Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Burdick classified T213’s the following way (verbatim from the 1960 ACC)

T213- Baseball Series, Coupon cigts. Designs of No. T206 .25
2 types: name in brown as in No. T206 or name in blue. On card or heavy paper. Issued 1914-15 and includes Federal League. Many team changes. Name in blue value .35


He goes on to say that T214 and T215 both use designs of No. T206 and both are similar to T213. He states these things very plainly. Had he wanted T213(-1) in T206 he would have done so and not used the phrase “heavy paper” above, obviously referring to T213-1 Coupons. I consider, from what he stated, the type 1’s and type 3’s should potentially be consolidated into one series…or he didn’t know about the type 3’s when he finished the catalog, which is possible, and leaves the T213-1's as the heavy paper ones he was referring too. Whether he should have done so or not, he did what he did, fully understanding where No. T206 fit into his/the equation.....I will just go against the grain on this one I guess….It won’t be the first time…I guess next we can argue W600 and H801-7 Old Mill…...best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

In all deference to Burdick, he got this one wrong. He was right 99+ % 0f the time; but, he was not infallible.

I have a question for you (or anyone else who doesn't think COUPON-type 1 is a T206 issue).

Of the 16 different T-brands, can you name any other T206 back design style that is repeated over 5 T-brands ?



..............A..............................B.... ...........................C...................... ...........D






I say this is NO mere coincidence....the A-B-C-D T-brands and COUPON were designed & printed by American
Lithographic during the Summer of 1910. And, marketed by the American Tobacco Co. This fact is undeniable.

The COUPON (type-1) can be considered an "ASSORTED" extension of the A-B-C-D connection (since it is not
identified as "350 Subjects").....but, indeed it is part and parcel of the T206....350 Series. The Subjects depic-
ted on the 68 cards confirm this fact.

I have more questions to hit you with, but I'll leave at this one, for now.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

We can argue till the cows come home (I love saying that) and it won't change a thing.. Burdick even referenced T206 as similar designs...Good debate and sort of fun....I still say T213 is correct and am still odd man out. ....as usual. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

"PS I shot 73 with 4 Birdie's from the tips and beat 2 tour players..."


Brian - if you don't mind a round of golf with a hacker.... maybe one day we can get together and you can give me some pointers

nice round!

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I believe your quote from the 1960 ACC actually tends to prove the opposite point, i.e. that Burdick got it wrong. "Issued 1914-15 and includes Federal League" is wrong--we know that type 1 Coupons were issued in 1910. It appears he incorrectly lumped them together, and assumed they were all issued several years after T206, which is why he couldn't call them T206. His premise was flawed. Seems he just missed this one.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I think Todd is right. Burdick got the date wrong on the T213-1s and thus misidentified them according to his own system. The other thing this confirms is that he was not a clear writer and could have used a better editor. Where was Barry in 1960?
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I guess a bit of this is semantics with me. He might not have known the exact year (T213-3 was later too) but he got the type of cigarettes correct and labeled the cards together per his thinking. Could he have made a mistake on this? Sure, I just don't think so. He did definitely miss the boat on several notable others ie...W503, W600, H801-7 ...and I am sure there are more....best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

You're right...."Good debate and sort of fun...."

But, I cannot accept your...."he did what he did" (Burdick) as a valid reason to continue referring to these
first 68 cards of the COUPON Tobacco brand as anything other than a 16th brand of the T206 set.
Have no fear, though, as nothing will change because of this (or any other) debate we have on this topic
on this forum.

I, and others, will call these Coupon cards "T206's"......and, you and others will call them "T213's"......and,
then some wont give a Tinker' damn what they are called.

Recall my old adage....that we live in a 1/3 world. Hey, 1-for-3 in Base Ball gets you into the HOF every time.

T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Ted, my friend....that's pretty damn funny. You made me smile.......take care

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Joe,
I used to be a "player" before I got married and had kids... So now I can shoot 68 or 85 on any given day. I'd be honored to tee it up with you anytime. Be well Brian

PS LMK if you make down to NC or SC and we'll hit a few.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

Brian - sounds cool.

