Love me some paper thin (T213-1) Coupons

[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.

[tedzan]

"Paper thin...."

The "paper thin" stock argument used by some to disprove that these cards are T206's is a "red herring" !

The 1910 COUPON cards were never meant to be cigarette pack "stiffeners" (as the regular T206's were).

That's because these COUPON cigarettes in 1910 were not marketed in Cigarette packs. And, I predict that none such pack will be found.

In the Spring of 1910, these cigarettes were marketed packaged loosely (by the 100's) in cartons labelled "COUPON" Cigarettes.


TED Z
.

[DixieBaseball]

Ted,
Your info lends to my theory that the Coupon Type 1 cards were either in Coupon Carton's or Coupon Boxes or given to retailers of Coupon Cigarettes as promotional items, thus the limited availability.

See RPPC where Boxes of Coupons are pressed against the glass with probably Cartons of cigarettes in them like these:

[tedzan]

Great pictures....thanks for posting these cartons....they reinforce my argument as to why American Litho printed the 1910 COUPON cards on thinner cardboard stock.

Furthermore, many 1910 COUPON cards are found with similar paper loss on the upper part of their backs.....for example, here are a few from my collection:

.

.

.



The consistency of this paper loss on these cards has me thinking that it's because some of these cards were glued onto these cigarette cartons.

Your uppermost carton appears to have such a "glue spot" in its upper right corner.


TED Z
.