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

[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.