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

[tedzan]

Tim

You have to be careful with this premise of yours, as it has an underlying fallacy......
"The proof again for me is that at no time in the T206 run did they print both 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time."


From the printer's viewpoint at American Litho (ALC), in the Summer of 1910, all 48 Southern Lger's (SL) were no longer 150/350
subjects. They were simply 350 series subjects, since ALC had then switched to printing PIEDMONT 350 backs on all 48 SL cards.

Recall, that one factor that we both agree on is....that ALC pre-printed sheets with the front images. The backs of these sheets
were blank, awaiting ALC's printing of the various T-brands (as the demand from the various tobacco Factory's came in). Actually,
as far as the printer was concerned, these pre-printed sheets had NO series identification, since they were blank-backed.

Since the COUPON Tobacco Co. was a new acquisition by ATC, they most likely cobbled together in a hurry this COUPON set to get
these cards out to the New Orleans factory. So, some smart designer at ALC checked-out the Sporting News (or a Reach BB Guide)
and selected 20 ballplayers (from the 48 Southern Lger's) that played in the Southern Association.....and, included them along with
the 48 Major Leaguers to create the T213-1 set. It's simply as neat as that. It's not "Rocket Science"


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Tim

You have to be careful with this premise of yours, as it has an underlying fallacy......
"The proof again for me is that at no time in the T206 run did they print both 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time."


From the printer's viewpoint at American Litho (ALC), in the Summer of 1910, all 48 Southern Lger's (SL) were no longer 150/350
subjects. They were simply 350 series subjects, since ALC had then switched to printing PIEDMONT 350 backs on all 48 SL cards.

TED Z

Ted my premise is not a fallacy. The 48 Southern League players were not printed at the same time as 350 Only players. Yes they both exist with Piedmont 350 backs but they were not printed at the same time. I'm not sure how that statement is a fallacy.

After the Southern League players were pulled from printing there was another print run before the 350 Only players were introduced.

Originally Posted by tedzan

Since the COUPON Tobacco Co. was a new acquisition by ATC, they most likely cobbled together in a hurry this COUPON set to get
these cards out to the New Orleans factory. So, some smart designer at ALC checked-out the Sporting News (or a Reach BB Guide)
and selected 20 ballplayers (from the 48 Southern Lger's) that played in the Southern Association.....and, included them along with
the 48 Major Leaguers to create the T213-1 set. It's simply as neat as that. It's not "Rocket Science"

It might not be "Rocket Science" but it doesn't take wild speculation to figure it out either. The Coupon set was being marketed in the heart of the Southern Association and there were 20 available images on hand at ALC of Southern Association players that had been used in the T206 set. In fact 8 of these 20 did not play in the Southern Association in 1910. They were all selected in early 1909 to be included in the T206 set. So no smart designer needed to grab a guide and decide who to include in the T213-1 set. They had long before been chosen.

So without getting off on too many tangents please answer this one question before we move on:

Was there a time in the printing of the T206 set that the Southern Association players were being printed simultaneously with the 350 Only players?

**I edited this for the sake of accuracy. I originally posted that 10 of the 20 Southern Association players did not play in the league in 1910. The correct number is 8 as two remained in the league but played for different teams than the one listed on their card in the T213-1 set.

[Leon]

Really now, guys. The original question of this thread had to do with the thinking of T213-1 being classified, by Burdick, as a T206. It is painfully obvious ya'll don't care about the original question posed and are going off on more tangents than the number of liver pills Carter had. I think this is all great information about series', number of cards in rows, super duper Willy Wonka theories of short prints etc.....but it really has nothing to do with the original question. If ya'll really think Burdick gave that much thought to all of these elongated theories ya'll have surmised, then I need some of what ya'll are on. There is an elephant sitting in the corner of the room, his name is "Common Sense" and just like the emperor's clothes, no one sees it. I really feel it was as simple as Burdick seeing the different types of Coupon cards, seeing they didn't fit in with the T206's, and labeling them T213. He absolutely made a very concerted decision in how he classified them, keeping T206 in mind the whole time. Please carry on now .

[Abravefan11]

Leon -

Whether the original questions was why did Burdick classify T213-1's as T206 or was he correct in classifying them as T213-1's my goal in every post I have made has been to address one of those two questions or respond to questions as to why I believe how I do in either case. If it's "painfully obvious" that I am I off topic in either regard I'll gladly refrain from posting any further.

Great topic and one that will be debating for a long time to come I'm sure.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Leon -

Whether the original questions was why did Burdick classify T213-1's as T206 or was he correct in classifying them as T213-1's my goal in every post I have made has been to address one of those two questions or respond to questions as to why I believe how I do in either case. If it's "painfully obvious" that I am I off topic in either regard I'll gladly refrain from posting any further.

Great topic and one that will be debating for a long time to come I'm sure.

Hey Tim
I guess my original question could have been phrased differently.

I thought the question was- Did Burdick get the classifications correctly? And my answer is an unequivocal, yes, and they should be just as they are.

