Love me some paper thin (T213-1) Coupons

[rman444]

T213-1 could be classified as a T206, and certainly fits the mold as far as size and surface finish even more so than American Beauty and Cobb Back. If not for the subsequent issue of T213-2 and -3, a T213-1 coupon back would more than likely have been only known as just another super rare T206 back.

Burdick cataloged his tens of thousands of cards some 80 years ago, without the help of internet, national card conventions and the far reaching arms of today's media. To think that Burdick, if he were alive today, would have the arrogance to think that he could not have made any mistakes, or that he would not have wanted or accepted updates/corrections to his ACC based on 8 decades of new finds, research and debate, is hard for me to believe.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by rman444

T213-1 could be classified as a T206, and certainly fits the mold as far as size and surface finish even more so than American Beauty and Cobb Back. If not for the subsequent issue of T213-2 and -3, a T213-1 coupon back would more than likely have been only known as just another super rare T206 back.

Burdick cataloged his tens of thousands of cards some 80 years ago, without the help of internet, national card conventions and the far reaching arms of today's media. To think that Burdick, if he were alive today, would have the arrogance to think that he could not have made any mistakes, or that he would not have wanted or accepted updates/corrections to his ACC based on 8 decades of new finds, research and debate, is hard for me to believe.

Totally agree!!! Incredible card btw!

[Leon]

Great looking Cobb.
Who is thinking anything concerning Burdick not knowing he made mistakes? He absolutely knew he probably did AND he wanted updates and corrections. Had he not mentioned the similarity of T213 to T206, I would be right there with you. ..I could be wrong but to me this is a strong argument for him knowing what he was doing on this one. He didn't make these analogies often in his descriptions (relatively speaking)...But at this point everyone can think what they want to. It's all fun!! This is from the 1960 version of the ACC..

[DixieBaseball]

I agree and I believe it was just easier for him to catalog the Type 1 with the other 2 types and have their own designation. If Hindu had a release in 1914 and 1919 like the type 2 & 3 Coupons would Hindu have it's own designation? It's seems obvious to me that under the ATC umbrella of 16 brands of cigarettes, a 17th should be added since that brand (Coupon) looks just like a T206 and was released during the same period (1910). Furthermore, Factory 3, Louisiana is on the back of the Type 1 Coupon and we know that that factory known as the Irby Branch was owned by ATC at one time. All the other 16 brands were under the ATC umbrella. Logic simply dictates this is another brand that should be with the other 16 brands known as T206. What Burdick did was probably just lump the Type 1 in with the other 2 types for clarity to have their own designation as a group. If he were alive today, I believe he would chuckle and make the correction. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Originally Posted by rman444

T213-1 could be classified as a T206, and certainly fits the mold as far as size and surface finish even more so than American Beauty and Cobb Back. If not for the subsequent issue of T213-2 and -3, a T213-1 coupon back would more than likely have been only known as just another super rare T206 back.

Burdick cataloged his tens of thousands of cards some 80 years ago, without the help of internet, national card conventions and the far reaching arms of today's media. To think that Burdick, if he were alive today, would have the arrogance to think that he could not have made any mistakes, or that he would not have wanted or accepted updates/corrections to his ACC based on 8 decades of new finds, research and debate, is hard for me to believe.

[DixieBaseball]

Burdick wrote/invented the ACC the numbering system. He knew T213s were similar to T206 as he said that in his listing where he defined them. I think it's funny how collectors twist and turn and make up all kinds of stories. But at the end of the day, Burdick classified Coupons correctly. There isn't 1, no not 1, T206 with thin stock like the type 1 coupons. Just like "A" isn't "B", T213 isn't T206. You guys can debate all you want, it still won't change anything. Burdick got it right. He knew what he was doing on this set when he named it.

Did Burdick classify them correctly or just simply classify them? He is a man, who cataloged cards with limited resource decades ago. The paper theory is always an intriguing one, but may not have anything to do with the fact that the brand Coupon is one and the same as the other 16 ATC brands. We know there were 9 assorted brands and 7 brands that had series/subjects. Of the 9 assorted brands, some were regional in release like Hindu Cigarettes. Coupons were obviously more obscure than most of the other 16 brands. We don't know why thin card stock was used or how it was marketed/released/distributed in the Deep South. There may be a very good reason or perhaps it simply to save money by using less cardboard. The release date and look of the card front and back is spot on to what Burdick cataloged (the 16 ATC Brands) as T206. He has not opined on why the card stock was thin thus making it different. He has simply formed a catalog system to lump the 3 Coupon brands together to catalog them for collector use. I don't think the card stock had anything to do with it. The AB's are cut narrower so one could argue they shouldn't be in the T206 umbrella. Also, the Ty Cobb is a different texture, so throw that one out as well.

