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

[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

[barrysloate]

Ted- correcting a price guide might be easier than correcting the ACC. How would one even go about it?

[rman444]

I would also add, with all due respect, that changing the year of issue for a single set is not quite the same as merging an already established set into the contents of what many consider to be the most significant set in the history of baseball card collecting. It is a whole different ballgame.

[barrysloate]

No question about it. Changing the dynamics of the T206 set would be headline news.

[ValKehl]

Here's a side-by-side Griffith comparison of my T206 Polar Bear to my (and Leon's ex - thanks again Leon for the trade! ) T215-1 Red Cross. The T206 is raw, whereas the T215-1 in in a SGC holder. And, this pic was taken with a camera, as I don't have a scanner. I can see a very slight difference in the yellow and orange background shading, but I would guess this is merely a printing issue. Also, as best as I can tell the the thickness of the T215-1 card appears to be the same as that of the T206.
Val