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

novakjr · #1 01-27-2011, 03:27 PM

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 · #2 01-27-2011, 03:39 PM

Quote:

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 · #3 01-27-2011, 03:46 PM

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 · #4 01-27-2011, 03:43 PM

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 · #5 01-27-2011, 03:54 PM

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 · #6 01-28-2011, 03:49 PM

Quote:

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 · #7 01-28-2011, 07:22 PM

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)
[linked image]

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 · #8 01-28-2011, 07:45 PM

NM

FrankWakefield · #9 01-28-2011, 07:51 PM

I've seen several T215's with an indentation in the edges, where maybe a rubber band or string was used to hold a bunch of them together. Obviously not the case with the pristine T215's, but when you see worn ones it seems that frequently that dent is there, as in that Miller card.

Leon · #10 01-28-2011, 07:58 PM

Burdick knew exactly what he was doing, take a look at the descriptions he used ie... the "T206 references". I feel this is more evidence he did exactly as I said. (kept it simple) Forget about all of the "factory this and factory that". Baseball is probably 10%, or so, of his total listings. He just didn't get that deep into it, imo. He collected data, put the cards next to each other to see how they looked, came up with a way to organize them, took into account a few other factors too, especially distribution method, years of distribution and manufacturer (technically distributor), and went about his cataloging. As you can see he didn't specify 3 types of T213, only 2. He lumped 2s and 3s together. Then he went onto say the T215's were the same. So once he figured out T213 he just followed his pattern for T215. He thought about them being classified as T206, he only chose not to. I don't think it was a mistake at all and he got it right, but understand there will always be some that think otherwise. Not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Kind of fun to debate though and thanks to all who have chimed in. Here is a 1953 page from the ACC, it is the same as the last version, from 1960. I don't have an earlier version but I doubt he changed the wording very much...regards

insidethewrapper · #11 01-28-2011, 08:37 PM

So what year were the T 213-1 cards released ? Burdick states 1914-15 and I've seen also 1910.

novakjr · #12 01-28-2011, 08:38 PM

Leon, the photo of that ACC page, actually points more towards him being wrong in not listing type-1 as t206. Especially considering he listed them all as being produced in 1914-15. That leads me to believe that he made his designation based on mis-information. Either that, or everyone that currently believes type-1's are from 1910 is wrong.

chaddurbin · #13 01-28-2011, 08:45 PM

it's funny in these t206/ted threads you can always count on one thing...ted being dismissive of anyone with a different view than his and he stops engaging them. maybe if he was more open-minded he could learn a couple new things instead of throwing out wild guesses and theories and presenting them as facts (and when being shown wrong he ignores them...rinse repeat).

i agree with tim/frank/rhett/jim side

T206Collector · #14 01-28-2011, 09:07 PM

Tim,

Does Teds point about t213-1 comprising only 350 series t206 cards jibe with your theory--or does that answer my previous question?

tedzan · #15 01-28-2011, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

it's funny in these t206/ted threads you can always count on one thing...ted being dismissive of anyone with a different view than his and he stops engaging them. maybe if he was more open-minded he could learn a couple new things instead of throwing out wild guesses and theories and presenting them as facts (and when being shown wrong he ignores them...rinse repeat).

i agree with tim/frank/rhett/jim side

I just got in and read this. I don't understand what your problem is ? I cannot respond to someone's comments directed at me if I'm not at home.

And, of course I know that the 20 Southern Leaguers in the T213-1 set are 150/350 series subjects. This set also comprises of 42 Major Leaguers that are strictly
from the 350-only series of the T206 set. And, an additional six Major Leaguers that Scot Reader has identified as the 6 "super-prints". These 6 subjects were init-
ially from the 350-only series. Then American Litho. extended these 6 subjects into the 460-only series.

Apparently, you haven't been reading any of my threads on the 1910 COUPON (T213-1) set. Here are some links you can click onto and read my previous posts on
this subject.....then perhaps you can apologize.

2010
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon

2008
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon

2008
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ghlight=t213-1

I just happen to think that the T213-1 cards are are part of the T206 set (and there are quite a few people here who do agree with this premise).

You apparently don't, and that's fine, too. But, do you have to resort to your diatribe against me (in post #88) ?

I have never, ever said anything to demean you (or otherwise) at any time that I have posted on this forum. So, where the heck are you coming from ? ?