The Type 1 Coupons were obviously very limited in their release and it may have not been traditional in that they were in individual packs but perhaps Cartons or even Cases/Boxes of Cartons at Retailers (See rppc below of New Orleans retailer) Also it's conceivable they were similar to Ty Cobb Back tobacco cards in that they were promotional and released to retailers directly instead of in Tobacco Tins (Cobb back) or in cartons/boxes/cases of Coupons. These aren't wild theories, but reasonable ones when looking at the scarcity of the Type 1 Coupon (or the Ty Cobb back as well). Everything lines up except card stock which there may be a simple, yet good reason for which has nothing to do with this being an ATC brand. (Factory 3 - New Orleans, La. was considered a regional (Irby) branch of ATC, so that holds more weight with me than card stock theory. In fact it suggests the brand was right there with other regional brands, so why not put it where it rightfully belongs? I think we put too much faith in Burdick's catalog system as the card gospel when it's actually just a very good collector guide to cards.

The Type 1 Coupon was merely an assorted ATC brand with regional (limited obviously) release like Hindu, but much less in volume. I think as the debate continues, the T213-1 is slowly becoming a T206. There is too much common sense and logic behind it. Too much is made of Burdick's catalog system. It's not definitive. It's a guide to help fellow collector's. It's a good thing, but to swear by his ACC designations is naïve. Ultimately release date, and look of the Coupon is spot on. Card stock can easily be debated since there is no evidence why thin card stock was used.

[Leon]

What is the exact question we are arguing? That he got it wrong, it should be T206, both or what? I think he got it right but maybe we could change it based on new and more researched evidence. Maybe the thin stock on type 1's, the blue lettering on type 2's, the thinner but thicker card stock on type 3s and the spread of years of distribution is why he gave them their own designation? I don't know for sure but he did and I don't think he made a mistake.

Originally Posted by DixieBaseball

Burdick wrote/invented the ACC the numbering system. He knew T213s were similar to T206 as he said that in his listing where he defined them. I think it's funny how collectors twist and turn and make up all kinds of stories. But at the end of the day, Burdick classified Coupons correctly. There isn't 1, no not 1, T206 with thin stock like the type 1 coupons. Just like "A" isn't "B", T213 isn't T206. You guys can debate all you want, it still won't change anything. Burdick got it right. He knew what he was doing on this set when he named it.

Did Burdick classify them correctly or just simply classify them? He is a man, who cataloged cards with limited resource decades ago. The paper theory is always an intriguing one, but may not have anything to do with the fact that the brand Coupon is one and the same as the other 16 ATC brands. We know there were 9 assorted brands and 7 brands that had series/subjects. Of the 9 assorted brands, some were regional in release like Hindu Cigarettes. Coupons were obviously more obscure than most of the other 16 brands. We don't know why thin card stock was used or how it was marketed/released/distributed in the Deep South. There may be a very good reason or perhaps it simply to save money by using less cardboard. The release date and look of the card front and back is spot on to what Burdick cataloged (the 16 ATC Brands) as T206. He has not opined on why the card stock was thin thus making it different. He has simply formed a catalog system to lump the 3 Coupon brands together to catalog them for collector use. I don't think the card stock had anything to do with it. The AB's are cut narrower so one could argue they shouldn't be in the T206 umbrella. Also, the Ty Cobb is a different texture, so throw that one out as well.

The Type 1 Coupons were obviously very limited in their release and it may have not been traditional in that they were in individual packs but perhaps Cartons or even Cases/Boxes of Cartons at Retailers (See rppc below of New Orleans retailer) Also it's conceivable they were similar to Ty Cobb Back tobacco cards in that they were promotional and released to retailers directly instead of in Tobacco Tins (Cobb back) or in cartons/boxes/cases of Coupons. These aren't wild theories, but reasonable ones when looking at the scarcity of the Type 1 Coupon (or the Ty Cobb back as well). Everything lines up except card stock which there may be a simple, yet good reason for which has nothing to do with this being an ATC brand. (Factory 3 - New Orleans, La. was considered a regional (Irby) branch of ATC, so that holds more weight with me than card stock theory. In fact it suggests the brand was right there with other regional brands, so why not put it where it rightfully belongs? I think we put too much faith in Burdick's catalog system as the card gospel when it's actually just a very good collector guide to cards.

