Why all T206 backs in one set instead of separate ? ?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

BTW, before Burdick wrote the ACC, in early 1936, he defined T206's as -

"Set ss - Baseball players (white framed cards), Sweet Caporal, Cycle, Sovereign, Polar Bear, Old Mill, and several candy and gum sets of similar designs."

I think his main emphasis was to categorize cards in a way to make them easier to collect. Nothing more and nothing less. Today we might over-analyze things but that wasn't Burdick's idea. That is our idea because we are so freaking addicted .

Perhaps, but AFTER he wrote the ACC, the T206 set was separated out from other sets in what I consider to be a very logical manner, for the two reasons I gave above. I don't think this set was defined inconsistently with the way he defined others. If there are cases where that isn't true, it's probably due to information that he didn't have available.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Perhaps, but AFTER he wrote the ACC, the T206 set was separated out from other sets in what I consider to be a very logical manner, for the two reasons I gave above. I don't think this set was defined inconsistently with the way he defined others. If there are cases where that isn't true, it's probably due to information that he didn't have available.

Ok, I agree. Then that will beg the question why you called a T213-1 Coupon a T206 in a very recent thread?

I too think Burdick did a great job and think, after the aforementioned tries at redoing the ACC, we should leave well enough alone. Just my opinion on that. Also, for the record, in this day and age there is no way in heck anyone should have any difficulty with knowing, from lists on this board and other internet venues, what the backs, factories and districts are. I also think it is very healthy and fun to debate these issues.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

Ok, I agree. Then that will beg the question why you called a T213-1 Coupon a T206 in a very recent thread?

I too think Burdick did a great job and think, after the aforementioned tries at redoing the ACC, we should leave well enough alone. Just my opinion on that. Also, for the record, in this day and age there is no way in heck anyone should have any difficulty with knowing, from lists on this board and other internet venues, what the backs, factories and districts are. I also think it is very healthy and fun to debate these issues.

Haha! I caught your reference to that in the initial post.

I was just yanking chains. Didn't get a reaction until now - thanks!

[Ronnie73]

Maybe Burdick didn't know at the time that there would be 38 different backs and 5500+ different card combinations and to seperate them to make it easier. As far as seperate listings, I keep lists of backs seperate in a spreadsheet. It is easier to search them that way. Basically all I did was combine PSA and SGC pop reports and also used the SuperSet spreadsheet and the lists that Ted has put together to get an idea of whats out there. As far as a price guide for 5500+ cards, I just don't think it would ever be an accurate value source since the prices move so much so quickly. I keep track of ebay sucessful sales of rare back T206's and during the past year of 2011, most cards have doubled in price. I think if there was a price guide, I believe everyone would stop looking at the prices when they realize the cards can't be bought at the listed price.

I think all the "what if" and "why don't" of the T206 set is what makes it a fun and difficult set to collect and even talk about and understand. Its kinda like a pizza, you can slice it so many different ways and divide it into many different numbers of pieces but in the end, its still just the same pizza.