|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Darren extended my American Beauty 350-Broad Leaf 350-Cycle 350-Drum (A-B-C-D) connection to include the Coupon<br> Tobacco brand (the 68 cards classified as T213-1 set). The T213-1 back design is identical to the style and pattern of<br>the A-B-C-D backs. Coupon Tobacco was part of the American Tobacco Co. (ATC) in 1910 when these cards were prin-<br>ted by the American Lithographic Co. (ATC's associate).<br><br>There are 20 subjects from the 8 teams in the Southern League (Coupon Tobacco was based in Louisana). The fronts of <br>these 20 cards are identical to the ones in the T206 set.<br>There are 48 Major leaguers in the T213-1 set whose fronts are identical to the ones in the T206 350-only Series. These<br>48 are listed below.....and, for what it is worth, research has shown that the greater majority of these 48 Subjects were<br> printed with 3 (or all 4) of the A-B-C-D backs (see scan) as T206's. Further reinforcing the contention that these cards,<br>arguably, are an additional T-brand in the T206 set.<br><br> <br>..............A..............................B ...............................C.................. ..............D<br><br><br><br>1910 COUPON......Major Leaguers (48)<br> <br>Beals Becker<br>Chief Bender (trees)<br>Bobby Byrne<br>Bill Campbell<br>Frank Chance (portrait-yellow)<br>Chappy Charles<br>Hal Chase (portrait-blue)<br>Hal Chase (dark cap)<br>Ty Cobb (portrait-red)<br>Birdie Cree<br>Bill Donovan (throwing)<br>Mickey Doolan (bat)<br>Jean Dubuc<br>Joe Dunn (Brooklyn)<br>Clyde Engle<br>Evers (bat-yellow sky)<br>Art Fletcher<br>Topsy Hartsel<br>Danny Hoffman (St Louis)<br>Harry Howell<br>Miller Huggins (portrait)<br>Huggins (hands/mouth)<br>George Hunter<br>Ed Killian (portrait)<br>Otto Knabe<br>Frank LaPorte<br>Ed Lennox<br>Rube Marquard (portrait)<br>Doc Marshall<br>Mathewson (dark cap)<br>George McBride<br>Pryor McElveen<br>Matty McIntyre<br>Mike Mitchell (Cinci)<br>Mike Mowrey<br>Chief Myers (bat)<br>Chief Myers (fielding)<br>Dode Paskert<br>Bob Rhoades<br>Claude Rossman<br>Boss Schmidt (portrait)<br>Charlie Starr<br>Gabby Street (portrait)<br>Ed Summers<br>Bill Sweeney (Boston)<br>Ira Thomas<br>Ed Willett<br>Owen Wilson<br> <br>1910 COUPON Southern Leaguers (20)<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>It is a worthwhile debate that is tailored for this Forum. Let's continue this discussion......what are your thoughts on the<br>1910 COUPON cards ?<br>We all know how very rare these 68 cards are; but, this should not discourage us from conducting a thought-provoking<br>conversation here. <br><br><br>T-Rex TED<br><br>
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Yes - they are T206s.<br /><br />The thinner paper was to conform with product packaging (I believe someone pointed out evidence to support this).<br /><br />Just like the narrow cut on the American Beauty was to conform with product packaging.<br /><br /><br />Its a T206.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I personally like the idea that T206 is just a classification of similar cards, but is not one set. Each set should be divided by the tobacco brand on the back.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Yes.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>Agreed. Just like Topps and OPC in latter years.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Sounds like T206 to me.<br />JimB
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Nope,<br /><br />They are a separate issue, and rightfully listed with a different number. Also with the 2 other similar looking Coupon back cards they need there own group of numbers. <br />Otherwise what would you call T213-2 T213-3........ T206-2?? <br />No, all 3 set need to be listed together under their own number, T213. <br /><br />Plus there is a big difference between thin card stock (T213-1) and narrow cut cards (T206 AB backs). The narrow cut cards is just a slight adjustment by the cutters at the end of production. The thinner card stock is another story, that is good proof alone that the Coupon type 1 issue is not 100% related to the other 16 back brands.<br /><br />Same thing with the so called T206 Cobb/Cobb back, it has a glossy surface so is not 100% related.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>I believe t213-1's are most likely t206's. There are so many inaccuracies in the acc...this is most likely another. here's an image of the only 1 i've ever owned...now gone.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i176/ullmandds/?action=view¤t=forsaletenfr-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i176/ullmandds/forsaletenfr-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>FRANK<br /><br />I think you have inadvertently included the COUPON (Series 1) as the 16th T206 brand. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /> <br />As, my understanding is that there are only 15 T-brands....once you dis-card the Ty Cobb brand.<br /><br />But seriously, can you explain how the Coupon-1 backs are not a T206 design ? The paper stock is<br />another factor, but some genius here will come up with a practical explanation for this anomaly.<br /><br />I say....if they look like a duck and walk like a duck and quack like a duck....they are a T206.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Craig W</b><p>Perhaps the Type 2's & 3's could be referred to as the T206 Updates?<br />T206 (left) T213-2 (middle) T213-2 back (right)<br /><br /><img src="http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll71/craigw67217/Wheat.jpg">