The Type 1 Coupon was merely an assorted ATC brand with regional (limited obviously) release like Hindu, but much less in volume. I think as the debate continues, the T213-1 is slowly becoming a T206. There is too much common sense and logic behind it. Too much is made of Burdick's catalog system. It's not definitive. It's a guide to help fellow collector's. It's a good thing, but to swear by his ACC designations is naïve. Ultimately release date, and look of the Coupon is spot on. Card stock can easily be debated since there is no evidence why thin card stock was used.

[DixieBaseball]

Originally Posted by Leon

What is the exact question we are arguing? That he got it wrong, it should be T206, both or what? I think he got it right but maybe we could change it based on new and more researched evidence. Maybe the thin stock on type 1's, the blue lettering on type 2's, the thinner but thicker card stock on type 3s and the spread of years of distribution is why he gave them their own designation? I don't know for sure but he did and I don't think he made a mistake.

What I am saying is he didn't get it right or wrong. He made a designation that is his catalog system. We all abide by it as definitive, but we probably need to relax that a bit. I think we can more safely argue the Type 1 Coupon is more like T206's than it is like T213-2 and 3's. There is more distinction in the other 2 Coupons relative to Type 1 than there is with Type 1 Coupon to the 16 ATC brands that comprise T206.

I think more time is needed, but to say Burdick got it right and Burdick is correct may not be accurate. It may be that Burdick simply did what he wanted to (Based on what Burdick knew at the time) when cataloging the Coupons together which is neither right or wrong.

As for the debate among collector's. It may be time for a poll which changes nothing according to Burdick's ACC, but does help collectors understand that it may not be a different type of (T206) card and just accept that as the gospel.

Edited to add : from Leon's 1960 Burdick ACC designation paper info, Burdick didn't even know how many cards were in the Type Coupon 1 Set (68) which easily shows their obscurity and possibly he didn't have full understanding of them. And who is to blame him? He had 1% of the information we have now, and did quite admirably btw

[Leon]

I will concede more time is needed. Of course what he cataloged may not be accurate when put in context of other things. All I am saying is that I am not convinced because of my stated view and the reasons given. And btw, I think collectors can accept type 1s as being T206. It doesn't hurt my feelings. But in conversation I will give my views based on information I have. I think the whole Coupon set is kind of interesting.

Originally Posted by DixieBaseball

What I am saying is he didn't get it right or wrong. He made a designation that is his catalog system. We all abide by it as definitive, but we probably need to relax that a bit. I think we can more safely argue the Type 1 Coupon is more like T206's than it is like T213-2 and 3's. There is more distinction in the other 2 Coupons relative to Type 1 than there is with Type 1 Coupon to the 16 ATC brands that comprise T206.

I think more time is needed, but to say Burdick got it right and Burdick is correct may not be accurate. It may be that Burdick simply did what he wanted to (Based on what Burdick knew at the time) when cataloging the Coupons together which is neither right or wrong.

As for the debate among collector's. It may be time for a poll which changes nothing according to Burdick's ACC, but does help collectors understand that it may not be a different type of card and just accept that as the gospel.

[DixieBaseball]

Leon - It makes for compelling debate for sure. Facts are lacking on both sides of the debate and this is why I believe we need to condition Burdick's ACC designation that Type 1 Coupons are not part of the other 16 ATC brands that comprise the group called T206. It's seems more likely they should be than not in my opinion. Would love to hear other hobby opinions...

Originally Posted by Leon

I will concede more time is needed. Of course what he cataloged may not be accurate when put in context of other things. All I am saying is that I am not convinced because of my stated view and the reasons given. And btw, I think collectors can accept type 1s as being T206. It doesn't hurt my feelings. But in conversation I will give my views based on information I have. I think the whole Coupon set is kind of interesting.

[kell75]

Congrats on the Cobb I was the cosigner to REA. It helped me finish my restoration on my 1978 Bandit Trans Am. I do miss it.