If I can make it to NC or SC I will email you ahead of time.
I'm part of that $9 fare club.... so if a cheap airfare gets emailed to me - maybe I can shoot down there for a round of golf.

And if you find yourself heading to the NY area.... let me know.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric B

Ted, I think your picture of the 5 backs seals it - Coupons are definitely T206-16's.

Now how do we decide which brand is T206-1, T206-2, T206-3, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Well, the first three T206 sub-sets should be as follows......

T206-1......PIEDMONT

T206-2......SWEET CAPORAL

T206-3......SOVEREIGN

then, how about the following sub-sets as a function of their issue date......

T206-4......HINDU (brown)

T206-5......OLD MILL (Southern League)

T206-6......El Principe de Gales

T206-7......OLD MILL (Assorted)

T206-8......POLAR BEAR (Assorted)

T206-9......TOLSTOI (Assorted)

T206-10.....CAROLINA BRIGHTS (Assorted)

T206-11.....AMERICAN BEAUTY

T206-12.....BROAD LEAF

T206-13.....CYCLE

T206-14.....DRUM

T206-15.....COUPON

T206-16.....LENOX

T206-17.....HINDU (red)

T206-18.....UZIT


I'm sure to get some arguments on these classifications....and, that's just fine.


TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

Ted, interestingly (and ignoring the Coupon argument as I do not think they belong with T206)Cycle's are in the middle of some tough, tough backs but to me, at least, seem to be easier than say Carolina Brights or Broad Leafs.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Remember, I have classified them in chronological order.....not as function of their scarcity.

Regards,
TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Why is Coupon included?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

Ted, yes I see but there is a rough correlation (as I am sure you know) between issue date and scarcity. Cycle and American Beauty I would think should come before Carolina Brights on a scarcity basis. Just curious why some late printed brands might be easier than others.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

T206-19 Ty Cobb brand.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: ty_cobb

T206-1......SWEET CAPORAL issued July 9, 1909, advertised the week prior.

T206-2......PIEDMONT

T206-3......SOVEREIGN

then, how about the following sub-sets as a function of their issue date......

T206-4......HINDU (brown)

T206-5......EL PRINCIPE DE GALES

T206-6......OLD MILL (Assorted)

T206-7......POLAR BEAR (Assorted)

T206-8......TOLSTOI (Assorted)

T206-9.....CYCLE issued July 3 1910.

T206-10.....AMERICAN BEAUTY

T206-11.....CAROLINA BRIGHTS (Assorted)

T206-12.....BROAD LEAF

T206-13.....DRUM

T206-14.....LENOX

T206-15.....HINDU (red)

T206-16.....UZIT


The 1st series of Coupons are definitively a 1910 issue, and of course with the shared
T206 subject matter, one can argue for the sake of arguing the 'proper classification'.
But to me, doesnt differ a whole lot with the situation regarding 'brown caption' T215
Red Cross, so I'm comfortable listing the Coupons as a group. (although I agree w. Brian
Weisner as to time of ATC's print, issue, similarity etc etc)

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Notice that I have grouped the ASSORTED brands together, and Carolina Brights is at the end of that group.
Coupon (also an ASSORTED brand) should probably be inserted between Carolina Brights and American Beauty.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

TY COBB

Have to seriously differ with you........Both the Magie error (PIEDMONT 150) and the Joe Doyle error (PIEDMONT 350) cards
tell us that the very 1st press runs at the start of each Series had to be printing the PIEDMONT brand. The Sweet Caporal
press runs shortly followed.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: ty_cobb

Not contesting that Piedmont is the most complete subset, or that it contains
the most corrections of subject matter. My thinking is that Sweet Cap was issued
in Pennsylvania first (w. Wagner & Plank).

If Piedmont issues the Wagner 'first', then you have to come up with a reason
why they discontinued him from production and then Sweet Caporal
comes out way later and starts re-issuing the Honus Wagner all over again??

