T215 Red Cross actually a T206?

[sreader3]

I think you guys are overthinking it. Burdick probably decided to keep the three species of Coupons under the same genus. Hence the 1910 Coupons were grouped with the later Coupons as T213. Burdick likely appreciated that the T213-1s were brethren of T206s but prioritized keeping the Coupons together.

EDITED TO ADD: I don't have a dog in the T213s-are(not)-T206s or T215s-are(not)-T206s hunt, but do think that 100+ years of precedent in treating T213s and T215s as separate and distinct will trump any arguments about commonality.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by sreader3

I think you guys are overthinking it. Burdick probably decided to keep the three species of Coupons under the same genus. Hence the 1910 Coupons were grouped with the later Coupons as T213. Burdick likely appreciated that the T213-1s were brethren of T206s but prioritized keeping the Coupons together.

From reading Burdick's writings/thoughts I think you are absolutely correct. He just wanted everything to be easy for collectors to understand. Keeping things together accomplished that. For OCD folks it's a difficult situation at best. Everything doesn't fit perfectly. He very frequently said he knew he made mistakes and his work was a work in progress. If we could ever get SCD, SGC, Beckett and PSA on the same page, we might be able to actually make changes that are needed. I am not optimistic though.

[Abravefan11]

Scot and Leon - I agree with you both and think most people are pretty agreeable concerning why Burdick classified the cards the way he did. It's when you get to the "should he have classified them the way he did?" question that things get a little more tense.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Scot and Leon - I agree with you both and think most people are pretty agreeable concerning why Burdick classified the cards the way he did. It's when you get to the "should he have classified them the way he did?" question that things get a little more tense.

From what we know today there would be some easy changes and then some that would cause WWIII for our board .

[Runscott]

Leon, I get your 'sideways' comment, but unless I read this wrong, this is just a discussion about whether or not WE (as collectors discussing a topic of interest to us) think the two type I's in question should be considered part of the T206 set.

Of course there's nothing wrong with what Burdick chose to do, and we are all grateful not only that he chose to do it, but in the way he did it; but how do WE wish to collect these cards? If someone chose to add the coupon and Red cross type I's to their T206 collection, replacing 'valid' T206 backs, I say more power to them - enjoy.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Leon, I get your 'sideways' comment, but unless I read this wrong, this is just a discussion about whether or not WE (as collectors discussing a topic of interest to us) think the two type I's in question should be considered part of the T206 set.

Of course there's nothing wrong with what Burdick chose to do, and we are all grateful not only that he chose to do it, but in the way he did it; but how do WE wish to collect these cards? If someone chose to add the coupon and Red cross type I's to their T206 collection, replacing 'valid' T206 backs, I say more power to them - enjoy.

Absolutely, Scott. And I was just making an observation about some of the discussions on the board pertaining to this subject. If guys want to put T213 or T215 into their T206 sets, it doesn't bother me at all.

And Bocabirdman- agreed....from now on we can just call everything T206 and there should be far less issues.

[sreader3]

Tim,

I get the descriptive (is) versus normative (should be) distinction but believe that the weight of history and tradition after 100+ years is so heavy that on most matters of opinion T206 (such as whether T213-1 and T215 are T206) will be governed by the status quo (that they are not T206). I agree that the normative question is interesting to talk about nonetheless.

Of course, on questions of fact [such as whether T206 Tinker (Bat Off) exists with Piedmont 42], T206 is subject to ongoing revision and extension.

Scot

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

Absolutely, Scott. And I was just making an observation about some of the discussions on the board pertaining to this subject. If guys want to put T213 or T215 into their T206 sets, it doesn't bother me at all.

I DO agree with your thinking on this subject, but the only important thing is whether or not Frank would consider our monster counts valid if our T206 set was adulterated with a few Type 1 Coupon and Red Cross cards.

Frank?

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by Leon

From what we know today there would be some easy changes and then some that would cause WWIII for our board .

Since seemingly every thread on this board has a T206 subplot, why not just reclassify all Pre War cards as T206. It would make the Type Collector's task a whole lot easier

[edhans]

[QUOTE=Leon;1056120]Everything doesn't fit perfectly. He very frequently said he knew he made mistakes and his work was a work in progress. QUOTE]

Seems to me to be Burdick's own permission to amend his work as new discoveries were made and new research undertaken. I don't see why sequential numbers shouldn't be assigned to newly discovered "unc" issues and letter designations changed to reflect new information. I think that even the T213-1/T206 discussion should be on the table. For what it's worth, I'm inclined to think that the type 1 Coupons are just another T206 brand, but that T215-1s are properly classified as a separate issue.