|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1213138088.JPG">
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>Nice type I's...I can't imagine this thread will be very long...I sold my one and only...Rockenfeld...these are pretty tough!<br /><br />pete in mn
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>My lone example...<br /><img src="http://www.geocities.com/rhettmatthew_37/t2131engle.JPG"><br />-Rhett
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p>[IMG]<img src="http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q257/hogan6g/Scan0006-5.jpg">[/IMG]
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Greg B.</b><p>There was a complete T213-I set sold in Mastro within the past 3 years, can't remember the details, but if someone has the catalogue it would give a pretty difinitive list...interesting topic.<br />Greg B.
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1213145163.JPG">
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Jeremy</b><p>Nothing "Mild" about em...<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1213147434.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1213147442.JPG"> <br><br>~ Jeremy ~
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>josh</b><p>Leon,<br /><br />Anytime I see a post with people wanting to show certain issues you always come in with some! Is there any issue you don't own? I am envious!!!!
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Yes, but not too many. As I have said over and over it's all about the addiction....uh...I mean hobby. Before I recently started selling my 19th century stuff I was down to only needing 2-3 cards to finish my pre-war ACC type set. There are almost an infinite number of backs, colors and variations to keep me busy too. Then we need to talk about upgrades etc.....My collecton pales in comparison to some others but I am very proud of what I have been able to acquire, especially as a newer collector. regards
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>Two beaters to add to the list...<br /><br /><img src="http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x51/frohme/T213-1Wilson.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x51/frohme/T213-1Carey.jpg"><br />
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>jim</b><p>When you are born/raised in Buffalo, you stick with the local sporting athletic team... no matter what!<br />Not sure if this is Type 1?<br /><br /><img src="http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa21/shoelessjim/Downeyt213sgc30.jpg">
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Neat card...type 2's and 3's have blue lettering on front...type 1's are on thinner stock and have brown lettering...that is the easiest way to tell from the front...
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Brian E.</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1213150997.JPG">
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>jim</b><p>Having a firm grip on the obvious has never been my strong suit. Your powers of observation are superior to mine. Could you e-mail me a towel so I can wipe this egg off my face? Continue and I will move forward with my education.
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Brian,<br /><br />Nice Cobb. Mis-labeled by GAI as 1914...should be 1910.
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I have made far worse mistakes on much easier cards. I will never forget the time I played off not knowing that Cy was Irv on my E97 black and white card....I had no clue when I bought it....but my 1k stupid buy was pretty decent by today's standards....as it came back in a 40 holder. I think that's what you call "dumb luck"...take care
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Alan U</b><p><img src="http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee252/robclem21/t213myers-1-1.jpg">
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Trae R.</b><p>Wow, and <i>why</i> don't we call T213 Type-1's T206?!<br><br> <br /> <br /> <br />---<br />"There ain't much to being a ballplayer, if you're a ballplayer."<br />-Honus Wagner
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>We don't classify T213-1 as T206 because Burdick didn't. Also, there are no T206's on stock that is as thin as T213-1......would be a guess.
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Leon,<br /> They may not be T206's, but they are certainly in the same family. I can't explain the change in stock other than the new advertising budget for the brand may have taken a hit after the breakup, or the later issues may have suffered from shortages due to WW1. Be well Brian<br /><br /> Here's the info I posted on the other thread:<br /><br /> Hi Dave,<br />No line drawn.... ATC owned Coupon before the breakup and Ligget& Myers afterward, but the same manager Mr. Irby was still in charge. In fact Mr. Irby was in charge before ATC bought him out, so nothing really changed much in LA. In fact I believe that much of the Tobacco wars in LA after the breakup between ATC and People's Tobacco contributed to the continuation of the cards being released as premiums. The 2 companies fought hard over LA and sued each other a number of times. Thank God, otherwise we might never have seen the t213's or t216's.... Be well Brian<br /><br /><br />PS Ted, pretty easy to add to your earlier thoughts<br /><br /><br />
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Coupon's being on a thinner stock(depth) is no different than American Beauty's being on a thinner (width) stock.
