Appease me, please....one more time T206/T213/T215?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by usernamealreadytaken

My thought on t213-1's:

The only difference is the paper stock. (Though similar to an American Beauty being cut a bit slimmer)

Whats the same:
-Back design (Ted Z's has a nice lineup with AB, Cycle, etc. for comparison)
-Front Images correlate to t206 series
-Caption share same font, size and color
-Issued contemporaneously

However there are 2 other Coupon series, as Barry mentioned, and I also believe that is what led to the T213 classification. IS there a T206 back ad "series" with more than 1 series? (that sounded weird but ya'll know what I mean). Same thing with the T215 series.....Just trying to have a friendly debate here...

[barrysloate]

This has always been a debate where there are valid opinions on both sides. In fact, this is one of our better topics.

[MooseWithFleas]

Crazy the wealth of knowledge you find on this board. While it is an interesting debate, I can't see the Coupon cards ever getting universally accepted as T206's because it would ruin everyone's established conception of "The Monster". Those poor souls who are attempting to put together back collections or even the daunting Master Set would be very sad indeed.

[canjond]

Leon - here's my argument

American Beauty, Sweet Caporal and Piedmont Type II's have bright gold borders around the outside and look nothing like a T206... Old Mill Type II's have bright red and/or orange borders...

All kidding aside, just as Burdick chose to group Coupons as Type I, Type II and Type III, he could have decided to classify different Sweet Caporal, Piedmont, American Beauty, etc issues as Type I, Type II, etc. He didn't. And this is where the problem comes in.

I still believe Burdick's own criteria broke down in certain instances, the biggest being that a Coupon Type I, IMO, is an extension of the T206 set. The time frame it was issued, the design, the factories, the manufacturer all match. Coupon's later issues changed the caption color instead of the border color.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by canjond

Leon - here's my argument

American Beauty, Sweet Caporal and Piedmont Type II's have bright gold borders around the outside and look nothing like a T206... Old Mill Type II's have bright red and/or orange borders...

All kidding aside, just as Burdick chose to group Coupons as Type I, Type II and Type III, he could have decided to classify different Sweet Caporal, Piedmont, American Beauty, etc issues as Type I, Type II, etc. He didn't. And this is where the problem comes in.

I still believe Burdick's own criteria broke down in certain instances, the biggest being that a Coupon Type I, IMO, is an extension of the T206 set. The time frame it was issued, the design, the factories, the manufacturer all match. Coupon's later issues changed the caption color instead of the border color.

Hey Jon
I am trying to understand your logic here but I am not seeing it? Burdick classified those ones you mentioned based on their white borders and (possibly) the fact there weren't other series, as T213 and T215. That is my argument and I am not sure I would conclude anything different from your analysis. Actually, you might have helped make my argument, so I appreciate that . And what about the paper-thin card stock issue pertaining to the T213-1's?

[canjond]

Originally Posted by Leon

Hey Jon
I am trying to understand your logic here but I am not seeing it? Burdick classified those ones you mentioned based on their white borders and (possibly) the fact there weren't other series, as T213 and T215. That is my argument and I am not sure I would conclude anything different from your analysis. Actually, you might have helped make my argument, so I appreciate that . And what about the paper-thin card stock issue pertaining to the T213-1's?

Leon - and here I thought you helped prove my point. If Burdick classified T206s "based on their white borders...", then Type I's should most def be included.

As for the thin stock - Coupon never made slide and shell cig packs, only paper - hence my theory why a thinner stock was used. AB's are thinner than other T206s, Polar Bears are the only ones with a solid color back - the T206 set is allowed to have small anomalies.

[novakjr]

The Coupon's I would definitely consider counting as t206's. Mostly due to the fact that there are only 68 of them that mirror the master series, while not specifically being designated as anything other than "Base Ball Series" on the back. Which seems to fit the exact same pattern as many of the accepted t206 brands. The lack of a series number(ie:150,350...) or the use of the word assorted or assortment does concern me. But then again, I don't believe the El Principe cards mention a series number or assortment either. And due to the blue lettering I would not even really associate these with the type 2 or 3s. Basically, for all usable purposes the type-1 t213's are t206's. Although the paper stock issue does leave a lot of room for discussion.

Now for the Red Cross's. Despite being the exact same cards, the designation of "100 designs" on the back, leads me to believe that these indeed were intended to be their own set. While all other accepted T206 brands(plus the Coupons) are either generically designated as simply "Base Ball Series/Designs" or have the additional 150, 350, 350-460 or 460 Subjects while not necessarily having the corresponding number of cards available with those backs. Plus the 1912 factor really sets them aside.

