That's kind of my point: the ACC designation T206 reflects a series of decisions based on information available at the time to a group of collectors like us. There is nothing inherently right or wrong with the decision to canonize certain cards as T206 and make others different. The type 1 Coupons seem indistinguishable from T206 from a design standpoint, other than the paper, but we have the Kotton cards as the 'rule' governing paper differences. As for the other white series T213s, well, as has been pointed out already they had the artwork and basically redid the captions and finishes to issue the cards. What company hasn't re-used artwork whenever it could get away with it? T202 was a repurposing of T205 cards with white borders. And how much artwork is shared across T sets?
Don't forget, Camel started its advertising in the teens by deriding companies that spent money on premiums instead of the product itself. In that atmosphere a cut rate re-issue of T206 might have made sense: type 2. Then you have the Federal League and a chance to re-do some captions and issue type 3.
Last edited by Exhibitman; 12-30-2018 at 10:26 AM.
|