Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Come on Pat, this is quite laughable: "getting baited in by your underhanded comments."

I have never, ever INITIATED negative comments against you. That's not my style. Yes, I may have responded with some remarks, and only because you have numerous times
on this forum called me a liar.
But, so did your two "buddies" Rivera and Cathey.

For years these two guys were very appreciative of my research into the T206 set. They would regularly pick my brain regarding T206's. Hey, I could bring up many Net54 posts
dating back to 2006 as evidence of this. And then, suddenly, in 2012 they turned on me.

I was especially disappointed in Jim Rivera. For many years I sold (or traded) him many, many rare back T206's at the Philly Show. When I got BROAD LEAF's, EPDG's, HINDU's,
LENOX, etc., I'd save them for him.
Jim thought he would give it a try being a dealer at the Philly Show, so I gladly allowed him to share my booth (circa 2009-2010). I would advertise "the Jim & Ted team" set-up
at Booth #408. We had fun "Talkin T206's" for hours at the Show. I met his family and he met my wife. I recall one time when a "walk-in" brought us a bunch of T206's. I started
sorting them out according to the Series they were in. One card in this lot was a PIEDMONT42 Wiltse (cap). I quickly recognized it as one of only 9 subjects known in the 460-only series....Jim was really impressed.
Oh well, Jim unfortunately showed me how "appreciative" he was ! !

So, that's the story Pat. I could tell you much more, but I don't think you want to hear it. Nor do the most of the members of this forum.

Good bye.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Ted, I pointed out your initial negative comment. In post #68 you said I was
uninformed and misleading people. The uniformed and misleading information
you referred to was based on your opinion not a fact so your comments were
absolutely negative.


I have been posting on here for 8+ years and we have had many heated
arguments but I have never called you a liar. And to be clear
I'm not calling you a liar now either I'm merely saying you're wrong.

I'm sure there are several people saying here we go again but I think I
have the right to defend myself when you say I called you a liar several
times when it never happened not once.

Now I ask you something you ask me all the time show me proof.

Show me where I made a negative comment towards you prior to post #68
and show me a post of mine where I called you a liar.

I expect silence when you can't come up with proof but I think owe you it
to me to respond when you accuse me of calling you a liar.

[tedzan]

Hey guys,

I could post a number of occasions where Pat R. has responded to a theory (or statement) of mine regarding T206's where he has in effect said I was lying (or misleading).
I'll only post here what I consider Pat's most egregious example questioning of my character and my dedication to inform the hobby of the complexities of the T206 set.

Excerpted from thread dated 12/3/2016..... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=220948&page=7

Originally Posted by Pat R

Ted,

If you're concerned about confusing readers you should clear up this discrepancy involving your group A subjects for those that search the archives.

Your group A subjects are all AB460 no-prints but in this thread about the
AB460 subset you put together you have four of the group A subjects listed
in your set. Ames (hands over head), Baker, Elberfeld (Washington-fielding)
and Snodgrass (Catching).
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...page=2&t=91361

My response…..

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hey Pat

Don't worry guy, most readers of my threads are not confused. My T206 theory's and the empirical knowledge I've gained from putting together various sets (and sub-sets)
these past 37 years. And, my collecting experience that I have very generously shared with members of this forum speaks for itself.
Anyone here is free to check-out the T206 information posted in the "Consolidated access to the 15 - T206 T-brand (front/back) surveys....UPDATED " thread which
Leon has archived......
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=132611&page=6

And, I am surprised at your remarks regarding my AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 information and the near complete run (70/74) of these cards that I have put together. It has all
been documented in this Net54 thread...... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=124927&page=5
Which you are up to date on, since you have posted on this thread in 2016.


However, you choose to go back 8+ years to a thread that I posted, in which I listed 4 mistakes (out of 70 cards). Three of which (Baker, Elberfeld, and Snodgrass) in which
I discovered later that they actually had to be AB 350 cards. Unfortunately, these 3 cards in my collection had back damage and it wasn't easy to tell whether they were 350
or 460 (Factory #25 or Factory #42, respectively). Furthermore, back then Bill Brown's T206 Super-Set Excel list indicated that these 3 subjects (plus Ames) were confirmed
AB 460 cards. And, I have since then proven that these 4 subjects could not be AB 460 cards.


