NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-27-2011, 12:20 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 34,202
Default Appease me, please....one more time T206/T213/T215?

I didn't want to get into this discussion again and hijack Ted's great thread on the T206 reference, back/series updates. So, I will politely start this thread concerning my thought on T213-1 and T215 not being part of T206. Now, I as much as anyone, realize Mr.Burdick made some mistakes in his monster undertaking of the ACC. I fully understand that H801-7 should be a T-Card and W600 should be an M card. I got it. There are other things that should be changed too that are fairly obvious errors. I know we have discussed this a million times but there are folks on the board today that weren't on the board last time we discussed it. So, maybe it can benefit them in having this again, as well as appease me.

One of the ways Burdick cataloged cards was to do it by manufacturer, after he declared it an advertisement card, an insert card or a souvenir card. Of course the T206s were inserts. Of course t206s had many different ads on the back....but, as far as I know, they didn't have different color captions (unless it was an error) or different type stock. So tell me again how T213-1 is a T206, when Burdick didn't classify them that way? Same thing with the T215 series....the 2nd series has blue captions on front bottom. If anyone is tired of this debate please don't throw any rocks. It won't last too long and you don't have to click on this thread .
__________________
Leon Luckey

Last edited by Leon; 01-27-2011 at 01:12 PM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-27-2011, 12:26 PM
usernamealreadytaken's Avatar
usernamealreadytaken usernamealreadytaken is offline
Chris
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 817
Default

My thought on t213-1's:

The only difference is the paper stock. (Though similar to an American Beauty being cut a bit slimmer)

Whats the same:
-Back design (Ted Z's has a nice lineup with AB, Cycle, etc. for comparison)
-Front Images correlate to t206 series
-Caption share same font, size and color
-Issued contemporaneously
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-27-2011, 12:32 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

I've always maintained that if Coupon had only released a single set of cards contemporary to the other T206 brands, Burdick would have included it with T206. But the additions of series 2 in 1914, and series 3 in 1919, complicated the issue. And I think that is the reason why we have T213-1, 2,and 3 instead.

Last edited by barrysloate; 01-27-2011 at 12:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-27-2011, 12:47 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 34,202
Default however

Quote:
Originally Posted by usernamealreadytaken View Post
My thought on t213-1's:

The only difference is the paper stock. (Though similar to an American Beauty being cut a bit slimmer)

Whats the same:
-Back design (Ted Z's has a nice lineup with AB, Cycle, etc. for comparison)
-Front Images correlate to t206 series
-Caption share same font, size and color
-Issued contemporaneously
However there are 2 other Coupon series, as Barry mentioned, and I also believe that is what led to the T213 classification. IS there a T206 back ad "series" with more than 1 series? (that sounded weird but ya'll know what I mean). Same thing with the T215 series.....Just trying to have a friendly debate here...
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-27-2011, 01:06 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

This has always been a debate where there are valid opinions on both sides. In fact, this is one of our better topics.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-27-2011, 01:10 PM
MooseWithFleas MooseWithFleas is offline
Dave M
member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 81
Default

Crazy the wealth of knowledge you find on this board. While it is an interesting debate, I can't see the Coupon cards ever getting universally accepted as T206's because it would ruin everyone's established conception of "The Monster". Those poor souls who are attempting to put together back collections or even the daunting Master Set would be very sad indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-27-2011, 02:05 PM
canjond's Avatar
canjond canjond is offline
Jon Canfield
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,570
Default

Leon - here's my argument

American Beauty, Sweet Caporal and Piedmont Type II's have bright gold borders around the outside and look nothing like a T206... Old Mill Type II's have bright red and/or orange borders...

All kidding aside, just as Burdick chose to group Coupons as Type I, Type II and Type III, he could have decided to classify different Sweet Caporal, Piedmont, American Beauty, etc issues as Type I, Type II, etc. He didn't. And this is where the problem comes in.

I still believe Burdick's own criteria broke down in certain instances, the biggest being that a Coupon Type I, IMO, is an extension of the T206 set. The time frame it was issued, the design, the factories, the manufacturer all match. Coupon's later issues changed the caption color instead of the border color.
__________________
For information on baseball-related cigarette and tobacco packs, visit www.baseballandtobacco.com.

Last edited by canjond; 01-27-2011 at 02:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-27-2011, 02:18 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 34,202
Default Hey Jon

Quote:
Originally Posted by canjond View Post
Leon - here's my argument

American Beauty, Sweet Caporal and Piedmont Type II's have bright gold borders around the outside and look nothing like a T206... Old Mill Type II's have bright red and/or orange borders...

All kidding aside, just as Burdick chose to group Coupons as Type I, Type II and Type III, he could have decided to classify different Sweet Caporal, Piedmont, American Beauty, etc issues as Type I, Type II, etc. He didn't. And this is where the problem comes in.

I still believe Burdick's own criteria broke down in certain instances, the biggest being that a Coupon Type I, IMO, is an extension of the T206 set. The time frame it was issued, the design, the factories, the manufacturer all match. Coupon's later issues changed the caption color instead of the border color.
Hey Jon
I am trying to understand your logic here but I am not seeing it? Burdick classified those ones you mentioned based on their white borders and (possibly) the fact there weren't other series, as T213 and T215. That is my argument and I am not sure I would conclude anything different from your analysis. Actually, you might have helped make my argument, so I appreciate that . And what about the paper-thin card stock issue pertaining to the T213-1's?
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-27-2011, 02:27 PM
novakjr novakjr is offline
David Nova.kovich Jr.
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 20 miles east of the Mistake
Posts: 2,269
Default

The Coupon's I would definitely consider counting as t206's. Mostly due to the fact that there are only 68 of them that mirror the master series, while not specifically being designated as anything other than "Base Ball Series" on the back. Which seems to fit the exact same pattern as many of the accepted t206 brands. The lack of a series number(ie:150,350...) or the use of the word assorted or assortment does concern me. But then again, I don't believe the El Principe cards mention a series number or assortment either. And due to the blue lettering I would not even really associate these with the type 2 or 3s. Basically, for all usable purposes the type-1 t213's are t206's. Although the paper stock issue does leave a lot of room for discussion.