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Oh snap!

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Where have you been ?

Why don't you join the fray on this one....it's your kind of stuff.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Mr. TY COBB

Reprising what we know about these 5 Subjects........

150 Series

Jennings (portrait).....exists only with PIEDMONT 150

Magie (portrait)........exists only with PIEDMONT 150

Plank (portrait).........exists with PIEDMONT 150, SWEET CAP 150/25 & SWEET CAP 150/30

Wagner (portrait)......exists with PIEDMONT 150, SWEET CAP 150/25 & SWEET CAP 150/30

350 Series

Joe Doyle (error).......exists only with PIEDMONT 350

Plank (portrait).........exists only with SWEET CAP 350/30


The Plank and Wagner cards being available with more Sweet Caporal's than Piedmont's are somewhat of a mystery. Sometime
back, I hypothesized that Plank was "yanked" due to the American Caramel Company having exclusive rights to Plank (E91 and
E90-1 sets preceded T206)....Ditto, for Wagner.
This litigation forced ATC to "cease and desist" their initial Piedmont Plank's and Wagner's (although a few Wagner's "escaped"
into the marketplace). However, the 2nd press run of Sweet Cap. Plank's and Wagner's did make it into in the marketplace for
a short while....until the "cease and desist" order caught up with this batch.

What is NOT a mystery is that Magie, Jennings (in the 150 Series), and Doyle do not exist as Sweet Caporal cards....PERIOD.

These 3 T206's without a doubt prove that the Piedmont brand was the 1st printed and the 1st in the marketplace.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

We will accept a different cardstock (Coupon), and different size and cut (American Beauty) because the criteria are that they were issued with ATC tobacco products in the requisite years. If Ty Cobb brand was a special short-term promotion and due to the loose leaf format, they had a glossy coat put on the front of this short run to protect them from the kind of tobacco damage suffered by Polar Bears, why would that be sufficient reason not to count them as T206s?
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

To add to what I said above, it has been postulated here that Coupons were on thin stock due to packaging necessities (thin paper packaging that could be ripped by harder stock). We don't know why ABs are thinner since it seems AB packs have been found and it seems they could have had a full-sized t206 in them. So their thin cut is a bit of a mystery, though it was long thought that the reason was a smaller package. Maybe the interior packaging still required a smaller card. Regardless, it seems that adjustments were made to accommodate the specific needs of specific brands. So why not on a short run special production?
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jim- as long as you are asking, here is the main reason why I think the Cobb back may not be part of the T206 set:

Every one of the other 15 advertising backs was printed in series. Each has anywhere from 520 known cards, such as Piedmont, to perhaps 120-150 cards, such as Drum. In each case a promotion would have been successful in getting a smoker to keep buying packs, as there was always the prospect of finding new players one didn't have.

The Ty Cobb brand consists of a single player and pose. That means after you bought your first pack you were finished with your set. I can't imagine what kind of promotion that would be. Therefore, I don't even believe it was found in a pack of cigarettes. I think it was more a point of purchase item, given to the consumer, by the tobacconist, who bought Ty Cobb tobacco.

Ever go into a bookstore, for example, buy some books, and then have the cashier hand you a bookmark with the store name and address on it? That would insure that if you used the bookmark you wouldn't forget the name of the store. That's my opinion of how this card was distributed. It's a conjecture, I know that, but the fact that only a single pose was issued suggests this is unlike any of the known T206 brands.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Barry,
That is an interesting theory and quite possibly a correct scenario. So much about the Ty Cobb brand is a mystery. Obviously it had a very short run, which is probably part of the reason for only one subject (not to mention the name of the brand). I am not convinced that the number of subjects in the series was a key characteristic of "T206" given that all the brands had varying numbers of subjects. If you are right that it was a promotion handed out by the tobacco seller as a promotion, rather than inside a Ty Cobb tin does not seem to me to be a big issue either with regard to labeling them as T206.
Best,
Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Happy 4th of July....this should make your day.

