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

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Leon

I didn't want to get into this discussion again and hijack Ted's great thread on the T206 reference, back/series updates. So, I will politely start this thread concerning my thought on T213-1 and T215 not being part of T206. Now, I as much as anyone, realize Mr.Burdick made some mistakes in his monster undertaking of the ACC. I fully understand that H801-7 should be a T-Card and W600 should be an M card. I got it. There are other things that should be changed too that are fairly obvious errors. I know we have discussed this a million times but there are folks on the board today that weren't on the board last time we discussed it. So, maybe it can benefit them in having this again, as well as appease me.

One of the ways Burdick cataloged cards was to do it by manufacturer, after he declared it an advertisement card, an insert card or a souvenir card. Of course the T206s were inserts. Of course t206s had many different ads on the back....but, as far as I know, they didn't have different color captions (unless it was an error) or different type stock. So tell me again how T213-1 is a T206, when Burdick didn't classify them that way? Same thing with the T215 series....the 2nd series has blue captions on front bottom. If anyone is tired of this debate please don't throw any rocks. It won't last too long and you don't have to click on this thread .

Your 1st sentece (2nd paragraph)......
" One of the ways Burdick cataloged cards was to do it by manufacturer,"......

....is where you (or Burdick) are mistaken. What you have stated here, is that Burdick thought these cards were "manufactured" at the Factory of the Brand they advertise.
I really doubt that Burdick's thinking was as you say. We all now know that these American Tobacco cards (T3, T201, T202, T205, T206, T209, T210, T213, T214, & T215)
were all designed, printed, and shipped from one location in New York City.
But, if you are right regarding Burdick's thinking (as some collectors still do), that these cards were produced at the Factory of that Brand....then it behooves us to correct
this fallacy. The 1910 Coupon set (of 68 cards) and the T213-1 set (of 96 cards) need to be re-classified as sub-sets of the T206 Monster.


TED Z

[T206Collector]

Okay, so let me get this straight -- we all agree that:

1. T206s have over a dozen different backs; and

2. The T213-1 Coupons have identical fronts, including associated player and team designations, to corresponding T206 cards, and were issued within the 1909-11 time frame.

The first time I learned this, I immediately realized that there was a mis-classification here.

Let me try to end this debate --

1. Put a T213-1 Coupon Red Background Ty Cobb in a stack with the 16 other T206 Red Background Cobbs with every available back -- EPDG, Piedmont, Polar Bear, American Beauty, etc.

2. Grab a non-baseball card collecting fan from the general public.

3. Tell the person that one of the cards is not a T206, but the other 16 are.

I would bet you'll get as many or more votes for AB or PB than for your Coupon card....


There is simply no relevance to a classification based on a later series of cards issued in later years.

[ethicsprof]

T213-1 coupon is a T206 without equivocation.
as Paul M argues succinctly and persuasively:
They "have identical fronts, including associated players and team designations,to corresponding T206 cards, and were issued within the 1909-11 time frame." And i must say that the writing on the backs sure reminds me of the look of some of the T206 backs as Ted has elucidated quite well on several occasions on various threads.
I am not as certain about the red cross but lean toward their being included but do so with some equivocation presently. As the old professors would say:
it looks like a matter for further research and additional corroboration from peers in the refereed scholarly journals or scholarly reviewed monographs.
all the best,
barry

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ethicsprof

T213-1 coupon is a T206 without equivocation.
as Paul M argues succinctly and persuasively:
They "have identical fronts, including associated players and team designations,to corresponding T206 cards, and were issued within the 1909-11 time frame." And i must say that the writing on the backs sure reminds me of the look of some of the T206 backs as Ted has elucidated quite well on several occasions on various threads.
I am not as certain about the red cross but lean toward their being included but do so with some equivocation presently. As the old professors would say:
it looks like a matter for further research and additional corroboration from peers in the refereed scholarly journals or scholarly reviewed monographs.
all the best,
barry

Hi Barry
You know you are one of my favorite guys on the board, but when you see 3 very experienced collectors, out of the last 4-6 posts, completely disagree with the assumption that T213-1 is a T206, you can find there is no equivocation? I find that to be a rather fallacious syllogism.

[FrankWakefield]

The more I read this, and recall the last time this was hashed, the more satisfied I am that those of us who have an opinion on this are steadfast in their thinking, and aren't likely to change their thinking. Including me.

