Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?

[G1911]

If we assume authenticity and accuracy (there are some conflicts with data on the card backs in non-baseball sets compared to what the journal states), over 3/4 of the ATC journal is missing, based on the page numbering that goes to at least 380 in the surviving pages. Personally, I don't see how was can say a set is not in there, and that its lack of inclusion is evidence it is from a separate run as a result. We do not know the table of contents pages (which appear to have been amended as pages were added) are all present. We would need the entirety of the book to say this with any degree of certainty.

Second, Polar Bear absolutely was an ATC brand in the T206 distribution period, Continental was a subsidiary of the ATC they used to manage multiple smaller brands. That does not mean PB's were printed at the same time as other backs, but this does not seem to hold weight as a reason to support a claim it is a separate release.

If PB's were from years years later, like in 1914 as was alluded, like T214, T213-2 etc., the selection and team captions are very, very odd. I can't see why Demmitt (he wasn't in the majors in 1911, 1912, or 1913) and O'Hara (never played a game in the majors after 1910) would be updated for late 1909 (Demmitt was swapped Dec. 16, 1909, not sure on O'Hara) trades and the numerous other players who changed teams or left the league were re-printed without any updates years later. That seems even odder to me. I've always thought PB was just printed at the end of the production run that included O'Hara and Demmitt. The PB cards also do not betray the low-quality print that the ALC 'reprint' issues had, like T213-2, T213-3, T223. This does not rule it out, of course.

I'm not seeing much evidence to support the notion, certainly not a preponderance that the general understanding in the hobby is wrong or has less evidence than this claim. I don't have enough money into T206 to have a dog in the fight, I'm open to the notion if the evidence supports it. I'm just not seeing that evidence. I'd be happy to be proven wrong and learn something new, PB's are the coolest looking back in my book and I go out of my way to add them over other backs.


EDIT: After looking at my copy of the .pdf'd ledger again, it is obvious the table of contents with brands is not complete and at least 1 full page of it is missing. This makes the claim that PB is NOT in the ledger even more difficult to sustain.