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>Ted,<br />These are a different issue just as the Obaks and Red Cross are a different issue. Granted the backs on the Coupons are the same design except for one glaring difference. Your ABCD backs are all produced at the same factory in Virginia whereas the Coupon backs are printed in Louisiana. If you included the Coupon backs as a T206 subset then you must include the Obaks, the Red Cross set, Pirate set, and Ty Cobb (with Cobb back).<br /><br />You would make a better case for including Red Cross, Cobb, and Pirate sets (all southern produced) to be put under one ACC designation. Keep the Obaks west coast and keep the T206s as they are.<br /><br />My two cents.<br /><br />Joshua
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Josh - do the players/poses shown in the Obaks and Red Cross issues matchup to the T206s?
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I have to correct this comment of yours......<br /><br />"Your ABCD backs are all produced at the same factory in Virginia whereas the Coupon backs are printed in Louisana."<br /><br />The Factory locations on the backs of the various T206's and COUPON (type 1) are where the Tobacco products were<br /> produced and packaged. All the T206's, regardless of their T-brand advertising on their backs, were printed in New York<br /> City at the American Lithographic Company (on South Park Ave.) Then the T206's and the Coupon cards were shipped<br /> by rail to the various Tobacco Plants to be inserted into the Cigarette packs.<br />This fact has been verified.<br /><br />OBAKs were produced on the west coast.<br /><br /><br />TED Z
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>Interesting but very difficult topic methinks.<br />I lean toward putting them in T206 and don't feel quite as rough about it after reading my '67 Burdick and seeing that he had a bit of difficulty.<br />At least, it seems so as he mentions T206 twice in his very brief exposition<br />of T213 on p.64:<br />T213--Baseball series, Coupon cigts. designs of No. T206 .25<br />2 types: name in brown as No. T206,or name in blue. On card<br />or heavy paper. Issued 1914-15 and includes Federal Lg. Many team<br />changes. Name in blue value .35 .<br /><br />best,<br />barry
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>I don't understand how Obaks have anything to do with this, but T215 should be in this discussion as well.<br /><br /><br />The players and captions for T213 type 1 are the same as those found in T206.<br /><br /><br />T215 Red Cross type 1s do have the brown lettering similar to T206 and T213-1, but at least one case where the caption is different which places the issue into 1912.<br /><br />I haven't seen this card, but Lew Lipset's Encylopedia confirms a T215 type 1 of Clark Griffith with Washington.<br /><br />I believe the T213-1 cards are T206.<br /><br />The only argument against is the thinner stock, but perhaps the Louisiana factory used cheaper paper to save money.<br /><br />Robert<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>It's been a long day as I went to California and back but let me just say this....<br /><br />Burdick classified cards according to mfg.. Coupon was the cigarette mfg for T213 and that's what they are. Plain and simple. We aren't changing the alphabet and we aren't changing the ACC.....but good debate. regards
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>Ted,<br />You are correct, what I meant to say is that the factory designations were different. Just as Topps produced many many sets in New York with different advertising that use the same format with different advertising and are considered different sets.<br /><br />I wonder if we should change the designations to t206-1 for piedmont, t206-2 for sweet cap., etc.<br /><br />Joshua
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Frank,<br /><br />"Plus there is a big difference between thin card stock (T213-1) and narrow cut cards (T206 AB backs). The narrow cut cards is just a slight adjustment by the cutters at the end of production. The thinner card stock is another story, that is good proof alone that the Coupon type 1 issue is not 100% related to the other 16 back brands."<br /><br /><br />I would have to disagree with this logic.<br /><br />It may actually be easier to run different paper than it would be to change the cutter settings. <br />It is, at the very least, no bigger of an adjustment.<br /><br /><br />The press is running. Loading different paper is basically a non-issue for the pressman.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />minor edit made.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>I want to first say that I really enjoy this debate as I've always wondered why Coupon Type 1's were classified the way they were by Burdick. That being said, I just want to put forth my possible explaination for the thinner stock of the Type 1's that I discussed in the previous thread.