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

Leon · #1 01-28-2011, 07:58 PM

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 · #2 01-28-2011, 08:37 PM

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

novakjr · #3 01-28-2011, 08:38 PM

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 · #4 01-28-2011, 08:45 PM

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 · #5 01-28-2011, 09:07 PM

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 · #6 01-28-2011, 09:20 PM

Quote:

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 · #7 01-28-2011, 10:25 PM

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.

Abravefan11 · #8 01-28-2011, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

34 different images repeated multiple times.

caramelcard · #9 01-28-2011, 10:34 PM

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

FrankWakefield · #10 01-28-2011, 10:39 PM

I think the World Tobacco Index, which antedates the American Card Catalog, the WTI grouped cards by the tobacco brand.

So maybe the right way to address this all would be to give each brand its own distinct number. Not T206-1, T206-2.... but T400 for American Beauty, T401 for Broad Leaf, T402 for Coupon, T403 for Cycle, T404 for Drum...

Maybe, to the extent Mr. Burdick fouled things, he did it by lumping the different brands into T206, T205, and T207.

tedzan · #11 01-28-2011, 10:46 PM

Quote:

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 · #12 01-28-2011, 10:57 PM

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 · #13 01-28-2011, 11:13 PM

Quote:

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.

FrankWakefield · #14 01-28-2011, 11:24 PM

I hope you're right, David, about folks learning about the Coupon and Red Cross cards.

I consider the purpose of this place is to be a forum for knowledge and ideas. And there's some card savvy folks here. It bothers me when the snapping drives a few away for a time.

Abravefan11 · #15 01-28-2011, 11:25 PM

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.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
First Time Submission	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	03-06-2009 01:28 PM
O/T - best all time	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	33	01-06-2009 09:24 PM
* Time to fire up the Network 54 Cabal again....d311s this time *	Archive	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	5	12-01-2008 01:55 PM
My first time at the National	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	07-29-2008 04:15 PM
OT but it is time for the 134th Kentucky Derby	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	100	05-17-2008 07:45 PM