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

[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

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

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.

TED Z

Ted I always treat you with respect on the board regardless of how much I may disagree with you. Please show me the same respect and heed your own request to "get our facts straight" before posting. At least if you're going to respond regarding my posts give me the courtesy of reading it first or asking me to clarify before telling me to get my facts straight.

1) The first quote you posted by me was referring to the T206 set. The 215-1 set as you stated does include a Matty which is contradictory to how the T206 set was printed.

2) Yes the T213-1 set does include SOME of the players included in the T206 ABCD group but it more importantly includes some that were not printed in that group. That is a far more important point that shouldn't be ignored.

[ctownboy]

My simple question is this, if Burdick would have written his book in 1912 instead of when he did, would he have classified Coupon Type 1's as T206 or T213?

I can easily see him counting Coupon Type 1's as T206's if he had written the book in 1912 and then, if he updated the book in 1920 or so, counting Coupon Type 2's and 3's as a new category - T213's.

Why a new category? Because he would have already counted the first series Coupons as T206's and then he would either have had to drag them out and put them in the new category or put the two later series in T206 also. If he did this, then he might also have had to include T215's in the T206 series since the Type 1's are similiar to T206's.

The problem then, as I see it, is WHEN Burdick wrote his book. He wrote it years after the cards were produced and lumped them together based on the advertisements on the backs instead of the size, player content and similiarities on the fronts.

David

[cfc1909]

Originally Posted by tedzan

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

Ted you say Hey People but use Tims quote about getting facts straight.
You saying, getting your facts straight, doesn't mean your facts are correct.

You use the t215-1 Matty white cap as an example of the 150 back along with the 350 and the 460s in the 215 set. This alone separates the 215 set-That does not happen anywhere in the 206 set. There are no 150s printed along with later series backs. Once the 150 fronts were stopped being used the set does NOT use them again. That is how we knew the Red Hindu Matty portrait was a fake. Even when the RH Matty was in a graded holder we knew it was no good because of this rule and you use an example from 215 to prove your point when actually it separates the 215 from 206.

You can address other collectors that have a different opinion however you want but "getting your facts straight" is disrespectful. How would you feel if you were addressed this way.
Hmm. let me see, I bet if that happened you would tell them they are "reinventing the wheel".

My opinion is 213 and 215 are related to 206, in front image only. If you know 150s are not issued later in the 206 set you can see how and why Burdick separated these issues.

These sets are very complex and Burdick got this one right.

[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

[canjond]

For those that believe that Burdick got the Coupon designation right, can anyone name another "T" set (or heck, even an "E" set for that matter), where Burdick grouped the set into types, and each type sub-set was issued with 5-year breaks inbetween?

To illustrate what I'm asking - Obaks, for example, are divided into T212 Type I, II and III. But type I was issued in 1909, type II in 1910, and type III in 1911. The release was consecutive.

In the case for Coupons - Burdick lumped them altogether into the T213 designation with different types, but give me an example of another set where type I was issued, then there was a 4 year gap before the type IIs were issued, and then a 5 year gap before the type IIIs were issued?

Again, this adds to my belief Burdick did not get the groupong for Coupons correct.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

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

Any chance that the blue letters used on the later series', point to the fact that they were intended to be their own individual issues? This lettering change seems to be an indication that the type-1's were part of the American Tobacco series that are now known as t206's. Thus the need for the lettering change. Call 'em lazy, call 'em what you will. Other brands changes styles all-together, Coupon took the easy way out by simply updating teams and letter colors, 4 years later...

[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.

[B O'Brien]

I am also a no on the 215 card.
Bob

[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