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

[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?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

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?

No, I said that it was as simple as Burdick saw "Coupon" on the backs of all 3 series, having the paper thin type 1's, the front captions being different (brown or blue), with much wider years of issuance, and therefore he labeled them correctly as T213 Coupons, as those characteristics did not fit in with T206. It's that simple.

As for T205, they have gold borders, and if you read his description in the ACC, that is the reason he labeled them the next series up. I really don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend? Just read what the gentleman wrote and it will explain everything. And of course he was human and made a few errors, however on these I don't think he did. Plus then you have to go into Hassan and HLC for the T205's and they weren't in T206, though I still think he labeled them according to their borders. (Again, I cheated, I read the ACC)

[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/

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by novakjr

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/

Nice!! Thanks for the link. Not to take this too far off of the original topic, but what is to be made of the T216's? Here is a Louisiana tobacco issue that draws it's subject matter from the E90-1 and E92 caramel cards!! You also have one type with a glossy finish (similar to the T213-2) and the other is thin paper (similar to the T213-1)................but both with brown lettering at the bottom.

Sincerely, Clayton