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

[B O'Brien]

I am also a no on the 215 card.
Bob

[ethicsprof]

Just got in after a lengthy class and must say that what i missed here seems much more interesting. Even though i taught the class.
Just had to say thanks Leon for the offer of free libations at the appointed time---and thanks Ted for the kind words of support.

all the best,friends

barry

[FrankWakefield]

I agree with Rhett's point about caption updates. And with Tim... And it is obvious t see that we all still think of this much as we did last time we thrashed with it.

I don't buy the idea of what if Mr. Burdick wrote the book in 1912... he'd have lumped them all together. To me that is an argument for separating them, how things can be better seen and understood with the perspective of time.

As for Ted's great scan of backs back there in post #35....

These bad boys bolster keeping Coupon's separate from T206s. All of those cards up there mention series 350, but for one. And that one is the one with those quotes. And that brand kept on with glossy front cards with the same images, blue captions with the same images, and updated captions years after T206 production. Those rascals seem different to me.


I think the Coupon cards and the Red Cross Cards were made by pilfering the artwork and style that had gone before with our traditional white border tobacco cards.

[novakjr]

"These bad boys bolster keeping Coupon's separate from T206s. All of those cards up there mention series 350, but for one. And that one is the one with those quotes. "

I don't really see what the quotes have to do with anything. Now If the quotes completely surrounded "Coupon (Mild) Cigarettes Baseball Series", then maybe I could agree that the quotes were relevant. But they don't. Now, I understand what you're trying to get at when it comes to Coupon's being the only one with that design to not have the 350. But it just seems too arbitrary to me. Now while not having the same advertisement design, the El Principe cards don't have any series designation, nor do they mention anything about "Assortments" either. Basically, every issue other than El Principe has a series designation or the simple use of the word Assortment(or assorted). Should that be considered a separate issue because it stands alone in that regard amongst the accepted brands?

Complete and total laziness in the design of the 1914 and 1919 series of Coupon seems to be the root source of all this mess. Although, the paper-stock with the type-1 is a damning issue all it's own. But that alone isn't reason enough to disclude Coupons from the Monster without more evidence against it.


Red-Cross to me still doesn't belong with the T206's.

[Abravefan11]

I think I can make my point a little more clearly.

At the time the T213-1 set was printed the 20 players from the Southern Association had been discontinued from the T206 set.

At the time the T215-1 set was printed many of the images in the set like those from the 150 and 350 series had been discontinued from the T206 set.

At no time in the printing of the T206 set did ATC or ALC bring back images once they were discontinued.

In my opnion the use of these discontinued images shows me that these two sets were put together with existing images created for the T206 set, however were not part of the T206 set.

[FrankWakefield]

Yes. The chronology separates T213's and T215's from the T206s.

[tedzan]

Jefferson Burdick did a heck of a job classifying sportscards (pre-WWII and post-war). His classification of Non-sports cards is even more impressive.
No one here denies this, we all owe Mr. Burdick a great debt of gratitude. Along with Buck Parker, Lionel Carter, Frank Nagy, etc., etc.

Having said that, there are a small % of flaws in his dating, or clarifying certain mysteries regarding certain BB cards. Regarding the T213-1 & T215-1,
can anyone show that Burdick was aware that these sets were issued in 1910, and 1910-12, respectively ?
Furthermore, was Burdick even aware that the majority of the American Tobacco Co. (ATC) cards were printed by one lithographer (American Litho.)
in New York City.
I'm not sure he did....and, this is the crux of this entire controversy.

Now, to "hang your hats" on such trivial differences regarding the COUPON-1 cards because they are printed on less rigid cardboard, or have quota-
tion marks on the word COUPON is grasping at straws.

Jon Canfield has provided a logical explanation for the softer cardboard stock......
"As for the thin stock - Coupon never made slide and shell cig packs, only paper - hence my theory why a thinner stock was used."

Quotations on the COUPON brand are there because in the Summer of 1910, this tobacco brand was not yet part of the ATC monopoly. Quotations
were also applied to the PIRATE brand, since it was a British owned tobacco company.







It's interesting that when we debated this subject in July 2008, there was 132 responses, of which there were 22 unique opinions.....17 in favor
of including the T213-1 cards in the T206 family. And, 5 keeping the T213-1 cards separate.
Link........
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon


TED Z

[Leon]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Now, to "hang your hats" on such trivial differences regarding the COUPON-1 cards because they are printed on less rigid cardboard, or have quota-
tion marks on the word COUPON is grasping at straws.

Jon Canfield has provided a logical explanation for the softer cardboard stock......
"As for the thin stock - Coupon never made slide and shell cig packs, only paper - hence my theory why a thinner stock was used."


TED Z

First of all you didn't address your oversight of me hijacking your thread, quite to the contrary, this is a thread I started?

Secondly, I respect Jon's studies on tobacciana as much as anyone I know, however, the above statement that you quoted of his is exactly the reason I think it doesn't hold water. It would make no sense to put a paper thin card in a paper pack, it would make more sense to put a thicker one in there for reinforcement, and there is precedent for that. regards