But I was curious if other experts had any other thoughts or insights.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Jim....Jim........you are asking for Net54 "chaos"

No "oversight".....I seriously considered mentioning the red Cobb/Ty Cobb card; but, as is evident here....it's a tough game just trying to get some guys on
this forum to have an open mind regarding the 1910 COUPON issue. Typically, these skeptics allude to...."don't confuse me with the facts".

You and I are on the same track regarding the red Cobb/Ty Cobb card as an integral component of the T206 set.

I was convinced of this when I researched Sen. Russell's collection in 1907. For anyone interested, see this thread on Senator Russell's card collection......
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ell+collection

The speculation in the hobby for many years about the Ty Cobb card was....that it was issued in the post T206 era. After reading Sen. Russell's biography,
it was obvious to me that he essentially collected his 497-card T206 set during 1910 as a teenager living near Atlanta (GA). Indeed this convinced me that
the red Cobb with the Ty Cobb back card was issued in 1910. Russell's T206 set includes the red Cobb/Ty Cobb card and the rare Joe Doyle N.Y. Nat'l card.


Incidently, Jim..I do not agree with your premise that the red Cobb image first appeared on the Ty Cobb back card. The the 6 super prints (which include
the T206 red Cobb) were printed on a sheet of certain 350-only series cards that can be dated to very early in 1910 (if not as early as late 1909).


TED Z

Ted, great stuff as usual. The bottom line is that no one's around who was involved in these decisions, and the evidence left us is sparse. You and Tim both have great theories, and I'm sure there's a lot of truth in both of them. Perhaps some day we'll locate some scraps of lost documentation that clear this all up, but quite honestly....I hope we don't.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Ted, great stuff as usual. The bottom line is that no one's around who was involved in these decisions, and the evidence left us is sparse. You and Tim both have great theories, and I'm sure there's a lot of truth in both of them. Perhaps some day we'll locate some scraps of lost documentation that clear this all up, but quite honestly....I hope we don't.

"I hope we don't"

Sorry guy, but I don't agree. I usually, if not 99% of the time, agree with everything you say. However, my 30+ years of E-Engineering mentality cannot accept that.

My brain desires to have ryhme and reason behind these events. And, thanks to our empirical experience, the Internet, and brain-storming between veteran hobbyist
that are willing to share info, we have a fair amount of circumstantial evidence which we can form intelligent theory's of what transpired 100 years ago.
And for that matter, 125 years ago when Sportscard premiums were first introduced into Tobacco packs.

Take care ole buddy,

TED Z

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by tedzan

"I hope we don't"

Sorry guy, but I don't agree. I usually, if not 99% of the time, agree with everything you say. However, my 30+ years of E-Engineering mentality cannot accept that.

My brain desires to have ryhme and reason behind these events. And, thanks to our empirical experience, the Internet, and brain-storming between veteran hobbyist
that are willing to share info, we have a fair amount of circumstantial evidence which we can form intelligent theory's of what transpired 100 years ago.
And for that matter, 125 years ago when Sportscard premiums were first introduced into Tobacco packs.

Take care ole buddy,

TED Z

Ted, I completely agree that we have enough evidence to form intelligent theories. I am also GLAD to hear your response that you disagree - it's good that you feel so strongly about the results of your research.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by tedzan

"I hope we don't"

Sorry guy, but I don't agree. I usually, if not 99% of the time, agree with everything you say. However, my 30+ years of E-Engineering mentality cannot accept that.

My brain desires to have ryhme and reason behind these events. And, thanks to our empirical experience, the Internet, and brain-storming between veteran hobbyist
that are willing to share info, we have a fair amount of circumstantial evidence which we can form intelligent theory's of what transpired 100 years ago.
And for that matter, 125 years ago when Sportscard premiums were first introduced into Tobacco packs.

Take care ole buddy,

TED Z

I think where we get a bit sideways in the discussions is defining the issue itself. Is the thing we are discussing "what Burdick should have done" or is it "What Burdick did, and why?"

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
How many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they're forever banned?
The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind.



.

[barrysloate]

Nice poem Leon...did you write that?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by Leon

I think where we get a bit sideways in the discussions is defining the issue itself. Is the thing we are discussing "what Burdick should have done" or is it "What Burdick did, and why?"

Good question Leon.

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by tedzan

"I hope we don't"

Sorry guy, but I don't agree. I usually, if not 99% of the time, agree with everything you say. However, my 30+ years of E-Engineering mentality cannot accept that.

My brain desires to have ryhme and reason behind these events. And, thanks to our empirical experience, the Internet, and brain-storming between veteran hobbyist
that are willing to share info, we have a fair amount of circumstantial evidence which we can form intelligent theory's of what transpired 100 years ago.
And for that matter, 125 years ago when Sportscard premiums were first introduced into Tobacco packs.

