Why all T206 backs in one set instead of separate ? ?

[insidethewrapper]

Why isn't the T206 several different sets based on the backs like so many other sets listed in the Standard Catalog of BB Cards ( ie. E92 Croft's, Dockman & Sons, etc, E94 Blome's, Chocolate etc). These are separate sets, not part of a total set. Seems to me like each cigarette brand would be a separate set.

[Leon]

I think we need to start with how Burdick classified them and then go from there. Everything after Burdick is only others' takes on what he did and their try at organizing the sets better. For those that still think T213-1 are actually T206, you are plainly wrong. If you go with that philosophy then W600 HAS to be M600...and there are a ton more. We can either do what Sugar and Egan tried or we can leave them alone (which I vote for). I am NOT saying Burdick didn't make mistakes; he did. It's just that I don't think we should be correcting only the ones that fit our fancy and we are interested in, we need to do them all or not. And my vote, and all of the official guides and catalogs votes, are to leave them the way they are. As for E92, regardless of the back, they are all E92. Same thing goes for E94, they are all Close Candy.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Why isn't the T206 several different sets based on the backs like so many other sets listed in the Standard Catalog of BB Cards ( ie. E92 Croft's, Dockman & Sons, etc, E94 Blome's, Chocolate etc). These are separate sets, not part of a total set. Seems to me like each cigarette brand would be a separate set.

1. The same images are used across all series (for the most part)
2. The various series/back combinations can't be tied to a single year range (Polar Bear, for instance), other than the total of 1909-11

I think of it as a huge set with subsets. If you like, collect some of the subsets - I'm personally working on two series-backs subsets at the moment, and it's a lot of fun.

As Leon said, Burdick did the ground-work, and a damned good job. He could have broken them up into separate sets, but didn't. I like the way it its, but certainly you could have gone other routes;for instance, 150, 350, 350-460, 460, except for the 'year range' issue. I think the fact that the same images are used (for most cards) across all series and across all backs, is the strongest case for a single T206 set.

[terjung]

It is a fair question, but a loaded one. Because you ask why they are all "T206", you are asking why the guy who invested calling them that chose to group them all together. Since he isn't around any more, the answer is "just because he chose to do so". So, that's the short answer. On a more philosophical level, however, I can certainly see your point since there is a lot of duplication of imagery elsewhere as well. The truth is that there are many sets that can be looked at differently with different subsets vs. being entirely different sets unto their own. That said, you are free to group collections / sets in any way that you see fit. There is nothing wrong with saying that you have a complete set of T206 Polar Bear backs, for example. I suppose that Burdick could have gone the "T206a" route like he did (for other reasons) in the E91 set, but he didn't. I'd imagine it was the continuity of production by ATC that made him choose to do it the way he did, but I'd defer to Tim Cathey (Abravefan11) or Jim Rivera (cfc1909) since their knowledge of the set FAR exceeds my own.

When you think of it, though, it is really quite astounding to contemplate the job that Burdick did. Think about how difficult it would be to create something like that without the use of the internet. Think about that for a minute. Hopping on a forum like this that connects thousands of people from all across the planet hugely increases our understanding of what has been produced and is available. To think that he was able to know of and catalog so many incredibly scarce sets is nothing short of mind boggling.

[Leon]

BTW, before Burdick wrote the ACC, in early 1936, he defined T206's as -

"Set ss - Baseball players (white framed cards), Sweet Caporal, Cycle, Sovereign, Polar Bear, Old Mill, and several candy and gum sets of similar designs."

I think his main emphasis was to categorize cards in a way to make them easier to collect. Nothing more and nothing less. Today we might over-analyze things but that wasn't Burdick's idea. That is our idea because we are so freaking addicted .

[Frank A]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you guys. I think it's time for each back set to be listed by itself. With all the variations and different factories, it is nearly imposible to keep up with. There are plenty of people on this board with enough information to come out with a complete priceguide for all backs, including factory and other variations. I for one would love to have all this info. Frank

[atx840]

Originally Posted by Frank A

There are plenty of people on this board with enough information to come out with a complete priceguide for all backs, including factory and other variations. I for one would love to have all this info. Frank

Yeah, hurry it up already.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

BTW, before Burdick wrote the ACC, in early 1936, he defined T206's as -

"Set ss - Baseball players (white framed cards), Sweet Caporal, Cycle, Sovereign, Polar Bear, Old Mill, and several candy and gum sets of similar designs."

I think his main emphasis was to categorize cards in a way to make them easier to collect. Nothing more and nothing less. Today we might over-analyze things but that wasn't Burdick's idea. That is our idea because we are so freaking addicted .

Perhaps, but AFTER he wrote the ACC, the T206 set was separated out from other sets in what I consider to be a very logical manner, for the two reasons I gave above. I don't think this set was defined inconsistently with the way he defined others. If there are cases where that isn't true, it's probably due to information that he didn't have available.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Perhaps, but AFTER he wrote the ACC, the T206 set was separated out from other sets in what I consider to be a very logical manner, for the two reasons I gave above. I don't think this set was defined inconsistently with the way he defined others. If there are cases where that isn't true, it's probably due to information that he didn't have available.

Ok, I agree. Then that will beg the question why you called a T213-1 Coupon a T206 in a very recent thread?

I too think Burdick did a great job and think, after the aforementioned tries at redoing the ACC, we should leave well enough alone. Just my opinion on that. Also, for the record, in this day and age there is no way in heck anyone should have any difficulty with knowing, from lists on this board and other internet venues, what the backs, factories and districts are. I also think it is very healthy and fun to debate these issues.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

Ok, I agree. Then that will beg the question why you called a T213-1 Coupon a T206 in a very recent thread?

I too think Burdick did a great job and think, after the aforementioned tries at redoing the ACC, we should leave well enough alone. Just my opinion on that. Also, for the record, in this day and age there is no way in heck anyone should have any difficulty with knowing, from lists on this board and other internet venues, what the backs, factories and districts are. I also think it is very healthy and fun to debate these issues.

Haha! I caught your reference to that in the initial post.

I was just yanking chains. Didn't get a reaction until now - thanks!

[Ronnie73]

Maybe Burdick didn't know at the time that there would be 38 different backs and 5500+ different card combinations and to seperate them to make it easier. As far as seperate listings, I keep lists of backs seperate in a spreadsheet. It is easier to search them that way. Basically all I did was combine PSA and SGC pop reports and also used the SuperSet spreadsheet and the lists that Ted has put together to get an idea of whats out there. As far as a price guide for 5500+ cards, I just don't think it would ever be an accurate value source since the prices move so much so quickly. I keep track of ebay sucessful sales of rare back T206's and during the past year of 2011, most cards have doubled in price. I think if there was a price guide, I believe everyone would stop looking at the prices when they realize the cards can't be bought at the listed price.

I think all the "what if" and "why don't" of the T206 set is what makes it a fun and difficult set to collect and even talk about and understand. Its kinda like a pizza, you can slice it so many different ways and divide it into many different numbers of pieces but in the end, its still just the same pizza.