Anyhow, I'll tell you what really "ticks me off" about your remarks. I heard these EXACT words from some one 8 years ago (who doesn't post on Net54 any more). I sense
that this person has put you up to posting his 8-year old remarks (it's typical of his sick style). So, I dare you to deny that this is why you posted these negative remarks ? ?

I didn't think this was your style !

TED Z
.

Pat's response

Originally Posted by Pat R

No Ted nobody put me up to posting this. I have noticed discrepancy's
in several of your posts. I refrained from posting about them but I have had
enough of your condescending remarks like uninformed, ignorant, naïve, ect...

There is no doubt that you have done a lot of research on this set but for
me it is negated by the fact that you can't admit when you make a "mistake".

By the way Snodgrass (catching) wasn't printed with any of the American
Beauty backs so your back damage excuse doesn't cut it with me.

My response

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hey folks....if some one posts critical comments about you today that are identical to what you've heard from some one else 8 years ago, what is the probability
of this occurrence being just coincidental ? The probability is some where between 100,000 - Million to 1.

So....knowing you have a connection to that other party....you are not being truthful.

OK, you want to talk about mistakes....I admitted 8 years ago that I made on some of those T206 front/back cards. We were all still learning about The Monster.

And, what is more important is that my subsequent research resulted in significant information that is presented in this thread to Net54 members who appreciate
all this "nitty-gritty" stuff regarding T206's.

So, let's discuss your mistakes starting with this thread......in posts #45 and #47 you posted images of 460-only series subjects (Howell, Bergen, Overall, Murray)
that DO NOT pertain to the 350/460 series cards that this thread is devoted to. It is a distraction in the subject matter being discussed here.

If you want to talk 460-only series cards, why not simply start another thread.

TED Z
.

Incidentally, the other party in this discussion is Jim Rivera, who is Pat's buddy, and most likely has provided Pat with the above "talking points".

I will conclude this with the following......I do not understand what is Pat's problem concerning me. There have been some instances where he has posted on my threads
with some really meaningful stuff. But then there are times where he has impulsively been negative. And this has caused my thread to get side-tracked (as has occurred
in this thread).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[t206fix]

What is the definition of a t206? Do we have a consensus? I always took the definition to mean a card issued by the ATC and distributed in/with packs of cigarettes between 1909-1911. Is there another definition out there?

If not, and if Coupons were produced in 1910 by the ATC, then by definition they should be t206s.

I think the inclusion of Byrne, Mowrey and Rossman in the Coupon set indicates they were printed before Ted's ABCD grouping (AB, BL, Cylcle, Drum), since all three are ABCD no prints. This indicates Coupons were produced before the bulk of the 350 series. This excerpt is from Reader's Inside t206 The Bible:

Byrne, Mowrey and Rossman have been confirmed to date with a very limited number of 350 series backs that includes only Piedmont 350, Sovereign 350, Sweet Caporal 350/25, Sweet Caporal 350/30 and, in the case of Byrne and Mowrey, Tolstoi. The apparent unavailability of these subjects with a fuller complement of 350 series backs may be traceable to the depiction of these three players with teams from which they were traded in August 1909, before distribution of the 350-only subject group began.

Also note that Becker(1910), Campbell(1909), Charles (1909), Dubuc (1910), Engle (1910), Huggins (1910), McIntyre (1910), Paskert (1911), LaPorte (1911) and Starr (1909) were all traded to new teams during this time. Eleven more Coupon subjects were out of baseball by the time the t206 production had ended.

I do believe most t206 followers would reasonably conclude that Coupons were produced during the t206 era. ATC made a strong effort to include the right player with the right team. If they produced this set in, say 1914... it'd be all out of whack.

