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

[Abravefan11]

Yes, I am taking into consideration all of the unique back designs within the T206 set.

The Red Cobb portrait is a super print. This card along with five others were introduced with the 350 Only group. When ATC and ALC retired the 350 Only group they carried over these 6 into the 350-460 group. This accounts for their being found with so many backs but doesn't contradict my point. The Red Cobb was not taken out of production and then brought back.

T213-1 deviates from this process because once the 150-350 Subjects were retired and the printing of the 350 Only players began, no 150-350 subject was ever printed again. T213-1 printed 150-350 subjects together with 350 Only subjects. This did not happen in the T206 set.

The two assorted backs that the 150-350 and 350 only cards shared were Old Mill and EPDG. However they were not printed all in one big batch. There were print runs for the assorted backs during each groups print runs. EPDG's for example would have been run during the 150-350 printing, again during the 350 Only, again during the 350-460, and again in the 460 Only runs. So the 150-350 subjects and 350 Only subjects were printed separately with assorted backs not at the same time. This was not the case with the T213-1's. They were printed all together at the same time.

Please let me know if I need to clarify anything further. I'm not the best at explaining myself on the forum apparently and I apologize for the confusion.

[T206Collector]

So....

1. 150-350 Subjects were retired and then the 350 Only Series began; but

2. Old Mill and EPDG deviate from this axiom; and

3. So does T213-1; but

4. T213-1 is different from OM and EPDG, because the latter were issued in batches rather than all at once; and therefore

5. T213-1 is not a T206?

Did I follow this logic? Are you basically pinning your argument to the assertion that OM and EPDG were issued in batches and T213-1 was issued all at once? If so, I do not see how you get from 4 to 5 above.

[Abravefan11]

No, I must have confused you and I'll try to clarify.

1) Is true.

2) Old Mill and EPDG do not deviate. When the 150-350 run was being printed they printed backs with EPDG and some with Old Mill. 150-350 production stopped and was replaced by 350 Only subjects. Once they began printing these images they printed some with Old Mill and some with EPDG. They never printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time.

3) T213-1 printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time. This did not happen at anytime in the T206 print runs with any back.

4) T213-1 are different than EPDG and Old Mill.

5) 1-4 lead me to conclude T213-1 are not T206's.

Once the images were pulled from production in the T206 set it makes sense for them to be reused as a low cost alternative to creating a new set from scratch for another project separate from T206.

[T206Collector]

....because I don't see the significance of what you see.

How do you know:

1. That T213-1 printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time; and

2. That this did not happen at anytime in the T206 print runs with any back?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

....because I don't see the significance of what you see.

How do you know:

1. That T213-1 printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time; and

2. That this did not happen at anytime in the T206 print runs with any back?

I wish there was a simple way for me to answer those two questions but there isn't. I can tell you I have studied how ATC and ALC grouped and printed cards throughout the T206 print runs and feel everything I have told you to be factual to the best of my knowledge.

Based on this information and what I know about T213-1's they were printed in the same manner as the T206's and the T213-1's were printed on two different sheets. No matter how you group the set onto the two sheets in the manner ALC printed these cards you mix 150-350 and 350 Only subjects. Something that never happened (based on my research) in the printing of the T206 set.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

I wish there was a simple way for me to answer those two questions but there isn't. I can tell you I have studied how ATC and ALC grouped and printed cards throughout the T206 print runs and feel everything I have told you to be factual to the best of my knowledge.

Based on this information and what I know about T213-1's they were printed in the same manner as the T206's and the T213-1's were printed on two different sheets. No matter how you group the set onto the two sheets in the manner ALC printed these cards you mix 150-350 and 350 Only subjects. Something that never happened (based on my research) in the printing of the T206 set.

Well, if you could affirmatively establish a printing rule for the T206 set that was not followed by any of the other T206 backs, you would have me somewhat convinced that they should be treated differently. However, since different backs had different print runs, I'm not that it really tells us anything substantive. Moreover, I suspect that Leon's point about the later T213 Series being Burdick's motivation for a different classification is why we have the different classifications. I would wager Burdick had no idea about the print runs you speak of. Thus, at best, Burdick may have been "right" but for what I believe were unjustified reasons.

[toppcat]

Burdick had help from many other collectors; I forget who helped him with the T Baseball cards but it was a prominent name as I recall. Don't forget that there could have been some access to information back them that we do not have today that helped divide up the ACC and the subgroupings.

Now I am following this and the related Red Cross thread with some interest as the debate is fascinating to me. A bigger question might be why are the type 1 Coupons and the Red Cross cards not assigned the same T number? Timing of the issues being later than T206 would have seemingly been a factor Burdick could have considered when classifying these two.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Thus, at best, Burdick may have been "right" but for what I believe were unjustified reasons.

That's basically what I said in post #40.

I wish I could better explain my position but I appreciate you giving me multiple opportunities to clarify my point. I think we got close to an understanding.