Love me some paper thin (T213-1) Coupons

Leon · #1 03-03-2016, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edjs

I am too new to the hobby to really have an intelligent argument in the T206/not debate, but I think I have an intelligent question. Do the subjects in the Coupon type 1 exactly match any of the subjects for any specific back in the 1910 T206? I am looking at Rob's layout, and he says he needs two more to complete the set, and there are no where near 350 subjects there. So if they are 1910 T206, where are all the other subjects? I know Ted will know the answer to this, if I am asking my question right. Again, this is not meant as an statement against, just an honest question. What is the total number of Type 1s anyway? It looks like 96 from Rob's post. Thanks guys, and please don't rip into me for asking. I know this is a hot subject for many.

Burdick wrote/invented the ACC the numbering system. He knew T213s were similar to T206 as he said that in his listing where he defined them. I think it's funny how collectors twist and turn and make up all kinds of stories. But at the end of the day, Burdick classified Coupons correctly. There isn't 1, no not 1, T206 with thin stock like the type 1 coupons. Just like "A" isn't "B", T213 isn't T206. You guys can debate all you want, it still won't change anything. Burdick got it right. He knew what he was doing on this set when he named it.

ullmandds · #2 03-03-2016, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon

Burdick wrote/invented the ACC the numbering system. He knew T213s were similar to T206 as he said that in his listing where he defined them. I think it's funny how collectors twist and turn and make up all kinds of stories. But at the end of the day, Burdick classified Coupons correctly. There isn't 1, no not 1, T206 with thin stock like the type 1 coupons. Just like "A" isn't "B", T213 isn't T206. You guys can debate all you want, it still won't change anything. Burdick got it right. He knew what he was doing on this set when he named it.

so maybe issues like t216 kotton...where different types have different stock thickness...were categorized incorrectly?

Well that doesn't really make sense does it?????

Leon · #3 03-03-2016, 07:22 AM

T216 is the same, in that instance, as T213. So yes, it does make sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ullmandds

so maybe issues like t216 kotton...where different types have different stock thickness...were categorized incorrectly?

Well that doesn't really make sense does it?????

DixieBaseball · #4 03-03-2016, 09:21 AM

Rob,
Congrats on the 66 of 68 Coupon Type 1 set (and the 1/4 run on 2nd set)! Simply amazing. What is your time horizon for all this hard work? 20 years?? I have never known anyone to finish the type 1 set. I know of one or two folks that have made a meaningful impact on the set and I have talked with one board member about a known individual that claims to have a complete set, but it has not been confirmed by anyone else.

I went after the set for about 10 or so years, and got to around 55 cards, and then fizzled out. I kept some, auctioned some, sold a few to hobby friends. (We even did some deals, best I recall)

You may very well own 5-10% of the known Coupon Type 1 cards! LOL

rman444 · #5 03-03-2016, 10:52 AM

T213-1 could be classified as a T206, and certainly fits the mold as far as size and surface finish even more so than American Beauty and Cobb Back. If not for the subsequent issue of T213-2 and -3, a T213-1 coupon back would more than likely have been only known as just another super rare T206 back.

Burdick cataloged his tens of thousands of cards some 80 years ago, without the help of internet, national card conventions and the far reaching arms of today's media. To think that Burdick, if he were alive today, would have the arrogance to think that he could not have made any mistakes, or that he would not have wanted or accepted updates/corrections to his ACC based on 8 decades of new finds, research and debate, is hard for me to believe.

ullmandds · #6 03-03-2016, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rman444

T213-1 could be classified as a T206, and certainly fits the mold as far as size and surface finish even more so than American Beauty and Cobb Back. If not for the subsequent issue of T213-2 and -3, a T213-1 coupon back would more than likely have been only known as just another super rare T206 back.

Burdick cataloged his tens of thousands of cards some 80 years ago, without the help of internet, national card conventions and the far reaching arms of today's media. To think that Burdick, if he were alive today, would have the arrogance to think that he could not have made any mistakes, or that he would not have wanted or accepted updates/corrections to his ACC based on 8 decades of new finds, research and debate, is hard for me to believe.

Totally agree!!! Incredible card btw!

Leon · #7 03-03-2016, 11:13 AM

Great looking Cobb.
Who is thinking anything concerning Burdick not knowing he made mistakes? He absolutely knew he probably did AND he wanted updates and corrections. Had he not mentioned the similarity of T213 to T206, I would be right there with you. ..I could be wrong but to me this is a strong argument for him knowing what he was doing on this one. He didn't make these analogies often in his descriptions (relatively speaking)...But at this point everyone can think what they want to. It's all fun!! This is from the 1960 version of the ACC..

