Coupon Type 1: Paper Theory

[FrankWakefield]

This, in my mind, is similar to the blown call from a couple of nights ago. The past few days, folks I encounter who know of my passion for baseball, will ask me about and opine about the call. Most non-baseball folk want the Commissioner to fix it. To me it is changing a call to achieve a desired outcome. That's contrary to what I do at work... and it seems wrong to me for the Commissioner to do it. I went to a minor league game last night and met up with 2 fellow baseball fanatics. We were 3-0 on it, the call was blown, it's a shame, it was not a perfect game. Leave it alone and move on. They liked my idea of fellow umpires meeting between home and the mound when they perceive a similar bad call, and they wait for their crew-mate to join them, so he'll know to ask for help on the call...

Here, it seems the desired goal is to have those series 1 Coupon cards called T206. I have GREAT respect for Mr. Burdick's work on the American Card Catalog. I have a hardbound copy. And I have a copy of a postcard work he published. It's more than "he said so". He knew so, too. And it's what my fellow Frank said up there, you can sort 'em out by hand with your eyes closed. I can discern American Beauty cards from other T206s when looking at their fronts. But I can't by holding them one at a time with my eyes closed. I can sort 1914 Cracker Jacks from 1915 Cracker Jacks with my eyes closed. And everyone here could, too, after they'd held a few for a few minutes. The AB's are from identical card stock, cut slightly less wide. The Coupon card is on entirely different stock, but happens to be the same size... (same size as a T205, maybe that's what they really are). The Coupon's don't mention 'series' or '150' or '350'.... They're different. Just like Mr. Burdick said. Different, even if you want 'em to be alike.

[teetwoohsix]

It is amazing how this subject keeps popping up. There is a lot more to it than "Burdick said so"- Frank, Tim, and Frank gave great examples of why it is classified the way it is. To me, it goes with it's series.T213-1, T213-2,and last but not least,T213-3.

Yes, there are similarities with T206. So what? T202's have similarities with T205's. Should those be re-classified? Should T210's be called T206's because they share some T206 images and have an almost identical Old Mill back (except for the series# at the top)? I'm semi-kidding ().........but really, it's just a classification system, and it's not "wrong", so why try to fix it if it's not broken?

Clayton

[usernamealreadytaken]

I will push forward in my excersize in futility.
Erroneus contention 1: 1910 Coupons are not in the T206 series because T206's all share the same physical characteristics. However, there are t206 cards (AB) that vary in physical characteristics (size) from others in the series. Therefore, the argument that a variation in physical properties is a litmus test for inclusion does not stand up to scrutiny.

Erroneus contention 2: 1910 Coupons do not reference a number or scope of the series. However, there are t206 cards (EPDG) that do not reference a number or scope of the series either. So this argument cannot be the sole basis for inclusion or not.

[FrankWakefield]

We could forgo the numbers and just lump all together as T cards. T for twentieth century... not T for tobacco.

Again, you commence with a premise you want to facilitate reaching a desired outcome, it seems to me. Start with Piedmont 150's, the first cards of T206. Seet Caporal and Sovereign, both 150s. They weren't without the numbers... Those Coupon cards come along at that time, without a series, and with quotes, on different card stock. Piedmont and all progress to the 350 series and brands are added. Some mention series 350, some assorted. All the same style fronts, captions and brown ink fonts. And later the 460s, and they stop. I agree the AB's are trimmed down a fraction of an inch narrower, but it is still the same card stock, subjects, captions and fonts and ink, and series. Those Coupon cards don't have that. Coupon cards seem to have been updated and issued long after T206 card distribution ended. T206s came to a halt at one point in time, T213s at a much different time. T213-3s much later, T213-1s much earlier. T206s all stopped about the same time.

I think most folks sort T206s alphabetically, as they're listed in the modern catalogs. I don't, but then I'm quite contrary. I like them sorted the way the collectors did 30, 40, 50, and 100 years ago did... by team. I sort them into teams, then alphabetically. And it is neat to spread a team out, by series, then alphabetically. That way you can see "Cubs" across the shirts on the first run of Cubs cards, and "Chicago" down the shirt later on. I mention this because it's fine with me if you shuffle your Coupon cards in there amongst the white border T206s. I'm amused by the eBay listings where someone mistakenly lists a card as a T206 when it has a Coupon back. Someone doing a T213 search misses it... For me T213-1s are just that, and shouldn't be in with T206s. Mr. Burdick got quite a bit right. Again, I thank him.

[usernamealreadytaken]

We will agree to reasonably disagree reasonably.

Here is a quote I found from an earlier thread (which I began) re: the Cobb back not being a T206:

"...Put another way, "T206" have a list of backs included; it does not enumerate a set of criteria for being a T206 for us to then catagorize cards. Even if the smoking gun (an advertisement or legal document) conclusively puts Cobb at a later date or different distribution vehicle, it is a T206 because a "T206" is a "T206"..."

You know who authored this?...Me. After posting my theory and getting the same kind of beating, I came to this conclusion on Cobb and still do. However, this does not mean educated discourse should be abandoned. As for me, 1910 Coupons are welcome in my "T206" stack. Thank you.