IF the only Coupon cards that we find were all Coupon type 1's, then I'd think they could, nay should be in T206. But those aren't the only Coupons (and no, I don't consider that conceding all that it takes to make Coupons, or ALL Coupons, into T206s. If Coupon 1's had "350" series (which would be consistent with their subjects, captions, and timeframe) then I might get there. But Coupon 2's have that gloss, and the blue... and the time-line on the 2's and 3's are way beyond that of the T206s. For me lumping Coupon's together seems sensible. Those Coupons issues years after T206s and the blue captions dragged the entire issue away from T206 and into their own thing, T213's.


It seems to me that some folks just 'want' them to be T206s. Like some folks want that glossy front, one of a kind, Ty Cobb backed Ty Cobb card to be a T206; I'm satisfied it isn't.

As for T215's, one oddity for me is the horizontally formatted back. That's always caused me concern. I could see, as above, that if the type 1 T215's were the only Red Cross cards, then I can see how they might have crept into T206. I understand what's got everyone agitated and stirred. But Red Cross continued with their type 2 cards. Which are different, and which are being printed much after T206 production has stopped. And these later printed type 2 cards are reason for a separate designation, T215, again dragging all Red Crosses into that one designation.

The chronology is a significant factor. I have doubts any modern printer would be able to print a card exactly like a T206 was printed. I think there are a couple of places that can do that quality of lithography, maybe. [It amazes me that a kid looks at a modern Topps card, and at a T206, and thinks the Topps card has superior printing, that old lithography is beyond what Topps could do... it's art.] If I were to print a new 550 series card on identical cardstock (I'll buy a bunch of T51's, bleach 'em clean, then soak 'em clean), with identical style, there's not a one of you who'd think that should be considered a T206. Why, because it was printed later, not contemporaneously, with our dear T206s. THAT's what's happened here. Those later issued Coupon and Red Cross cards pull the type 1's away from T206 and into their own designation.

It seems to me that some folks just "want" these cards to be T206s. Similar to how some folks want that Ty Cobb backed, glossy front, red border Ty Cobb card to be a T206; I'm satisfied it isn't.

[ethicsprof]

I am inclined to think that all arguments on this thread, including my own,
exhibit syllogistic fallacy. My use of the word 'equivocation', however, is not
fallacious, since the fallacy of equivocation is committed when one uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time around. There is no such ambiguity offered in my use of the words in the initial sentence with which you find fault.
Further, 3 collector out of the 4 of the last 6 posts may well find fault with the data provided within the syllogism, as you, and even I do, but their arguments do not deal intentionally, nor obliquely with the issue of the fallacy of equivocation as I explicate above.

Perhaps more importantly, we have become mighty good friends over the years!!!!
all the best,
barry

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ethicsprof

I am inclined to think that all arguments on this thread, including my own,
exhibit syllogistic fallacy. My use of the word 'equivocation', however, is not
fallacious, since the fallacy of equivocation is committed when one uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time around. There is no such ambiguity offered in my use of the words in the initial sentence with which you find fault.
Further, 3 collector out of the 4 of the last 6 posts may well find fault with the data provided within the syllogism, as you, and even I do, but their arguments do not deal intentionally, nor obliquely with the issue of the fallacy of equivocation as I explicate above.

Perhaps more importantly, we have become mighty good friends over the years!!!!
all the best,
barry

Hey 'Ole Friend,
I think I will just go with ya' on this one. First ones on me when we meet!! Happy collecting,
LL

[Abravefan11]

I'll try to keep this brief and if anyone cares for me to elaborate on anything just let me know.

The T206 set follows a very rigid rule when it comes to subject groups being discontinued. Once the print runs for the 150-350 Only group had concluded and the 350 Only group printing began the 150-350 Only cards were never printed again. Same goes for the transition to the 460 Series. No 150-350 or 350 Only subject is brought back during those print runs. The Coupon Type 1 set does just that. It combines 150-350 Subjects with 350 Only subjects. By the time the 350 Only group was being printed the Southern League players had been pulled from printing.

As far as the back design is concerned it does look like the American Beauty, Broad Leaf, Cycle, and Drum, but that is where the set similarities end. We know that the A+B+C+D group front images were preprinted and then printed with all four back designs. The sets are a match with the same players included and excluded. The Coupon Type 1 set includes players that are no prints in the A+B+C+D group. This shows me that the Coupon set is unrelated other than back design.

I believe the Coupon Type 1's were a unique set created using existing T206 materials to save costs but not part of the T206 set.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

I'll try to keep this brief and if anyone cares for me to elaborate on anything just let me know.