However, a few things Pat posted makes sense to me. The Coupons fit no other 350 pattern. I'm a math guy, and the patterns of the AB.350nf, BL.350, C.350 and D.350 make reasonable sense... The Coupon back does not (*see below, good luck trying to figure it out). Why?

48 random 350 subjects, of which 45 follow the ABCD pattern. Eleven also have a Carolina Brights card (including Billy Campbell, who was out of baseball by 1909). And, I asked this question earlier in this thread, but why doesn't the Coupon back include the "350 subjects"? As Mike, "Inside the West Coast Rapper", put it earlier, "it looks like a regional issue". Somebody may surmise that the ATC, circa 1909, decided to glue a few Coupons on the end of those 100+ cigarette cartons to distribute down south with a couple of Southern Leaguers to entice the locals to buy their new "Coupon" product. Maybe, it wasn't meant to be the full "350 subjects", but just a one off.

Therefore, in conclusion your honor, if Coupons were printed in 1910, by the ATC, they should be a t206 by most definitions.

Pat and Ted are t206 godfathers - their knowledge of the t206s will be passed down from generation to generation. We'll carve their names... ok, going a bit far, but I hate to see the rift between them. I have learned so much from both of them and appreciate their contributions to t206 history.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by t206fix

What is the definition of a t206? Do we have a consensus? I always took the definition to mean a card issued by the ATC and distributed in/with packs of cigarettes between 1909-1911. Is there another definition out there?

If not, and if Coupons were produced in 1910 by the ATC, then by definition they should be t206s.

I think the inclusion of Byrne, Mowrey and Rossman in the Coupon set indicates they were printed before Ted's ABCD grouping (AB, BL, Cylcle, Drum), since all three are ABCD no prints. This indicates Coupons were produced before the bulk of the 350 series. This excerpt is from Reader's Inside t206 The Bible:

Byrne, Mowrey and Rossman have been confirmed to date with a very limited number of 350 series backs that includes only Piedmont 350, Sovereign 350, Sweet Caporal 350/25, Sweet Caporal 350/30 and, in the case of Byrne and Mowrey, Tolstoi. The apparent unavailability of these subjects with a fuller complement of 350 series backs may be traceable to the depiction of these three players with teams from which they were traded in August 1909, before distribution of the 350-only subject group began.

Also note that Becker(1910), Campbell(1909), Charles (1909), Dubuc (1910), Engle (1910), Huggins (1910), McIntyre (1910), Paskert (1911), LaPorte (1911) and Starr (1909) were all traded to new teams during this time. Eleven more Coupon subjects were out of baseball by the time the t206 production had ended.

I do believe most t206 followers would reasonably conclude that Coupons were produced during the t206 era. ATC made a strong effort to include the right player with the right team. If they produced this set in, say 1914... it'd be all out of whack.

However, a few things Pat posted makes sense to me. The Coupons fit no other 350 pattern. I'm a math guy, and the patterns of the AB.350nf, BL.350, C.350 and D.350 make reasonable sense... The Coupon back does not (*see below, good luck trying to figure it out). Why?

48 random 350 subjects, of which 45 follow the ABCD pattern. Eleven also have a Carolina Brights card (including Billy Campbell, who was out of baseball by 1909). And, I asked this question earlier in this thread, but why doesn't the Coupon back include the "350 subjects"? As Mike, "Inside the West Coast Rapper", put it earlier, "it looks like a regional issue". Somebody may surmise that the ATC, circa 1909, decided to glue a few Coupons on the end of those 100+ cigarette cartons to distribute down south with a couple of Southern Leaguers to entice the locals to buy their new "Coupon" product. Maybe, it wasn't meant to be the full "350 subjects", but just a one off.

Therefore, in conclusion your honor, if Coupons were printed in 1910, by the ATC, they should be a t206 by most definitions.

Pat and Ted are t206 godfathers - their knowledge of the t206s will be passed down from generation to generation. We'll carve their names... ok, going a bit far, but I hate to see the rift between them. I have learned so much from both of them and appreciate their contributions to t206 history.

Great post Tony. I think it's the most unbiased post in this thread.

It would be interesting to hear Scot's opinion on them.