Posted By:
JimBTed,
I very much appreciate the work you have done on this issue and on T206s in general. You do a great service to the hobby. You are right that nobody has found definative evidence either way to date the Cobb back. So my inclination is to stick with Burdwick and the ACC designation of the card as T206 until some evidence comes in that leads definatively to a different conclusion.
JimB
P.S. I agree that if I were to have written the ACC, I probably would have categorized these cards as sixteen sets: T206-1, T206-2, T206-3, etc. But the hobby has inherited a different way of thinking about them. I applaud your pursuit of the various (sub-)sets: Piedmont, Sovereign, etc.
You know, as I write this something occurred to me. I am wondering if the ATC offering might not be accurately considered to be one set as Burdwick and the pioneers listed it. My thinking is that if some of the backs like EPDG or Sovereign 460 did not ever actually produce 460 subjects or near that many with that back, then does that number refer to the ATC offering as a whole having that many subjects?