The T206 set follows a very rigid rule when it comes to subject groups being discontinued. Once the print runs for the 150-350 Only group had concluded and the 350 Only group printing began the 150-350 Only cards were never printed again. Same goes for the transition to the 460 Series. No 150-350 or 350 Only subject is brought back during those print runs. The Coupon Type 1 set does just that. It combines 150-350 Subjects with 350 Only subjects. By the time the 350 Only group was being printed the Southern League players had been pulled from printing.discontinued. Once the print runs for the 150-350 Only group had concluded and the 350 Only group printing began the 150-350 Only cards were never printed again.

As far as the back design is concerned it does look like the American Beauty, Broad Leaf, Cycle, and Drum, but that is where the set similarities end. We know that the A+B+C+D group front images were preprinted and then printed with all four back designs. The sets are a match with the same players included and excluded. The Coupon Type 1 set includes players that are no prints in the A+B+C+D group. This shows me that the Coupon set is unrelated other than back design.

I believe the Coupon Type 1's were a unique set created using existing T206 materials to save costs but not part of the T206 set.

1st......Your...." Once the print runs for the 150-350 Only group had concluded and the 350 Only group printing began the 150-350 Only cards were never printed again."

Not true....the T215-1 set has a confirmed Matty (white cap) card in it.

2nd......Your...." The Coupon Type 1 set includes players that are no prints in the A+B+C+D group. "

Not so....Most of the 48 Major League (ML) subjects in the T213-1 set can be found with AB 350, BL 350, CY 350, and DRUM backs.
Furthermore, I count as many as 15 of these 48 ML subjects that are in the T215-1 set.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey people, if we are to have a serious debate on this subject lets get our facts straight. So far, all I have seen is some people have some sort of loyal following to Burdick;
and, are averse to changing anything he proclaimed. But, he was NOT INFALLIBLE.
Others think, that the school of thought that COUPON-1 and RED CROSS-1 belong to the T206 family, lean that way because...." some people just want them to be T206s ".
The MONSTER is complicated enough, so what sane collector would want to add more T-brands to this complex mix ? ?

In my mind the one factual piece of evidence is illustrated in this scan. One artist employed by American Litho. designed these 5 backs in the Spring of 1910. And, 1000's of
WHITE-BORDERED, BROWN CAPTIONED T206 cards with these advertising backs were inserted in their respective cigarette packs in the Summer of 1910.



TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

I'll try to keep this brief and if anyone cares for me to elaborate on anything just let me know.

The T206 set follows a very rigid rule when it comes to subject groups being discontinued. Once the print runs for the 150-350 Only group had concluded and the 350 Only group printing began the 150-350 Only cards were never printed again. Same goes for the transition to the 460 Series. No 150-350 or 350 Only subject is brought back during those print runs. The Coupon Type 1 set does just that. It combines 150-350 Subjects with 350 Only subjects. By the time the 350 Only group was being printed the Southern League players had been pulled from printing.

As far as the back design is concerned it does look like the American Beauty, Broad Leaf, Cycle, and Drum, but that is where the set similarities end. We know that the A+B+C+D group front images were preprinted and then printed with all four back designs. The sets are a match with the same players included and excluded. The Coupon Type 1 set includes players that are no prints in the A+B+C+D group. This shows me that the Coupon set is unrelated other than back design.

I believe the Coupon Type 1's were a unique set created using existing T206 materials to save costs but not part of the T206 set.

Well said Tim. These cards have some "similarities"....but that's about it. And when you factor in that they came out with a second and third series (T-213) where they moved even further away from imitating a T206, it seems to me that Mr.Burdick got it completely right in the way he classified these cards.

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Since you didn't reply to my earlier post here, I guess you are of the opinion that these WHITE-BORDERED, BROWN-CAPTIONED
Tobacco cards that were issued in 1910 to 1912 were designed and printed at each Tobacco factory.

Furthermore, you are the one (not Barry A.) who are fallacious, using a brief response and faulting him.
Even your partner, Scott, favors these cards as being "T206's"......
" Many thanks Ted,

This in and of itself should be considered a major reference in regards to the matrix of T206's.

For the record I fall into including T213-1 and 215-1 as part of this comprehensive production. If one did not have knowledge of
Burdick's guide, and laid them out as you have in the scan of backs you would absolutely believe them to be part of the family. "


A larger representative survey would result in better representation of this controversy.

