Modifications to Vintage Baseball Card Sets' Year(s) of Issue

[Brian-Chidester]

Yeah, and they have the same exact fronts as those of 68 other players from the regularly recognized T206 white borders set, even down to the font and color of the typeset. The only difference between the T206 cards and the T213-1 and T215-1 cards, apparently, is the paper stock. I've never owned a T215-1, so I can't speak to that, but the T213-1 cards are a lot thinner.

I'm sure there is an entire thread on this subject somewhere, but it would have existed before I started reading posts here.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Brian-Chidester

Yeah, and they have the same exact fronts as those of 68 other players from the regularly recognized T206 white borders set, even down to the font and color of the typeset. The only difference between the T206 cards and the T213-1 and T215-1 cards, apparently, is the paper stock. I've never owned a T215-1, so I can't speak to that, but the T213-1 cards are a lot thinner.

I'm sure there is an entire thread on this subject somewhere, but it would have existed before I started reading posts here.

There are indeed several posts on the topic already. That change is different & much more controversial then those discussed here as that has to do with classification and not dates. The correct way to classify something is open to interpretation, dates are not.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Brian-Chidester

Yeah, and they have the same exact fronts as those of 68 other players from the regularly recognized T206 white borders set, even down to the font and color of the typeset. The only difference between the T206 cards and the T213-1 and T215-1 cards, apparently, is the paper stock. I've never owned a T215-1, so I can't speak to that, but the T213-1 cards are a lot thinner.

I'm sure there is an entire thread on this subject somewhere, but it would have existed before I started reading posts here.

First of all there are no other cards in T206 that are on as thin of stock as T213-1. I don't think it should be labeled as T206 because of that and because Burdick put Coupons in their own designation. For me, that's enough, though I am probably in the minority.

I have never really heard of T215-1 being classified as T206 nor very many arguments (unlike T213-1) thinking it should be. I am aware of at least 1 T215-1 that has a bit of a different background than it's T206 counterpart, that being Griffith batting. FYI, T215-1 is normal cardstock from what I remember. I have owned several but only own 1 now....regards

[Exhibitman]

Information continually comes to light on certain sets and that is why the dates are subject to revision. IMO, they should always be revised to reflect the truth and the third party graders ("TPG") should adjust their checklists and slab labels accordingly. Not that they always do but they should. Heck, I've had PSA refuse to fix boxing checklists with omitted cards because they haven't slabbed a specimen of the missing card yet! Everyone collecting those sets is collecting a partial set.

[Rich Klein]

In one of their auctions about 3-4 years ago; in which the cards sent to the Patent office and the copyright date was one year later than the original issue.

It was a 1930's set and to the best of my recollection; was the 1933 Sport Kings set which then probably should have been changed to a 1934 set.

I don't think anyone gave it much thought at the time; but in reality that set probably needs to have the date changed as well

Regards
Rich

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by Leon

First of all there are no other cards in T206 that are on as thin of stock as T213-1. I don't think it should be labeled as T206 because of that and because Burdick put Coupons in their own designation. For me, that's enough, though I am probably in the minority.

I have never really heard of T215-1 being classified as T206 nor very many arguments (unlike T213-1) thinking it should be. I am aware of at least 1 T215-1 that has a bit of a different background than it's T206 counterpart, that being Griffith batting. FYI, T215-1 is normal cardstock from what I remember. I have owned several but only own 1 now....regards

Leon... I respect your opinion about the T213-1 series. However, if Uzit had printed white borders again in 1914-15 and once more in 1919, Burdick probably would have given them their own designation, to say nothing of the fact that without the continued series, we now consider the Uzit 1910-11 series to be a part of T206.

In the end, T206 is a label placed onto the set 20+ years after its creation. In 1909-12, were one to get one of these cards in a tobacco pouch or cigarette pack, you would have had an un-numbered Piedmont card or Uzit card. And in the case of Coupon cards, the 1910-12 series was funded by ATC and printed by ALC, distributed in an area that no other T206 back was distributed. Had there been no T213-2 or T213-3, no one would even be arguing that series 1 was a part of T206, irregardless of paper stock. It just would be.

As for T215-1, I've only seen around twenty different cards, either through online scans, at card shows or in auction catalogues. I honestly don't know about background variations, as each series 1 card I've seen from the Victory set has been exactly like its T206 counterpart. I may have jumped the gun on saying that series was another T206 back, as I really haven't studied it enough to know for sure. Gut shot guess.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Brian-Chidester

As for T215-1, I've only seen around twenty different cards, either through online scans, at card shows or in auction catalogues. I honestly don't know about background variations, as each series 1 card I've seen from the Victory set has been exactly like its T206 counterpart. I may have jumped the gun on saying that series was another T206 back, as I really haven't studied it enough to know for sure. Gut shot guess.

First off you just need to get your series straight, otherwise you have a good argument (one I don't buy, but a good one). T215-1 is Red Cross....Had you talked about Victory I would have responded in kind.

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by Leon

First off you just need to get your series straight, otherwise you have a good argument (one I don't buy, but a good one). T215-1 is Red Cross....Had you talked about Victory I would have responded in kind.

Sorry, I hadn't had that second cup of coffee yet. Red Cross. I had the Zack Wheat T214 in my head when I wrote that.

[judsonhamlin]

Having been a 206 collector for two decades+, my gut tells me that Brian is right. It seems that a decision was made by Burdick to lump American Beauty, Broadleaf,, Piedmont, etc, but not the 1910 issues of Coupon and Red Cross. That, in my opinion, was wrong. I think that seeing subsequent issues of those cards where none existed from 206 clouded his opinion as to the initial release. T207 Red Cross is "lumped" with the Recruit/Napoleon/Broadleaf backs; why not the same for T206/T215-1?

[rhettyeakley]

Leon, do you have a scan of the T215-1 tht has the different background?

The thing kind of going against the T215-1 as being part of T206 to me has always been the fact that the back states "100 subjects" which is not seen on any other T206 back. Other than that I had never noticed any differences between the T206 and T215-1 card fronts and assumed they were likely another variation of the T206 "set"

-Rhett