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

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by fkw

If Piedmont or Sweet Caporal also made cards in 1914 with a blue caption, Im sure Burdick would also have listed them with their own ACC # in the T213-T216+ range, and the brown caption 1909-11 Era version (T206) would be the type 1, ie T21X-1

The T213-1 and T215-1 ACC #s are correct.

This is on the money IMO.

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Your observation in Post #62 has not gotten much of a response. In my opinion, you have raised an excellent question.

But first, for those of you who are trying to follow this thread's discussions, but are unfamiliar with these tobacco cards
this illustration should help.


............T213-1 (1910)...............T215-1 (1910-12)....................T213-2 (1914-16).............T213-3 (1917-19).....................T214 (1915)



I can't find my T215-2 example, but it looks like the T215-1 card; however, its caption is printed in BLUE ink. As are all the T213-2,
T213-3, and the T214 cards.

American Lithographic (ALC) pre-printed sheets of their T206 series fronts. From these sheets depicting players in their 350 series,
350/460 series, and the 460 series....ALC then printed on their backs the COUPON, RED CROSS, and VICTORY brands.
Furthermore, in one case for the T215 sets, ALC selected a Mathewson (White Cap) from the 1st series (150/350) of the T206 set.
And, the T213-1 set comprises only of images from the 350-only series in the T206 set.

Referring back to Jon's point, it is evident in the illustration that there are significant gaps in the timeline between the T213-1 set
and the subsequent T213-2, or the T213-3 sets.

Jon, no other identically classified BB card sets by Burdick have this wide a gap in their timeline. Therefore, the only logical answer
to your question is......
"Burdick blew it", in his attempt to lump the T213-1, (-2), and (-3) sets together.

What else can I say. There are distinct differences between the three T213 cards. The 1910 COUPON looks like a T206 in all respects,
both front & back.

The T213-2 with its glossy front reminds me of an OBAK card.

The T213-3 is is thinner cut than the T213-1 and usually has a "washed-out" look on its front.

Hey guys, I leave it up to you to mull-over this.

TED Z

[Abravefan11]

NM

[FrankWakefield]

I've seen several T215's with an indentation in the edges, where maybe a rubber band or string was used to hold a bunch of them together. Obviously not the case with the pristine T215's, but when you see worn ones it seems that frequently that dent is there, as in that Miller card.

[Leon]

Burdick knew exactly what he was doing, take a look at the descriptions he used ie... the "T206 references". I feel this is more evidence he did exactly as I said. (kept it simple) Forget about all of the "factory this and factory that". Baseball is probably 10%, or so, of his total listings. He just didn't get that deep into it, imo. He collected data, put the cards next to each other to see how they looked, came up with a way to organize them, took into account a few other factors too, especially distribution method, years of distribution and manufacturer (technically distributor), and went about his cataloging. As you can see he didn't specify 3 types of T213, only 2. He lumped 2s and 3s together. Then he went onto say the T215's were the same. So once he figured out T213 he just followed his pattern for T215. He thought about them being classified as T206, he only chose not to. I don't think it was a mistake at all and he got it right, but understand there will always be some that think otherwise. Not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Kind of fun to debate though and thanks to all who have chimed in. Here is a 1953 page from the ACC, it is the same as the last version, from 1960. I don't have an earlier version but I doubt he changed the wording very much...regards

[insidethewrapper]

So what year were the T 213-1 cards released ? Burdick states 1914-15 and I've seen also 1910.

[novakjr]

Leon, the photo of that ACC page, actually points more towards him being wrong in not listing type-1 as t206. Especially considering he listed them all as being produced in 1914-15. That leads me to believe that he made his designation based on mis-information. Either that, or everyone that currently believes type-1's are from 1910 is wrong.

[chaddurbin]

it's funny in these t206/ted threads you can always count on one thing...ted being dismissive of anyone with a different view than his and he stops engaging them. maybe if he was more open-minded he could learn a couple new things instead of throwing out wild guesses and theories and presenting them as facts (and when being shown wrong he ignores them...rinse repeat).

i agree with tim/frank/rhett/jim side

[T206Collector]

Tim,

Does Teds point about t213-1 comprising only 350 series t206 cards jibe with your theory--or does that answer my previous question?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Tim,

Does Teds point about t213-1 comprising only 350 series t206 cards jibe with your theory--or does that answer my previous question?

