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

sreader3 · #1 02-23-2010, 10:36 PM

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 · #2 02-24-2010, 08:33 AM

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.

PolarBear · #3 02-24-2010, 10:03 AM

I like sreader's argument about manufacturer's intent, but lets take a more pragmatic approach.

The manufacturer's intent was to make as much money as possible through the distribution of cards in their respective brands. I don't think they gave much consideration to how it would affect the classification of the overall "set".

I'm sure that people *had* to be confused and disappointed when they realized they couldn't find 350 or 460 subjects no matter how many Broadleaf packs they opened.

So, rather than focusing on intent, we should look at how the cards would have actually been collected as distribution allowed.

I doubt people were buying random packs of different brands just to find subjects they didn't have.

In fact, I'd bet that any original collections of T206's that have been found would be all, or mostly all, of one brand.

Classifying T206's by brand is not only the closest way to show how they would have actually been collected when originally distributed, but it's also the key to understanding *how* they were distributed.

tedzan · #4 02-24-2010, 10:04 AM

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

barrysloate · #5 02-24-2010, 10:15 AM

Were the manufacturers even giving a moment of thought to the concept of a set? Weren't they just thinking of the cheapest way to sell as many cigarettes as possible? I think it is the collecting community, a few generations later, who determined what comprised a complete set.

The people who issued the cards and stood to profit from them looked at these little cardboard swatches much differently than we do today. They weren't collectors, they were businessmen.

barrysloate · #6 02-24-2010, 10:33 AM

Just to add to my previous post:

A set such as E93, for example, was conceived as a set from the outset. There were thirty cards planned, all were carefully listed on the back of each card, any collector who cared knew which cards he needed, all of them were readily available, and no more were added in a later series. That is the definition of a set.

T206 was never issued as a set in that traditional sense. When the first series of cards were released in the fall of 1909, nobody had any idea there would eventually be some 523 cards, nobody knew there would be subsequent series, nobody knew that additional tobacco brands would join in the promotion, there was no rhyme or reason to the number of poses a player would have, etc. T206 was not a planned set, but an evolution. It just got bigger and more complex as time passed. Do you think any kid collecting back then knew if he had a complete set? Only collectors a generation or two later were able to piece it all together.

And here we are, a century later, still debating it.

E93 · #7 02-24-2010, 10:42 AM

Good points Barry. I do think, however, that because they changed the backs by periodically adding to the number of total subjects (150, then 350, then 460, and the various permeations), that even the ATC considered it to be a single over-arching project of issuing advertising premiums with their tobacco products.
JimB

drdduet · #8 02-24-2010, 10:43 AM

Good, solid points.

The manufacturers of the day were motivated by profit (nothing has changed).

The cards of the day were premiums, not the product(that has changed).

The success of the original T206 "issue" (the 150 series), as evidenced by period periodicals and newspaper articles, prompted increased distribution as a manner of increased revenue. Thus the "pilot" study was a success and ATC followed suit with its top brands.

The manufacturer did not intend on the idea of a "set", thus the collecting community has the task of making this determination.

barrysloate · #9 02-24-2010, 10:50 AM

Jim- one interesting point to consider: the 150 series did not have 150 cards; the 350 series didn't bring the total to 350 cards; and the 460 series likewise didn't comprise 460 cards. These were just marketing ploys, to let the public know that they were still producing more cards and introducing new players. Even the manufacturers really weren't sure where it was headed, and at what point it would end.

E93 · #10 02-24-2010, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Jim- one interesting point to consider: the 150 series did not have 150 cards; the 350 series didn't bring the total to 350 cards; and the 460 series likewise didn't comprise 460 cards. These were just marketing ploys, to let the public know that they were still producing more cards and introducing new players. Even the manufacturers really weren't sure where it was headed, and at what point it would end.

Yes, that is true, but it does not change the fact that it seems to have been conceptualized as a unified project - not one where the issuer determined that since there are far less than 100 different fronts subjects with Drum backs that we should not put "350 Subjects" on the back. The evidence suggests that they conceptualized the project as a unified project across specific brands.
JimB

barrysloate · #11 02-24-2010, 11:12 AM

Well they certainly knew the project was popular, and was getting bigger. I doubt they had any idea that when they began issuing cards in the fall of 1909 they would still be popular and in demand a year and a half later. I think the set's ultimate size was a result of its continued popularity. Had it bombed it would have ended with series 150.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
T206's Lot or Individual?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	04-05-2008 04:13 PM
The Ted Z./ Corey R. Shanus Met Burdick Story.	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	0	05-20-2006 09:14 PM
Six Graded T206's for sale - Polar Bear - individual or lot	Archive	Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T	0	04-01-2006 06:08 AM
Burdick Collection Visit	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	22	07-21-2004 01:27 PM
Jefferson Burdick revisited	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	8	04-26-2004 02:54 AM