Take care ole buddy,

TED Z

I thought I sensed E-E logic afoot. I be the black sheep in a family of engineers. Pop got his Doctorate in EE from Johns Hopkins. I majored in Michelob at Zoo Mass Amherst. I do however retain the logical thought process. I wonder why the T206s are all classified the same identifer. Someone correct me if I am wrong, Sweet Caps came with Sweet Caporal tobacco. Piedmont with Piedmont. Old Mill with...oh you get the idea. Why wouldn't each brand, if not each series (150/350/460) have it's own designation? There should at least be a T206-1 and so forth.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Bocabirdman

I thought I sensed E-E logic afoot. I be the black sheep in a family of engineers. Pop got his Doctorate in EE from Johns Hopkins. I majored in Michelob at Zoo Mass Amherst. I do however retain the logical thought process. I wonder why the T206s are all classified the same identifer. Someone correct me if I am wrong, Sweet Caps came with Sweet Caporal tobacco. Piedmont with Piedmont. Old Mill with...oh you get the idea. Why wouldn't each brand, if not each series (150/350/460) have it's own designation? There should at least be a T206-1 and so forth.

As I said before, it's not rocket science. If anyone wants to really know why Burdick did what he did, it's all on the board if anyone cares to read. Do a search on Card Collectors Bulletins and read the ones from the late 30s and the 1945 time frame (which was right before the current numbering system was put into place, by him). And his very first writings, before ANY numbers were in place, are also on the board in perpetuity. The little icon on the far right, that says, "Archives" is where you will find a lot of Burdick's thoughts...(near the bottom) ...and here is a link.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=146010


.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by tedzan

1910 COUPON (T213-1)

Most of you guys know my opinion regarding the 1910 COUPON cards. In the past 6 years, I have posted several threads on this subject.

Check out these threads........
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=Quintuplicate
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon

It is a NO-BRAINER, these cards are indeed the 16th T-brand of the T206 set; as, they were issued in the Spring/Summer of 1910 (concurrently with the AMERICAN BEAUTY,
BROAD LEAF, CYCLE, and DRUM cards).
With all due respect to Burdick....he mis-classified this sub-set of 68 cards. Burdick's records indicate that they were issued "circa 1913-15"......this timeline is absolutely incorrect !
So, we'll give Burdick a "mulligan" on this one


This group of five T-brands were printed & issued circa Spring/Summer of 1910



RED CROSS (T215-1)





This issue is somewhat more complicated, as it derives subjects from the 150 series, 350 series, and the 460 series. Although, some of the RED CROSS cards were issued
in 1910, others were issued in early 1912 (evident by team trades reflected in their captions). So, I'm not ready to venture out on a limb and say the T215-1 should be
classified as part of the T206 set. Check out this thread........
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ight=red+cross

The 1910 COUPON....absolutely YES


TED Z

Ed

You and I (and, if I recall correctly, Scott Brockelman) appear to be the only guys on this forum that think the 1910 COUPON cards are really T206's. Perhaps, there are others,
but they choose not to get into this fray ?




P.S.....Look guys, I view this simply as an academic exercise....as, nothing will ever come of it. I have no axe to grind. Currently, I have 12 cards from this 1910 Coupon issue.
Furthermore, I certainly don't ever expect to complete this set of 68 cards


TED Z

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by tedzan

...

Currently, I have 12 cards from this 1910 Coupon issue.
Furthermore, I certainly don't ever expect to complete this set of 68 cards


TED Z

Quitter

[tedzan]

There's "bigger fish to fry" than these "COUPON" cards. Besides, it would probably take 20 years for me to acquire the remaining 56 cards.
At my age, I don't think it's do-able

Received your email....and, those are weird looking CJ's.

I'll send you my weird looking T206.....it will give you a chuckle


Take care ole buddy,

T-Rex TED

[Runscott]

Ted, I want to see the bigger fish you plan on frying.


Also, Tim's comment above reminded me of a question that still remains unanswered. If anyone other than Ted considers me worthy of discussing such nuances, please chime in:

How did the printing plates survive the end of the T206 printing in 1911, the break-up of the ATC, and the lapses between Coupon card printing, all the way through 1916? (then they disappeared, presumably destroyed) Theories?

edited to add: this might seem too tangential, but I think it's relevant to the T206 vs T213 vs T215 discussion.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Ted, I want to see the bigger fish you plan on frying.

How did the printing plates survive the end of the T206 printing in 1911, the break-up of the ATC, and the lapses between Coupon card printing, all the way through 1916? (then they disappeared, presumably destroyed) Theories?

edited to add: this might seem too tangential, but I think it's relevant to the T206 vs T213 vs T215 discussion.

Scott

The American Tobacco Co. did not have the printing plates, the printing plates were the property of the American Lithographic Company. American
Lithographic (like most major printing firms) produced multiple printing plates. I realized this was standard printer's practice in 1983. When a former
Bowman Gum employee walked into a BB card shop in Cherry Hill, NJ with the 7 original printing (32-image) plates which were used to print the 224
cards of the 1954 Bowman BB set. He also had duplicate plates of these 7 plates.


TED Z

[RCMcKenzie]

The t206resource site has t215-1 listed in their scarcity rankings list, un-numbered, between 8 lenox-black and 9 bl 350. They list t213-1 between 10 blank-back and 11 Carolina Brights. I sort of like this idea of including them with t206 cards without changing the terminology. I know my collection of T213-1 would be worth alot more money if everyone just considered them a difficult t206 back.

Lipset has some interesting points on the T213-1 in his encyclopedia. The most interesting to me is where he states that it is doubtful that the set is complete at 68.

[Abravefan11]

It's my opinion that all of the T215-1's were issued in 1912. A year after the conclusion of the T206 set and after the breakup of the ATC trust.