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

[barrysloate]

Burdick was a genius when it came to understanding the origins of those little cards that were issued with cigarettes and other products. And from what else I've read about him he was likely very intelligent, period. But his singlemindedness towards his project of putting all those albums together for the Metropolitan Museum, and doing almost nothing else with his life for almost thirty years (?), is a little scary.

Leon- so if Burdick himself admitted the ACC was a work in progress, making a few changes is not only a good thing but something he would have encouraged. He would have respected a collector and scholar like yourself, and expected that you and others after him would find something new to add to the history.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Burdick was a genius when it came to understanding the origins of those little cards that were issued with cigarettes and other products. And from what else I've read about him he was likely very intelligent, period. But his singlemindedness towards his project of putting all those albums together for the Metropolitan Museum, and doing almost nothing else with his life for almost thirty years (?), is a little scary.

Leon- so if Burdick himself admitted the ACC was a work in progress, making a few changes is not only a good thing but something he would have encouraged. He would have respected a collector and scholar like yourself, and expected that you and others after him would find something new to add to the history.

Barry- I could give into the "T213-1 is a T206 argument." It's close enough. But on many other issues do you really think there could be a consensus enough for a change? BTW, my post count is soaring today, I better find something worthwhile to do .

[Brian-Chidester]

I was surprised to see someone above post that they thought the T213-1 cards would go up in value if included in the T206 set.

[barrysloate]

Well consensus is always tough to get, regardless of the topic. But in the case of adding the Coupons to T206, wouldn't you say the board is at least 80% in favor? Couldn't we call that a super majority?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Well consensus is always tough to get, regardless of the topic. But in the case of adding the Coupons to T206, wouldn't you say the board is at least 80% in favor? Couldn't we call that a super majority?

Yes, I think the board is 80% or more in favor.
Yes, we can call it a super majority.
No, I am not quite ready ....but I am not the deciding factor. The collective hobby is.

[barrysloate]

Leon- between you and me, I don't think anybody is actually going to change it. We just like talking about it.

[Brian-Chidester]

It matters if you are in the business of selling. But if you just want to collect the 1909-12 baseball tobacco series, it really doesn't matter what the designation is.

[tedzan]

I'd like to differ with you......
" Leon- between you and me, I don't think anybody is actually going to change it. We just like talking about it "

With diligent investigative research and the right people, past errors in the hobby can be changed. I can personally attest to this.

1....You'll recall how the hobby for many years was totally confused regarding certain aspects of the 1949 BOWMAN BB set. When
Krause Pub. published my BB Cards article on this subject in the Spring of 1983, Jim Beckett corrected his 1983 Price Guide.

2....The hobby was confused (since back in the Burdick days) on the true issue date of the 1949 LEAF BB set. It took me about 20
years to convince the hobby that this set was issued strictly in 1949..period. About 12 years ago, Bob Lemke corrected the Stan-
dard Catalog to reflect this fact.


TED Z