This does bring me to one question though. Since the Red Cross's specifically state "100 designs", then why are there only 96? What happened to the other 4?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by novakjr

The Coupon's I would definitely consider counting as t206's. Mostly due to the fact that there are only 68 of them that mirror the master series, while not specifically being designated as anything other than "Base Ball Series" on the back. Which seems to fit the exact same pattern as many of the accepted t206 brands. The lack of a series number(ie:150,350...) or the use of the word assorted or assortment does concern me. But then again, I don't believe the El Principe cards mention a series number or assortment either. And due to the blue lettering I would not even really associate these with the type 2 or 3s. Basically, for all usable purposes the type-1 t213's are t206's. Although the paper stock issue does leave a lot of room for discussion.

Now for the Red Cross's. Despite being the exact same cards, the designation of "100 designs" on the back, leads me to believe that these indeed were intended to be their own set. While all other accepted T206 brands(plus the Coupons) are either generically designated as simply "Base Ball Series/Designs" or have the additional 150, 350, 350-460 or 460 Subjects while not necessarily having the corresponding number of cards available with those backs. Plus the 1912 factor really sets them aside.

This does bring me to one question though. Since the Red Cross's specifically state "100 designs", then why are there only 96? What happened to the other 4?

Very good points but it's always those little caveats that can't be explained away, at least so far, and to my liking. Look, the world isn't going to stop because I feel they are correctly classified and most others don't. It's just a nice friendly debate. I will admit the type 1's are close.....I just can't quite get there though.....

[novakjr]

I'm not led to believe that either issue are truly t206's. But the evidence does lean to the fact that it's a distinct possibility in regards to the Type-1 Coupons. I'm pretty sold on the Red-Cross's not being t206's though..

Anyways Leon. Them are some great looking Coupon's you got there. For a 2, that type-1 Matty's pretty damn sharp.

[toppcat]

My take:

Agree the fronts match T206 for Coupon-1 and Red Cross-1 but Coupon would have been the only brand in quotes (trademarking method) and Red Cross, not only lists 100 subjects, but is a horizontal back, so they get their own numbers in the ACC. I think there is a much better argument the Coupon-1's should have been T206's than the Red Cross cards.

2 runs of 48 different would yield 96 subjects in Red Cross, as noted elsewhere. I guess they figured nobody would ever count them all.....

Now is Pirate complete at 96 or 97? Seems like it should be 96, don't the subject lists correlate?

[fkw]

If Piedmont or Sweet Caporal also made cards in 1914 with a blue caption, Im sure Burdick would also have listed them with their own ACC # in the T213-T216+ range, and the brown caption 1909-11 Era version (T206) would be the type 1, ie T21X-1

The T213-1 and T215-1 ACC #s are correct.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by fkw

If Piedmont or Sweet Caporal also made cards in 1914 with a blue caption, Im sure Burdick would also have listed them with their own ACC # in the T213-T216+ range, and the brown caption 1909-11 Era version (T206) would be the type 1, ie T21X-1

The T213-1 and T215-1 ACC #s are correct.

This is on the money IMO.

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Your observation in Post #62 has not gotten much of a response. In my opinion, you have raised an excellent question.

But first, for those of you who are trying to follow this thread's discussions, but are unfamiliar with these tobacco cards
this illustration should help.


............T213-1 (1910)...............T215-1 (1910-12)....................T213-2 (1914-16).............T213-3 (1917-19).....................T214 (1915)



I can't find my T215-2 example, but it looks like the T215-1 card; however, its caption is printed in BLUE ink. As are all the T213-2,
T213-3, and the T214 cards.

American Lithographic (ALC) pre-printed sheets of their T206 series fronts. From these sheets depicting players in their 350 series,
350/460 series, and the 460 series....ALC then printed on their backs the COUPON, RED CROSS, and VICTORY brands.
Furthermore, in one case for the T215 sets, ALC selected a Mathewson (White Cap) from the 1st series (150/350) of the T206 set.
And, the T213-1 set comprises only of images from the 350-only series in the T206 set.

Referring back to Jon's point, it is evident in the illustration that there are significant gaps in the timeline between the T213-1 set
and the subsequent T213-2, or the T213-3 sets.

Jon, no other identically classified BB card sets by Burdick have this wide a gap in their timeline. Therefore, the only logical answer
to your question is......
"Burdick blew it", in his attempt to lump the T213-1, (-2), and (-3) sets together.

What else can I say. There are distinct differences between the three T213 cards. The 1910 COUPON looks like a T206 in all respects,
both front & back.

The T213-2 with its glossy front reminds me of an OBAK card.

The T213-3 is is thinner cut than the T213-1 and usually has a "washed-out" look on its front.

Hey guys, I leave it up to you to mull-over this.

TED Z

[Abravefan11]

I believe Burdick was absolutely correct in cataloging both T213-1 and T215-1 as separate issues. They are not T206's in my opinion. Extremely close and thus the great debate. Sorry I don't have time to elaborate further and will later if I can. Just wanted to cast my vote for "Not a T206."