T206 AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 sub-set survey....MISSION COMPLETE

[tedzan]

Indeed, Darren is a cool dude regarding all aspects of "The Monster".

He's the guy who convinced me some years ago that the 1910 COUPON cards are indeed T206's.
Thanks Darren.


Regards ole buddy,

TED Z

[ethicsprof]

i'm not surprised! those Louisiana fellas know their cards and certainly had quite a few unique types come out of that one state!

alll the best to you, ole buddy

barry

[caramelcard]

.

[tedzan]

Gee, what happened to the Net54 "Jazz buffs" ?

I would of thought Barry S, or Jodi B, or any one else, would have already answered my Trivia question in post #21 ?

TED Z

[Peter W Thomas]

Ted would that be the "Count"?

[drdduet]

Count Basie, that is

[Leon]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Indeed, Darren is a cool dude regarding all aspects of "The Monster".

He's the guy who convinced me some years ago that the 1910 COUPON cards are indeed T206's.
Thanks Darren.


Regards ole buddy,

TED Z

I too could be convinced if they were at least on the same kind of paper stock, which they aren't. They are 100% different than ANY other T206 stock. That, combined with Burdick's designation, is proof enough (for me) that T213-1 should never ever be considered a T206.....but this is a debate that will go on for a long time...All in fun...best regards

[barrysloate]

Ted- I hadn't looked at this thread in a while. If I did I would have told you Count Basie, as others have.

Did you find the Home Run Baker with red Hindu back? It was my November 16, 2006 auction, lot #50.

[ullmandds]

While I'm not totally disagreeing with you, Leon...if paper stock were the smoking gun...then maybe e97 b/w's/proofs shouldn't even be classified as e97's...they should be a totally separate issue...e-unc? I'm sure there are others. There will always be the t213-1/t206 debate...among others...hell...we need issues to bicker about...if everything were known...we'd have nothing to talk about?

[tedzan]

Thanks, I have yet to find it....and now that you informed of it, I can stop searching.

Regards,

TED Z

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

While I'm not totally disagreeing with you, Leon...if paper stock were the smoking gun...then maybe e97 b/w's/proofs shouldn't even be classified as e97's...they should be a totally separate issue...e-unc? I'm sure there are others. There will always be the t213-1/t206 debate...among others...hell...we need issues to bicker about...if everything were known...we'd have nothing to talk about?

Hey Pete
For the record no one that has any hobby experience considers the E97's as proofs. It's absurd to think they are, imo. Since they have the same exact poses I consider them a subset of E97, maybe E97-2. I also think they could actually be a whole different set but since there is precedence in other sets (such as E254 "proofs") I leave them as E97. For the record my feelings on E254 are the same as E97. Both of the E sets that are "proofs" have blank backs. The T213-1 set has a different back, though the caligraphy is similar to other of T206, and I just can't make that leap. There is no Coupon T206 and, if I am not mistaking, the factory and district are different than any other also. (I haven't looked that up though) It's a good debate......and your are right. Without these nuances what would we talk about?

[Dustanh1]

I believe someone on here was selling a Baker with a Red Hindu back maybe 5-6 months ago....might be the same one Barry is referencing.

Anyway, I just wanted to drop in and say thanks to Ted for another interesting thread. There is so much information on this set, and it is nice to read about it little by little.

I don't have anything to contribute to this thread, as I do not own any AB backs yet. 'Tis my goal for the first of the year though.

[tedzan]

Good to hear from you Peter.....you got it....The Count from Red Bank, NJ......Count Basie.


Thanks,

TED Z