Although, I tend to agree with Barry's well stated argument here......I have included the Ty Cobb back in this list.

My skepticism is based on my feeling that this T-brand was produced post ATC divesture (circa 1912); and there-
fore, does not fall under the T206 rubric. Nevertheless, here you go.


The following T206 sub-sets are listed in approximate order of their issue date......


T206-1......PIEDMONT

T206-2......SWEET CAPORAL

T206-3......SOVEREIGN

T206-4......HINDU (brown)

T206-5......OLD MILL (Southern League)

T206-6......El Principe de Gales

T206-7......OLD MILL (Assorted)

T206-8......POLAR BEAR (Assorted)

T206-9......TOLSTOI (Assorted)

T206-10.....AMERICAN BEAUTY

T206-11.....BROAD LEAF

T206-12.....CYCLE

T206-13.....DRUM

T206-14.....COUPON (Assorted)

T206-15.....CAROLINA BRIGHTS (Assorted)

T206-16.....LENOX

T206-17.....HINDU (red)

T206-18.....UZIT

T206-19.....TY COBB


TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

My friend....let me simplify this for you...




T206 - White borders ...different brands

T213- Coupon cigarettes- 3 series..





Now isn't that much cleaner and simpler?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Ted, my friend,
Happy 4th back at you.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I like to complicate things....too bad I wont be in Chicago next month, otherwise you and I could extend this debate over a
couple of drinks. Perhaps then, we could resolve this controversy.

Have a Happy 4th of July......

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jim- one thing you said that was interesting is we are not sure what the criteria is for a T206, other than what has been assimilated from the time Burdick began his mammoth project to what we know today. Funny thing is, when the set was released circa 1910 it wasn't called anything. How do we know with certainty that everything we've learned about the set is what was intended back then? Could the original designers and printers ever imagined that the set would be talked about 100 years later? Could they ever imagine how valuable the cards would be? Certainly not.

So whatever T206 means to us today is our recreation of what we think it was supposed to be. Did we get it right? Who knows.

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

Defining T213 is just as important as defining T206. T213-1 has many more differences(including paper stock)with T213-2 & -3 than it does with T206. Essentially the only similarity between T213-1 and -2 & -3 is the Coupon reverse/advertiser.

All the subjects (68) in T213-1 are identical to T206 350 series subjects. The 20 Southern Leaguers are all from the Southern League--those T206 subjects from the Virginia League, South Atlantic League, and Texas League were excluded.

With regards to T215-1 as being T206,I haven't completed my homework yet. But upon cursory review, there are enough differences to exclude them from T206--different captions, scattered subjects, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Barry said,
"Jim- one thing you said that was interesting is we are not sure what the criteria is for a T206, other than what has been assimilated from the time Burdick began his mammoth project to what we know today. Funny thing is, when the set was released circa 1910 it wasn't called anything. How do we know with certainty that everything we've learned about the set is what was intended back then? Could the original designers and printers ever imagined that the set would be talked about 100 years later? Could they ever imagine how valuable the cards would be? Certainly not.

So whatever T206 means to us today is our recreation of what we think it was supposed to be. Did we get it right? Who knows."


Barry,
On this, we are in complete agreement.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jim- it's all about how we recreate history. We can research it exhaustively but will always get some things wrong.

[Archive]

Posted By: barry arnold

Very well said, Barry S.

Yes, we will get things wrong just as Burdick himself and others did decades ago.
Perhaps what is most important at this juncture is the rising consensus which is coming about through this exhaustive research, as you so aptly put it
Barry S., and collegial inquiry which ultimately cares more about the truth,as best as we can define it, than any cavalier oneupsmanship.
And what a great college of inquiry has evolved over the years since ACC.
And what a great indebtedness we owe to those from the beginnings.

best,

barry

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

Perhaps the most important factor against T215-1's is the fact that the backs say "100 subjects", a number which is not associated with any of the T206 series.

