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

[drdduet]

"do you find Ted's criteria necessary but not sufficient definitionally or do you find the criteria both necessary and sufficient?"

Hi Barry,

I agree with Ted on his criteria, but do feel it is incomplete. I'll elaborate further soon. The subject inclusion is important to me and thus it must in some way match the subject inclusion in T206 and its series.

[drdduet]

As for as T215-1, I have not seen sufficient evidence that it belongs in T206. Off the top of my head I know, for example, that it contains only one Chase and no Evers but does contain the other 4 T206 super prints--thus has a "series fracture" that does not make total sense. T213-1 does contain all of the 6 T206 super prints, no "series fracture."

While "series fractionation" may be present, a "series fracture" excludes it--IMHO. I use the term "series fractionation" to simply mean a "series fracture" that makes sense--for example T213-1 includes 4 of the 14 T206 350 only Southern Leaguers, but these 4 are all of the Southern Association players of those 14. A "series fracture" in this example would be if T213-1 contained 2 of the 14, but there was no logic to deduce why?

Thus,

A "series fracture" is exclusionary, and "series fractionation" is not necessarily so.

[tedzan]

The T215-1, and its British counterpart with the PIRATE backs, comprise of the same 96 card fronts.

Both these sets are white-bordered with Brown captions. Approx. half of the fronts were derived from
the 350 series of the T206 set, and the other fronts were derived from the 460 series. Therefore, my
guess is that the T215 set was printed and issued in 2 series....1st in 1910 and the 2nd series in 1912.







TED Z

[drdduet]

If T215-1 is a T206 issue then that Griffith, Washington because a very rare desirable T206 variation. It's not unheard of for one T206 brand to have a "monopoly" on a subject--just look at Polar Bear with O'hara and Demmitt.

Just to be certain--Red Cross was owned by ATC in 1910-1912, correct?

If that is so, there is still some kinks in the issue that need to be straightened out for me to consider T215-1 T206, like the series fracture of the superprints.

It would take a whole lot more convincing if it were suggested the T215 Pirate was T206--brand not owned by ATC.

[tedzan]

Indeed, the Clark Griffith (batting) card in the T215-1 is identified with Washington. Therefore, this card was issued in
the 2nd series (Winter 1911 or Spring 1912).

Red Cross was part of the ATC monpoly in 1910. After ATC's divesture in May 1911, I'm not sure where Red Cross was
assigned to.
That reminds me, did you know that after May 1911, COUPON Tobacco was assigned to the Liggett & Myers Co.

Furthermore, you noted that Evers (of the 6 super-print fame) is not in the T215-1 set. Well, that is very strange since
it is in the T215 Pirate set. And, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that both these 2 sets have identical subjects.


TED Z

[ethicsprof]

Ted,your final point is most interesting.
Darren, utilizing the criterion of subject inclusion and seeing that there is a series fracture of the superprints in T215-1 Red Cross with the missing Evers,
what then do you do with Ted's 'monkey wrench';viz, Evers presence in the Pirate set.
Does this effect your contention that subject inclusion should be a criterion
added to Ted's 4 criteria?
many thanks,

best,
barry

[drdduet]

No it does not. Both the Standard Catalogue and SGC Registry checklist DO NOT have the exact same subjects for T215-1 Red Cross and T215 Pirate issue.

So, at this point I still hold to my fracture/fractionation theory in addition to Ted's criteria. I must say that T215 is on my short list though for further research into a unifying theory.