[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Given the monumental contribution Burdick made to the cataloguing of insert cards of all kinds, and the fact that he had virtually no references to use other than the knowledge and experience of fellow collectors, it is amazing the ACC designations are as accurate as they are. In fact, you would expect that some of the determinations he made fifty years ago would be disputed today.

Perhaps the T206 set, because of its complexity, is one of those sets where current opinion would differ from his. Maybe the T206 set should have been catalogued as 15 separate sets, or four different series, such as Piedmonts being T206A, Sweet Cap T206B, etc.

Likewise, because there were three different sets with Coupon backs, he felt it appropriate to designate them T213 Types 1,2, and 3. However, T213 type 1 is so similar to T206 that it could just as easily have been T206G, for example. And we are still debating where to put the Cobb with Cobb back, and there is still no universal consensus.

Perhaps some of Burdick's work needs to be revised, but his contributions are so sacrosanct that nobody dares take on such a task.