Appease me, please....one more time T206/T213/T215?

[E93]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

There is simply no relevance to a classification based on a later series of cards issued in later years.

Exactly. And in the absence of later Coupon sets from the post-T206 era, I think there is no doubt that Burdick and everybody since would consider them to be T206s.

My vote goes with Coupon Type 1's as T206.
JimB

[B O'Brien]

I do love this debate and always have, but I do have a question.

According to the experts on the board, what would it take to make the T213-1's a T206? Would it be some kind of documentation from ATC as to orders, print runs, or marketing action plans produced by the leadership team of the ATC in late 1909? Would it be something else (AB wet sheet transfer?)? I am just wondering. In my work life, I am not a fan of debating, I just like to know what it takes to sway opinion to believing in a fact, and then work to that goal. I am not saying that this would ever be produced, but just wondering what it would take.

O hell, that sounded like a work email! Please forgive me!!! Also, I would love to see some answers to this question.

Hope all is well,
Bob

[canjond]

Honestly Bob - not even sure a wet sheet like you pose would do the trick. There is no question the cards were printed at American Litho in NYC... same place the "accepted" T206s were printed. It's easy to speculate that the cards were being printed at the same time, and a wet sheet transfer happened that way. After all, there are T206s backs that have laxative ads printed on them - originating from some other print run that American Litho must have contemporeanously been doing.

I think this is certainly one of those friendly debates where the sides will forever stay apart.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by canjond

I think this is certainly one of those friendly debates where the sides will forever stay apart.

I agree 100% with that statement even if I feel strongly that they are not T206's. As I've stated in my previous post the T213-1's contradict how the T206's were printed and I won't be able to get past that I don't think. But if someone else can that's all good too. It's a fun conversation.

[jimonym]

SGC's labels are incorrect. These cards were not put out by the "Coupon Cigarette Company," but by the American Tobacco Company, same as T206's. Anyone know why they started labeling them that way?

[steve B]

I would think an AB wet sheet transfer on a coupon would be very suspect. Brands just wouldn't have been likely to get mixed like that.
I've totally revised my thinking aboout wet sheet transfers/ offset transfers recently. I showed why in a recent thread that drew no attention.

I'm on the fence about Coupon and Red Cross Type 1s being T206s. The best argument against the coupons that I've seen is the timing of the print run and what cards are included. That puts the production outside of normal T206 production so I'd be inclined to lean towards the no side.

Does any ATC paperwork exist? I wonder how the brands were chosen to include T206s or not. Was it part of a company wide overall marketing campaign, or were there individual brand managers who had a choice.
I can see maybe the Coupon manager either getting approval in late or deciding later on that he wanted certain groups of players and cheaper stock. That might sway me into thinking they are t206s.

I'm also a bit biased against the idea. Firstly from tradition. Silly, perhaps, but I like silly old traditions. Secondly because I have no Type 1 Coupons or Red Cross. I've come to grips with the probability that I'll always be 3 backs short of a complete back set, adding 2 more fairly tough ones would be a bit of a setback.

Steve B

Steve B

Originally Posted by canjond

Honestly Bob - not even sure a wet sheet like you pose would do the trick. There is no question the cards were printed at American Litho in NYC... same place the "accepted" T206s were printed. It's easy to speculate that the cards were being printed at the same time, and a wet sheet transfer happened that way. After all, there are T206s backs that have laxative ads printed on them - originating from some other print run that American Litho must have contemporeanously been doing.

I think this is certainly one of those friendly debates where the sides will forever stay apart.

[cdn_collector]

For the past few weeks [months?], I have been watching Ted's threads about the various confirmed back lists for each 'accepted' T206 brand. As he got closer to list number 14 I started to wonder if he'd then post a Coupon Type 1 and/or Red Cross Type 1 list. And once that happened, I wondered who would be the one to post the "are they or aren't they" thread. I don't think we'll ever get consensus on the issue, much like we'll never get consensus on who should and shouldn't be in the hall of fame. I guess that's what makes baseball -- and baseball cards -- fun. So many angles, so many opinions, so many debates. And sometimes they can even be friendly ones

When this argument came around the last time, I found myself wanting to believe that T213-1 and T215-1 *should* be T206s. That's right, I said it. I *wanted* to believe. I hoped that some shred of unquestionable proof would be presented to seal the deal, but none ever did. At the same time, I didn't see that there was that one piece of unquestionable proof to prove the opposite, either. And as such, for me, I'm not convinced one way or the other, which allows me to believe what I want. And as Frank [I believe it was] stated earlier, some people just want them to be T206s. I'm one of those people.

