|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Someone give me a good reason why Type 1 Coupons are not considered T206.
Posted By: robert a
Reasons for: |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Someone give me a good reason why Type 1 Coupons are not considered T206.
Posted By: leon
As we know Coupon Cigarettes were made mostly at Factory 3 in LA. and a few type 3's from Factory 8, in LA. Burdick describes them as the following, in the venerable ACC: |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Someone give me a good reason why Type 1 Coupons are not considered T206.
Posted By: Paul
Were Coupon cigarettes issued by the American Tobacco Trust that issued the T206s? I always assumed that the Louisiana cigarette companies were not part of the American Tobacco Trust, but I could be wrong. A different issuer would explain (or at least justify) the different designation. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Someone give me a good reason why Type 1 Coupons are not considered T206.
Posted By: Rhett Yeakley
Very same argument could easily be made for the T215 Type 1's. It may very well have been the thinner stock for the t213-1's that prompted the different designation. The t215's do say 100 to series on back so maybe that was the prompting for those. I knew an old time collector that had a few coupon in his t206 set, and to be honest they didn't really seem out of place. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Someone give me a good reason why Type 1 Coupons are not considered T206.
Posted By: MVSNYC
i don't know enough (hardly nothing) about coupons, but the fronts do look identical, and yes, similar printing aesthics on reverse. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Someone give me a good reason why Type 1 Coupons are not considered T206.
Posted By: robert a
Thanks for the replies. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Someone give me a good reason why Type 1 Coupons are not considered T206.
Posted By: T206Collector
...in favor of treating each of the different ad backs in T206 as a separate card set. But I am still quite willing to give Burdick's designation and logic full weight. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Someone give me a good reason why Type 1 Coupons are not considered T206.
Posted By: barrysloate
Given the monumental contribution Burdick made to the cataloguing of insert cards of all kinds, and the fact that he had virtually no references to use other than the knowledge and experience of fellow collectors, it is amazing the ACC designations are as accurate as they are. In fact, you would expect that some of the determinations he made fifty years ago would be disputed today. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can someone give me the name of some good books?? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 02-26-2008 01:10 PM |
Is there a link to look for Ebay coupons or Paypal coupons? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 12-10-2006 09:30 AM |
Just another good reason to list with a BIN .... | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 0 | 09-27-2006 04:17 PM |
a good idea...Network54 Type Card Collection | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 43 | 03-30-2006 03:16 PM |
We prefer to deal with each other for good reason. | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 01-25-2006 10:18 AM |