Now for the Red Cross's. Despite being the exact same cards, the designation of "100 designs" on the back, leads me to believe that these indeed were intended to be their own set. While all other accepted T206 brands(plus the Coupons) are either generically designated as simply "Base Ball Series/Designs" or have the additional 150, 350, 350-460 or 460 Subjects while not necessarily having the corresponding number of cards available with those backs. Plus the 1912 factor really sets them aside.

This does bring me to one question though. Since the Red Cross's specifically state "100 designs", then why are there only 96? What happened to the other 4?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-27-2011, 02:39 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 34,202
Default good points... but, except etc......

Quote:
Originally Posted by novakjr View Post
The Coupon's I would definitely consider counting as t206's. Mostly due to the fact that there are only 68 of them that mirror the master series, while not specifically being designated as anything other than "Base Ball Series" on the back. Which seems to fit the exact same pattern as many of the accepted t206 brands. The lack of a series number(ie:150,350...) or the use of the word assorted or assortment does concern me. But then again, I don't believe the El Principe cards mention a series number or assortment either. And due to the blue lettering I would not even really associate these with the type 2 or 3s. Basically, for all usable purposes the type-1 t213's are t206's. Although the paper stock issue does leave a lot of room for discussion.

Now for the Red Cross's. Despite being the exact same cards, the designation of "100 designs" on the back, leads me to believe that these indeed were intended to be their own set. While all other accepted T206 brands(plus the Coupons) are either generically designated as simply "Base Ball Series/Designs" or have the additional 150, 350, 350-460 or 460 Subjects while not necessarily having the corresponding number of cards available with those backs. Plus the 1912 factor really sets them aside.

This does bring me to one question though. Since the Red Cross's specifically state "100 designs", then why are there only 96? What happened to the other 4?
Very good points but it's always those little caveats that can't be explained away, at least so far, and to my liking. Look, the world isn't going to stop because I feel they are correctly classified and most others don't. It's just a nice friendly debate. I will admit the type 1's are close.....I just can't quite get there though.....
Attached Images
File Type: jpg pt206backsx20a2.jpg (79.2 KB, 510 views)
File Type: jpg pt2131mattyandcobb.jpg (76.1 KB, 508 views)
File Type: jpg pt2133cobb2.jpg (78.2 KB, 506 views)
File Type: jpg pt2132crawfordanddonlin2.jpg (78.5 KB, 504 views)
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-27-2011, 02:42 PM
canjond's Avatar
canjond canjond is offline
Jon Canfield
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon View Post
Hey Jon
I am trying to understand your logic here but I am not seeing it? Burdick classified those ones you mentioned based on their white borders and (possibly) the fact there weren't other series, as T213 and T215. That is my argument and I am not sure I would conclude anything different from your analysis. Actually, you might have helped make my argument, so I appreciate that . And what about the paper-thin card stock issue pertaining to the T213-1's?
Leon - and here I thought you helped prove my point. If Burdick classified T206s "based on their white borders...", then Type I's should most def be included.

As for the thin stock - Coupon never made slide and shell cig packs, only paper - hence my theory why a thinner stock was used. AB's are thinner than other T206s, Polar Bears are the only ones with a solid color back - the T206 set is allowed to have small anomalies.
__________________
For information on baseball-related cigarette and tobacco packs, visit www.baseballandtobacco.com.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-27-2011, 02:43 PM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,800
Default

My take:

Agree the fronts match T206 for Coupon-1 and Red Cross-1 but Coupon would have been the only brand in quotes (trademarking method) and Red Cross, not only lists 100 subjects, but is a horizontal back, so they get their own numbers in the ACC. I think there is a much better argument the Coupon-1's should have been T206's than the Red Cross cards.

2 runs of 48 different would yield 96 subjects in Red Cross, as noted elsewhere. I guess they figured nobody would ever count them all.....

Now is Pirate complete at 96 or 97? Seems like it should be 96, don't the subject lists correlate?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-27-2011, 02:46 PM
Abravefan11's Avatar
Abravefan11 Abravefan11 is offline
Tim
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,466
Default

I believe Burdick was absolutely correct in cataloging both T213-1 and T215-1 as separate issues. They are not T206's in my opinion. Extremely close and thus the great debate. Sorry I don't have time to elaborate further and will later if I can. Just wanted to cast my vote for "Not a T206."
__________________
T206 & Boston National Type Card Collector
T206Resource.com
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-27-2011, 02:46 PM
novakjr novakjr is offline
David Nova.kovich Jr.
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 20 miles east of the Mistake
Posts: 2,269
Default

I'm not led to believe that either issue are truly t206's. But the evidence does lean to the fact that it's a distinct possibility in regards to the Type-1 Coupons. I'm pretty sold on the Red-Cross's not being t206's though..

Anyways Leon. Them are some great looking Coupon's you got there. For a 2, that type-1 Matty's pretty damn sharp.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-27-2011, 02:54 PM
fkw's Avatar
fkw fkw is offline
Frank Kealoha Ward
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Kea'au HI
Posts: 1,149
Default

If Piedmont or Sweet Caporal also made cards in 1914 with a blue caption, Im sure Burdick would also have listed them with their own ACC # in the T213-T216+ range, and the brown caption 1909-11 Era version (T206) would be the type 1, ie T21X-1

The T213-1 and T215-1 ACC #s are correct.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-27-2011, 03:05 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default Leon

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon View Post
I didn't want to get into this discussion again and hijack Ted's great thread on the T206 reference, back/series updates. So, I will politely start this thread concerning my thought on T213-1 and T215 not being part of T206. Now, I as much as anyone, realize Mr.Burdick made some mistakes in his monster undertaking of the ACC. I fully understand that H801-7 should be a T-Card and W600 should be an M card. I got it. There are other things that should be changed too that are fairly obvious errors. I know we have discussed this a million times but there are folks on the board today that weren't on the board last time we discussed it. So, maybe it can benefit them in having this again, as well as appease me.

