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

[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.

[T206Collector]

In my view, Tim has offered the only persuasive rationale for non-inclusion. He has identified a printing rule for the coupons that is different from all other t206 issues. Whether that leads you away from t206 or not, it is at least a concrete rationale. Tim's argument would be determinative if all t206 print runs adhered to the same schedule. Or did they? Is the wide net cast by Burdick large enough to encompass the manner in which coupons were printed in 1910?

[White Borders]

Barry & Tim,

Thanks for the info regarding the Hustler back ... I just went back to rerun my search and realized I had transposed the "s" and the "t" the first time which is why I didn't get any hits

Thanks again and best regards,
Craig

[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