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>Leon, I understand you point re: Burdick but I believe this is one that Burdick may have gotten wrong. I also agree it would be hard changing people's classification since, afterall, T-213's have been classified as such for a long time now.
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>The following 20 (T206) Subjects from the Southern League (8 teams) are included in the T213-1 set.<br /><br />Bay (Nashville)<br />Bernhard (Nashville)<br />Breitenstein (New Orleans)<br />Carey (Memphis)<br />Cranston (Memphis)<br />Ellam (Nashville)<br />Fritz (New Orleans)<br />Greminger (Montgomery)<br />Hart (Little Rock)<br />Hart (Montgomery)<br />Hickman (Mobile)<br />Jordan (Atlanta)<br />Lentz (Little Rock)....sic..(Sentz)<br />Molesworth (Birmingham)<br />Perdue (Nashville)<br />Persons (Montgomery)<br />Reagan (New Orleans)<br />Rockenfeld (Montgomery)<br />Smith (Atlanta)<br />Thornton (Mobile)<br /><br /><br />TED Z
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>I do believe Burdick got this one wrong. The importance of properly classifying this issue a T206 trumps tradition. T206 is way to important an issue for this to be ignored because of "that's the way it has always been."
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I politely disagree. T206 AB's were just cut thinner to fit in the packs. T213-1's were made on different cardstock altogether. I feel that is a bigger difference than a slight side to side measurement inequality....I will compromise though....If we put T213-1 into T206 lets take out the Ty Cobb backs and make them a T206-2 <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>....
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Bruce Babcock</b><p><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/uffda51/frontsbacks/T213%20Cobb%20.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/uffda51/frontsbacks/websize/T213%20Cobb%20rev.jpg"><br /><br />It's a type 2, not a type 1, but at least a close relative.
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>FORGET IT ! !<br /><br />There are many sets we have realized are incorrectly dated and NO effort is being made to correct them.....<br /><br />N28 is an 1888 issue<br /><br />N162 is an 1889 issue<br /><br />E90-1 and E91 are 1908-1910 issues<br /><br />A Goudey Lajoie (#106) is called a 1933 Goudey, when we all know it was issued with the 1934 Hi# series cards.<br /><br />And, after 30 years of "pounding", I was able to convince many that the "1948-49" Leaf BB set is actually a 1949 <br />issue....PERIOD. However, the Grading Co. will continue to perpetuate this myth by labelling their flips "1948-49".<br /><br />So, I'm telling you guys that you are fighting a losing battle. <br /><br />Anyway, consider this....a 518, or 520, or 522, or even a 524-card T206 sets tough enough....leave well enough<br />alone......a 590-card set (by including the T213-1) is impossible.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />In my own little world, I have been and will continue to consider them T206's. Whether or not the collecting community jumps on board with the few matters little. BUT it sure is fun to study, discuss, etc.<br /><br />Edited to add--<br />adding T213-1's to T206 doesn't add any more subjects to the T206 set unless, of course, one is considering a master set.
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>There are front differences between some T213-1's and the T206's. One that comes to mind is the South. Lger....Lentz.<br />His T206 card (issued first in 1909), has him with the Richmond team. His T213-1 card (issued in 1910), he is with Little<br /> Rock.<br />I think there are a few more such team changes, either on So. Lgers. or Major Lgrs.<br /><br />TED Z.
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Sean</b><p>How about T215 Type 1's (Red Cross)...should they actually be a T206 back?
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>Sean - I would not include the T215's as there are less similarities between the T215's and the T206's than there are with the T213-1's. In fact, I can draw very few similarities between the Red Cross design and the T206's; the back frames are different, the back's mention "100 designs", etc. Interestingly though, the back frames and the blue lettering of the T215-II's do match the Type II and III Coupons...
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>B D</b><p><a href="http://www.t207.com/e102.shtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t207.com/e102.shtml</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br><br>BcD <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Good point Ted Z. Any idea of how many T213-1's of the 80+ subjects differ? Nice to think it could be like O'Hara and Demmitt T206 team/caption variations issued only with Polar Bear backs.