One of the ways Burdick cataloged cards was to do it by manufacturer, after he declared it an advertisement card, an insert card or a souvenir card. Of course the T206s were inserts. Of course t206s had many different ads on the back....but, as far as I know, they didn't have different color captions (unless it was an error) or different type stock. So tell me again how T213-1 is a T206, when Burdick didn't classify them that way? Same thing with the T215 series....the 2nd series has blue captions on front bottom. If anyone is tired of this debate please don't throw any rocks. It won't last too long and you don't have to click on this thread .

Your 1st sentece (2nd paragraph)......
" One of the ways Burdick cataloged cards was to do it by manufacturer,"......

....is where you (or Burdick) are mistaken. What you have stated here, is that Burdick thought these cards were "manufactured" at the Factory of the Brand they advertise.
I really doubt that Burdick's thinking was as you say. We all now know that these American Tobacco cards (T3, T201, T202, T205, T206, T209, T210, T213, T214, & T215)
were all designed, printed, and shipped from one location in New York City.
But, if you are right regarding Burdick's thinking (as some collectors still do), that these cards were produced at the Factory of that Brand....then it behooves us to correct
this fallacy. The 1910 Coupon set (of 68 cards) and the T213-1 set (of 96 cards) need to be re-classified as sub-sets of the T206 Monster.


TED Z
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-27-2011, 03:45 PM
T206Collector's Avatar
T206Collector T206Collector is offline
Paul
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,581
Default Them Coupon Thingees

Okay, so let me get this straight -- we all agree that:

1. T206s have over a dozen different backs; and

2. The T213-1 Coupons have identical fronts, including associated player and team designations, to corresponding T206 cards, and were issued within the 1909-11 time frame.

The first time I learned this, I immediately realized that there was a mis-classification here.

Let me try to end this debate --

1. Put a T213-1 Coupon Red Background Ty Cobb in a stack with the 16 other T206 Red Background Cobbs with every available back -- EPDG, Piedmont, Polar Bear, American Beauty, etc.

2. Grab a non-baseball card collecting fan from the general public.

3. Tell the person that one of the cards is not a T206, but the other 16 are.

I would bet you'll get as many or more votes for AB or PB than for your Coupon card....


There is simply no relevance to a classification based on a later series of cards issued in later years.
__________________
Galleries and Articles about T206 Player Autographs
www.SignedT206.com

www.instagram.com/signedT206/
@SignedT206
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-27-2011, 04:08 PM
ethicsprof ethicsprof is offline
Barry Arnold
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pensacola,Florida
Posts: 2,733
Default T213-1

T213-1 coupon is a T206 without equivocation.
as Paul M argues succinctly and persuasively:
They "have identical fronts, including associated players and team designations,to corresponding T206 cards, and were issued within the 1909-11 time frame." And i must say that the writing on the backs sure reminds me of the look of some of the T206 backs as Ted has elucidated quite well on several occasions on various threads.
I am not as certain about the red cross but lean toward their being included but do so with some equivocation presently. As the old professors would say:
it looks like a matter for further research and additional corroboration from peers in the refereed scholarly journals or scholarly reviewed monographs.
all the best,
barry

Last edited by ethicsprof; 01-27-2011 at 04:12 PM. Reason: must quote the old professors correctly.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-27-2011, 04:23 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 34,202
Default without equivocation? really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ethicsprof View Post
T213-1 coupon is a T206 without equivocation.
as Paul M argues succinctly and persuasively:
They "have identical fronts, including associated players and team designations,to corresponding T206 cards, and were issued within the 1909-11 time frame." And i must say that the writing on the backs sure reminds me of the look of some of the T206 backs as Ted has elucidated quite well on several occasions on various threads.
I am not as certain about the red cross but lean toward their being included but do so with some equivocation presently. As the old professors would say:
it looks like a matter for further research and additional corroboration from peers in the refereed scholarly journals or scholarly reviewed monographs.
all the best,
barry
Hi Barry
You know you are one of my favorite guys on the board, but when you see 3 very experienced collectors, out of the last 4-6 posts, completely disagree with the assumption that T213-1 is a T206, you can find there is no equivocation? I find that to be a rather fallacious syllogism.
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-27-2011, 04:33 PM
FrankWakefield FrankWakefield is offline
Frank Wakefield
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Franklin KY
Posts: 2,718
Default

The more I read this, and recall the last time this was hashed, the more satisfied I am that those of us who have an opinion on this are steadfast in their thinking, and aren't likely to change their thinking. Including me.

IF the only Coupon cards that we find were all Coupon type 1's, then I'd think they could, nay should be in T206. But those aren't the only Coupons (and no, I don't consider that conceding all that it takes to make Coupons, or ALL Coupons, into T206s. If Coupon 1's had "350" series (which would be consistent with their subjects, captions, and timeframe) then I might get there. But Coupon 2's have that gloss, and the blue... and the time-line on the 2's and 3's are way beyond that of the T206s. For me lumping Coupon's together seems sensible. Those Coupons issues years after T206s and the blue captions dragged the entire issue away from T206 and into their own thing, T213's.


It seems to me that some folks just 'want' them to be T206s. Like some folks want that glossy front, one of a kind, Ty Cobb backed Ty Cobb card to be a T206; I'm satisfied it isn't.

As for T215's, one oddity for me is the horizontally formatted back. That's always caused me concern. I could see, as above, that if the type 1 T215's were the only Red Cross cards, then I can see how they might have crept into T206. I understand what's got everyone agitated and stirred. But Red Cross continued with their type 2 cards. Which are different, and which are being printed much after T206 production has stopped. And these later printed type 2 cards are reason for a separate designation, T215, again dragging all Red Crosses into that one designation.

