Burdick's T206 checklist - 521 in 1936?

[Sean]

When Nagy listed 524 cards he counted Sweeney and Sweeney "no B" as separate cards. I don't know if Egan did the same.

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by Sean

When Nagy listed 524 cards he counted Sweeney and Sweeney "no B" as separate cards. I don't know if Egan did the same.

Ah, I see. I can't seem to find a copy of Egan's checklist right now, but I see that Erbe and Mitchell's American Premium Guide to Baseball Cards and Beckett and Eckes' Sport Americana Baseball Card Price Guide #4 (both published in 1982) both include Sweeney "no B" as a separate card but don't include Joe Doyle (N.Y. Nat'l). So they both list 524 cards in T206, but with that one difference from present-day checklists. I'm guessing that Burdick didn't know about either the Sweeney or Doyle variations, or if he did, he didn't consider them separate cards. The same goes for Magee/Magie, which were both #347 in Egan's checklist, according to Lipset. That gets us to the 522 that Burdick listed in the 1960 ACC, but it doesn't answer the question of which other card Burdick didn't know about in the 1930s and early 40s, when he was referring to it as the set of 521.

[Leon]

The 1939 US Card Collectors Catalog shows "521" for Baseball Series, white borders. It wasn't Until 1946 that it shows Baseball Series white border "522". A cursory look (I will look better later) through Supplements from 1940,1941,1942,1943 and 1944 don't show the addition. I am not sure a 1945 was made but I don't have it if it was. I will look through more notes.....(it does show Hustler as a back....which is kind of neat)

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Leon

The 1939 US Card Collectors Catalog shows "521" for Baseball Series, white borders....(it does show Hustler as a back....which is kind of neat)

And it doesn't show Uzit.

It also doesn't mention the Cobb back. Was that back a later discovery?

[toppcat]

Card Collectors Bulletin of April 1, 1953 has a lead article entitled "Is T206 Complete at 523 Including Magie?" It states "The checklist of T206 was originally compiled by Mr. Howard M. Myers in May of 1938. That was more than fourteen years ago and in that long length of time there have been no additions made to the original checklist."

So this gets even more mysterious if Myers had 523 in his checklist but Burdick only had 521, then 522 in the ACC, why was there a discrepancy?

I thought I had a copy of Egan's list but can't locate it right now.

[Leon]

After some more research I am not so sure "521" ever had to do with the number in the T206 set. I think it is possible it was a coincidence there were close to that many in the set. Here is a March 1938 Card Collectors Bulletin, and one of it's pages. with reference to "521" and there being around 510 designs.
Also, this 1942 Edition of the Card Collectors Bulletin Checklists lists "521" and then has 522 cards listed, for the White Borders (*and has T206 handwritten in, which is the earliest reference to T206 I can remember, assuming it's from 1942-1943..).

.

Originally Posted by toppcat

Card Collectors Bulletin of April 1, 1953 has a lead article entitled "Is T206 Complete at 523 Including Magie?" It states "The checklist of T206 was originally compiled by Mr. Howard M. Myers in May of 1938. That was more than fourteen years ago and in that long length of time there have been no additions made to the original checklist."

So this gets even more mysterious if Myers had 523 in his checklist but Burdick only had 521, then 522 in the ACC, why was there a discrepancy?

I thought I had a copy of Egan's list but can't locate it right now.

[toppcat]

Interesting Leon. So it's possibly a typo!

Agree 521/521 is a coincidence (I think).

Is there any chance Howard M. Myers was from the same family that owned part of Liggett & Myers? They ended up with American Beauty and Piedmont brands after the ATC breakup and it's an interesting possibility.

[Leon]

Hey Dave
I am still not sure what all of this means. I am pretty sure there were mistakes made and corrected on the fly in this era. I was glancing above and the 1939 page says 521 and (521 known)......With respect to the other numbers alluded to I am sure I can find similar, but different, occurrences from Burdick elsewhere too. Maybe all of this leads to the 1946 version of the ACC being the final iteration of most of the newer, ACC numbering system.

Originally Posted by toppcat

Interesting Leon. So it's possibly a typo!

Agree 521/521 is a coincidence (I think).

Is there any chance Howard M. Myers was from the same family that owned part of Liggett & Myers? They ended up with American Beauty and Piedmont brands after the ATC breakup and it's an interesting possibility.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Leon

Hey Dave
I am still not sure what all of this means. I am pretty sure there were mistakes made and corrected on the fly in this era. I was glancing above and the 1939 page says 521 and (521 known)......With respect to the other numbers alluded to I am sure I can find similar, but different, occurrences from Burdick elsewhere too. Maybe all of this leads to the 1946 version of the ACC being the final iteration of most of the newer, ACC numbering system.

Oh I know what it means.... we are all freaking obsessive nuts!

Mistakes made and corrected on the fly also describe our internet age-nothing new under the sun really. I think the 1953 edition is the one that veered toward the designations we are familiar with but some of those changed as well in the 1960 edition IIRC.

I see Mr Myers had a new address in the issue you posted. I can't say I've heard the name before in connection with the hobby but considering he created the T206 checklist you would think he'd be more well known.