What if..Burdick had classified T206's with respect to their individual 15 T-brands ?

[E93]

Originally Posted by CardTarget

If he had classified them all differently, would we still call it "The Monster"? Or just a bunch of little gremlins?

I think it would take a little of the shine off of the set if it wasn't all considered one big giant set.

I tend to agree. I think they would still be extremely popular, but it is interesting to speculate about how the collecting patterns would be different if there were 17 different sets (I would include Coupon type 1s personally).

Would those who want their sets to truly be complete not pursue Sweet Cap since that would definitely require a Wagner? One could argue that Wagner probably was never issued in Piedmont packs since, of the two known examples, one was certainly hand-cut, and the other is widely believed to have been cut off a strip or sheet of some sort.
JimB

[PolarBear]

I think this is the future of collection T206's. I'm not working on a set myself, but this is the way I would collect them. T205's as well for that matter.

And what about coupon backs.

[JasonL]

Each back is a different tobacco, and distribution was regional based upon brand, right?
So the T206 is not actually one large set, but rather a collection of the various Regional sets.

If all that is true and acceptable, then wouldn't it make sense that if you were a collector back in 1911, your available set would be whatever was distributed in your region with the brand of tobacco you can buy?

If so, then when these were issued, there were as many sets being collected as there are backs and distribution areas.

If all of that makes any sense at all, then I would say that the T206 is certainly a collection of sets, analagous to any of the more modern Regionals.

[E93]

All classification and categorization is, to some extent, a function of subjective imputing or superimposition. Now I am getting philosophical...
JimB

[barrysloate]

If T206 were collected and catalogued by back only, how would T206 be differentiated from any of the sets that shared the same fronts?

Collectors would still go after the Piedmont and Sweet Caporal sets, but what collector today would try to finish the Lenox set, or the Uzit? And if one weren't working on the Polar Bear set, would he care about the Demmitt or O'Hara variations? They wouldn't even be a part of his set.

And finally, the Ty Cobb King of the Smoking Tobacco World set would be complete at one card.

[E93]

I agree with Barry. The only people who would pursue the tougher brands would be type collectors like Leon. As it is now, many T206 set collectors, myself included, want at least one example of each of the different T206 brands in their set.
JimB

[barrysloate]

There also probably wouldn't be the designation T206. You might have 15 different ACC numbers. It would change the complexion of the set.

[sreader3]

What defines a "set" of cards? I will posit that the talisman is manufacturer's intent. That is, did the manufacturer mean for given cards to be part of the same set--or different sets?

With what we call T206, the difficulty resides in divining the intent of ATC--at least after the 150 series. In the beginning, ATC jointly marketed roughly 150 Major League baseball subjects with Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign backs. This was a fairly well-defined "set"--and in my view there is little doubt that most would consider these subjects as one "set" if ATC had stopped there.

But then things got messy. To meet regional demand, ATC introduced some of the 150 Major League subjects along with a new group of 34 Southern League subjects with the Brown Hindu back. Was this initial Brown Hindu release part of the same "set"? Perhaps--or maybe not.

Then ATC introduced a 350 series with a broader array of backs that included the original Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign backs, as well as several others.. And complicating matters even further, this 350 series extended the print runs of some, but not all, of the original 150 Major League subjects. Still the same "set"? Hmmm ....

Ted's four T206 criteria make some degree of sense because they are proxies for manufacturer's intent. However, I am not sure that these criteria are controlling in any meaningful sense. And because manufacturer's intent will probably never be known (if indeed ATC can be said to have ever had a discernable intent), a definitive answer to the question at hand will likely prove elusive.

Just my two cents.