Oh, by the way, THANKS for hi-jacking my thread.

TED Z

[canjond]

Let's also not overlook the fact that Coupon Type I's say "Base Ball Series" on the back. Type IIs and IIIs did not retain this. Further proof, IMO, that Coupon I's were issued in the same "series" as T206s since every T206, regardless of brand, states "Base Ball Series."

I might be more inclined to agree with those who feel content with Type I's being classified with other Coupon types if the IIs and IIIs had retained this language - but the later types didn't. Only the Type Is have it.

Again, I see no difference between Sweet Caporal and Piedmont issuing cards in both the T206 and T205 sets - clearly different sets and the cards look different. Same with Type Is and IIs/IIIs - different sets and the cards look different.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Oh, by the way, THANKS for hi-jacking my thread.

TED Z

I am hoping this is a joke as it is one!! I specifically started this thread so as NOT to hijack the other one. As for the time line I didn't address, I think it has been addressed quite well already. I doubt there will be a consensus on this subject so I will defer to what Burdick did and what is continuing in the hobby. Proof is in the pudding.....

[E93]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

There is simply no relevance to a classification based on a later series of cards issued in later years.

Exactly. And in the absence of later Coupon sets from the post-T206 era, I think there is no doubt that Burdick and everybody since would consider them to be T206s.

My vote goes with Coupon Type 1's as T206.
JimB

[B O'Brien]

I do love this debate and always have, but I do have a question.

According to the experts on the board, what would it take to make the T213-1's a T206? Would it be some kind of documentation from ATC as to orders, print runs, or marketing action plans produced by the leadership team of the ATC in late 1909? Would it be something else (AB wet sheet transfer?)? I am just wondering. In my work life, I am not a fan of debating, I just like to know what it takes to sway opinion to believing in a fact, and then work to that goal. I am not saying that this would ever be produced, but just wondering what it would take.

O hell, that sounded like a work email! Please forgive me!!! Also, I would love to see some answers to this question.

Hope all is well,
Bob

[canjond]

Honestly Bob - not even sure a wet sheet like you pose would do the trick. There is no question the cards were printed at American Litho in NYC... same place the "accepted" T206s were printed. It's easy to speculate that the cards were being printed at the same time, and a wet sheet transfer happened that way. After all, there are T206s backs that have laxative ads printed on them - originating from some other print run that American Litho must have contemporeanously been doing.

I think this is certainly one of those friendly debates where the sides will forever stay apart.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by canjond

I think this is certainly one of those friendly debates where the sides will forever stay apart.

I agree 100% with that statement even if I feel strongly that they are not T206's. As I've stated in my previous post the T213-1's contradict how the T206's were printed and I won't be able to get past that I don't think. But if someone else can that's all good too. It's a fun conversation.

[jimonym]

SGC's labels are incorrect. These cards were not put out by the "Coupon Cigarette Company," but by the American Tobacco Company, same as T206's. Anyone know why they started labeling them that way?

[steve B]

I would think an AB wet sheet transfer on a coupon would be very suspect. Brands just wouldn't have been likely to get mixed like that.
I've totally revised my thinking aboout wet sheet transfers/ offset transfers recently. I showed why in a recent thread that drew no attention.

I'm on the fence about Coupon and Red Cross Type 1s being T206s. The best argument against the coupons that I've seen is the timing of the print run and what cards are included. That puts the production outside of normal T206 production so I'd be inclined to lean towards the no side.

Does any ATC paperwork exist? I wonder how the brands were chosen to include T206s or not. Was it part of a company wide overall marketing campaign, or were there individual brand managers who had a choice.
I can see maybe the Coupon manager either getting approval in late or deciding later on that he wanted certain groups of players and cheaper stock. That might sway me into thinking they are t206s.

I'm also a bit biased against the idea. Firstly from tradition. Silly, perhaps, but I like silly old traditions. Secondly because I have no Type 1 Coupons or Red Cross. I've come to grips with the probability that I'll always be 3 backs short of a complete back set, adding 2 more fairly tough ones would be a bit of a setback.

Steve B

Steve B

Originally Posted by canjond

Honestly Bob - not even sure a wet sheet like you pose would do the trick. There is no question the cards were printed at American Litho in NYC... same place the "accepted" T206s were printed. It's easy to speculate that the cards were being printed at the same time, and a wet sheet transfer happened that way. After all, there are T206s backs that have laxative ads printed on them - originating from some other print run that American Litho must have contemporeanously been doing.