<br /><br />We know from the few surviving Coupon cigarette packs that unlike the majority of the T-206 brands, Coupon's were packaged inside a soft-wrapper pack as opposed to a slide and shell box. <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 />The soft-wrapper packs are much more flimsy than the slide and shell boxes and and can be torn very easily. It is plausible that the thinner stock was used as the heavier stock paper would have torn the soft-wrapper packaging.<br /><br />It is also worth noting that we already know that the printers modified the printing process during the distribution of the T206 set without any plausible reason; specifically I'm referring to the American Beauty cards. It seems logical that the printers may have just begun to use thinner paper. It's no secret that the AB's are cut thinner than the other T206's. I had always heard that the reason for this was so that the cards could fit into the AB slide and shell cigarette boxes which were slightly smaller than the other slide and shells used to distribute the T206's. We now know, however, that this is not the case. Since the discovery of 20 or so American Beauty slide and shell cigarette boxes has proved that the boxes are identical in size to that of Piedmont, Sweet Caporal, Broadleaf, Uzit, etc, there now seems to be no explaination currently on the table to explain why AB's are thinner.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I like to divide T206 and T213 into three groups:<br /><br />1) the 15 brands from Piedmont to Drum, which we all agree are part of T206 and no other set.<br /><br />2) The T213-2 and T213-3, which are clearly part of the Coupon set; among other things these two series were issued years after the T206 brands circulated.<br /><br />3) and the curious T213-1, which has characteristics of both of the above groups. As a result, it has mystified collectors. I think based on the years that they circulated, the designs on the front they share with T206, and the fact that the back design is identical to the A-B-C-D brands, the T213-1 are more likely part of the T206 group and were erroneously catalogued in the ACC. And while the paper stock differs, that is not a strong enough argument to say they are not T206. There could have been any number of reasons why different paper was used.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>i agree with barry...next question: if in fact t213-1 coupons are part of the t206...how scarce are they? Lennox/uzit scarce? I wish I still had mine!!!!
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Jon,<br /><br />Great information!<br /><br />I did not know that about the AB boxes (being the same size).<br /><br />I would like to suggest two possible reasons why, even with the same size box, the AB may have been cut narrower:<br /><br />.... if these cards were automatically inserted into packs - the machinery that did the insertion (for AB) may have had different specifications than others and may not have been able to handle the width of a traditional T206.<br /><br />.... human complaint / suggestion. Someone may have suggested (and probably was correct) that if the card was a little narrower insertion would be much easier (possibly less spoilage along with the ability to insert at a quicker pace). <br /><br /><br />Of course these are pure speculation - but after reading your post - these are the 'reasons' I could think of.<br /><br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I appreciate ya'll agreeing that Burdick did in fact catalog these by mfg correctly and they are in fact T213 and Coupons....just as the other series 2 and 3 are mfg by Coupon....He was consistent .....I agree he made a few other errors in the catlog but this obviously isn't one of them....thanks again
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>Barry - now that we have that settled <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> what about taking Coupon Type II's , Red Cross Type II's and Victory and making it one set produced between 1913-1915. Below is a Coupon Type II, Red Cross Type II and Victory (in that order)<br /><br /><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/type-2.jpg"> <img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/t215-2.jpg"> <img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/t214.jpg"><br /><br /><br />Curiously, although it hasn't yet been debated, Coupon Type II's and III's, and Red Cross Type I's and II's have identical back frame designs. Below is a Red Cross back and a Coupon Type II back (in that order).<br /><br /><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/t215r90-1.jpg"> <img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/type-2r.jpg"><br /><br />Also, I have not decided where to put Red Cross Type I's but my vote would be with T206's. I agree that they are very similar to the T206 set in that they have the same front characteristics. Although they are listed as being produced in 1912, how accurate is this date?<br /><br />So, here is my re-classification of Barry's 3 above:<br /><br />1.) Traditional 15 brands/backs of the T-206 set<br /><br />2.) Coupon Type I's and Red Cross Type I's that I believe should be added to what we call "T206s"<br /><br />3.) Coupon Type II's, Red Cross Type II's and Victory which I believe should constitute one set.