T206 Question ?

[bounce]

Originally Posted by buymycards

We have discussed this on the board many, many times.

Coupons are not just different because of paper, there are other differences including font/color of the names, etc. They are not the same as T206 on the front, however they are very similar.

Ty Cobb backs are always debated, most "purists" I think feel those cards are not really part of T206 because there's zero evidence they were ever issued in packs or tins. Lots of various theories on them, but that's one that IS normally included as T206 despite lots of reasons not to be.

Agree that ultimately the cataloging that was originally done stuck, and it's not likely changing any time soon.

[buymycards]

The Type I Coupon has the same color font as a T206. How is this different than a T206?

[Rhotchkiss]

Personally, I think both t213-1 and t215-1 should be t206s. They both have same pics and names, in black, on front, and we’re issued between 1909-11. Not sure when the Cobb back was issued, but it too has same front and black writing, so I am fine with it being considered a t206.

T213-2/3, t214, and t215-2 were issued after 1911 and have the blue writing on front. No way these are t206s

[Leon]

So much hogwash (to me) in this thread. While Burdick didn't get everything correct (and absolutely knew that) he did get T206 correct. No, T213s or T215s are not, and never will be, T206. They are different cards and series. No gray area to me. To each their own.

[packs]

Why though? If it's the method of distribution, I could see Polar Bears being a distinct set too. The distribution was totally different from the other T206s in that the cards came in a pouch of tobacco and not a pack of cigarettes. What differences exist between type 1 issues of T213 and T215?

[Rhotchkiss]

Leon, in your opinion, why should T cards issued between 1909-11, with same t206 fronts, including black lettering, not be included as t206s? Specifically I am talking about T213-1 and T215–1. What makes these cards any less a T206 than American Beauties, other than they were not initially classified as such?

I am very open to opinions, but merely calling a stance hogwash is not evidence/persuasive. I know there are others threads and plenty of arguments, but why specifically do you think t213-1 and t215-1 are not t206s (besides initial classification)? Thanks

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Leon, in your opinion, why should T cards issued between 1909-11, with same t206 fronts, including black lettering, not be included as t206s? Specifically I am talking about T213-1 and T215–1. What makes these cards any less a T206 than American Beauties, other than they were not initially classified as such?

I am very open to opinions, but merely calling a stance hogwash is not evidence/persuasive. I know there are others threads and plenty of arguments, but why specifically do you think t213-1 and t215-1 are not t206s (besides initial classification)? Thanks

T213s were issued over a span of how many years? How many years were T206s issued.
No T206 has a blue caption on front. No T206 is paper thin. No T206 has multiple colors of print on front (with the different series).

T215s- Were issued later than T206. Have different colors of captions on front. Have different type card stock for the 2 series (though could be mistaking on that one as I haven't handled both versions recently)

Burdick knew exactly what he was doing on these series as, in the ACC, he said that 213, 214 and 215 were similar to T206. That is perfect proof he got them correct. He is the one that wrote the catalog and gave ample evidence why those series were cataloged differently. It is really not even close imho....but again, everyone can believe what they want to. I go by the facts.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Leon

T213s were issued over a span of how many years? How many years were T206s issued.
No T206 has a blue caption on front. No T206 is paper thin. No T206 has multiple colors of print on front (with the different series).

T215s- Were issued later than T206. Have different colors of captions on front. Have different type card stock for the 2 series (though could be mistaking on that one as I haven't handled both versions recently)

Burdick knew exactly what he was doing on these series as, in the ACC, he said that 213, 214 and 215 were similar to T206. That is perfect proof he got them correct. He is the one that wrote the catalog and gave ample evidence why those series were cataloged differently. It is really not even close imho....but again, everyone can believe what they want to. I go by the facts.

Leon, I am taking only about T213-1 and T215-1 (that is, the type one of both cards). These were issued between 1909 and 1911 (I think both in 1910), and they have black caption and the fronts look exactly the same as t206 on all accounts.

I agree that T213 types 2/3 and T215 type 2s are NOT t206s. But I still don’t understand why you say the TYPE 1 of t213 and t215 are not

[insidethewrapper]

My initial post was , why isn't each T206 back a set in itself ( ie. Polar Bear, Piedmont, etc, etc.) not which cards should be included in the T206 set. Please stay on the posted topic. If Coupon is on the back it is a Coupon Set, if Polar Bear then a Polar Bear set, etc. If this is the knowledge we have now, let's change it. IMO - Should be a checklist for each " Back" in the Catalogs. I think Ted has been trying to do this.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

My initial post was , why isn't each T206 back a set in itself ( ie. Polar Bear, Piedmont, etc, etc.) not which cards should be included in the T206 set. Please stay on the posted topic. If Coupon is on the back it is a Coupon Set, if Polar Bear then a Polar Bear set, etc. If this is the knowledge we have now, let's change it. IMO - Should be a checklist for each " Back" in the Catalogs. I think Ted has been trying to do this.

I agree! A Committee of sorts would be essential in the hobby to make such changes and also to help dictate what "alterations/conservations" are acceptable in the hobby. Problem is it might be difficult to assemble a committee of "honest" people to make such decisions.

[edhans]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Leon, in your opinion, why should T cards issued between 1909-11, with same t206 fronts, including black lettering, not be included as t206s? Specifically I am talking about T213-1 and T215–1. What makes these cards any less a T206 than American Beauties, other than they were not initially classified as such?

I am very open to opinions, but merely calling a stance hogwash is not evidence/persuasive. I know there are others threads and plenty of arguments, but why specifically do you think t213-1 and t215-1 are not t206s (besides initial classification)? Thanks

There are cogent arguments for classifying T213-1 and T215-1 as T206s. To me, the primary reason that leads me to believe they are properly classified as distinct sets is that the selection of subjects does not fit into the print group rubric of the other backs.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by edhans

There are cogent arguments for classifying T213-1 and T215-1 as T206s. To me, the primary reason that leads me to believe they are properly classified as distinct sets is that the selection of subjects does not fit into the print group rubric of the other backs.

Hey Ed, not to put you on the spot, but can you explain this in greater detail?