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>B D</b><p><img src="http://www.t207.com/images/bcd/t213/t213_collins_sgc84_both.jpg"><br /><br /><br><br>BcD <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Since I no longer own any T213-1 cards, and I wanted to participate...<br /><br />My best Coupon card (fact. 8 overprint)<br /><br /><img src=http://centuryoldcards.com/images/1919t213cobb.jpg>
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>BCD</b><p> You got us beat with that baby~<br /><br />how's this for a high grade Momma! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><img src="http://www.t207.com/images/bcd/t213/t213_meyers_sgc86.jpg"><br /><br /><br><br>BcD <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Any other type 1 Coupons out there. The last few scans have been type II and type III's, not what I was looking for, but cool nonetheless.
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>So T213-1s came out in 1910 before the ATC breakup? Other than thin cardstock, what is the other justification for a different ACC designation?<br />JimB
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Unless we find some notes from Burdick buried somewhere I doubt we will ever know. He made many decisions which would probably be different with information known today. If I had to guess it would be because they are a totally different stock which inclined him to give them a different #. That's just a guess though....
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>judson hamlin</b><p>No scan, but my one 213-1 is a Howell. I agree that Burdick probably punted on this one. If 206 is an ATC issue and Coupon (and, for that matter, Red Cross), then I think they should have been merged. I'll guess that the subsequent re-issue in 1914 and 1919 significantly influenced the decision to split them from T206
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>If they were considered to be T206s, does anyone know how many additional team variations would be added to the set?<br />JimB
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>The majority of T213-1's (except the 20 - So. Lgers.) are the same Subjects that fit the "A-B-C-D" pattern of the T206's in the 350-only Series.<br />I don't think this is a mere coincidence....it was by design.<br /><br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /><br />
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Thanks Ted. I believe that evidence suggests this to be a T206 issue. Sure, there are some differences, but there are differences between all T206 brands. In your opinion, should T213-1 be T206?
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Alan U</b><p>If the T213-1's were considered a T206, how rare is the T213-1 back in comparison to some of the others?<br /><br />-Alan
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>I'd say between Carolina Brights and Broadleaf....but of course had they been collected as T206 they'd be impossible (a la Uzit and Drum).
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>My few T213s are type 2.<br /><br />But trying to lump T213-1s in with T206 would be unfortunate. They are different altogether. Leon's distinction between thinner card stock for T213s and the less wide American Beauty T206s is correct, as I see it. I think Mr. Burdick has is correct, although he may not have gotten there for the right reasons. We'll never know.
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>Frank - I'm not sure if I follow your argument as to how the thinner cardstock, alone, would make T213-1's different altogether. Is there some other supporting evidence besides the thin stock? <br /><br />Also, there is important information that I have overlooked until reading your post which I believe would lend at least some credence to the argument that Coupon Type 1's were part of the T-206 distribution and my information goes specifically to the "thinner cardstock" argument. <br /><br />When researching Coupon cigarette packs, I found that Coupon packs were not slide and shells made out of cardboard like the rest of the T-206 brands but were instead soft packs. I have a scan of a Coupon cigarette pack that is part of a private collection which helps prove this.<br /><br />The thinner stock used on Type 1's may be due to the fact that a thicker stock would have torn the soft paper of the Coupon cigarette packs. After all, it has always been said that AB backed cards are not the same size as other T-206 cards because the cigarette boxes were smaller (even though my AB box seems to be the same size as my other T206 packs).
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Whoever made the point above about the date of mfg for the cards also is onto something, imo. As far as I know there were no T206's made after, what 1911-12? The last 2 series of T213's are dated later. That in itself could have been why Burdick made them a different series, and a good point too. Series 1 of T213 is generally thought at 1910, Series 2 at 1914-1916 and series 3 at 1919. Burdick might very well have known this and made a new series ACC# because of it....regards
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Leon,<br /> True... But you would have to ignore Coupon's Ties with ATC to come up with that. Kotton and Coupon dueled for years in LA after the breakup, and seemed to copy each other as they continued. One thing is for sure... They were both "favored companies" in LA or the feud would have ended much sooner. People have a way of doing things down there...<br /><br /> Be well Brian<br /><br />PS I think the Type 1's started as an extension or part of the T206's and continued further due to the competition with Kotton. <br />
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>Here is a 1910-era Coupon pack:<br /><br /><a href="http://s82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/?action=view¤t=Coupon.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/Coupon.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a><br /><br />Note that it matches the Type 1's in that it is "mild". Also, note that this is NOT a slide and shell configuration. It is a soft pack, which is why I theorize that Coupon's may have been produced on thinner stock since regular stock would have torn the pack when packaged...