<br /><br />Lastly, I note that I did not classify Coupon Type III's in my "newly created" set consisting of Coupon Type II's, Red Cross Type II's and Victory. I believe Coupon Type III's should be a stand-alone set (and in my opinion, the only set that should be called T213). Here's my rationale... Coupon Type III's were produced well after Type I's and Type II's (1919). The back design differs from Type I's and Type II's, and, most importantly, the front design differes from both Type I's and Type II's (no team designation on Type III's). <br /><br />Coupon Type I's fit nicely with the T206 designation - produced in 1910 (same year as T206's), same front design, same back design.<br /><br />Coupon Type II's fit nicely with my newly created set with Red Cross Type II's and Victory - all produced between 1913-1915 (similarity in years, consecutive years of production ala T206), same front designs. [I know back design differs for Victory but not all back designs are the same in the T206 set]<br /><br />Coupon Type III's are just the "odd set out." It is a stand-alone set produced at the end of the decade.<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>There is something arbitrary about categorizing any of these sets, or grouping them together, because we don't know the intent of the designer or manufacturer. We could just as easily designate T206 as a master set containing 15 different series, and also say that anyone completing a set of 520/524 with different backs is in fact mixing series together. BUt collectors fully accept a set with mixed backs, even prefer it.<br /><br />There is a tremendous amount of knowledge available today, something clearly not available to the pioneers of the hobby. But for all we know about T206 who is to say we've gotten it right?<br /><br />Forgot to respond to Jon: the only problem with mixing the three sets you've cited is they look different. They use different fonts for the player name and team, and for me that is one of the strongest factors for not making them part of the same set. I guess we need criteria for these designations.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Sean BH</b><p>I second that motion.<br /><br />Move to a vote?<br /><br />I think your T213-2, T214 and T215-2 is spot on along with T213-1's and T215-1's being T206 backs and T213-3 its own thing.<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Ya'll keep making up your own rules and see how far it goes....Burdick classified these correctly. I am all for doing a whole different catalog....but it won't be the ACC....So far NOT ONE PERSON has been able to confute the fact these were classified by mfg and, as such, done correctly. I rest my case.....
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Don't rest your case quite yet. Burdick's contribution was monumental but he was really doing all this on the fly, based on his own observations and through correspondence with fellow collectors. There is an awful lot of information in the ACC, probably more than a handful of collectors could possibly amass, and they simply couldn't have gotten it all right.<br /><br />There is so much we know today that they didn't. Doesn't that count for something?
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>"T213-1" is a T206 issue.<br /><br />T213-2 should now be T213-1 and T213-3 should now be T213-2. These issues apparently confuse the picture for some, but in my feeble mind they are irrelevant in this discussion. The years of issue, the design, the gloss, the ink all point to a separate issue for the type 2 and 3 Coupons. Simple as that. They are a spin off issue.<br /><br />Classification goes beyond similar images, so including all "sets" that use the same image as T206 as T206-X does not compute. A number factors need to be considered -- as we have discussed over several threads. <br /><br />It's hard to say where exactly T206 Coupon's fit in the scarcity bracket--given that they have not been traditionally collected as T206. They are pretty tough.<br /><br /><br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Again.....same conclusion. Burdick classified cards by mfg. Coupon is what T213 is. ALL 3 SERIES. I think at this point you are harrassing the witness <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>> Please answer the question or move on... <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Maybe I'll just take a nap instead. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Was the manufacturer Coupon or the ATC?<br />Is Coupon just another brand owned by ATC at the time these cards were made? If so, it seems clear to me that Coupons are the same as Piedmonts or Sweet Caporals. <br /><br />Differences in appearance, glossiness and different paper stock, are due to them being printed on different machinery and in a different part of the country (different ink and paper suppliers).
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Here's a question, and the answer is purely speculative:<br /><br />What if only the type 1's were manufactured, and the 2's and 3's never existed. Where would the type 1's be designated?
