T207 Anonymous

[RCMcKenzie]

From this thread it seems that T207 Anon Factory 3's are widely accepted as not only Coupons, but also T207. Why is this not hotly contested by T207 experts? Also, why do T216 collectors group the thin backed cards with their other T216 without even shrugging their shoulders?

[frohme]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

From this thread it seems that T207 Anon Factory 3's are widely accepted as not only Coupons, but also T207. Why is this not hotly contested by T207 experts?

(formatting mine)

While I don't consider myself a T207 expert, I do like the set and have studied it a bit.

On T207 and Factory 3, there are mysteries. As for the Coupon aspect of things, I'll say I'm decidedly unconvinced, but would not be surprised to find that they were not (intended to be) Coupon. The current explanations are convenient, but not persuasive, though I agree with Rhett in that it is an easy/logical/not-so-big leap to make . Not enough research has been done in the area to rule it in or out, IMO.

I'm making an assumption here as to the second part of your question, but as to whether or not they are T207 - the way T213-1 are considered not T206 by many/most(?)) - I'd say that most board members who care about would say "Burdick didn't separate them, we shouldn't either". Yes, they are a subset, were produced with (only slightly) different stock, have identical fronts ... but here we are. To me they are clearly T207, more so than T213-1 are T206. The fact that Anon Fac 25 also exist may make it easier to call them all T207 than to separate them

To an earlier point, Lionel Carter almost certainly knew of the Anon Fac 25 cards (examples were in his collection)... whether he did in 1956, though ... hard to say

--
Mike

[RCMcKenzie]

Thanks for the reply, Mike. I consider you a T207 expert. Maybe I should have said "specialist", so others can or will chime in. I agree and understand the argument that it's easier, and just as well, to use Burdick's system. I was just wondering if a T207 Red Cross is just another T207, why is a T206 looking card with a Red Cross back it's own set? Maybe Burdick wasn't aware of T207 Red Cross. Have a good one.

[brass_rat]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I was just wondering if a T207 Red Cross is just another T207, why is a T206 looking card with a Red Cross back it's own set? Maybe Burdick wasn't aware of T207 Red Cross. Have a good one.

T215 Red Cross cards say "100 DESIGNS" on the back whereas T207 Red Cross make no mention of the number of cards. Perhaps that's another reason for wanting to categorize T215-1 separately from T206 verses grouping all T207 together.

Steve

[insidethewrapper]

It's interesting in Lew Lipset's books that he states that Burdick was a card collector not only a sports card collector and didn't even follow sports !

[RCMcKenzie]

Good point, Steve. The company clearly wanted the consumers to keep buying the product, attempting to find all 100 cards. BTW, do you have a current check list for the T215-1 and 2? I have 2006 SCD which has type 1 at 96 and type 2 at 94. I wonder if the set was left short of 100 so that people would keep chasing, or maybe chase cards were lost.

[brass_rat]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Good point, Steve. The company clearly wanted the consumers to keep buying the product, attempting to find all 100 cards. BTW, do you have a current check list for the T215-1 and 2? I have 2006 SCD which has type 1 at 96 and type 2 at 94. I wonder if the set was left short of 100 so that people would keep chasing, or maybe chase cards were lost.

I have been keeping a checklist of "checklisted cards" versus "confirmed cards via scans" -- I'd be happy to share it in another thread (sorry for going off-topic). Neither list is 100 cards long, but my guess is that there were short prints that didn't survive.

The T211 backs state "1 TO 75" and there are actually 75 in that set, so I have no reason to think that they actually just omitted cards from the set...

Cheers,
Steve