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

[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

[canjond]

Leon - actually, the thicker card would pose a problem. Coupon cigarette packs are very thin paper. The use of a thicker card would have likely torn the pack.

Imagine a newly printed card with sharp corners being inserted into a thin paper pack - it would easily have torn open the product. And, after all, the card was a companion piece to the cigarettes. So, if the insert was ruining good packs of cigarettes, well then we have a problem since the product being sold is the cigarettes, not the card, and who would buy a torn pack of cigarettes?

While I certainly agree with you that it would be logical to use sturdier cardboard for a thin paper pack, practically speaking, it would have ruined the product - so a thinner, more flixible cardboard would have been more proper. Also, let's not forget that while cigarette cards were originally conceived (so the rumor goes) to add a stiffener to cigarette packs, by 1909-1911, this was not the case. Cards were widely collected at this point, and inserting cards into packs had become a "cracker jack for adults." This is clearly evident by the fact certain issues had redemptions T3s, T4s, etc. for example. Cards were collectible - the practical use of the cardboard was a thing of the past.

[FrankWakefield]

Jon, thicker paper, the thickness of T206's would pose a problem for the cigarette packages of Coupon Cigarettes, and would pose another factor for including the cards in with the T206 grouping.

It seems to me that the "Coupon" division of the ATT decided they wanted cards too, like their full priced cousins (Piedmont, Sovereign, et al) so they eventually got cards too, although thinner, and without a series designation... maybe because they weren't part of the 150 - 350 - 460 series of the other brands.

Brands with a series designation:

American Beauty
Broad Leaf
Cycle
Drum
Piedmont
Sovereign
Sweet Caporal


Brands with no series designation:

Carolina Brights
El Principe de Gales
Hindu
Lenox
Old Mill
Polar Bear
Tolstoi
Uzit


Maybe those 7 with the series designation should be one thing, and the 8 with no designation should be something else.


Thanks, Ted, for digging up that old thread, and providing the link. It doesn't surprise me that the 17 to 5 is skewed towards adding T213's and/or T215's to the T206 grouping. Almost all vintage collectors either start with T206's, or gravitate to them. So those cards are somewhat of a first love. And collectors will like the idea of adding to them. Just like that crazy, glossy front, red portrait Ty Cobb card.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Almost all vintage collectors either start with T206's, or gravitate to them.

I wasn't aware of this fact, Frank. Good piece of information.

Thank you, sir.

[FrankWakefield]

Well what old card got you interested in old cards? If it wasn't T206's, how long thereafter before you got a T206?? And do you have any T206's now???

I think most collectors start with contemporary cards. Then they might work their way back a bit. Then, if they continue to expand their collecting range, they leap back to a favorite year or card style. Either that gets them to vintage cards, or their interest in the game and game history gets them there. A kid knows about the 'Wagner' card. And while they can't own one maybe, they can buy a card from the same 'set' (which is what we're discussing here, or were, until I was jumped).

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Maybe those 7 with the series designation should be one thing, and the 8 with no designation should be something else.

* * *

[C]ollectors will like the idea of adding to them.

The fact that Burdick applied the moniker "T206" to cover cards with and without series designations means that the lack of a series designation on T213-1 is completely irrelevant to a determination here.

In addition, T206 is (obviously) my true collecting love. I also really dig Burdick. I have absolutely no interest in adding to T206 or correcting a flawed Burdick. I just happen to think this one is pretty obvious, bordering on the undeniable.

I find the arguments against including T213-1's as T206s wholly unpersuasive and easily rebutable, primarily because there is already so much variation among the different backs -- such a wide net was thrown by Burdick to cover multiple series of cards, with player variations, series size, and cardboard size (AB), it seems almost negligent to exclude T213-1. The logic for including each of the 16 different back types simply belies the logic to exclude T213-1 -- the rationale for including the 16 different backs cannot coexist with a rationale for excluding T213-1.

Moreover, I think it is obvious that Burdick excluded the T213-1s based on the later-issued Coupon series (some of the T213-1 fans arguing for exclusion essentially admit as much), and would not have done so had he known that they were issued contemporaneously with the other T206s -- which it also appears obviously to me that he did not (indeed the different later series likely provided a means for confusion here). And no one has come up with a valid response to Jon's point that T205s should have been T206-2 by the "exclusion-by-reason-of-later-series" logic, since, e.g., Piedmont made both T205s and T206s.

And, if Burdick was persuaded by the paper stock, it was because he did not realize how they were packaged in paper and that they therefore needed to be thinner, as Jon, our resident packaging expert, expertly pointed out.

Finally, to suggest that we should blindly rely on Burdick because of the passage of time, the current graded card flips, or the apparent genius of the man, is to ignore the question being asked -- namely, whether our current reliance on this age-old numbering practice should be revisited based on current knowledge of issuance of these little cardboard beauties and, most obviously, because they look one-and-the-same.

[judsonhamlin]

I think if your position is that we should focus on the company/brand for whom the cards were produced, then you are likely to agree with Burdick and leave the system as is, possible warts and all.
If your position (like mine) is that the focus should be on the company that actually printed the cards, you come down on the side of lumping the various brands advertised thereon.

As I said earlier, I do see a precedent for "lumping" - R73 Indian Gum. Non-sports guys must be able to cite other multi-year, multi-series sets printed by the same company that have one ACC #.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

I find the arguments against including T213-1's as T206s wholly unpersuasive and easily rebutable, primarily because there is already so much variation among the different backs -- such a wide net was thrown by Burdick to cover multiple series of cards, with player variations, series size, and cardboard size (AB), it seems almost negligent to exclude T213-1. The logic for including each of the 16 different back types simply belies the logic to exclude T213-1 -- the rationale for including the 16 different backs cannot coexist with a rationale for excluding T213-1.

Paul thanks for the well thought out post. We are obviously on opposite sides concerning whether T213-1's should be considered as a T206 so could you address how the T213-1's don't fit the printing process of the T206's?

The T206 set as we know it was printed with over 36 unique ad backs and none of those backs were printed with 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time. Each group was printed for a run and then retired to make room for the next group all the way through the set. Once a group was retired it was not brought back. So how then does the T213-1 set fit into the T206 set when it deviates from this process?

[T206Collector]

You're going to have to hold my hand through this a little bit, okay?

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

The T206 set as we know it was printed with over 36 unique ad backs and none of those backs were printed with 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time.

I don't understand this sentence. I assume you get to 36 by taking into account the different factories, overprints, and advertising colors (red/brown hindu, brown/black old mill, etc.). I do not know what you mean that "none of those backs were printed with 150-350 and 350 only subjects at the same time." Red Cobb portraits were printed with these backs, right?

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Each group was printed for a run and then retired to make room for the next group all the way through the set.

Again, what about, e.g., Red Cobb?

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Once a group was retired it was not brought back. So how then does the T213-1 set fit into the T206 set when it deviates from this process?

Again, when was Red Cobb retired? And how does T213-1 deviate from this process?

Maybe you could help answer my questions by explaining how the production of EPDG and Polar Bear differ from the production of T213-1?