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>"So far NOT ONE PERSON has been able to confute the fact these were classified by mfg and, as such, done correctly. I rest my case....."<br /><br />Leon - I think Jon C made an attempt to address your argument in the previous thread:<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 />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Great point. I DO AGREE that Burdick would have, in all probability, made the type 1's as a T206 WITHOUT there being the other 2 series in the equation. He saw the Coupon Cigarette backs from all 3 sets and classified them correctly as T213.....as he couldn't put the last 2 series in T206 due to differences discussed. Great point...
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>My good friend Jon did "attempt" to refute it..... though not successful imho.....btw, there is nothing personal about any of this...this is a lot of fun.....
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>This is a good debate but it will probably never be resolved. Of course, nothing will change and the type 1's will probably always be part of the Coupon set. But there is reason to question it.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Leon,<br /><br />"So far NOT ONE PERSON has been able to confute the fact these were classified by mfg and, as such, done correctly. I rest my case....."<br /><br /><br />Quite simply - if the AB is a T206, then that opens the door to the Coupon being a T206 as well.<br /><br />as mentioned - it is just as easy to load thinner stock into a press as it would be to change the settings on a cutter - - probably easier.<br /><br />Easier = less of a manufacturing change.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Since T206 was not the classification of the manufacturer, but a collector decades later, it seems the first thing we need to do is to DEFINE what a T206 is. Then we can move on to determining whether Coupons, Red Cross, Ty Cobb back, etc. belong under that classification.<br /><br /><br />If T206 is defined as the classification number of baseball cards inserted with Tobacco products owned by the ATT between 1909 and 1911, then probably all three deserve T206 classification.<br /><br />All classification models have a degree of arbitrariness/subjectivity to them. As many have argued (I think quite convincingly), the ATT baseball card productions could just as easily have been divided into 16, 17, 18 sets or more based on brands, series, etc. Our own Ted has begun collecting in this way.<br /><br />It has been standard in the hobby, since the time of Burdick to classify them as one large set with multiple brand and series backs and this is how most in the hobby collect the set as a whole. Under that model, I think Coupon type one, Red Cross, and Ty Cobb all belong in T206.<br />JimB
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Uh oh Jim- you brought up the Ty Cobb back. You may be opening up a can of worms! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> But of course you made a good point that in 1910 the designation "T206" didn't exist. And nobody who collected them knew what they were doing. They did know however that if they saw a player or pose that was unfamiliar, they needed it.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Ed Hans</b><p>Leon,<br /> Your "classified by the backs" theory makes no account of the Old Mill brand. Old Mill is quite properly considered a back of T206, but, equally properly the T210s are not. They were sponsored by the same brand, but they look different, hence the separate ACC classification.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>T206 and T210 even share common poses, but the red borders make it inconsistent with the T206 cards. Again, we need some criteria for making these decisions.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>We can all agree that T206's are American Tobacco Company (ATC) Base Ball premiums accompanying a variety<br /> of T-brand tobacco products during the 1909 to early 1911 era. ATC's associate, the American Lithographic Co.,<br /> designed, printed, & shipped these BB cards to their respective Tobacco Districts to be inserted in their Cigarette<br /> (or otherwise) packs. The pictures of the various Subjects are identical, regardless of the back advertisements,<br /> and the one common denominator that I believe defines the 1909-early 1911 "T206 era" is that their captions are <br />printed with BROWN ink.<br /><br />ATC's divesture occured in December 1911.....T206's were history by then. However, American Lithographic Co.<br /> (ALC) continued producing a variety of Tobacco product premiums (including BB cards). But now.....post-1911,<br /> ALC started captioning these "T206 look-alike" cards with BLUE ink (for whatever reasons).<br /><br />At this point we no longer think "T206's" and start classifying these cards as T-xxx sets.<br /><br />LEON<br />Sorry, to differ with you ole buddy....but, the 68 cards in the COUPON TOBACCO set (1910) are T206 "cousins".<br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>Leon - obviously no hard feelings and this is, IMO, a great discussion. However, to expand on Ed's rationale, Burdick did not have a uniform classification system so it's not as cut and dry we would have hoped.