However, out of respect for the work that Burdick did, I won't call them T206s. In my mind they are all 1909-12 American Tobacco Company White Borders. And maybe it's only because the fronts are so identical, but that's good enough for me for now.


Regards,

Richard.

[FrankWakefield]

Well said, Richard.

Bob, can you look at it from the other perspective, what proof would convince you that T213-1's and T215-1's should be as Mr. Burdick designated them, and not T206's???

[B O'Brien]

Frank,
Nice reply (and also the others, thanks), see my thoughts below!

Craig,
It is easy to see our different areas of work based on our replies! Hope all is well my friend.

I was once asked in a Lit class what Hemmingway had in mind when he wrote one of his short stories. My reply was (to this one instance), that he had nothing in mind, he was just writing to make a few bucks and pass some time. As much as I hate to say it, I am inclined to think that the ATC was marching to the same beat.

Our well loved T cards, produced by the ATC were just slinging material. There was no grand plan, as much as I wish otherwise. I think with the thin stock of the T213-1's, could have just as easily been used for a percentage of the 350 Cycles. I think they had a tiny run request from the Coupon brand manager (!) and just happened to have some crap stock on hand from the board vendor and ran the Coupons to run it out, being that the on hand stock was equal to the 350 series order requested by the boys in NOLA. After all the cards were going down to BFE LA, so who cares about quality control!

I have checked the replies to my last post and see plenty of beating around the bush. I am well aware of the reasons not to include the T213-1's, but what would make them T206's without question?

As always, bottoms up,
Bob

[judsonhamlin]

I come down firmly on the side of including T213-1 and T215-1 as part of the T206 family. The similarities, to my thinking, outweigh any of the differences in stock or team caption. Although I am not a non-sport collector, I think a useful parallel might be the R73 Indian Gum set. Despite the differences in the color of the banner ad at the bottom of the cards, background color changes and the various "series of..." reverses, all 400+ varieties were produced by Goudey in the '30's and all are called R73. Even the post-war version gets a R773 designation. Here, regardless of the brand advertised and the caption and stock, the cards we now call T206, T213-1 and T215-1 were all produced by ALC in the 1909-12 time frame. To me, the rationale seems to be similar. Why lump one set and not the other? I think Burdick got wrapped up in the brand/factory designations as the primary identifying feature of the cards and ignored or was unaware of the printing point of origin for these cards as being the overriding common denominator.

[B O'Brien]

I am also a no on the 215 card.
Bob

[ethicsprof]

Just got in after a lengthy class and must say that what i missed here seems much more interesting. Even though i taught the class.
Just had to say thanks Leon for the offer of free libations at the appointed time---and thanks Ted for the kind words of support.

all the best,friends

barry

[White Borders]

I propose that Coupon Type 1's are both T213-1's and T206's. Same goes for Red Cross' being both T215's and T206's.

This is easily explained using quantum mechanics.

Sir Isaac Newton (Leon) claimed that light (Coupon Type 1 or Red Cross) behaved as particles (T213-1 or T215, respectively).

Contemporaneously (I kinda like that word), Christian Huygens (Ted Z) was steadfast in that light (Coupon Type 1 or Red Cross) behaved as waves (T206).

Eventually the work of great minds such as Planck (No, not the pitcher), Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein, and others brought forth the Duality Theory, which recognized that light (Coupon Type 1 or Red Cross (remember this post is about baseball cards)) behaves as both particles (T213-1 or T215, respectively) and waves (T206).

And I just realized that Physics and Physical Chemistry would have been a lot easier if I had collected these T-Cards back when I was in college

Best Regards,
Craig