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

[buymycards]

I was reading a webpage called Tobacco Timeline http://www.tobacco.org/resources/his...story20-1.html
and it shows that ATC was broken up in 1911, and some of the tobacco companies, including Coupon, were awarded to Ligget and Myers.

Could it be that the Type 1's were printed by ATC and should be included in the T206 set and the Type 2's and 3's were printed by L&M and should be a separate issue?

Just a thought.

Rick

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by buymycards

I was reading a webpage called Tobacco Timeline http://www.tobacco.org/resources/his...story20-1.html
and it shows that ATC was broken up in 1911, and some of the tobacco companies, including Coupon, were awarded to Ligget and Myers.

Could it be that the Type 1's were printed by ATC and should be included in the T206 set and the Type 2's and 3's were printed by L&M and should be a separate issue?

Just a thought.

Rick

Rick

All these cards were printed by American Litho. (New York City) and then shipped to the Tobacco factories.
The main L & M plant (Factory #42) in Durham, NC did not print these cards.

Otherwise everything you said is true.

Regards,

TED Z

[insidethewrapper]

As new data is received opinions and history can be changed. We all know now that Abner Doubleday had nothing to do with baseball but he is still considered (by some ?)to have invented the game. Wrong information takes a time to die. The same with Burdick, he was not always right ( especially with the year of release) on the T213-1.

Maybe the T213-1 should be listed as 1910 T206-2 Thin Paper Type ( Regional). Therefore it could be connected with the T206 set, but not be part of it.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

As new data is received opinions and history can be changed. We all know now that Abner Doubleday had nothing to do with baseball but he is still in the HOF. The same with Burdick, he was not always right ( especially with the year of release) on the T213-1. Maybe the T213-1 should be listed as 1910 T206-2 Thin Paper Type ( Regional). Therefore it could be connected with the T206 set, but not be part of it.

Just a clarification: Abner Doubleday is not in the Hall of Fame. He's noted, of course, and the ball field is named after him. But he is not an inductee. Sorry - not trying to hijack this fascinating thread! ~ Ken

[Abravefan11]

I agree that it is strange that no uncut sheet has ever surfaced from such a large issue as T206. We know from cards like blank backs and Brown Old Mills that sheets or parts of sheets left the building, but it's fascinating that none have been found. I still hold out hope.

Rob D. - I have seen a strip larger than the five in the Wagner proof.

[caramelcard]

Tim,

It seems like your reasoning makes really good sense, but do you think that's what Burdick was thinking when he separated T213 from T206?

Rob

[Abravefan11]

Rob - I think Burdick as several others have said grouped the Type 1's separate from the T206 because the Type 2 and 3 cards existed. If there were no Type 2 or 3 then Type 1's would be part of the T206 set. So in my opinion he got the designation correct but for the wrong reason.

[judsonhamlin]

Ted - That is my take:

Both T206 and T213-1 were printed by the same company for the same company at the same time, with the same obverse design and a substantially similar reverse design.
The stock didn't make any difference when theT216 were grouped together, so that doesn't seem dispositive here.

Judd

[Abravefan11]

Ted - I feel very confident in my opinion that the T206 and T213-1's were printed in groups of 34. I have vetted this with several advanced T206 researches and collectors and when given the opportunity to lay out the facts to back up my opinion the conversations have been positive and my theory has held up to their scrutiny.

I at one time thought you were on to something with your 48 card theory but after looking closely at the evidence that you have provided and coupled that with what I have found I don't believe your theory is valid.

I am OK with you not wanting to let go of your position or if you don't want to take the time to give mine serious consideration, we can chose to respectfully disagree on this point.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Ted - I feel very confident in my opinion that the T206 and T213-1's were printed in groups of 34. I have vetted this with several advanced T206 researches and collectors and when given the opportunity to lay out the facts to back up my opinion the conversations have been positive and my theory has held up to their scrutiny.

I at one time thought you were on to something with your 48 card theory but after looking closely at the evidence that you have provided and coupled that with what I have found I don't believe your theory is valid.

I am OK with you not wanting to let go of your position or if you don't want to take the time to give mine serious consideration, we can chose to respectfully disagree on this point.

Tim

You have your theory and I have mine....and, that's fine.

The larger mystery remains....why haven't any forms of uncut (partial or complete) T206 sheets surfaced ?

Ten's of millions of these tobacco cards we cherish so much were printed 100 years ago and I find it very strange that no sheets have survived.


Regards,

TED Z

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Tim

You have your theory and I have mine....and, that's fine.

The larger mystery remains....why haven't any forms of uncut (partial or complete) T206 sheets surfaced ?

Ten's of millions of these tobacco cards we cherish so much were printed 100 years ago and I find it very strange that no sheets have survived.


Regards,

TED Z

It does seem strange that the only uncut T206 survivor is the strip of five:

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Rick

All these cards were printed by American Litho. (New York City) and then shipped to the Tobacco factories.
The main L & M plant (Factory #42) in Durham, NC did not print these cards.

Otherwise everything you said is true.

Regards,

TED Z

I think what Rick was getting at, is that since the brand in question changed companies after the type-1's, and before the type-2's, it should be somewhat rational to treat them a two completely different issues, rather than "types" of the same designation. Basically, with this information, type-1's should not fall under the T213 blanket...Now, that they don't have a reliable designation, the question really is, should they fall into the t206's? or should they be assigned a new designation all-together?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I think what Rick was getting at, is that since the brand in question changed companies after the type-1's, and before the type-2's, it should be somewhat rational to treat them a two completely different issues, rather than "types" of the same designation. Basically, with this information, type-1's should not fall under the T213 blanket...Now, that they don't have a reliable designation, the question really is, should they fall into the t206's? or should they be assigned a new designation all-together?

David N

I think Rick has made an excellent point that reinforces that the T213-1 cards should be classified as T206's. After the American Tobacco Co. divestiture in 1911,
all subsequent tobacco card sets (T213-2 or -3, and T215-2) should logically have their own classification.

My question is....did Burdick take this into consideration ?

It doesn't appear so, regarding the T213-1 cards.


TED Z