<br /><br />Piedmont also "had its advertisement" on a back in the T-205 series, as did SC, etc etc. Red Cross also distributed the T-207 series. [Obviously, there are many brands that produced/advertised on cards in different series so I have not attempted to list them all, just gave a few examples for illustration.] <br /><br />If Burdick was simply classifying cards by mfg as I believe you are saying when you say that Coupon's are T-213's, then Piedmont backs, for example, should have been classified as Type I, Type II, Type III and so on. Again, to illustrate, Piedmont's should have be something like this:<br /><br />T-206 Type I (Piedmont backed white borders)<br />T-206 Type II (Piedmont backed gold borders)<br />T-206 Type III (Piedmont art stamps)<br /><br />Another example: Fatima's should have been T-200 Type I (team cards) and Type II (player cards or T-227 as we know them currently)<br /><br /><br />This rationale would apply to any brand (tobacco or candy) that distributed advertising backs through a multitude of different sets. However, Burdick didn't do it this way - or at least all the time. Sometimes, Burdick grouped multiple companies together by similar appearance and card design when classifying the issuance (T-206). Other times, he classified the issuance based on the distributer (T-213).<br /><br />So, I politely <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> disagree with you when you say "So far NOT ONE PERSON has been able to confute the fact these were classified by mfg and, as such, done correctly" since Burdick did not uniformly classify all sets by mfg. In fact, I will even go as far to say that Burdick only classified brands by mfg when it fancied him to do so since I can only think of 4 instances where Burdick classified a set by mfg: Coupon, Contentnea, Obak and Red Cross.<br /><br />Maybe Burdick didn't like the taste of Coupon cigarettes so relegated them to the "ugly stepchild of the T-206's" status?
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Checklist of the 20 Southern League Subjects included in the T213-1 set. Their fronts are identical to the ones in the T206 set. <br />All 8 teams in the Southern League are represented.<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<br /><br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>"Since T206 was not the classification of the manufacturer, but a collector decades later, it seems the first thing we need to do is to DEFINE what a T206 is. Then we can move on to determining whether Coupons, Red Cross, Ty Cobb back, etc. belong under that classification."<br /><br />JimB,<br /><br />I couldn't agree more.<br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Craig W</b><p>Not to get too far off topic, but if we start remixing the T cards, will these come next? Clockwise from upper left: E90-1, E92, E101, T216, E105, E102.<br /><br /><img src="http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll71/craigw67217/Shean.jpg">
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>ParkerJ</b><p>Great points by Jon Canfield, and JimB. If we consider that the manufacturer was actually Amer Litho, then doesn't that cloud the whole "group by mfg" argument? <br /><br />I would consider the broader definition of T206 to be any white-border, brown letter, card printed by ALC and inserted with ATC tobacco products from 1909-1911. Importantly, I do not believe this expansive definition actually changes the size of a "t206" set beyond the current 524 cards - there are no front images in the t213-1 which are unique from t206. It only expands the size of the "master" set, and that only affects Ted <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> .<br /><br />We should consider that by the time Burdick classified this set and named it as "T206" (in ACC #1, 1939) collectors had already been collecting it in some form for over 30 years. So I would imagine he must have taken some consideration of how the collectors of that day had already classified these cards together and differentiated them from other sets. It might have been as innocuous and arbitrary as him finding that by 1939 all the people he knew who collected the coupon cards (I,II, and III) happened to group them together as a single set.<br /><br />Just my 2 cents.<br /><br />Edited: typo.
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Guys,<br /><br /><br />I played a wonderful round of golf today in fantastic weather...So I missed all of the fireworks.... How can you call 15-16 different brands the "T206 set", but ignore Coupons?? A few more questions:<br /><br />1. ATC had all of the signatures to use the images... How would Coupon aquire these so easily after the breakup?<br />2. Kotton used Wagner, but Coupon didn't??? I wonder why? Because Coupon under ATC had already been warned or sued not to use his image.... Kotton probably used it as a selling point...<br />3. T213-1'S were produced and distributed in 1910-11 and were owned and operated by ATC and use the exact same images, so why are they not included?<br />4. People keep getting stuck on the series 2 and 3 Coupons as proof of a different "set", but personally I think that was competition with Kotton period. <br /><br /> Be well Brian<br /><br />PS I shot 73 with 4 Birdie's from the tips and beat 2 tour players...<br />
|
Let's continue the T213-1 debate....are they really T206's ?
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>"I shot 73 with 4 Birdie's from the tips and beat 2 tour players..."<br /><br />WOW!
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:05 AM. |