The chronology is a significant factor. I have doubts any modern printer would be able to print a card exactly like a T206 was printed. I think there are a couple of places that can do that quality of lithography, maybe. [It amazes me that a kid looks at a modern Topps card, and at a T206, and thinks the Topps card has superior printing, that old lithography is beyond what Topps could do... it's art.] If I were to print a new 550 series card on identical cardstock (I'll buy a bunch of T51's, bleach 'em clean, then soak 'em clean), with identical style, there's not a one of you who'd think that should be considered a T206. Why, because it was printed later, not contemporaneously, with our dear T206s. THAT's what's happened here. Those later issued Coupon and Red Cross cards pull the type 1's away from T206 and into their own designation.

It seems to me that some folks just "want" these cards to be T206s. Similar to how some folks want that Ty Cobb backed, glossy front, red border Ty Cobb card to be a T206; I'm satisfied it isn't.



Last edited by FrankWakefield; 01-27-2011 at 04:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-27-2011, 04:50 PM
ethicsprof ethicsprof is offline
Barry Arnold
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pensacola,Florida
Posts: 2,733
Default Leon

I am inclined to think that all arguments on this thread, including my own,
exhibit syllogistic fallacy. My use of the word 'equivocation', however, is not
fallacious, since the fallacy of equivocation is committed when one uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time around. There is no such ambiguity offered in my use of the words in the initial sentence with which you find fault.
Further, 3 collector out of the 4 of the last 6 posts may well find fault with the data provided within the syllogism, as you, and even I do, but their arguments do not deal intentionally, nor obliquely with the issue of the fallacy of equivocation as I explicate above.

Perhaps more importantly, we have become mighty good friends over the years!!!!
all the best,
barry
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-27-2011, 05:11 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 34,202
Default ok

Quote:
Originally Posted by ethicsprof View Post
I am inclined to think that all arguments on this thread, including my own,
exhibit syllogistic fallacy. My use of the word 'equivocation', however, is not
fallacious, since the fallacy of equivocation is committed when one uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time around. There is no such ambiguity offered in my use of the words in the initial sentence with which you find fault.
Further, 3 collector out of the 4 of the last 6 posts may well find fault with the data provided within the syllogism, as you, and even I do, but their arguments do not deal intentionally, nor obliquely with the issue of the fallacy of equivocation as I explicate above.

Perhaps more importantly, we have become mighty good friends over the years!!!!
all the best,
barry
Hey 'Ole Friend,
I think I will just go with ya' on this one. First ones on me when we meet!! Happy collecting,
LL
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-27-2011, 05:27 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default Leon

Since you didn't reply to my earlier post here, I guess you are of the opinion that these WHITE-BORDERED, BROWN-CAPTIONED
Tobacco cards that were issued in 1910 to 1912 were designed and printed at each Tobacco factory.

Furthermore, you are the one (not Barry A.) who are fallacious, using a brief response and faulting him.
Even your partner, Scott, favors these cards as being "T206's"......
" Many thanks Ted,

This in and of itself should be considered a major reference in regards to the matrix of T206's.

For the record I fall into including T213-1 and 215-1 as part of this comprehensive production. If one did not have knowledge of
Burdick's guide, and laid them out as you have in the scan of backs you would absolutely believe them to be part of the family. "


A larger representative survey would result in better representation of this controversy.

Oh, by the way, THANKS for hi-jacking my thread.

TED Z
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-27-2011, 05:39 PM
Abravefan11's Avatar
Abravefan11 Abravefan11 is offline
Tim
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,466
Default

I'll try to keep this brief and if anyone cares for me to elaborate on anything just let me know.

The T206 set follows a very rigid rule when it comes to subject groups being discontinued. Once the print runs for the 150-350 Only group had concluded and the 350 Only group printing began the 150-350 Only cards were never printed again. Same goes for the transition to the 460 Series. No 150-350 or 350 Only subject is brought back during those print runs. The Coupon Type 1 set does just that. It combines 150-350 Subjects with 350 Only subjects. By the time the 350 Only group was being printed the Southern League players had been pulled from printing.

As far as the back design is concerned it does look like the American Beauty, Broad Leaf, Cycle, and Drum, but that is where the set similarities end. We know that the A+B+C+D group front images were preprinted and then printed with all four back designs. The sets are a match with the same players included and excluded. The Coupon Type 1 set includes players that are no prints in the A+B+C+D group. This shows me that the Coupon set is unrelated other than back design.

I believe the Coupon Type 1's were a unique set created using existing T206 materials to save costs but not part of the T206 set.
__________________
T206 & Boston National Type Card Collector
T206Resource.com
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-27-2011, 05:43 PM
canjond's Avatar
canjond canjond is offline
Jon Canfield
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,570
Default

Let's also not overlook the fact that Coupon Type I's say "Base Ball Series" on the back. Type IIs and IIIs did not retain this. Further proof, IMO, that Coupon I's were issued in the same "series" as T206s since every T206, regardless of brand, states "Base Ball Series."

I might be more inclined to agree with those who feel content with Type I's being classified with other Coupon types if the IIs and IIIs had retained this language - but the later types didn't. Only the Type Is have it.

Again, I see no difference between Sweet Caporal and Piedmont issuing cards in both the T206 and T205 sets - clearly different sets and the cards look different. Same with Type Is and IIs/IIIs - different sets and the cards look different.
__________________
For information on baseball-related cigarette and tobacco packs, visit www.baseballandtobacco.com.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-27-2011, 05:44 PM
E93's Avatar
E93 E93 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T206Collector View Post

There is simply no relevance to a classification based on a later series of cards issued in later years.
Exactly. And in the absence of later Coupon sets from the post-T206 era, I think there is no doubt that Burdick and everybody since would consider them to be T206s.

My vote goes with Coupon Type 1's as T206.
JimB
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-27-2011, 06:13 PM
B O'Brien B O'Brien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: North GA Mountains
Posts: 413
Default

I do love this debate and always have, but I do have a question.

