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

[insidethewrapper]

As new data is received opinions and history can be changed. We all know now that Abner Doubleday had nothing to do with baseball but he is still considered (by some ?)to have invented the game. Wrong information takes a time to die. The same with Burdick, he was not always right ( especially with the year of release) on the T213-1.

Maybe the T213-1 should be listed as 1910 T206-2 Thin Paper Type ( Regional). Therefore it could be connected with the T206 set, but not be part of it.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

As new data is received opinions and history can be changed. We all know now that Abner Doubleday had nothing to do with baseball but he is still in the HOF. The same with Burdick, he was not always right ( especially with the year of release) on the T213-1. Maybe the T213-1 should be listed as 1910 T206-2 Thin Paper Type ( Regional). Therefore it could be connected with the T206 set, but not be part of it.

Just a clarification: Abner Doubleday is not in the Hall of Fame. He's noted, of course, and the ball field is named after him. But he is not an inductee. Sorry - not trying to hijack this fascinating thread! ~ Ken

[Abravefan11]

I agree that it is strange that no uncut sheet has ever surfaced from such a large issue as T206. We know from cards like blank backs and Brown Old Mills that sheets or parts of sheets left the building, but it's fascinating that none have been found. I still hold out hope.

Rob D. - I have seen a strip larger than the five in the Wagner proof.

[caramelcard]

Tim,

It seems like your reasoning makes really good sense, but do you think that's what Burdick was thinking when he separated T213 from T206?

Rob

[Abravefan11]

Rob - I think Burdick as several others have said grouped the Type 1's separate from the T206 because the Type 2 and 3 cards existed. If there were no Type 2 or 3 then Type 1's would be part of the T206 set. So in my opinion he got the designation correct but for the wrong reason.

[caramelcard]

Fair enough, but wouldn't you suggest that T213-1 are closer to T206 than to T213-2 and T213-3?

[FrankWakefield]

I think that T213-3's seem 'closer' to T206's. And I don't at all think that T213-3's should be in with T206's.

At least with the -3's, the paper is the same, the caption is of the same style, and the front artwork is identical. With the -1's there is the paper difference.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by caramelcard

Fair enough, but wouldn't you suggest that T213-1 are closer to T206 than to T213-2 and T213-3?

This is where I think I view things a little differently than some. T213-1's are closer to "looking like" a T206 in all facets of it's composition than -2 and -3, but if it was not printed concurrently as part of the same set it's no more a T206 than either of the other two.

If we had the stones, paper, and equipment we could reproduce the images today and they would look and feel just like a T206, but I doubt anyone would say they are part of the set. This is why I feel putting so much emphasis on the appearance of the cards and how closely they do or don't resemble each other is not nearly as important as how the printing procedure and subject groups that make up the sets differ from T206.