[FrankWakefield]

I understand the first bunch of coupons, and that Cobb/Cobb card look like T206s. The former is on thin paper and I'm satisfied it doesn't belong bunched with T206s. Similarly, the Cobb card has a glossy front, it doesn't belong in with T206s either. Neither are T206s.

Might as well haggle about the Lajoie Goudey card. It's numbered 106 so it fits into that gap that was in the 1933 issue. I used to think it was a 1933 card. But there were 239 different cards printed for that 1933 set. They skipped #106. Kids wrote in, and some were mailed a card #106 of Napoleon Lajoie, who wasn't even playing then. The background on the card is consistent with 1934 cards. The card is from 1934. I'm now content with the idea that the 1933 Goudey set is complete at 239 cards. And that card #106 is a nice card to have, but isn't part of the 1933 set. Golly, if they printed card #241 today, would that also make it part of the 1933 set? No.

Still, as long as folks are cogitating about it all, that's a good thing. No matter which camp of thought they embrace. Hang in there.

[teetwoohsix]

I think it's easier to place the Cobb/Cobb card (IMO) with the classification of T206 because it is a sole card, rather than a whole series of cards.1 card (Cobb/Cobb) versus 68-70 cards (T213-1),,,,I don't know the final count on the series, I hope I'm in the ballpark.

You can place a one card set with what it resembles the most-or not. But when you have a set of cards with three distinct series involved, and just decide that because one series closely resembles another set, so lets re-classify it..............doesn't make sense to me. But to each their own- I do see the similarities, and feel if there wasn't a series 2 & 3 that the series 1 may well have been included into T206. The frame around the back Coupon add is identical to the Broad Leaf, American Beauty (frame) and Cycle.

More mysteries than answers with these tobacco cards

Sincerely,Clayton

[tbob]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

I think most folks sort T206s alphabetically, as they're listed in the modern catalogs. I don't, but then I'm quite contrary. I like them sorted the way the collectors did 30, 40, 50, and 100 years ago did... by team. I sort them into teams, then alphabetically. And it is neat to spread a team out, by series, then alphabetically.

Frank, I sort them that way also, so there's at least two of us contrarians

[Abravefan11]

Forgive my remedial question but what evidence is there for when these cards were printed or distributed other than the connection to the T206 350 series?

[FrankWakefield]

If you look at the players and their teams for the -1 cards, it matches up fairly well with 1910 and T206's series 350... both the team designations as well as the artwork. Johnny Evers is with Chicago and Hub Perdue is with Nashville. Hub doesn't appear in the -2 Coupons, Evers does with a Boston caption, his new team. List the players in -1, look at the teams with which they're depicted, then look at what the captions say for the -2 cards, and you'll see that -1 Coupons are issued after T206s got started, about in the middle of the 350 series. The -2s are produced 2 or 3 years after that. And the -3s half a dozen years or more. My recollection is that the thinking was among old collectors was that -3s were part of a regional pricing strategy, that was eventually abandoned, around WW I.

[tedzan]

Several factors connect the T213-1 set to being printed (and most likely issued) in the Summer of 1910.
Before I get into these factors, this picture illustrates this fact better than words can describe. The iden-
tical back designs of these 5 backs were drawn by the same artist. Therefore, it is a fair conclusion that
all 5 of these brands were issued within a narrow time frame.



We have documentation dating the issue of the American Beauty 350 (frame) cards to the Summer of 1910.
I would say there is a very high probability that this Coupon set (68 cards) was issued in the timeframe of
the Summer/Fall 1910.

A 2nd factor is the quotes surrounding COUPON. ATC acquired the Coupon tobacco company circa 1909-1910.
At the time of the T213-1 printing, the ATC Copyright was still pending (hence "COUPON").

A 3rd factor is evident in the make up of the 20 Southern Leaguer's (SL) in the T213-1 set. Since these cards
were destined for Louisiana, most of the SL that were selected are from the Southern Association. Now if you
examine this closer, you will see a mix of players from the 150 series SL and from the 350-only series SL.

All 48 Major Leaguer's in this set are from the 350-only series of the T206 set. The 350-only series (216 cards)
were printed in several phases from late 1909 to the Fall of 1910.



TED Z

[marcdelpercio]

To me, I think the simple question is, what is a T206? If your answer is "whatever Burdick said" (which technically is correct) then Coupons are not and never will be. I certainly understand the arguments against inclusion but in my opinion, a T206 is as follows:

A card released during 1909-1911 by an ATC brand that shares the same artwork, design, production, and distribution methods.

In my mind, Coupon Type 1's clearly fit this description and should be considered as a part of this collective set, whatever you wish to call it. The only arguments against inclusion seem to be the thinner paper stock and the lack of series/number designation on the back. However there are other examples discussed above of widely accepted T206 brands which also feature variations in these things. The use of a different paper stock is irrelevant to me as even with a thinner stock, these cards still share the same artwork, design, production and distribution as all other T206 brands. There are many possible reasons a thinner stock may have been used...some already discussed and probably some that nobody has yet thought of.

I don't think we can compare the Coupon Type 2's and Type 3's as these were created after the ATC breakup by Liggett and Myers which was no longer an ATC brand. Though they share some similarities with the Type 1's and T206's, they do not meet the standard of the same artwork and design (and were released by what was then a different company) so should be considered an entirely separate set.