According to the experts on the board, what would it take to make the T213-1's a T206? Would it be some kind of documentation from ATC as to orders, print runs, or marketing action plans produced by the leadership team of the ATC in late 1909? Would it be something else (AB wet sheet transfer?)? I am just wondering. In my work life, I am not a fan of debating, I just like to know what it takes to sway opinion to believing in a fact, and then work to that goal. I am not saying that this would ever be produced, but just wondering what it would take.

O hell, that sounded like a work email! Please forgive me!!! Also, I would love to see some answers to this question.

Hope all is well,
Bob

Last edited by B O'Brien; 01-27-2011 at 06:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-27-2011, 06:25 PM
cdn_collector's Avatar
cdn_collector cdn_collector is offline
Richard A.
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 577
Default

For the past few weeks [months?], I have been watching Ted's threads about the various confirmed back lists for each 'accepted' T206 brand. As he got closer to list number 14 I started to wonder if he'd then post a Coupon Type 1 and/or Red Cross Type 1 list. And once that happened, I wondered who would be the one to post the "are they or aren't they" thread. I don't think we'll ever get consensus on the issue, much like we'll never get consensus on who should and shouldn't be in the hall of fame. I guess that's what makes baseball -- and baseball cards -- fun. So many angles, so many opinions, so many debates. And sometimes they can even be friendly ones

When this argument came around the last time, I found myself wanting to believe that T213-1 and T215-1 *should* be T206s. That's right, I said it. I *wanted* to believe. I hoped that some shred of unquestionable proof would be presented to seal the deal, but none ever did. At the same time, I didn't see that there was that one piece of unquestionable proof to prove the opposite, either. And as such, for me, I'm not convinced one way or the other, which allows me to believe what I want. And as Frank [I believe it was] stated earlier, some people just want them to be T206s. I'm one of those people.

However, out of respect for the work that Burdick did, I won't call them T206s. In my mind they are all 1909-12 American Tobacco Company White Borders. And maybe it's only because the fronts are so identical, but that's good enough for me for now.


Regards,

Richard.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-27-2011, 06:45 PM
canjond's Avatar
canjond canjond is offline
Jon Canfield
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,570
Default

Honestly Bob - not even sure a wet sheet like you pose would do the trick. There is no question the cards were printed at American Litho in NYC... same place the "accepted" T206s were printed. It's easy to speculate that the cards were being printed at the same time, and a wet sheet transfer happened that way. After all, there are T206s backs that have laxative ads printed on them - originating from some other print run that American Litho must have contemporeanously been doing.

I think this is certainly one of those friendly debates where the sides will forever stay apart.
__________________
For information on baseball-related cigarette and tobacco packs, visit www.baseballandtobacco.com.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-27-2011, 06:46 PM
FrankWakefield FrankWakefield is offline
Frank Wakefield
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Franklin KY
Posts: 2,718
Default

Well said, Richard.

Bob, can you look at it from the other perspective, what proof would convince you that T213-1's and T215-1's should be as Mr. Burdick designated them, and not T206's???
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-27-2011, 06:52 PM
Abravefan11's Avatar
Abravefan11 Abravefan11 is offline
Tim
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canjond View Post
I think this is certainly one of those friendly debates where the sides will forever stay apart.
I agree 100% with that statement even if I feel strongly that they are not T206's. As I've stated in my previous post the T213-1's contradict how the T206's were printed and I won't be able to get past that I don't think. But if someone else can that's all good too. It's a fun conversation.
__________________
T206 & Boston National Type Card Collector
T206Resource.com
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-27-2011, 07:08 PM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 8,087
Default

I would think an AB wet sheet transfer on a coupon would be very suspect. Brands just wouldn't have been likely to get mixed like that.
I've totally revised my thinking aboout wet sheet transfers/ offset transfers recently. I showed why in a recent thread that drew no attention.

I'm on the fence about Coupon and Red Cross Type 1s being T206s. The best argument against the coupons that I've seen is the timing of the print run and what cards are included. That puts the production outside of normal T206 production so I'd be inclined to lean towards the no side.

Does any ATC paperwork exist? I wonder how the brands were chosen to include T206s or not. Was it part of a company wide overall marketing campaign, or were there individual brand managers who had a choice.
I can see maybe the Coupon manager either getting approval in late or deciding later on that he wanted certain groups of players and cheaper stock. That might sway me into thinking they are t206s.

I'm also a bit biased against the idea. Firstly from tradition. Silly, perhaps, but I like silly old traditions. Secondly because I have no Type 1 Coupons or Red Cross. I've come to grips with the probability that I'll always be 3 backs short of a complete back set, adding 2 more fairly tough ones would be a bit of a setback.

Steve B

Steve B


Quote:
Originally Posted by canjond View Post
Honestly Bob - not even sure a wet sheet like you pose would do the trick. There is no question the cards were printed at American Litho in NYC... same place the "accepted" T206s were printed. It's easy to speculate that the cards were being printed at the same time, and a wet sheet transfer happened that way. After all, there are T206s backs that have laxative ads printed on them - originating from some other print run that American Litho must have contemporeanously been doing.

I think this is certainly one of those friendly debates where the sides will forever stay apart.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-27-2011, 07:09 PM
White Borders's Avatar
White Borders White Borders is offline
Craig Wright
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South-Central Kansas
Posts: 724
Default Duality Theory for Coupon Type 1 and Red Cross

I propose that Coupon Type 1's are both T213-1's and T206's. Same goes for Red Cross' being both T215's and T206's.

This is easily explained using quantum mechanics.

Sir Isaac Newton (Leon) claimed that light (Coupon Type 1 or Red Cross) behaved as particles (T213-1 or T215, respectively).

Contemporaneously (I kinda like that word), Christian Huygens (Ted Z) was steadfast in that light (Coupon Type 1 or Red Cross) behaved as waves (T206).

