Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

I agree, Ted. I won't rehash all of the points I made previously but, in summary, same fronts, same font, same back ad design as others. Burdick noted in his book that the Coupons were printed in 1914-15. Had he known that the T213-1s were printed earlier, I don't really see a reason why he wouldn't have classified them as T206.

I suppose there could be an argument that he thought it was more important to keep them grouped with the other Coupons since they shared the same fronts as T213-2 and T213-3. But I also wonder if he might have reconsidered had he realized T213-1 was printed earlier during the T206 time frame.

Cozumeleno

I appreciate your very concise response regarding this matter of the 1910 COUPON cards.

Thanks,

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[RedsFan1941]

no they are not t206s

but always fun to discuss for the fiftieth time

[Leon]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

no they are not t206s

Of course they aren't. Burdick looked at the cards, they all had similar fronts but not exact and had the same brand of cigarette on the back. No other T206 ad back group has the characteristics of the T213 Coupon set. Or show me one with a blue caption or on paper stock.

This is a quote from Burdick on the series, and found in the ACC-
"T213- Baseball Series. Coupon Cigarettes, designs of T206. 2 types, names in brown as NO. T206 or name in blue. On card or heavy paper. Issued 1914-1915 and includes Federal League. Many team changes. Name in blue value .35"

He knew they were similar but didn't make them T206, it really is as easy as that. They shoulda, woulda, coulda have been something else. But alas, they aren't

.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Leon

Of course they aren't. Burdick looked at the cards, they all had similar fronts but not exact and had the same brand of cigarette on the back. No other T206 ad back group has the characteristics of the T213 Coupon set. Or show me one with a blue caption or on paper stock.

This is a quote from Burdick on the series, and found in the ACC-
"T213- Baseball Series. Coupon Cigarettes, designs of T206. 2 types, names in brown as NO. T206 or name in blue. On card or heavy paper. Issued 1914-1915 and includes Federal League. Many team changes. Name in blue value .35"

He knew they were similar but didn't make them T206, it really is as easy as that. They shoulda, woulda, coulda have been something else. But alas, they aren't

.

Yet Burdick only mentioned two types when in reality there are three so he made a mistake regarding this as well! We all now recognize that there are 3 types of coupons...there is no dispute! Mistakes are made and what's important is that they are corrected.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Leon

Of course they aren't. Burdick looked at the cards, they all had similar fronts but not exact and had the same brand of cigarette on the back. No other T206 ad back group has the characteristics of the T213 Coupon set.

With all due respect Leon...…I'm not quite sure I understand this statement of your's ?


Anyhow, it's obvious to me that the American Litho (ALC) artist designed these 5 backs (which include the 1910 COUPON back) during the T206 timeline (circa Spring/Summer 1910).



A - B - C - C - D connection






And, at some later date another ALC artist designed these COUPON backs for the T213-2 (circa 1914-1916) and T213-3 (circa 1916-1919) sets...…



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



So, please explain your comment.....because I don't get it ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[RedsFan1941]

please explain how you ‘know’ the doolan was pasted to a carton?

[Leon]

Hey Ted
Nothing personal just fun debate.
Just like I said, there is no other T206 brand on paper like stock and no T206 brand with cards with blue, as well as brown, captions. I am not sure how anyone can't see that Burdick took T206 into account when giving Coupons their T213 designation.

[buymycards]

I am always a little curious when someone is questioning another person about something, and the answer is "Just because it was always done that way".

We have much more information about these early cards than Burdick had available to him. If we can show that Burdick was wrong, then maybe his info should be corrected. I'm not sure how to go about updating the ACC, but there should be a way to make it happen. I'm sure there are other mistakes that Burdick made, and there are also inconsistencies with the set designations. I posted this is another thread:

Since I collect Coupons, I have always wondered why the Coupons are listed as 1910-1919, Types 1, 2, and 3. Using that logic, shouldn't Goudey's be listed as 1933 through 1941 Types 1, 2, etc.? Playball 1939-1941 Types 1, 2, and 3?

Burdick isn't the only one who has some errors in their information. If you look at Lew Lipset's Encyclopedia and carefully look at the New Orleans cards, you will see some minor errors.

The designation of the T213-1's really doesn't matter, but it is fun, and interesting to read other peoples opinions.

Rick

[ullmandds]

Also of the t216's...one of the three is printed on thin paper...yet it's still a T216 Kotton?

[Luke]

I feel like they belong in a T206 collection. The thin paper is obviously a big difference, but so is the width of American Beautys. One thing that gives me pause is the limited checklist. There aren't any other T206 backs that were printed with 350 only series fronts but left so many poses off the checklist. The combination of Southern Leaguers, Super Prints and 350 Only poses is interesting given that the overall checklist only consists of 68 players.

Since threads are more fun with scans, here is my Engle-Willett ghost:

[DeanH3]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Also of the t216's...one of the three is printed on thin paper...yet it's still a T216 Kotton?

Very good point Peter.