I think you and I are on the same side of the debate, but for different reasons? I just keep seeing all of these convoluted (but very logical and good) explanations, however, I think they miss the mark of the original question, that is all. (or at least the intent of the question)

Please do keep discussing it as that was part of the reason I started the thread. I feel the debate is deeper than Mr.Burdick took it, that's all. I respect yours and Ted's analysis as they involve some great reasoning and research. I am only hoping the bit of common sense theory, pertaining to why he did it and if it was correct, could be interjected too, that's all. He had a huge undertaking and I find it hard to believe he got that in depth, in thought, with these few series. He was more involved with other series than sports altogether. I feel we have to analyze how he was thinking more than how these series were printed, to reach the answer. Maybe I am wrong though?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by Leon

Did Burdick get the classifications correctly?

Leon - I answered that question several times during the discussion including Post #40 and #121 in which I said:

"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."

I don't believe he ever thought as deeply about whether to include them or not as some of us have.

I'm certainly not trying to get the discussion off topic and I have probably said enough about the matter. Again great topic and I'll step aside and let others continue the conversation from here.

[T206Collector]

Honestly, Leon, its like you haven't been reading the dialogue. To want this all to go away based on what burdick was or wasn't thinking at the time is lame. Duh.... We all agree why he made them 213, common sense and all. He wasn't an idiot. But that's hardly the end of the debate ....or what makes the original posted question interesting or entertaining.

To me, the interesting question is really whether the logic burdick utilized in classifying 206 can be faithfully applied to 213 -- not whether he was right or wrong in not doing so.

Originally Posted by Leon

Really now, guys. The original question of this thread had to do with the thinking of T213-1 being classified, by Burdick, as a T206. It is painfully obvious ya'll don't care about the original question posed and are going off on more tangents than the number of liver pills Carter had. I think this is all great information about series', number of cards in rows, super duper Willy Wonka theories of short prints etc.....but it really has nothing to do with the original question. If ya'll really think Burdick gave that much thought to all of these elongated theories ya'll have surmised, then I need some of what ya'll are on. There is an elephant sitting in the corner of the room, his name is "Common Sense" and just like the emperor's clothes, no one sees it. I really feel it was as simple as Burdick seeing the different types of Coupon cards, seeing they didn't fit in with the T206's, and labeling them T213. He absolutely made a very concerted decision in how he classified them, keeping T206 in mind the whole time. Please carry on now .

[cfc1909]

this is the question

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

So without getting off on too many tangents please answer this one question before we move on:

Was there a time in the printing of the T206 set that the Southern Association players were being printed simultaneously with the 350 Only players?

[barrysloate]

I think Leon hit the nail on the head, that is: did Burdick really analyze these sets as he was putting together the ACC? Almost certainly, he did not. Baseball cards were only a small part of the work he was doing, and I believe most of his work was done through observation, and as Leon said, simple common sense.

I respect the arguments that Ted, Tim and others made here, and regardless of which side of the argument you are on- either Coupon is or isn't part of T206- I can say with near certainty that Burdick didn't theorize all this stuff. It's a great exercise for Net54, and we are always adding new information to what we've known up to this point, but Burdick did not have many theories at all about any of these cards. His life's work was merely to assemble the cards and build the checklists. And to be sure that was no small task.

[T206Collector]

Nobody is saying that Burdick theorized any of this stuff, or frankly was wrong in his classification. For sure, the debate has often been conducted in terms of whether Burdick was right or wrong. When you peel back that question, however, it is clear that he had an appropriate justification for what he did. But then the real debate begins, which again is whether the laws that apply to 206 can be faithfully applied to 213-1.

If the only question is whether Burdick made a reasonable classification based on his knowledge and understanding at the time, well that question hardly warrants any kind if spirited debate at all - the evidence is overwhelmingly in Burdick's corner.

[tedzan]

You have the "wisdom" of Solomon.....well said.

The last time (July 2008) we a seriously debated this subject we ran it up to 132 posts............

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=90200

Now, we have exceeded that number of responses....it is certainly a thought-provoking subject.

With 20 inches of snow, and 12-foot drifts outside here in Pennsylvania, you get a warm feeling
by sitting in front of a keyboard, "talking baseball", and "re-inventing the wheel"


TED Z

[barrysloate]

Ted- both of our cars and buried under snow, and we can't get either of them out. It's wearing us down.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Was there a time in the printing of the T206 set that the Southern Association players were being printed simultaneously with the 350 Only players?

Sorry Leon I just can't leave it alone when it comes to making sure factual information is being put forth on the board.

Ted - You did not answer my question above with a Yes or No so I am left to assume one of two things from you post.

1 - You are avoiding the direct question of whether they were printed simultaneously and mudding the argument by lumping the SL and 350 Only players under the broad "350 Series" group.

2 - You believe that by being "350 Series" subjects that SL and 350 Only subjects were printed simultaneously.

As I have stated before the Southern League subjects were carried over from the 150 series into the very first print run of the 350 series. When that was completed the Southern League players were pulled from production never to be printed again in the T206 set. After that there was another print run of 150-350 subjects with "350 Series" ad backs. Then these subjects were discontinued and the 350 Only players were introduced.