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/caramelcard/assortedcaramels/websize/t213backs.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/caramelcard/assortedcaramels/websize/t213front.jpg"><br />
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>Leon - I would tend to argree with you that the fact that Type 2's and Type 3's were manufactured well after the T206 distribution would help clarify why Burdick did not include the Type 1's with the T206 set ***IF*** the Type 2's and 3's looked like the Type 1's. They don't - they are different in many ways; blue text, different card stock, different backs, gloss, etc. In fact, Type 2's and Type 3's look nothing like the Type 1's - or at least they do not appear similar in a substantial way. <br /><br />So, the fact that Coupon produced two more "sets" (Type 2 and Type 3) after the 1909-1911 distribution of the T206 set should not have played a role in Burdick's decision to not include Type 1's in the T206 set although I agree with you that it probably did. Piedmont, for example, produced the art stamp series in 1914 - well after the break-up of the ATC and after the T206 series was over but this didn't stop Burdick from deciding that Piedmont should not be included with the T206 set. Sure, you can argue that Piedmont T206's look nothing like the art stamps - but Type 2's and 3's look nothing like Coupon Type 1's! <br /><br />In fact, the time between the issuance of the Type 1's and Type 2's is 4 to 5 years (Type 1 in 1910, Type 2 in 1914/15) should support the fact that these should not have been grouped together by Burdick into 1 set. Type 3's were issued in 1919 - 9 years after the Type 1's. It is almost inconceivable to think that T213 were distributed over a 9 year period and during the course of the ATC break-up to boot! In fact, wouldn't that make Coupon's the longest distributed set if Burdick was correct and Coupon's should be correctly identified as a distinct set?<br /><br />Most evidence seems to say that Type 1's and Type 2's and Type 3's were, in fact, all distinct issues. I know each of us can have our own opinions but I believe that Burdick dropped the ball and errored in not including Type 1's in the T-206 set. To borrow from a post in the other A-B-C-D thread:<br /><br /><br />(+) for INCLUDING Coupon Type 1's in the T206 set:<br /><br />1--same size as standard T206<br />2--same images as T206's<br />3--identical inking for front caption<br />4--identical advertiser frame on reverse<br />5--same overall card design<br />6--same maker<br />7--born in 1910<br />8--Type 2 and Type 3 coupon were issued 4-5 years and 9 years, respectively, AFTER the type 1's and are visually very different in almost all aspects from Type 1's<br /><br />(-) for NOT INCLUDING Coupon Type 1's in the T206 set:<br />1--thinner card stock - possibly explained by my theory that thicker stock would have torn the relatively thin paper wrapping of the Coupon cigarette pack which was not a slide and shell as shown above.<br />2--historically associated with T213-2 and T213-3 (perhaps due to Burdick incorrectly grouping Type 1's with 2's and 3's)<br />
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />The Lentz card is Little Rock for both T213-1 and T206.<br /><br />Are you thinking of Lipe when you say Richmond?<br /><br />There are no differences for the player/teams between T206 and T213 type 1.<br /><br />Robert
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>Leon - one more item as food for thought... You said above that "I politely disagree. T206 AB's were just cut thinner to fit in the packs. T213-1's were made on different cardstock altogether. I feel that is a bigger difference than a slight side to side measurement inequality".<br /><br />I have heard this thoery for years that AB's are cut thinner to fit in the packs. However, I own an AB slide and shell pack, I know you have one, Richard has one, Barry Arnold has one and I'm sure others on this board own one. Measure your pack - compare it to the SC, the Old Mill, the Piedmont you have... I will guarantee you they are identical in size. I've compared both AB's I owned (although I only have one now). Both were identical in size to each other, and identical in size to every other slide and shell from the T206 era I own. <br /><br />So, now that some of the AB packs have come to market (5 years ago, there were few, if any AB slide and shells around), I think that this myth should be put to rest... AB's were NOT cut thinner to fit into the packs since the packs are the same size as other T206 brands.<br /><br />So, since we have tangible proof that AB's were not cut thinner because of the pack size, why then, are they thinner? I don't believe anyone would argue that they should be a separate set and not part of the T206's. However, I again believe that this tends to give more credence to the argument that Coupon Type 1's being on thinner stock is similar to AB's being thinner.
