Interesting trivia about 1910 COUPON (T213-1) cards...show us some of these rare gems

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I'm not sure I understand all of your questions Rob. Personally it doesn't matter to me if some people want to group them in with t206's but I do think the date they were printed is important.

In most of the newspapers they were all just called baseball pictures or cigarette pictures all the way back to the late 1800's with the Old Judges and other sets from that era.

I think because of the popularity of what we now call the t206's shortly before the t213-2's they decided to try the same thing with the Coupon type 1's and the cheapest/easiest way was to print them on the thinner stock using the t206 images. (I think this answers Peters question too)

Pat in part, but why then make the change for the Type 2s?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Pat in part, but why then make the change for the Type 2s?

Just an opinion Peter but my thought is the "trial" was successful so the decided to print them on thicker stock and maybe put their own stamp on them by using the blue captions.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Just an opinion Peter but my thought is the "trial" was successful so the decided to print them on thicker stock and maybe put their own stamp on them by using the blue captions.

I guess my theory from a very high vantage point and obviously not having probed this as you have, would be that the change resulted from being under new ownership who decided to do things differently than ATC did, or maybe there was even a copyright issue and they had to make them look different. Thus, the first printing looked like the rest of the ATC cards because in fact Coupon was still an ATC brand at the time. But that may be contrary to specific evidence of date you've uncovered.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I guess my theory from a very high vantage point and obviously not having probed this as you have, would be that the change resulted from being under new ownership who decided to do things differently than ATC did, or maybe there was even a copyright issue and they had to make them look different. Thus, the first printing looked like the rest of the ATC cards because in fact Coupon was still an ATC brand at the time. But that may be contrary to specific evidence of date you've uncovered.

If that was the case I don't think they would have been able to use the same images.

The complete dissolution took longer than most people think. I think I posted a thread on it I'll see if I can find it.

ATC 5 complete Dissolution 11-18-1912.jpg

Here's the thread.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...obacco+company

[RCMcKenzie]

Sorry, I can say and write some convoluted things sometimes.

For what Burdick called "T206", is it fair to say David Hall is the only person who tried to put a "set" of T206 together? I collect the cards by the backs. I'm working on all 3 Coupon types, AB350 NF, Cycle460, and numerous player back runs. If I'm able to find all of the known cards with an AB350NF back, then I will have a set in my mind. Some may call it a subset of what Hall was collecting.

Series like the Type 3 Coupons say "Collect all 70" so we know it was meant to be complete, as it's own set, at 70 cards. We know of 70 known. Victory says "90" and some are yet to be discovered, if ever.

Were the makers of T206 Piedmont 150 cards wanting people to stay with the same brand and collect all 150?

My point is that T206 is an arbitrary term to begin with. It was applied to the cards decades after they were created.

On the blue type face, where does that leave T214 and T215-2, which are blue?

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's obviously an after the fact designation but that doesn't, to me, make it arbitrary, I assume Burdick's intent was to group all cards from ATC brands that had fronts that looked alike?

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's obviously an after the fact designation but that doesn't, to me, make it arbitrary, I assume Burdick's intent was to group all cards from ATC brands that had fronts that looked alike?

Burdick did a great job, and later Lipset and Lemke. Pat is pointing to evidence that I don't think was known to Burdick. Perhaps, it was. By arbitrary, I mean casually, he left off T215-1 and T213-1, and sorted them with the blue-captioned ones.

On the Journals, did I read correctly that the T36 Auto Drivers set was only distributed in packs for a single day? There are far more examples to be found of T36 than T213-1.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Burdick did a great job, and later Lipset and Lemke. Pat is pointing to evidence that I don't think was known to Burdick. Perhaps, it was. By arbitrary, I mean casually, he left off T215-1 and T213-1, and sorted them with the blue-captioned ones.

On the Journals, did I read correctly that the T36 Auto Drivers set was only distributed in packs for a single day? There are far more examples to be found of T36 than T213-1.

I don't believe this is correct (or fully correct). There are some oddities in the ledger book, and some pages that indicate multiple print runs/issue runs for the same set. For example, T53 is stated in one of the Posey letters in it to have starting packing and delivery on March 29, 1911. The very next letter in the book says this single-series single-brand issue started packing and delivery on May 23, 1911.

T218's 3rd series is stated to have been issued in February, 1911 on one page in the ledger itself, and one of the Posey letters states May 25th.

Many of the pages are also missing, they are numbered to at least 380. Including the Posey letters not counted in the page count, there are 65 pages still together plus the remnants of the T206 pages someone ripped out of the collection to sell at some point, removing a lot of context.

I suspect T36 is one of the issues that had multiple issue (and print?) runs, and so was not issued for only March 27 and 28, 1911.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's obviously an after the fact designation but that doesn't, to me, make it arbitrary, I assume Burdick's intent was to group all cards from ATC brands that had fronts that looked alike?

Peter, I don't know what Burdick's intentions were but personally I don't think they were printed with the t206's.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Peter, I don't know what Burdick's intentions were but personally I don't think they were printed with the t206's.

Yes I understand and I would not presume to say you are wrong given what I've seen of your research and analytical abilities, just trying to ask some questions to perhaps help clarify things perhaps not.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Peter, I don't know what Burdick's intentions were but personally I don't think they were printed with the t206's.

What is a T206? Take away the nomenclature. Can you describe why a Ty Cobb with a Ty Cobb back, a Keeler port Sovereign 150, and a Keeler port Piedmont 350 are part of a set?

I asked earlier if you thought Coupon 1 was a type of Broder. I'm totally fine with that. I'm reading that's what you are saying. It could have been a one-off test print on cheaper paper without a release date at all, could it not?