Appease me, please....one more time T206/T213/T215?

[Leon]

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 .

[usernamealreadytaken]

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

[barrysloate]

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.

[rhettyeakley]

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...

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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

[Leon]

Originally Posted by usernamealreadytaken

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...

[barrysloate]

This has always been a debate where there are valid opinions on both sides. In fact, this is one of our better topics.

[MooseWithFleas]

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.

[canjond]

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.

[novakjr]

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?

[Abravefan11]

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."

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Leon

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

[T206Collector]

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.

[ethicsprof]

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

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ethicsprof

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.

[FrankWakefield]

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.

[ethicsprof]

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

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ethicsprof

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

[tedzan]

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

[E93]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

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

[B O'Brien]

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

[canjond]

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.

[cdn_collector]

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.

[FrankWakefield]

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???

[White Borders]

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