No it does not. The T213-1 set included all 20 Southern Association players from the 150 and 350 print runs. 16 of those 20 were printed in the 150 series Brown Hindu print run. The other 4 along with the first 16 were included in the 1st print run of the 350 series that included only 150-350 players. This group was printed with Piedmont 350 and Old Mill backs. After that these 20 and the other 28 Southern League players were discontinued from the T206 set.

From there other 150-350 subjects continued to be printed with additional backs like Sweet Caporal 350 and Sovereign 350. When these print runs were completed the 150-350 subjects were retired and the 350 Only subjects began their run. Once the 350 Only run began the 150-350 images were not printed again.

I'm not exactly sure how one could say that the T213-1 set is comprised of 350 Only subjects. All 68 were printed together so you can not exclude the 20 Southern Association players simply to make the rules work for your argument. They were printed in the set and must be considered.

[novakjr]

Tim. Roughly, how many cards were on a sheet?

I'm starting to think that some sort of mathematical equation could help us figure this out a little better.

[caramelcard]

Burdick classified type 1 coupons as T213 because it was easier for folks reading his catalog to identify the cards with the other coupon issues.

I think he could've gone the other way just as easily, but didn't because he decided to group the coupon premiums together. Not only with coupons but on other occasions too.

He classified E92s together because they share front images and it would be easier for folks reading his catalog to identify the group of cards together, but it doesn't really make much sense knowing what we now know about the four subsets.

My point is...that some of his classifications don't make any sense.


Do T213s belong to T206?

If we're gonna be this picky about the naming of each issue then to me this argument makes no sense anyways. All the the different premiums should've been designated as separate issues and not grouped together in the first place.

T206-1 (Piedmont) T206-2 (Sweet Cap.) T206-3 (Old Mill SL) T206-4 (Coupon), etc, etc.

Why are Old Mill T206 cards more T206 than coupon type 1s? Because Coupon sponsored other cards that looked kind of similar to the T206 era tobacco premiums? That's not a good enough argument imo.

I could see arguing against it if there was a team change or player change, but there's not. They're the same type of cards.

Rob

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

it's funny in these t206/ted threads you can always count on one thing...ted being dismissive of anyone with a different view than his and he stops engaging them. maybe if he was more open-minded he could learn a couple new things instead of throwing out wild guesses and theories and presenting them as facts (and when being shown wrong he ignores them...rinse repeat).

i agree with tim/frank/rhett/jim side

I just got in and read this. I don't understand what your problem is ? I cannot respond to someone's comments directed at me if I'm not at home.

And, of course I know that the 20 Southern Leaguers in the T213-1 set are 150/350 series subjects. This set also comprises of 42 Major Leaguers that are strictly
from the 350-only series of the T206 set. And, an additional six Major Leaguers that Scot Reader has identified as the 6 "super-prints". These 6 subjects were init-
ially from the 350-only series. Then American Litho. extended these 6 subjects into the 460-only series.

Apparently, you haven't been reading any of my threads on the 1910 COUPON (T213-1) set. Here are some links you can click onto and read my previous posts on
this subject.....then perhaps you can apologize.

2010
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon

2008
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon

2008
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ghlight=t213-1


I just happen to think that the T213-1 cards are are part of the T206 set (and there are quite a few people here who do agree with this premise).

You apparently don't, and that's fine, too. But, do you have to resort to your diatribe against me (in post #88) ?

I have never, ever said anything to demean you (or otherwise) at any time that I have posted on this forum. So, where the heck are you coming from ? ?