TED Z

tedzan · #16 01-28-2011, 11:49 PM

Frank

Thanks for you kind words....well said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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)
[linked image]

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

Tim

I guess the following statement in this cited post of mine stirred up some controversy......
" And, the T213-1 set comprises only of images from the 350-only series in the T206 set. "

I probably should have clarified it; but, for the sake of brevity I was mainly referring to the 48 Major League subjects. You have read many of my Tobacco card posts;
and, it should be obvious that I wasn't referring to the 20 Southern Leaguers in the T213-1 set. Of course I know that these 20 subjects are from the 150/350 series
of the T206 set. I have written about them in the past.

In any event, I'm sorry if by my brevity in this case, caused some consternation.

Regards,

TED Z

Abravefan11 · #17 01-29-2011, 12:05 AM

Ted - The reason for focusing on that single statement is that it goes to the heart of my argument for not including T213-1's as a T206. I felt it needed to be clarified.

If the T213-1's were comprised of just 350 Only subjects I would probably be on the side of their inclusion as T206's. But the combination of 150-350 subjects along with 350 Only subjects in the same print run is contradictory to how any back brand was printed in the whole of the T206 set.

This is in no way a definitive answer to this question that will probably be debated for many years to come. But it's the one point I can not personally get past when it comes to the T213-1 and T215-1 sets being considered as T206's.

barrysloate · #18 01-29-2011, 05:55 AM

Just to digress for a moment, I've never believed that Burdick's checklist was sacrosanct and couldn't be amended as new information became available. Burdick's cataloguing of insert cards was monumental and is surely one of the cornerstones of our hobby. But I'm sure if he were alive today he would say it is inevitable that some changes to his work would be needed over time.

Just look at the page Leon provided. Hustler is listed as a T206, Hindu was not known as a T205, and Red Cross was not known as a T207. We all readily accept that these were errors or omissions that needed updating. So why is it impossible to look at his cataloguing of T213 and say there might be an error there too?

Regardless of which side of the argument you are on here, I do not think in any way we have to look at Burdick's work as a finished product. Heck, our own Constitution has been amended a few dozen times. Why can't the ACC likewise be tweaked a little?

tedzan · #19 01-29-2011, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Ted - The reason for focusing on that single statement is that it goes to the heart of my argument for not including T213-1's as a T206. I felt it needed to be clarified.

If the T213-1's were comprised of just 350 Only subjects I would probably be on the side of their inclusion as T206's. But the combination of 150-350 subjects along with 350 Only subjects in the same print run is contradictory to how any back brand was printed in the whole of the T206 set.

This is in no way a definitive answer to this question that will probably be debated for many years to come. But it's the one point I can not personally get past when it comes to the T213-1 and T215-1 sets being considered as T206's.

Here is where you and I differ in American Litho's (ALC) printing process. You are saying your that the 48 cards depicting Major Leaguers and the 20 - Southern Leaguers
were intermixed on two 34-card sheets. From my research on ALC's printing press machinery, the tobacco cards of that era (T201's, T202's, T205's, T206's, T209's, T210's,
T211's,' T213's, T214's, and T215's) were printed in formats of 12 cards across a row (due to ALC's 19-inch wide press track). Therefore, their sheets were formatted in
12 across x 3 rows, or 12 x 4, or 12 x 5 (or as large as 12 x 6) card arrays.

A 48-card format is evident in the T206 series breakdown. For example......
150/350 series = 144 cards (48 x 3)
So. Lge. series = 48 cards (full 350 series subjects)
460-only series = 48 cards
Furthermore, there are......
T213-1 Major Leaguer's = 48 cards
T215-1 = 96 cards (2 x 48-card sheets)

I could continue with more numbers....but by now, I'm sure that many of those reading this have become bored.

If my theory (as presented here) is valid, and the numbers certainl support it....then I cannot accept your thesis regarding the T213-1 set.
It is obvious to me that the COUPON-1 back design was printed concurrently with the American Beauty, Broad Leaf, Cycle, and Drum back designs. And, we do have ALC's
records that the American Beauty 350 (frame) cards were issued in the Spring/Summer of 1910. This period was still in the 350-only series timeline. In 1910, the "COUPON"
Tobacco brand was recently acquired by the American Tobacco Co. So, ALC took a 48-card sheet with the Major Leaguer images; and, selected from a sheet of Southern
Leaguers the 20 images (depicting players in the Southern Association) to create the 68 cards in this set.

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the T213-1 cards does indeed fall within the T206 umbrella.

TED Z

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
First Time Submission	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	03-06-2009 01:28 PM
O/T - best all time	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	33	01-06-2009 09:24 PM
* Time to fire up the Network 54 Cabal again....d311s this time *	Archive	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	5	12-01-2008 01:55 PM
My first time at the National	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	07-29-2008 04:15 PM
OT but it is time for the 134th Kentucky Derby	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	100	05-17-2008 07:45 PM