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>These are the only two Coupon cigarette cards I own. A Type 1 Engle and a Type 2 Needham.<br /><br />David<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1213772708.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1213772722.JPG">
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>You've have me figured out.....Lipe and Lentz are both red backgrounds and are adjacent cards in my T206 album,<br />so I must of "blurred" them.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Ted Z
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I think we all agree that the first Coupon series (66 cards) were produced by Amer. Litho. as ATC tobacco premiums<br /> for this Louisana based Tobacco Co. As I have stated, these cards were printed in the Summer of 1910 (coincident<br /> with the T206's that fit my "A-B-C-D" observation. Two proofs of this......is the commonality of the artwork of their<br /> backs....and the fact that, with the exception of the 20 Southern Leaguers, the majority of these T213-1 Subjects <br />conform to the aforementioned T206 A-B-C-D pattern.<br /><br />Link from A-B-C-D thread, showing backs......<br /><br /><a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1213138762/last-1213660837/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1213138762/last-1213660837/</a><br /><br /><br />Having said all that, the one "missing link" that hits us when we compare these 5 backs, is the lack of a "350 SUBJECTS"<br />on the COUPON back. And, perhaps Burdick separated this issue from the T206 set based on this observation ? <br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br />
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Guys,<br />I don't understand all of the theories that are being put forth about the Coupons. I think it's as easy as Burdick sitting down with a bunch of tobacco cards. He put them all in groups according to dates of mfg AND mfg/brand......not one OR the other. He found the later Coupon series to be printed at a later date. They all had the Coupon advertising, ie put out in Coupon Cigarettes and classified them together. No need for print similarities or anything else. It isn't, and wasn't, rocket science. They are all Coupon Cigarette cards and classified as T213-x......<br /><br />As for the thickness, or thinness, I am not sure that would have mattered as much because, as Jon pointed out, and verified, the AB packs were the same thickness....although in my brain housing group it does seem that they are a little thinner. I can double check that this evening.....but am sure ole Jon did the same... Still a good friendly debate though there is no reason why T213-1 should be a T206 for that reason (brand/nfg). If anyone looks in the ACC.....they will see that, for the most part, Burdick classified cards according to mfg/brand. Coupon was the brand....and is classified as T213.<br /><br />I want to reiterate my main thought why Coupon series 1 is still T213. Burdick classified cards according to brand/mfg. I feel he did NOT drop the ball and got it correct.....
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I have "no dog in this hunt"......but, I value Brian W's knowledge on this subject.....<br /><br />"True... But you would have to ignore Coupon's Ties with ATC to come up with that. Kotton and Coupon<br /> dueled for years in LA after the breakup, and seemed to copy each other as they continued. One thing<br /> is for sure... They were both "favored companies" in LA or the feud would have ended much sooner.<br /> People have a way of doing things down <br />there..."<br /><br />The following is a lengthy litigation document (initiated Jan. 1912) regarding the People's Tobacco Co.<br /> conflict with ATC.... <br /><br />href="<a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=246&invol=79" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=246&invol=79</a>" target="_new"<br /><br /><br /><br />I find it very interesting that T213-type cards are American Lithographic Subjects, while T216-type cards<br /> are American Caramel Subjects.<br /><br />Does this fact further reinforce this story, or what ?<br /><br />I certainly think it does.<br /><br />TED Z
|
T213-1 Post'em if you got'em
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Hey Robert,<br /><br />Nice group of "T213-1"s.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:22 PM. |