TED Z

[FrankWakefield]

Most of the time on this board, I find myself either agreeing with stuff Ted says because I already thought that, or because he's convinced me. On this T213/T215 stuff, in this thread, I find my self satisfied that the thin cards issued down Louisiana way followed by thicker blue captioned cards and then later cards... I don't consider those T206s. He and I can disagree on this without fussing at one another. We can do it without baiting one another with a snide post that adds nothing... I consider Ted a good friend, but I'm not persuaded by what has been set forth. Sometimes, to me, it seems that folks challenge Ted not because they disagree with the point he's making, but because he's Ted. Like they're trying to out-think him because of his prestigious stature in our small collecting world. And several times I've thought Leon started this thread just to get one thread going about cards, he tossed out some scraps to us hungry dogs, and here we are snapping and growling. Peace.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Most of the time on this board, I find myself either agreeing with stuff Ted says because I already thought that, or because he's convinced me. On this T213/T215 stuff, in this thread, I find my self satisfied that the thin cards issued down Louisiana way followed by thicker blue captioned cards and then later cards... I don't consider those T206s. He and I can disagree on this without fussing at one another. We can do it without baiting one another with a snide post that adds nothing... I consider Ted a good friend, but I'm not persuaded by what has been set forth. Sometimes, to me, it seems that folks challenge Ted not because they disagree with the point he's making, but because he's Ted. Like they're trying to out-think him because of his prestigious stature in our small collecting world. And several times I've thought Leon started this thread just to get one thread going about cards, he tossed out some scraps to us hungry dogs, and here we are snapping and growling. Peace.

A thread like this is exactly what we all needed. No! not so we can all piss each other off, but because it makes for great debate. I'm guaranteeing the majority of us are coming out of this thread with more knowledge about the type-1 coupons than we did coming into it.

[Abravefan11]

Frank - I don't know if any of your post was directed at me but I will say the following. The T206 set is my passion and I spend a great deal of time researching all aspects of the issue. If someone posts something regarding the set and my findings differ from theirs I feel it is the best interest of everyone that I offer a different point of view. It's not to be combative or argumentative but put forth all the available information for the board to digest and decide. If someone posts something and I have a differing opinion I am going to post whether they are a board icon or new member. With that said even those with differing opinions should show respect as I believe we are all working towards the same goal of knowledge.

[tedzan]

Frank

Thanks for you kind words....well said.

Originally Posted by tedzan

Your observation in Post #62 has not gotten much of a response. In my opinion, you have raised an excellent question.

But first, for those of you who are trying to follow this thread's discussions, but are unfamiliar with these tobacco cards
this illustration should help.


............T213-1 (1910)...............T215-1 (1910-12)....................T213-2 (1914-16).............T213-3 (1917-19).....................T214 (1915)



I can't find my T215-2 example, but it looks like the T215-1 card; however, its caption is printed in BLUE ink. As are all the T213-2,
T213-3, and the T214 cards.

American Lithographic (ALC) pre-printed sheets of their T206 series fronts. From these sheets depicting players in their 350 series,
350/460 series, and the 460 series....ALC then printed on their backs the COUPON, RED CROSS, and VICTORY brands.
Furthermore, in one case for the T215 sets, ALC selected a Mathewson (White Cap) from the 1st series (150/350) of the T206 set.
And, the T213-1 set comprises only of images from the 350-only series in the T206 set.

Referring back to Jon's point, it is evident in the illustration that there are significant gaps in the timeline between the T213-1 set
and the subsequent T213-2, or the T213-3 sets.

Jon, no other identically classified BB card sets by Burdick have this wide a gap in their timeline. Therefore, the only logical answer
to your question is......
"Burdick blew it", in his attempt to lump the T213-1, (-2), and (-3) sets together.

What else can I say. There are distinct differences between the three T213 cards. The 1910 COUPON looks like a T206 in all respects,
both front & back.

The T213-2 with its glossy front reminds me of an OBAK card.

The T213-3 is is thinner cut than the T213-1 and usually has a "washed-out" look on its front.

Hey guys, I leave it up to you to mull-over this.

TED Z

Tim

I guess the following statement in this cited post of mine stirred up some controversy......
" And, the T213-1 set comprises only of images from the 350-only series in the T206 set. "

I probably should have clarified it; but, for the sake of brevity I was mainly referring to the 48 Major League subjects. You have read many of my Tobacco card posts;
and, it should be obvious that I wasn't referring to the 20 Southern Leaguers in the T213-1 set. Of course I know that these 20 subjects are from the 150/350 series
of the T206 set. I have written about them in the past.

In any event, I'm sorry if by my brevity in this case, caused some consternation.


Regards,

TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Ted - The reason for focusing on that single statement is that it goes to the heart of my argument for not including T213-1's as a T206. I felt it needed to be clarified.