Eventually the work of great minds such as Planck (No, not the pitcher), Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein, and others brought forth the Duality Theory, which recognized that light (Coupon Type 1 or Red Cross (remember this post is about baseball cards)) behaves as both particles (T213-1 or T215, respectively) and waves (T206).

And I just realized that Physics and Physical Chemistry would have been a lot easier if I had collected these T-Cards back when I was in college

Best Regards,
Craig
__________________
craig_w67217@yahoo.com
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-27-2011, 07:16 PM
jimonym's Avatar
jimonym jimonym is offline
J Hull
member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: George Close's Doorstep
Posts: 124
Default

SGC's labels are incorrect. These cards were not put out by the "Coupon Cigarette Company," but by the American Tobacco Company, same as T206's. Anyone know why they started labeling them that way?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-27-2011, 07:27 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default Tim C......et al

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abravefan11 View Post
I'll try to keep this brief and if anyone cares for me to elaborate on anything just let me know.

The T206 set follows a very rigid rule when it comes to subject groups being discontinued. Once the print runs for the 150-350 Only group had concluded and the 350 Only group printing began the 150-350 Only cards were never printed again. Same goes for the transition to the 460 Series. No 150-350 or 350 Only subject is brought back during those print runs. The Coupon Type 1 set does just that. It combines 150-350 Subjects with 350 Only subjects. By the time the 350 Only group was being printed the Southern League players had been pulled from printing.discontinued. Once the print runs for the 150-350 Only group had concluded and the 350 Only group printing began the 150-350 Only cards were never printed again.

As far as the back design is concerned it does look like the American Beauty, Broad Leaf, Cycle, and Drum, but that is where the set similarities end. We know that the A+B+C+D group front images were preprinted and then printed with all four back designs. The sets are a match with the same players included and excluded. The Coupon Type 1 set includes players that are no prints in the A+B+C+D group. This shows me that the Coupon set is unrelated other than back design.

I believe the Coupon Type 1's were a unique set created using existing T206 materials to save costs but not part of the T206 set.
1st......Your...." Once the print runs for the 150-350 Only group had concluded and the 350 Only group printing began the 150-350 Only cards were never printed again."

Not true....the T215-1 set has a confirmed Matty (white cap) card in it.

2nd......Your...." The Coupon Type 1 set includes players that are no prints in the A+B+C+D group. "

Not so....Most of the 48 Major League (ML) subjects in the T213-1 set can be found with AB 350, BL 350, CY 350, and DRUM backs.
Furthermore, I count as many as 15 of these 48 ML subjects that are in the T215-1 set.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey people, if we are to have a serious debate on this subject lets get our facts straight. So far, all I have seen is some people have some sort of loyal following to Burdick;
and, are averse to changing anything he proclaimed. But, he was NOT INFALLIBLE.
Others think, that the school of thought that COUPON-1 and RED CROSS-1 belong to the T206 family, lean that way because...." some people just want them to be T206s ".
The MONSTER is complicated enough, so what sane collector would want to add more T-brands to this complex mix ? ?

In my mind the one factual piece of evidence is illustrated in this scan. One artist employed by American Litho. designed these 5 backs in the Spring of 1910. And, 1000's of
WHITE-BORDERED, BROWN CAPTIONED T206 cards with these advertising backs were inserted in their respective cigarette packs in the Summer of 1910.

[linked image]

TED Z
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-27-2011, 07:42 PM
B O'Brien B O'Brien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: North GA Mountains
Posts: 413
Default

Frank,
Nice reply (and also the others, thanks), see my thoughts below!

Craig,
It is easy to see our different areas of work based on our replies! Hope all is well my friend.

I was once asked in a Lit class what Hemmingway had in mind when he wrote one of his short stories. My reply was (to this one instance), that he had nothing in mind, he was just writing to make a few bucks and pass some time. As much as I hate to say it, I am inclined to think that the ATC was marching to the same beat.

Our well loved T cards, produced by the ATC were just slinging material. There was no grand plan, as much as I wish otherwise. I think with the thin stock of the T213-1's, could have just as easily been used for a percentage of the 350 Cycles. I think they had a tiny run request from the Coupon brand manager (!) and just happened to have some crap stock on hand from the board vendor and ran the Coupons to run it out, being that the on hand stock was equal to the 350 series order requested by the boys in NOLA. After all the cards were going down to BFE LA, so who cares about quality control!

I have checked the replies to my last post and see plenty of beating around the bush. I am well aware of the reasons not to include the T213-1's, but what would make them T206's without question?

As always, bottoms up,
Bob
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-27-2011, 07:45 PM
Abravefan11's Avatar
Abravefan11 Abravefan11 is offline
Tim
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
1st......Your...." Once the print runs for the 150-350 Only group had concluded and the 350 Only group printing began the 150-350 Only cards were never printed again."

Not true....the T215-1 set has a confirmed Matty (white cap) card in it.

2nd......Your...." The Coupon Type 1 set includes players that are no prints in the A+B+C+D group. "

Not so....Most of the 48 Major League (ML) subjects in the T213-1 set can be found with AB 350, BL 350, CY 350, and DRUM backs.
Furthermore, I count as many as 15 of these 48 ML subjects that are in the T215-1 set.


Hey people, if we are to have a serious debate on this subject lets get our facts straight.

TED Z
Ted I always treat you with respect on the board regardless of how much I may disagree with you. Please show me the same respect and heed your own request to "get our facts straight" before posting. At least if you're going to respond regarding my posts give me the courtesy of reading it first or asking me to clarify before telling me to get my facts straight.

1) The first quote you posted by me was referring to the T206 set. The 215-1 set as you stated does include a Matty which is contradictory to how the T206 set was printed.

