T215 Red Cross actually a T206?

[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?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Nice poem Leon...did you write that?

I wrote it last night on my date with uh....... Morgan Fairchild (who was born in Dallas, btw)

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by Leon

I wrote it last night on my date with uh....... Morgan Fairchild (who was born in Dallas, btw)

Ladies and Gentlemen....Leon Zimmerman!!!!!

[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]

It is easy to forget that his world had no internet. All communication was done by US Mail or face-to face. The amount of man-hours involved in amassing such an extensive, near complete catalogue of the sets he put together must be staggering. For me to nit-pick as I did in my earlier post was not intended to belittle his efforts nor his results. They have served the hobby plenty good enough for all these years. Un-catalogued sets have emerged but, all in all, his percentage is pretty damn impressive. Whether or not The Red Cross cards should be an extension of the T206 set is moot. Burdick classifed it with its own identifier, ergo, it is its own "T"-set. I surely am not seeing anyone un-ringing that bell anytime soon. Now if we were sitting here in 2012 without Burdick's work laid out before us, I could see it being done differently. However it is and we aren't , so 'nuff said.

[sreader3]

I think you guys are overthinking it. Burdick probably decided to keep the three species of Coupons under the same genus. Hence the 1910 Coupons were grouped with the later Coupons as T213. Burdick likely appreciated that the T213-1s were brethren of T206s but prioritized keeping the Coupons together.

EDITED TO ADD: I don't have a dog in the T213s-are(not)-T206s or T215s-are(not)-T206s hunt, but do think that 100+ years of precedent in treating T213s and T215s as separate and distinct will trump any arguments about commonality.

[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


.