If the T213-1's were comprised of just 350 Only subjects I would probably be on the side of their inclusion as T206's. But the combination of 150-350 subjects along with 350 Only subjects in the same print run is contradictory to how any back brand was printed in the whole of the T206 set.

This is in no way a definitive answer to this question that will probably be debated for many years to come. But it's the one point I can not personally get past when it comes to the T213-1 and T215-1 sets being considered as T206's.

[barrysloate]

Just to digress for a moment, I've never believed that Burdick's checklist was sacrosanct and couldn't be amended as new information became available. Burdick's cataloguing of insert cards was monumental and is surely one of the cornerstones of our hobby. But I'm sure if he were alive today he would say it is inevitable that some changes to his work would be needed over time.

Just look at the page Leon provided. Hustler is listed as a T206, Hindu was not known as a T205, and Red Cross was not known as a T207. We all readily accept that these were errors or omissions that needed updating. So why is it impossible to look at his cataloguing of T213 and say there might be an error there too?

Regardless of which side of the argument you are on here, I do not think in any way we have to look at Burdick's work as a finished product. Heck, our own Constitution has been amended a few dozen times. Why can't the ACC likewise be tweaked a little?

[White Borders]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Hustler is listed as a T206

Barry,

I also noticed Hustler in the ACC T206 list Leon posted , but I'm unfamiliar with it. Could you explain what it is, please?

Also in the list is the Ty Cobb back.

And Burdick counts 522 T206, whereas now we have 524. One of the additional two is the Joe Doyle. Is the other the Magie?

Thanks and Best Regards,
Craig

[barrysloate]

Craig,

Hustler is a tobacco brand that appears on certain non-baseball cigarette cards, but no T206 pose is known with that back.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by White Borders

I also noticed Hustler in the ACC T206 list Leon posted , but I'm unfamiliar with it. Could you explain what it is, please?

Craig,

Here's a thread on the Hustler back with some nice scans.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=123604

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Ted - The reason for focusing on that single statement is that it goes to the heart of my argument for not including T213-1's as a T206. I felt it needed to be clarified.

If the T213-1's were comprised of just 350 Only subjects I would probably be on the side of their inclusion as T206's. But the combination of 150-350 subjects along with 350 Only subjects in the same print run is contradictory to how any back brand was printed in the whole of the T206 set.

This is in no way a definitive answer to this question that will probably be debated for many years to come. But it's the one point I can not personally get past when it comes to the T213-1 and T215-1 sets being considered as T206's.

Here is where you and I differ in American Litho's (ALC) printing process. You are saying your that the 48 cards depicting Major Leaguers and the 20 - Southern Leaguers
were intermixed on two 34-card sheets. From my research on ALC's printing press machinery, the tobacco cards of that era (T201's, T202's, T205's, T206's, T209's, T210's,
T211's,' T213's, T214's, and T215's) were printed in formats of 12 cards across a row (due to ALC's 19-inch wide press track). Therefore, their sheets were formatted in
12 across x 3 rows, or 12 x 4, or 12 x 5 (or as large as 12 x 6) card arrays.

A 48-card format is evident in the T206 series breakdown. For example......
150/350 series = 144 cards (48 x 3)
So. Lge. series = 48 cards (full 350 series subjects)
460-only series = 48 cards
Furthermore, there are......
T213-1 Major Leaguer's = 48 cards
T215-1 = 96 cards (2 x 48-card sheets)

I could continue with more numbers....but by now, I'm sure that many of those reading this have become bored.

If my theory (as presented here) is valid, and the numbers certainl support it....then I cannot accept your thesis regarding the T213-1 set.
It is obvious to me that the COUPON-1 back design was printed concurrently with the American Beauty, Broad Leaf, Cycle, and Drum back designs. And, we do have ALC's
records that the American Beauty 350 (frame) cards were issued in the Spring/Summer of 1910. This period was still in the 350-only series timeline. In 1910, the "COUPON"
Tobacco brand was recently acquired by the American Tobacco Co. So, ALC took a 48-card sheet with the Major Leaguer images; and, selected from a sheet of Southern
Leaguers the 20 images (depicting players in the Southern Association) to create the 68 cards in this set.

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the T213-1 cards does indeed fall within the T206 umbrella.


TED Z