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

[caramelcard]

Burdick classified type 1 coupons as T213 because it was easier for folks reading his catalog to identify the cards with the other coupon issues.

I think he could've gone the other way just as easily, but didn't because he decided to group the coupon premiums together. Not only with coupons but on other occasions too.

He classified E92s together because they share front images and it would be easier for folks reading his catalog to identify the group of cards together, but it doesn't really make much sense knowing what we now know about the four subsets.

My point is...that some of his classifications don't make any sense.


Do T213s belong to T206?

If we're gonna be this picky about the naming of each issue then to me this argument makes no sense anyways. All the the different premiums should've been designated as separate issues and not grouped together in the first place.

T206-1 (Piedmont) T206-2 (Sweet Cap.) T206-3 (Old Mill SL) T206-4 (Coupon), etc, etc.

Why are Old Mill T206 cards more T206 than coupon type 1s? Because Coupon sponsored other cards that looked kind of similar to the T206 era tobacco premiums? That's not a good enough argument imo.

I could see arguing against it if there was a team change or player change, but there's not. They're the same type of cards.

Rob

[FrankWakefield]

I think the World Tobacco Index, which antedates the American Card Catalog, the WTI grouped cards by the tobacco brand.

So maybe the right way to address this all would be to give each brand its own distinct number. Not T206-1, T206-2.... but T400 for American Beauty, T401 for Broad Leaf, T402 for Coupon, T403 for Cycle, T404 for Drum...

Maybe, to the extent Mr. Burdick fouled things, he did it by lumping the different brands into T206, T205, and T207.