DixieBaseball · #8 03-03-2016, 12:25 PM

I agree and I believe it was just easier for him to catalog the Type 1 with the other 2 types and have their own designation. If Hindu had a release in 1914 and 1919 like the type 2 & 3 Coupons would Hindu have it's own designation? It's seems obvious to me that under the ATC umbrella of 16 brands of cigarettes, a 17th should be added since that brand (Coupon) looks just like a T206 and was released during the same period (1910). Furthermore, Factory 3, Louisiana is on the back of the Type 1 Coupon and we know that that factory known as the Irby Branch was owned by ATC at one time. All the other 16 brands were under the ATC umbrella. Logic simply dictates this is another brand that should be with the other 16 brands known as T206. What Burdick did was probably just lump the Type 1 in with the other 2 types for clarity to have their own designation as a group. If he were alive today, I believe he would chuckle and make the correction. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rman444

T213-1 could be classified as a T206, and certainly fits the mold as far as size and surface finish even more so than American Beauty and Cobb Back. If not for the subsequent issue of T213-2 and -3, a T213-1 coupon back would more than likely have been only known as just another super rare T206 back.

Burdick cataloged his tens of thousands of cards some 80 years ago, without the help of internet, national card conventions and the far reaching arms of today's media. To think that Burdick, if he were alive today, would have the arrogance to think that he could not have made any mistakes, or that he would not have wanted or accepted updates/corrections to his ACC based on 8 decades of new finds, research and debate, is hard for me to believe.

DixieBaseball · #9 03-03-2016, 01:35 PM

Burdick wrote/invented the ACC the numbering system. He knew T213s were similar to T206 as he said that in his listing where he defined them. I think it's funny how collectors twist and turn and make up all kinds of stories. But at the end of the day, Burdick classified Coupons correctly. There isn't 1, no not 1, T206 with thin stock like the type 1 coupons. Just like "A" isn't "B", T213 isn't T206. You guys can debate all you want, it still won't change anything. Burdick got it right. He knew what he was doing on this set when he named it.

Did Burdick classify them correctly or just simply classify them? He is a man, who cataloged cards with limited resource decades ago. The paper theory is always an intriguing one, but may not have anything to do with the fact that the brand Coupon is one and the same as the other 16 ATC brands. We know there were 9 assorted brands and 7 brands that had series/subjects. Of the 9 assorted brands, some were regional in release like Hindu Cigarettes. Coupons were obviously more obscure than most of the other 16 brands. We don't know why thin card stock was used or how it was marketed/released/distributed in the Deep South. There may be a very good reason or perhaps it simply to save money by using less cardboard. The release date and look of the card front and back is spot on to what Burdick cataloged (the 16 ATC Brands) as T206. He has not opined on why the card stock was thin thus making it different. He has simply formed a catalog system to lump the 3 Coupon brands together to catalog them for collector use. I don't think the card stock had anything to do with it. The AB's are cut narrower so one could argue they shouldn't be in the T206 umbrella. Also, the Ty Cobb is a different texture, so throw that one out as well.

The Type 1 Coupons were obviously very limited in their release and it may have not been traditional in that they were in individual packs but perhaps Cartons or even Cases/Boxes of Cartons at Retailers (See rppc below of New Orleans retailer) Also it's conceivable they were similar to Ty Cobb Back tobacco cards in that they were promotional and released to retailers directly instead of in Tobacco Tins (Cobb back) or in cartons/boxes/cases of Coupons. These aren't wild theories, but reasonable ones when looking at the scarcity of the Type 1 Coupon (or the Ty Cobb back as well). Everything lines up except card stock which there may be a simple, yet good reason for which has nothing to do with this being an ATC brand. (Factory 3 - New Orleans, La. was considered a regional (Irby) branch of ATC, so that holds more weight with me than card stock theory. In fact it suggests the brand was right there with other regional brands, so why not put it where it rightfully belongs? I think we put too much faith in Burdick's catalog system as the card gospel when it's actually just a very good collector guide to cards.

The Type 1 Coupon was merely an assorted ATC brand with regional (limited obviously) release like Hindu, but much less in volume. I think as the debate continues, the T213-1 is slowly becoming a T206. There is too much common sense and logic behind it. Too much is made of Burdick's catalog system. It's not definitive. It's a guide to help fellow collector's. It's a good thing, but to swear by his ACC designations is na�ve. Ultimately release date, and look of the Coupon is spot on. Card stock can easily be debated since there is no evidence why thin card stock was used.

kell75 · #10 03-03-2016, 01:43 PM

Congrats on the Cobb I was the cosigner to REA. It helped me finish my restoration on my 1978 Bandit Trans Am. I do miss it.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
WTB: t213-3 coupons	trobba	Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T	6	01-14-2015 03:35 PM
1936 National Chicle Fine Pens - are they thin paper stock?	frankhardy	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	6	11-08-2014 05:30 PM
T216 Kotton Thin Paper Larry McLean	phlflyer1	Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T	1	03-28-2014 03:57 AM
T213 Coupons....	Leon	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	88	02-02-2013 11:59 PM
N172 Old Judge - Thin Paper Stock (help needed)	h2oya311	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	15	07-07-2012 06:26 PM