I think this is certainly one of those friendly debates where the sides will forever stay apart.

[cdn_collector]

For the past few weeks [months?], I have been watching Ted's threads about the various confirmed back lists for each 'accepted' T206 brand. As he got closer to list number 14 I started to wonder if he'd then post a Coupon Type 1 and/or Red Cross Type 1 list. And once that happened, I wondered who would be the one to post the "are they or aren't they" thread. I don't think we'll ever get consensus on the issue, much like we'll never get consensus on who should and shouldn't be in the hall of fame. I guess that's what makes baseball -- and baseball cards -- fun. So many angles, so many opinions, so many debates. And sometimes they can even be friendly ones

When this argument came around the last time, I found myself wanting to believe that T213-1 and T215-1 *should* be T206s. That's right, I said it. I *wanted* to believe. I hoped that some shred of unquestionable proof would be presented to seal the deal, but none ever did. At the same time, I didn't see that there was that one piece of unquestionable proof to prove the opposite, either. And as such, for me, I'm not convinced one way or the other, which allows me to believe what I want. And as Frank [I believe it was] stated earlier, some people just want them to be T206s. I'm one of those people.

However, out of respect for the work that Burdick did, I won't call them T206s. In my mind they are all 1909-12 American Tobacco Company White Borders. And maybe it's only because the fronts are so identical, but that's good enough for me for now.


Regards,

Richard.

[FrankWakefield]

Well said, Richard.

Bob, can you look at it from the other perspective, what proof would convince you that T213-1's and T215-1's should be as Mr. Burdick designated them, and not T206's???

[B O'Brien]

Frank,
Nice reply (and also the others, thanks), see my thoughts below!

Craig,
It is easy to see our different areas of work based on our replies! Hope all is well my friend.

I was once asked in a Lit class what Hemmingway had in mind when he wrote one of his short stories. My reply was (to this one instance), that he had nothing in mind, he was just writing to make a few bucks and pass some time. As much as I hate to say it, I am inclined to think that the ATC was marching to the same beat.

Our well loved T cards, produced by the ATC were just slinging material. There was no grand plan, as much as I wish otherwise. I think with the thin stock of the T213-1's, could have just as easily been used for a percentage of the 350 Cycles. I think they had a tiny run request from the Coupon brand manager (!) and just happened to have some crap stock on hand from the board vendor and ran the Coupons to run it out, being that the on hand stock was equal to the 350 series order requested by the boys in NOLA. After all the cards were going down to BFE LA, so who cares about quality control!

I have checked the replies to my last post and see plenty of beating around the bush. I am well aware of the reasons not to include the T213-1's, but what would make them T206's without question?

As always, bottoms up,
Bob

[judsonhamlin]

I come down firmly on the side of including T213-1 and T215-1 as part of the T206 family. The similarities, to my thinking, outweigh any of the differences in stock or team caption. Although I am not a non-sport collector, I think a useful parallel might be the R73 Indian Gum set. Despite the differences in the color of the banner ad at the bottom of the cards, background color changes and the various "series of..." reverses, all 400+ varieties were produced by Goudey in the '30's and all are called R73. Even the post-war version gets a R773 designation. Here, regardless of the brand advertised and the caption and stock, the cards we now call T206, T213-1 and T215-1 were all produced by ALC in the 1909-12 time frame. To me, the rationale seems to be similar. Why lump one set and not the other? I think Burdick got wrapped up in the brand/factory designations as the primary identifying feature of the cards and ignored or was unaware of the printing point of origin for these cards as being the overriding common denominator.

[White Borders]

I propose that Coupon Type 1's are both T213-1's and T206's. Same goes for Red Cross' being both T215's and T206's.

This is easily explained using quantum mechanics.

Sir Isaac Newton (Leon) claimed that light (Coupon Type 1 or Red Cross) behaved as particles (T213-1 or T215, respectively).

Contemporaneously (I kinda like that word), Christian Huygens (Ted Z) was steadfast in that light (Coupon Type 1 or Red Cross) behaved as waves (T206).

Eventually the work of great minds such as Planck (No, not the pitcher), Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein, and others brought forth the Duality Theory, which recognized that light (Coupon Type 1 or Red Cross (remember this post is about baseball cards)) behaves as both particles (T213-1 or T215, respectively) and waves (T206).

And I just realized that Physics and Physical Chemistry would have been a lot easier if I had collected these T-Cards back when I was in college

Best Regards,
Craig