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

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't think the ACC merits such a major overhaul as this suggests. But I do agree with Ted's assessment that the fact the paper was thinner on the T213-1 is really a minor consideration. It could have just been no more than what thickness of paper was delivered to the factory at that time. Maybe it was cheaper than the thicker stock. That by itself doesn't suggest it should not be part of T206.

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I don't think the ACC merits such a major overhaul as this suggests. But I do agree with Ted's assessment that the fact the paper was thinner on the T213-1 is really a minor consideration. It could have just been no more than what thickness of paper was delivered to the factory at that time. Maybe it was cheaper than the thicker stock. That by itself doesn't suggest it should not be part of T206.

Yeah, again, I'm not for a complete overhaul of the tobacco series numbers or anything. Alas, they are just hobby designations. If you have a Coupon or Red Cross series 1 card and want to put it with the rest of your 1909-12 white border tobacco cards, go for it. I do.

The designations help with buying, selling and organizing. Certainly we don't know how the sets were perceived when they were first issued.

[barrysloate]

Brian- true, and has been pointed out elsewhere on the thread, every designation for every card set was assigned decades after the cards were issued. There were no T206's in 1910.

And I would bet if somebody picked up a T213 Cobb at the time of issue, and already had the same pose with a Piedmont back, they would have deemed it a duplicate. I'm certain nobody distinguished the card at the time of issue the way we do today. A red Cobb was a red Cobb, and all the back told you was it was found in a different brand of cigarettes.

[barrysloate]

To put it more clearly, suppose a kid in the early teens had three red Cobbs- a Piedmont, a Sweet Caporal, and a Coupon. Do you think he said the Sweet Cap and the Piedmont belong together, but the Coupon belongs elsewhere? No, what he had was the same card in triplicate.

[caramelcard]

Leon,

You're a D303 collector for goodness sake. If Mother's and G.B. backs share the same designation, then so should T213-1 with T206. D303 G.B.s are "yankee" cards and the Mother's are "rebel" cards.

As Leon mentioned we've had a lot of good discussion on the T213-1 in the past. I was one of the bandleaders saying it should be part of the T206 "set."

The fact of the matter is that T206 is not a set.

If you want to argue about Burdick's designations then yeah maybe he should've gone with:

T206-1 (piedmont)
T206-2 (sweet cap)
T206-14 (coupon) etc

But, I think there's a great chance Burdick was very familiar with how similar type 1 Coupon's were to other "T206" backs as far as ornamentation and font color on the front. Those are pretty basic traits. He probably decided it would be easier for collectors to associate the type 1s with other coupon backed issues.

However, if we have to group T213-1 and T215-1 with T206 so that our collections of those type 1 cards are now worth more, then I agree that there's enough evidence to do so.

One of the "other sides" arguments had been:

Argument for Paper stock. It differs from that of all other brands.
Counter argument. American Beauty size differs from that of all other brands.

There are more arguments against that one can retrieve by looking through the old threads, but none hold up in my opinion.

Rob

[rman444]

I think that if Burdick had known how serious people would be taking his work, and how anal and inflexible they would be about his ACC designations, he would have been a bit more careful and perhaps taken more breaks from his dark stuffy little room.

[barrysloate]

I would venture to say that if Coupon cigarettes only issued a single series of cards in 1910, and were never heard from again, Burdick would have unquestionably included them as part of T206. It is only because Coupon issued subsequent series in 1914 and 1919 did he face a dilemma: include them with his T206 designation, or join them with the later Coupon issues? If there is any correspondence about it from that era I'm sure he was asking other collectors what they thought. In the end he had to make a choice, and the three Coupon series became T213-1-2-3. That's my theory.

And regarding Leon's point that the ACC is sacrosanct and shouldn't be changed, I fall somewhere in the middle of the argument. There is no reason to make any major changes to it, as Burdick did an incredible job given how little was known about the history of cards. But a little tweak now and then couldn't hurt. I bet even he would be for that.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by rman444

I think that if Burdick had known how serious people would be taking his work, and how anal and inflexible they would be about his ACC designations, he would have been a bit more careful and perhaps taken more breaks from his dark stuffy little room.

We have to remember that Burdick wasn't just about baseball....Most of his work was with non sports, post cards etc.....Again, whomever made up the English Alphabet, and dictionaries, are guilty of the same thing. And we aren't changing them, that I am aware of . (of course unless you are from Texas...we sometimes have our own language)

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Brian- true, and has been pointed out elsewhere on the thread, every designation for every card set was assigned decades after the cards were issued. There were no T206's in 1910.

And I would bet if somebody picked up a T213 Cobb at the time of issue, and already had the same pose with a Piedmont back, they would have deemed it a duplicate. I'm certain nobody distinguished the card at the time of issue the way we do today. A red Cobb was a red Cobb, and all the back told you was it was found in a different brand of cigarettes.

When speaking with several old time collectors they have always collected the fronts. Hence, E92 were all the same, whether it was a Nadja, Dockman, Croft's Candy or Croft's Cocoa......all the same . So, it is with little doubt they did the same thing with white bordered cards. Quite a few of the letters/numbers we go by today weren't even ACC numbers at all. Groups such N (these were not letteredas 19th century in the ACC), E123, T215 Pirate etc.....were not in the ACC. They came from other places. At the same time, just as we don't change the English Alphabet or certain spellings because they don't hold to a conformity, I have never been in favor of changing the ACC. Just a personal preference that isn't too popular with this board. (but it's still not changing )