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

[Leon]

I don't own this T215-1 Griffith anymore(and took the T206 scan from ebay). The T215-1 belongs to another board member but it was in my collection for years. You can see the background shading be different......however it is more pronounced (much more) on different cards. I am not sure this isn't just a printing plate issue though. Even regardless of this I have never heard T215 be talked about as being T206.....as the T213-1 has..
best regards

ps..btw Brian- as you are throwing out different scenarios about different issues I applaud you for it. I am the type that thinks everything should be questioned and inspected . Now, about an actual change, I am much slower.

[Exhibitman]

I think those are printing issues. I have some T206s with marked variations on the printing of background stuff. I will try to post one later.

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't own this T215-1 Griffith anymore(and took the T206 scan from ebay). The T215-1 belongs to another board member but it was in my collection for years. You can see the background shading be different......however it is more pronounced (much more) on different cards. I am not sure this isn't just a printing plate issue though. Even regardless of this I have never heard T215 be talked about as being T206.....as the T213-1 has..
best regards

ps..btw Brian- as you are throwing out different scenarios about different issues I applaud you for it. I am the type that thinks everything should be questioned and inspected . Now, about an actual change, I am much slower.

Thanks, Leon.

In truth, I actually see no way that these designations will ever be changed. So ensconsed are they in the trading, grading and pricing of these cards, I can't imagine wiping the slate clean of their past and getting everyone in the hobby to agree on a new designation.

But again, I was just throwing it out there with regards to T215-1. I have never owned one myself and know very little about the series besides what I've read in Burdick's book and have seen at card shows, on eBay and in auction catalogues. To my eyes, it just looked like the same thing that had happened with Coupon also happened with Red Cross. That being that the 1st series was printed between 1910-12, with the same fronts as T206, just distributed in areas not touched by the other cigarette distributers. My gut feeling about both T213-1 and T215-1 is that they would have been T206 back variants had there not been the second series (for both) and the third series (for T213). In other words, Red Cross and Coupon would be like Uzit or American Beauty.

[tedzan]

To refresh your thinking, here is the link to my thread on this subject......http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon

It's time to reclassify this set of 68 cards and identify them as the the 16th T-brand of the T206 set. The front images of these cards
are derived from the T206 series of "350 Subjects". The back design is consistent with the four other T206 brands printed and issued
during the Summer/Fall of 1910. Therefore, they are a bona fide white-bordered set under the T206 rubric. The only argument against
this, is that they were printed on very slightly thinner cardboard stock than T206's. In my opinion this is a weak argument that smells
like a "Louisiana red-herring".

At the risk of being a broken record on this subject, I will leave you with this illustration, since a picture is worth a 1000 words........



TED Z

[Brian-Chidester]

Ted... any thoughts on the T215-1 Red Cross and Pirate backs?

[rhettyeakley]

The T215-1 set is more like the T206 set than the T213-1 other than the 100 subjects notation on back. The reason that the 100 number is significant to me is that no other T206 back has that distinction. There is the 150 back, the 350 back and the 350-460 back. Sure there are some t206 backs that don't state a number but T215-1 being the only one saying 100, and the horizontal back (also not on any T206 backs) are both somewhat of a deterrent to referring to that set as a T206 set to me. Also, the ACC is fairly random, we could be making a case for the T215-2, T213-2 and T214 sets being from the same set as well just w/ different backs--but this will never happen.
-Rhett

[erstevens]

Alternatively, based on back similarities, maybe American Beauty, Broadleaf, Cycle, and Drum cards should be classified as T213s...

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

The T215-1 set is more like the T206 set than the T213-1 other than the 100 subjects notation on back. The reason that the 100 number is significant to me is that no other T206 back has that distinction. There is the 150 back, the 350 back and the 350-460 back. Sure there are some t206 backs that don't state a number but T215-1 being the only one saying 100, and the horizontal back (also not on any T206 backs) are both somewhat of a deterrent to referring to that set as a T206 set to me. Also, the ACC is fairly random, we could be making a case for the T215-2, T213-2 and T214 sets being from the same set as well just w/ different backs--but this will never happen.
-Rhett

Well, T213-2 and -3, as well as T214 and T215-2 were printed all between 1913 and 1919, plus with the blue text, they have more apparent discrepencies than T213-1 and T215-1.

[rhettyeakley]

I didn't say anything about the T213-3's--that set is unlike any of these other sets...thin stock, norrow borders and flat (non-glossy) finish to the cards themselves.

I am basically just making a point about the ACC w/ that example. Burdick was very well organized and was very good at doing what he did. That being said, he wasn't always consistent (although usually he was) about how he classified things and why some sets got their own ACC designation vs. sets that were grouped together. The simplest thing is to simply leave things the way that they are. there is little doubt the T213-1 Coupon set was produced at the same time as the T206 backs Ted showed above, and there is little doubt to us rational thinkers (sorry Leon) that they were from the same promotion. There is a good chance that the T215-1 were also done at the same time w/ the same promotion, but this is less clear to me given themajor back differences stated above (also just to play devil's advocate here, what about those foreign T215 Pirate cigarette cards, they could be deemed T206's by some as well--although any foreign cards by the ATC are generally listed as T400+).

The T213-1 Coupons were likely only listed as a different ACC because the T213-2 & 3 sets were obviously not T206's and needed their own designation and Burdick threw the earliest set along with his later brethren for organizational purposes (which in my opinion was probably a mistake).

What I stated earlier about the T213-2, T214, and T215-2 sets is that these also could just as easily have been listed together as one ACC # (NOT T206) and been different back variations within that ACC # as these were all issued around the same time period and have a lot of the same characteristics. But you don't hear the clamoring for this as you do the T206's because these are more thinly traded.

On a side note, while Burdick was really quick to give early E-cards their own ACC #'s all those tobacco sets are more similar within their own groupings than the E92 family of sets, given the players only available in one or more of the different backs within that set. At least all the players in T213-1 and T215-1 are also found in the T206 set.

-Rhett

[Brian-Chidester]

I'd be for grouping the T213-2, T214, and T215-2 series's into one new designation, though I know very little about T214 and T215-2, so that might be jumping the gun a bit.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I didn't say anything about the T213-3's--that set is unlike any of these other sets...thin stock, norrow borders and flat (non-glossy) finish to the cards themselves.

-Rhett

Of the 20, or more, T213-3's I have owned none were thin stock. Thin borders- yes, thin stock....just the opposite, which is why you can find them in higher grade sometimes....again, completely different, in that respect, from Coupon T213-1. regards