2) Yes the T213-1 set does include SOME of the players included in the T206 ABCD group but it more importantly includes some that were not printed in that group. That is a far more important point that shouldn't be ignored.
__________________
T206 & Boston National Type Card Collector
T206Resource.com

Last edited by Abravefan11; 01-27-2011 at 08:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-27-2011, 07:51 PM
rhettyeakley's Avatar
rhettyeakley rhettyeakley is offline
Rhett Yeakley
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 2,650
Default

T215-1's are NOT T206's due to the updated teams and their years of distribution (neither are the Pirate backs), as for the T213-1's I agree 100% with Barry when he stated the following...

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate View Post
I've always maintained that if Coupon had only released a single set of cards contemporary to the other T206 brands, Burdick would have included it with T206. But the additions of series 2 in 1914, and series 3 in 1919, complicated the issue. And I think that is the reason why we have T213-1, 2,and 3 instead.
Had any of the other T206 manufacturers later produced a set similar to the T213-2 or T215-2 or Victory Tobacco they also would have probably been catalogued seperately as T21X-1 as well.

-Rhett
__________________
Check out my YouTube Videos highlighting VINTAGE CARDS https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbE..._as=subscriber

ebay store: kryvintage-->https://www.ebay.com/sch/kryvintage/...p2047675.l2562
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-27-2011, 07:55 PM
ctownboy ctownboy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 972
Default

My simple question is this, if Burdick would have written his book in 1912 instead of when he did, would he have classified Coupon Type 1's as T206 or T213?

I can easily see him counting Coupon Type 1's as T206's if he had written the book in 1912 and then, if he updated the book in 1920 or so, counting Coupon Type 2's and 3's as a new category - T213's.

Why a new category? Because he would have already counted the first series Coupons as T206's and then he would either have had to drag them out and put them in the new category or put the two later series in T206 also. If he did this, then he might also have had to include T215's in the T206 series since the Type 1's are similiar to T206's.

The problem then, as I see it, is WHEN Burdick wrote his book. He wrote it years after the cards were produced and lumped them together based on the advertisements on the backs instead of the size, player content and similiarities on the fronts.

David

Last edited by ctownboy; 01-27-2011 at 09:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-27-2011, 08:02 PM
Abravefan11's Avatar
Abravefan11 Abravefan11 is offline
Tim
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,466
Default

I agree completely with Rhett and Barry as to why Burdick cataloged the T213-1 and T215-1 as he did. My opinion is he did the right thing but more than likely for the wrong reason.
__________________
T206 & Boston National Type Card Collector
T206Resource.com
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-27-2011, 08:05 PM
judsonhamlin judsonhamlin is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Scenic Central NJ
Posts: 980
Default

I come down firmly on the side of including T213-1 and T215-1 as part of the T206 family. The similarities, to my thinking, outweigh any of the differences in stock or team caption. Although I am not a non-sport collector, I think a useful parallel might be the R73 Indian Gum set. Despite the differences in the color of the banner ad at the bottom of the cards, background color changes and the various "series of..." reverses, all 400+ varieties were produced by Goudey in the '30's and all are called R73. Even the post-war version gets a R773 designation. Here, regardless of the brand advertised and the caption and stock, the cards we now call T206, T213-1 and T215-1 were all produced by ALC in the 1909-12 time frame. To me, the rationale seems to be similar. Why lump one set and not the other? I think Burdick got wrapped up in the brand/factory designations as the primary identifying feature of the cards and ignored or was unaware of the printing point of origin for these cards as being the overriding common denominator.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-27-2011, 08:16 PM
B O'Brien B O'Brien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: North GA Mountains
Posts: 413
Default

I am also a no on the 215 card.
Bob
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-27-2011, 09:10 PM
ethicsprof ethicsprof is offline
Barry Arnold
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pensacola,Florida
Posts: 2,733
Default Leon and Ted

Just got in after a lengthy class and must say that what i missed here seems much more interesting. Even though i taught the class.
Just had to say thanks Leon for the offer of free libations at the appointed time---and thanks Ted for the kind words of support.

all the best,friends

barry

Last edited by ethicsprof; 01-27-2011 at 09:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-27-2011, 09:17 PM
FrankWakefield FrankWakefield is offline
Frank Wakefield
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Franklin KY
Posts: 2,718
Default

I agree with Rhett's point about caption updates. And with Tim... And it is obvious t see that we all still think of this much as we did last time we thrashed with it.

I don't buy the idea of what if Mr. Burdick wrote the book in 1912... he'd have lumped them all together. To me that is an argument for separating them, how things can be better seen and understood with the perspective of time.

As for Ted's great scan of backs back there in post #35....

These bad boys bolster keeping Coupon's separate from T206s. All of those cards up there mention series 350, but for one. And that one is the one with those quotes. And that brand kept on with glossy front cards with the same images, blue captions with the same images, and updated captions years after T206 production. Those rascals seem different to me.


I think the Coupon cards and the Red Cross Cards were made by pilfering the artwork and style that had gone before with our traditional white border tobacco cards.

Last edited by FrankWakefield; 01-27-2011 at 09:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-27-2011, 10:22 PM
novakjr novakjr is offline
David Nova.kovich Jr.
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 20 miles east of the Mistake
Posts: 2,269
Default

"These bad boys bolster keeping Coupon's separate from T206s. All of those cards up there mention series 350, but for one. And that one is the one with those quotes. "

I don't really see what the quotes have to do with anything. Now If the quotes completely surrounded "Coupon (Mild) Cigarettes Baseball Series", then maybe I could agree that the quotes were relevant. But they don't. Now, I understand what you're trying to get at when it comes to Coupon's being the only one with that design to not have the 350. But it just seems too arbitrary to me. Now while not having the same advertisement design, the El Principe cards don't have any series designation, nor do they mention anything about "Assortments" either. Basically, every issue other than El Principe has a series designation or the simple use of the word Assortment(or assorted). Should that be considered a separate issue because it stands alone in that regard amongst the accepted brands?

Complete and total laziness in the design of the 1914 and 1919 series of Coupon seems to be the root source of all this mess. Although, the paper-stock with the type-1 is a damning issue all it's own. But that alone isn't reason enough to disclude Coupons from the Monster without more evidence against it.