I am among those that consider the t213-1's as likely being part of the T206 promotion. I brought it up a couple years ago on the board and was basically called an idiot, but I guess the tide has turned. All this being said, nobody will ever actually call them T206 (even if everyone agreed).
-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

If similarity is the deciding factor, then we should combine the 1933 Goudey and 1933 WWG sets, and the 1934 Goudey and 1934 WWG sets. Perhaps we should reclassify Tango Eggs as E106.

And what do we do about 1921 and 1922 American Caramel E121s? There's the 1921 E121 Series of 80, and the 1922 E121 Series of 120. Should we now call it one complete 200 card set? Or should they be renamed E121-1 and E121-2, respectively?

And why stop there? Let's combine the 1951 Topps Red Back and Blue Back sets. Maybe all OPC and Topps Venezuelan sets from the same year should be combined with their Topps counterparts. 1956 Topps is close enough to the 1955 Topps set -- let's call it the 1955-56 set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Rivera

ABCD t206s are all factory no. 25 2nd district Va. and the Coupon is factory no. 3 district LA.
They may have some of the same fronts but I believe the factory 3 Louisianna seperates it from ABCD factory 25 VA T206s.
But there may still be a chance for type 1s tobe included because of EPDG out of factory 17 and Polar bear out of factory 6 were included.

EPDG factory 17 district VA.
Polar Bear factory 6 district O.-is that New Orleans Louisianna?

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

Excuse me if this has already been discussed, but has the date of issue for the Ty Cobb Back ever been verified?

How do we know that it was issued during the same timeframe as the rest of the T206 brand runs of 1909-11?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

My skepticism of this back is based on my feeling that this T-brand was produced post ATC divesture (circa 1912); and
therefore, does not fall under the T206 rubric.

Its District 4, North Carolina implies a Plant near Durham....but, its Factory #33 is a mystery.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

"The thinner paper was to conform with product packaging (I believe someone pointed out evidence to support this)."

Joe D- do you think that minute fraction of an inch (probably the thickness of a strand of hair), was to conform to product packaging?


Ted- interesting thread, who really knows...


Brian- when discussing golf scores here, please tell us what you shoot on a regulation course, not "chip & put"...thanks!


Happy 4th everyone!!!

i'm going to a rooftop party later (high-rise building on 34th & the east river, 30th floor), RIGHT infront of the Macy*s Fireworks Display!

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

Michael,

"Joe D- do you think that minute fraction of an inch (probably the thickness of a strand of hair), was to conform to product packaging?
"


quick answer: yes.

With any printed piece that is intended to be inserted into packaging - thought goes into the paper weight and how well it would work with the packaging. To think that they might just print up the cards and then afterward think about how it would fit into the packaging, would be - well..... simply ludicrous. So yes - I have to believe the packaging was a factor in the paper choice of the insert.

As a matter of fact - I would bet anything the decision to go with the lighter paper had more to do with the product packing than it had to do with any potential burdick, leon, ted z, or N54 T-designation of the card.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

Joe- i'll defer to you, since it is your profession.

now, if we were talking about how to design a chair leg, well, then you'd defer to me!



happy 4th!

when are we getting dinner???

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

Michael -

well its all theory (by all of us) - so who knows?

I am sure there are other plausible explanations... but considering everything, I think the packaging conformity is the most likely reason for the lighter paper choice.


As far as chair legs... I will definitely defer to you!

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

"Excuse me if this has already been discussed, but has the date of issue for the Ty Cobb Back ever been verified? "

No, no dating has ever been verified.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Michael,
Happy 4th... We'll be in the backyard watching the fireworks from the Club with most of our neighbors and friends. We'll leave a chair open for you... Be well Brian

PS Actually we were playing from the tips at about 7000 yards... But I was happy to hit one through the clown's mouth...smiley...

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

Bri, Joe, Jim, Ted...etc.

everyone have a safe 4th!

i'm gettign ready to watch the Hot Dog Eating Contest on ESPN!!! (12 Noon)