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

[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.

[drdduet]

Had this been the method of the original classification I speculate that the tougher brands (Uzit, Drum, Lenox, etc.) would not have had such a large associated premium. While they probably would still go for high dollar, they wouldn't be $1000+ commons--I feel collectors would have paid less attention to them on the whole.

Within the "sets" themselves, series and factory #'s would have become much more important...and thus provided us with "new" hobby gems. For example a Sweet Caporal Master set would be born in which much more attention would be brought to Factory #25 an overprints, etc, etc, etc.

[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.

[drdduet]

The controversy on whether or not T213-1 is actually a T206 is not new. Hobby historians like Lew Lipset didn't push the argument further than how it was classified in the ACC--that's a shame.

Furthermore at no time in history have we had the technology and the opportunity for knowledge and discussion as we do now.

Scot makes a valid point. Intent of manufacturer may only be assumed at this point--unless mission statements, corporate guidance, etc are discovered. The best we can do is theorize, and that's fun IMHO. I believe the stimulation of thought to be good for the hobby. Not that many of us need another reason to look at our cards, but maybe when we look at them this time it's in a different light.

[tedzan]

Scot.....your two shiny copper pennies are always appreciated. And, this comment of yours evoked some thoughts from my youth......"And
because manufacturer's intent will probably never be known".

True....we may never really know. However, I like to relate the impact of the T206 cards in 1909 to the impact that the 1952 Topps cards
made on us kids in 1952, and the BB card industry back then....if you will.

The popularity of these larger and more colorful cards in 1952 was amazing. The Topps Co. was probably most surprised. Topps responded
by reprinting their 1st series (thus Red Backs) and extending their set to 407 cards. Furthermore, Topps was very clever by holding off the
4 most popular BB players then (Mantle, Mays, Jackie Robinson and Bobby Thomson) till their Fall issue. My memories of this are clear (as
one's mind regresses, the older you get, and the memories of your youth return to you).

Bowman immediately responded by enlargening their smaller cards to compete with Topps. Followed by other company's (Bazooka, Dan Dee,
Hires, Red Man, Red Heart, Stahl-Meyers, Wilson Weiners) that got into the larger BB card market in the 1950's.

Finally, my point from making the above comparison, is that ATC realized the overwhelming impact that those little, colorful BB cards made
in 1909/1910 (especially with the young kids). So, we do have a a fairly accurate grasp of the "manufacturer's intent"....and, it was simply
to provide as many BB cards (or attractive non-sports premiums) in every tobacco package in the ATC system to enhance their sales.


Best regards,

TED Z