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

[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

[Abravefan11]

I agree completely with Rhett and Barry as to why Burdick cataloged the T213-1 and T215-1 as he did. My opinion is he did the right thing but more than likely for the wrong reason.

[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.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't know of any other sets that this was done in, period. So I am not sure that proves anything at all. I also politely disagree about the theory of using paper thin cards in paper type packaging. I think it would be more likely to have the thinner cardboard/paper in a thicker pack. When I handled the Pirates pack I had, it was a paper type (thin) pack and had a cardboard type card in it.

**My theory is that Burdick classified Coupon backs as T213 when he saw them as the same sets (according to the ad on back), from different years, with different characeristics but the same mfg back. It's as simple as that...and thus they are in fact T213 and always will be. I am comfortable with it as well as all of the grading companies and many other knowledgeable collectors. There will never be 100% agreement. All that being said, I could still be persuaded to change my mind, though nothing I have read yet does that. Kind regards

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Leon

My theory is that Burdick classified Coupon backs as T213 when he saw them as the same sets (according to the ad on back), from different years, with different characeristics but the same mfg back. It's as simple as that...and thus they are in fact T213 and always will be.

Leon,
The flaw in your logic is that its basically circular - Burdick classified them as T213, therefore they must be T213. I think when distilled that your argument is that Burdick aligned them with similar sets from different years and there is nothing wrong with that. But if that's the case, was Burdick wrong for not calling gold bordered Piedmont cards T206-2? Will you admit that his decision not to call gold bordered Piedmont cards T206-2 was inconsistent with his decision to not call T213-1s T206s?

[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...

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by novakjr

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...

I guess of course this could be true, but the problem is it boils down to speculation. I like to believe that Burdick knew a little more than we do about the issue being that he was a kid when these cards were produced, and he may have known these were their own issue (T213-1, T213-2, and T213-3).

He loved these cards enough to take the time to catalogue them all, so I accept the designation he gave them. I also feel they are not T206's.

Sincerely, Clayton

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I guess of course this could be true, but the problem is it boils down to speculation. I like to believe that Burdick knew a little more than we do about the issue being that he was a kid when these cards were produced, and he may have known these were their own issue (T213-1, T213-2, and T213-3).

He loved these cards enough to take the time to catalogue them all, so I accept the designation he gave them. I also feel they are not T206's.

Sincerely, Clayton

I'm not necessarily saying they are or aren't t206's. I'm not opposed one bit to them being a separate issue. I find myself on the fence, leaning towards inclusion though...BUT I will admit that while Burdick made errors in some classifications, he also had more info to go on by being closer to that era. He may not have personally remembered the exact time-lines for everything, but had others who were a little older to ask, and maybe that's why he made the designation. I don't know though.

Anyways, this is baseball. In fact this issue perfectly fits the history of baseball, and it's origins. Many questions remain, that unfortunately can NEVER truly be answered. There is no definite evidence either way, and it will forever be left to simple speculation and personal beliefs.

I'll finish with something a little off topic. Since we have no definitive answers about the origins of American Baseball, I'm perfectly content to accept this theory.
http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/ar...als-to-p,7017/

[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.....