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

[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:

[insidethewrapper]

Three separate sets produced over a 10 year period and we call them all T213's ? Type 1, 2 & 3. I don't get it. This needs to be corrected first. Each should have it's designation. Then review all the data concerning if Type 1 is part of the T206 set.

As more data is collected and researched sometimes things need to be changed like: Columbus discovering America, Doubleday inventing baseball etc.

[Rhotchkiss]

Nice card Luke - too bad I can’t post my Tinker Bat Off no-print in this thread.

As I mentioned once before, I don’t know if they should be t206s, but any self respecting t206 back run should include t213-1, if such an example exists.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by 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:

Cool Engle/Willett ghost Luke. I don't recall seeing any other Coupon ghosts.

[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.

[Exhibitman]

That's kind of my point: the ACC designation T206 reflects a series of decisions based on information available at the time to a group of collectors like us. There is nothing inherently right or wrong with the decision to canonize certain cards as T206 and make others different. The type 1 Coupons seem indistinguishable from T206 from a design standpoint, other than the paper, but we have the Kotton cards as the 'rule' governing paper differences. As for the other white series T213s, well, as has been pointed out already they had the artwork and basically redid the captions and finishes to issue the cards. What company hasn't re-used artwork whenever it could get away with it? T202 was a repurposing of T205 cards with white borders. And how much artwork is shared across T sets?

Don't forget, Camel started its advertising in the teens by deriding companies that spent money on premiums instead of the product itself. In that atmosphere a cut rate re-issue of T206 might have made sense: type 2. Then you have the Federal League and a chance to re-do some captions and issue type 3.

[Leon]

T214 and T215 have similar designs and T215 has a brown captioned one too. I guess we make those T206 also?

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

That's kind of my point: the ACC designation T206 reflects a series of decisions based on information available at the time to a group of collectors like us. There is nothing inherently right or wrong with the decision to canonize certain cards as T206 and make others different. The type 1 Coupons seem indistinguishable from T206 from a design standpoint, other than the paper, but we have the Kotton cards as the 'rule' governing paper differences. As for the other white series T213s, well, as has been pointed out already they had the artwork and basically redid the captions and finishes to issue the cards. What company hasn't re-used artwork whenever it could get away with it? T202 was a repurposing of T205 cards with white borders. And how much artwork is shared across T sets?

Don't forget, Camel started its advertising in the teens by deriding companies that spent money on premiums instead of the product itself. In that atmosphere a cut rate re-issue of T206 might have made sense: type 2. Then you have the Federal League and a chance to re-do some captions and issue type 3.