Why don't different T206 backs have their own designation?

[brianp-beme]

The fact that T206 cards are all from various brands of ATC is probably the best argument to keep all backs designated as T206.

As far as I know the E92 Dockman and Nadja brands are different companies from the E92 Croft's Candy and Croft's Cocoa, so this would be a case where there should be at least three different ACC designations.

Brian

[drcy]

Duly note that many of the categorizations and all of the catalog letter-numbers were made by collectors after the fact (The tobacco companies didn't make the T206 name), and they could have been cataloged in different ways. The Allen & Ginter 'baseball card sets' are just collector made-up, because A & G issued the cards as issues that contained boxing, wrestling and other sports. I think the T206 as it is is proper, but it is not 'wrong' to suggest that they should have been sets cataloged by back brands, especially when compared to how other 'back brand' sets have been cataloged. The original question was a very good one, and, most interesting to me, I don't think I ever pondered that before.

[Leon]

T206s have similar characteristics such as white borders, brown lettering, size and paper consistency (mostly) and were inserted in tobacco packs in the same time frame. The series which aren't classified as T206 have different characteristics.

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

The fact that T206 cards are all from various brands of ATC is probably the best argument to keep all backs designated as T206.

As far as I know the E92 Dockman and Nadja brands are different companies from the E92 Croft's Candy and Croft's Cocoa, so this would be a case where there should be at least three different ACC designations.

Brian