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

[Abravefan11]

No, I must have confused you and I'll try to clarify.

1) Is true.

2) Old Mill and EPDG do not deviate. When the 150-350 run was being printed they printed backs with EPDG and some with Old Mill. 150-350 production stopped and was replaced by 350 Only subjects. Once they began printing these images they printed some with Old Mill and some with EPDG. They never printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time.

3) T213-1 printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time. This did not happen at anytime in the T206 print runs with any back.

4) T213-1 are different than EPDG and Old Mill.

5) 1-4 lead me to conclude T213-1 are not T206's.

Once the images were pulled from production in the T206 set it makes sense for them to be reused as a low cost alternative to creating a new set from scratch for another project separate from T206.

[T206Collector]

....because I don't see the significance of what you see.

How do you know:

1. That T213-1 printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time; and

2. That this did not happen at anytime in the T206 print runs with any back?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

....because I don't see the significance of what you see.

How do you know:

1. That T213-1 printed 150-350 and 350 Only subjects at the same time; and

2. That this did not happen at anytime in the T206 print runs with any back?

I wish there was a simple way for me to answer those two questions but there isn't. I can tell you I have studied how ATC and ALC grouped and printed cards throughout the T206 print runs and feel everything I have told you to be factual to the best of my knowledge.

Based on this information and what I know about T213-1's they were printed in the same manner as the T206's and the T213-1's were printed on two different sheets. No matter how you group the set onto the two sheets in the manner ALC printed these cards you mix 150-350 and 350 Only subjects. Something that never happened (based on my research) in the printing of the T206 set.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

I wish there was a simple way for me to answer those two questions but there isn't. I can tell you I have studied how ATC and ALC grouped and printed cards throughout the T206 print runs and feel everything I have told you to be factual to the best of my knowledge.

Based on this information and what I know about T213-1's they were printed in the same manner as the T206's and the T213-1's were printed on two different sheets. No matter how you group the set onto the two sheets in the manner ALC printed these cards you mix 150-350 and 350 Only subjects. Something that never happened (based on my research) in the printing of the T206 set.

Well, if you could affirmatively establish a printing rule for the T206 set that was not followed by any of the other T206 backs, you would have me somewhat convinced that they should be treated differently. However, since different backs had different print runs, I'm not that it really tells us anything substantive. Moreover, I suspect that Leon's point about the later T213 Series being Burdick's motivation for a different classification is why we have the different classifications. I would wager Burdick had no idea about the print runs you speak of. Thus, at best, Burdick may have been "right" but for what I believe were unjustified reasons.

[toppcat]

Burdick had help from many other collectors; I forget who helped him with the T Baseball cards but it was a prominent name as I recall. Don't forget that there could have been some access to information back them that we do not have today that helped divide up the ACC and the subgroupings.

Now I am following this and the related Red Cross thread with some interest as the debate is fascinating to me. A bigger question might be why are the type 1 Coupons and the Red Cross cards not assigned the same T number? Timing of the issues being later than T206 would have seemingly been a factor Burdick could have considered when classifying these two.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Thus, at best, Burdick may have been "right" but for what I believe were unjustified reasons.

That's basically what I said in post #40.

I wish I could better explain my position but I appreciate you giving me multiple opportunities to clarify my point. I think we got close to an understanding.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

That's basically what I said in post #40.

I wish I could better explain my position but I appreciate you giving me multiple opportunities to clarify my point. I think we got close to an understanding.

I'm open-minded about the issue. I just need something a bit more concrete than some of the circular reasoning expressed in this thread. I would also need proof of the printing differentials you speak of. Given his extreme understanding and passion about T206 backs, how is it that Ted and you don't see eye to eye on this issue? Where do you guys differ in terms of understanding T206/T213-1 differentiation? Is it the weight you each put on the (in)significance of the print runs?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

I'm open-minded about the issue. I just need something a bit more concrete than some of the circular reasoning expressed in this thread. I would also need proof of the printing differentials you speak of. Given his extreme understanding and passion about T206 backs, how is it that Ted and you don't see eye to eye on this issue? Where do you guys differ in terms of understanding T206/T213-1 differentiation? Is it the weight you each put on the (in)significance of the print runs?

I too remain as open minded about any subject like this as I can and enjoy reading anyone's perspective whether we agree or not. I'm not exactly sure where Ted and I differ on our opinions or if he has ever considered the point of view that I am coming from. I will have to go back and read his opinion and see if I can determine where we differ.