Red-Cross to me still doesn't belong with the T206's.

Last edited by novakjr; 01-27-2011 at 10:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-28-2011, 05:17 AM
cfc1909's Avatar
cfc1909 cfc1909 is offline
Jim R
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
1st......Your...." Once the print runs for the 150-350 Only group had concluded and the 350 Only group printing began the 150-350 Only cards were never printed again."

Not true....the T215-1 set has a confirmed Matty (white cap) card in it.

2nd......Your...." The Coupon Type 1 set includes players that are no prints in the A+B+C+D group. "

Not so....Most of the 48 Major League (ML) subjects in the T213-1 set can be found with AB 350, BL 350, CY 350, and DRUM backs.
Furthermore, I count as many as 15 of these 48 ML subjects that are in the T215-1 set.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey people, if we are to have a serious debate on this subject lets get our facts straight. So far, all I have seen is some people have some sort of loyal following to Burdick;
and, are averse to changing anything he proclaimed. But, he was NOT INFALLIBLE.
Others think, that the school of thought that COUPON-1 and RED CROSS-1 belong to the T206 family, lean that way because...." some people just want them to be T206s ".
The MONSTER is complicated enough, so what sane collector would want to add more T-brands to this complex mix ? ?

In my mind the one factual piece of evidence is illustrated in this scan. One artist employed by American Litho. designed these 5 backs in the Spring of 1910. And, 1000's of
WHITE-BORDERED, BROWN CAPTIONED T206 cards with these advertising backs were inserted in their respective cigarette packs in the Summer of 1910.



TED Z

Ted you say Hey People but use Tims quote about getting facts straight.
You saying, getting your facts straight, doesn't mean your facts are correct.

You use the t215-1 Matty white cap as an example of the 150 back along with the 350 and the 460s in the 215 set. This alone separates the 215 set-That does not happen anywhere in the 206 set. There are no 150s printed along with later series backs. Once the 150 fronts were stopped being used the set does NOT use them again. That is how we knew the Red Hindu Matty portrait was a fake. Even when the RH Matty was in a graded holder we knew it was no good because of this rule and you use an example from 215 to prove your point when actually it separates the 215 from 206.

You can address other collectors that have a different opinion however you want but "getting your facts straight" is disrespectful. How would you feel if you were addressed this way.
Hmm. let me see, I bet if that happened you would tell them they are "reinventing the wheel".

My opinion is 213 and 215 are related to 206, in front image only. If you know 150s are not issued later in the 206 set you can see how and why Burdick separated these issues.

These sets are very complex and Burdick got this one right.
__________________
T206Resource.com
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-28-2011, 05:19 AM
Abravefan11's Avatar
Abravefan11 Abravefan11 is offline
Tim
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,466
Default

I think I can make my point a little more clearly.

At the time the T213-1 set was printed the 20 players from the Southern Association had been discontinued from the T206 set.

At the time the T215-1 set was printed many of the images in the set like those from the 150 and 350 series had been discontinued from the T206 set.

At no time in the printing of the T206 set did ATC or ALC bring back images once they were discontinued.

In my opnion the use of these discontinued images shows me that these two sets were put together with existing images created for the T206 set, however were not part of the T206 set.
__________________
T206 & Boston National Type Card Collector
T206Resource.com

Last edited by Abravefan11; 01-28-2011 at 05:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-28-2011, 07:25 AM
FrankWakefield FrankWakefield is offline
Frank Wakefield
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Franklin KY
Posts: 2,718
Default

Yes. The chronology separates T213's and T215's from the T206s.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-28-2011, 08:14 AM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 34,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post

Oh, by the way, THANKS for hi-jacking my thread.

TED Z
I am hoping this is a joke as it is one!! I specifically started this thread so as NOT to hijack the other one. As for the time line I didn't address, I think it has been addressed quite well already. I doubt there will be a consensus on this subject so I will defer to what Burdick did and what is continuing in the hobby. Proof is in the pudding.....
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-28-2011, 08:27 AM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default

Jefferson Burdick did a heck of a job classifying sportscards (pre-WWII and post-war). His classification of Non-sports cards is even more impressive.
No one here denies this, we all owe Mr. Burdick a great debt of gratitude. Along with Buck Parker, Lionel Carter, Frank Nagy, etc., etc.

Having said that, there are a small % of flaws in his dating, or clarifying certain mysteries regarding certain BB cards. Regarding the T213-1 & T215-1,
can anyone show that Burdick was aware that these sets were issued in 1910, and 1910-12, respectively ?
Furthermore, was Burdick even aware that the majority of the American Tobacco Co. (ATC) cards were printed by one lithographer (American Litho.)
in New York City.
I'm not sure he did....and, this is the crux of this entire controversy.

Now, to "hang your hats" on such trivial differences regarding the COUPON-1 cards because they are printed on less rigid cardboard, or have quota-
tion marks on the word COUPON is grasping at straws.

Jon Canfield has provided a logical explanation for the softer cardboard stock......
"As for the thin stock - Coupon never made slide and shell cig packs, only paper - hence my theory why a thinner stock was used."

Quotations on the COUPON brand are there because in the Summer of 1910, this tobacco brand was not yet part of the ATC monopoly. Quotations
were also applied to the PIRATE brand, since it was a British owned tobacco company.


[linked image]

[linked image]


It's interesting that when we debated this subject in July 2008, there was 132 responses, of which there were 22 unique opinions.....17 in favor
of including the T213-1 cards in the T206 family. And, 5 keeping the T213-1 cards separate.
Link........
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=1910+coupon


TED Z
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First Time Submission Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 7 03-06-2009 12:28 PM
O/T - best all time Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 33 01-06-2009 08:24 PM
My first time at the National Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 7 07-29-2008 03:15 PM
OT but it is time for the 134th Kentucky Derby Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 100 05-17-2008 06:45 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:51 AM.


ebay GSB