At no time during the T206 printing process were Southern Association players on the same stone coming off the same press being printed on the same sheet as 350 Only Subjects. In the Coupon set they were on the same stone being printed on the same sheet.

Again Leon sorry for jumping back in but I feel nothing is more important than sharing and defending the facts of the T206 set.

[cdn_collector]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

As I have stated before the Southern League subjects were carried over from the 150 series into the very first print run of the 350 series. When that was completed the Southern League players were pulled from production never to be printed again in the T206 set. After that there was another print run of 150-350 subjects with "350 Series" ad backs. Then these subjects were discontinued and the 350 Only players were introduced.

At no time during the T206 printing process were Southern Association players on the same stone coming off the same press being printed on the same sheet as 350 Only Subjects. In the Coupon set they were on the same stone being printed on the same sheet.

Many on this board have probably forgotten more about this hobby than I have ever known, so please pardon me if I'm out of line, but how can you possibly know this?

I find your argument both compelling and intriguing -- I just don't understand how this is the first time I've read this stated with such certainty. I assume 'stone' refers to the actual printing plates/blocks used to produce the card fronts, but I didn't think anyone knew about their configuration.

Respecting that you've said it would take too much to explain, can you post the abstract version of the explanation, please? I am really really curious to hear more details.

Regards,

Richard.

NB. I'm supposed to be narrowing the focus of my collection. It is these kind of threads that prevent me from being able to completely disassociate with the monster. Leon, as the fellow that started this thread, I am holding you responsible for the most recent person to 'encourage' my addiction

[steve B]

Stone would be the actual lithographic stone which served as a printing plate.
They were a special grade of limestone, specially prepared for use in printing. The portion of one I've seen (NOT T206 or any other card) was tan and about 2 inches thick with a very smooth surface. The design to be printed was acid etched into them. When the print run was done they would typically be ground or etched flat and reused.

Modern plates have a limestone like surface on an aluminum plate. And a stick of limestone is still used as a chalk to repair scratches etc.

Figuring out the exact layout can be challenging, as you need to know the size first, then have access to lots of the product. And even then as you can see differences of opinion will arise. Caused by questions like how much margin was left for trimming, how many sheets of how many subjects, stuff like that. I haven't seen anywhere near enough cards - especially in original collections. But the main experts in the debate have, and spending enough time with their data will help some.


Steve B

Steve B

[tedzan]

From the printer's viewpoint at American Litho (ALC), in the Summer of 1910, all 48 Southern Leaguers (SL) were no longer "150/350 subjects".
They were simply in the production timeline of the 350 series subjects, since ALC had then switched to printing PIEDMONT 350 backs on all 48
SL cards.
And, there is a very good likelihood that these printers had no concept of "150/350 series" or "350-only series", etc., etc. These are terms that
hobbyist have devised in the past 60-70 years in order to better understand The Monster.

During 1910, an ALC printer would take a 48-card sheet (pre-printed with front images of the 48 SL players) and placed it (blank-back up) on
his press ready to print the PIEDMONT 350 backs on to this sheet....per requests from Factory #25 in Richmond, Virginia.

Try to understand that 100 years ago these stockpiles of pre-printed sheets did NOT have any "series" identification as we refer to them now.
They were produced and available to meet the demand of the various Tobacco Factory's.



.......... Ted Breitenstein ................................... 1909 ............................... 1909 ....................... 1910





....... Shaughnessy .................. 1909 ......................... 1909 ........................ 1910



My research and discussions with many T206 experts over the past 31 years has formed my opinion that the COUPON-1 cards are part of the
T206 set. Furthermore, the Burdick info that Leon posted reinforces this opinion, as it reveals to us that Burdick was misinformed on the timeline
of the COUPON-1 cards. And, made a "mistake of convience" by lumping this set in with the 1914-1919 issues (T213-2 & T213-3).

This is my 3rd response to your question; nonetheless, you keep repeating it. That tells me that my response to you is being ignored, otherwise
you would engage in further discussion. Therefore, I'm wasting my time....and, at this point, continuing this, is futile. It ends here....as I will be
away for a couple of days.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Ted - I find it disappointing that you feel the need to be so patronizing and think the things that I have to share regarding the T206 set are a waist of your time. I will however continue to try and "reinvent the wheel" if that means sharing research based on facts and not wild speculation.

Richard - As for your question "but how can you possibly know this?" I'm enjoying a great day with my kids and a response to your questions will take a little time to put together but I will get to it later today.

[tedzan]

AS I HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED IN A PRIOR POST........

Originally Posted by tedzan

From the printer's viewpoint at American Litho (ALC), in the Summer of 1910, all 48 Southern Lger's (SL) were no longer 150/350
subjects. They were simply 350 series subjects, since ALC had then switched to printing PIEDMONT 350 backs on all 48 SL cards.

TED Z

..............................................1909 .........................1909..................... ....1910



THEREFORE,
THE 1910 COUPON SET IS A COMBINATION OF "350 SERIES" SOUTHERN LEAGUERS (20 cards) AND "350-ONLY SERIES" MAJOR LEAGUERS (48 cards).


TED Z