Someone give me a good reason why Type 1 Coupons are not considered T206.

[Archive]

Posted By: robert a

Reasons for:

Same pictures
Same captions/team designations with no team changes
Same brown text on front
Same time period (350 series)
Same ornamental border as Broadleaf, Cycle, Drum, and AB which are all 1910/1911 backs like Coupon type 1s
Same text on back stating "Base Ball Series"

Reasons against:

Thin stock (American Beauties are thinner cards right?) In fact the other coupon issues don't have thin stock, so this should separate the type 1s from the other coupon types right?

I'm sure there are other reasons against. Let's hear a couple.

Thanks.

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

As we know Coupon Cigarettes were made mostly at Factory 3 in LA. and a few type 3's from Factory 8, in LA. Burdick describes them as the following, in the venerable ACC:

"T213- Baseball Series, Coupon cigs, designs of No. T206..... .25cents
2 types, name in brown as No.T206, or name in blue. On card or heavy paper. Issued 1914-1915 and includes Federal League. Many team changes. Name in blue value .... .35 cents"


I suspect he saw enough difference to keep them out of T206. Maybe the blue caption of the type 2's did it for him? I am not sure he even knew about type threes as his date would have been later, though, back then I am not sure if the year was the most important thing and he might have lumped type 1 in with type 3, both having brown captions. I guess my simple answer would have been "not sure". I might chime in again as I think about it some more....

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Were Coupon cigarettes issued by the American Tobacco Trust that issued the T206s? I always assumed that the Louisiana cigarette companies were not part of the American Tobacco Trust, but I could be wrong. A different issuer would explain (or at least justify) the different designation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

Very same argument could easily be made for the T215 Type 1's. It may very well have been the thinner stock for the t213-1's that prompted the different designation. The t215's do say 100 to series on back so maybe that was the prompting for those. I knew an old time collector that had a few coupon in his t206 set, and to be honest they didn't really seem out of place.
-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

i don't know enough (hardly nothing) about coupons, but the fronts do look identical, and yes, similar printing aesthics on reverse.

just to clarify something, american beautys are narrower NOT thinner. same paper stock as other T206 brands.

MS

[Archive]

Posted By: robert a

Thanks for the replies.

Michael,

That was confusing the way I stated that. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that ABs are thinner (from side to side) which is a major difference. I would argue that this is a bigger difference than the issue of coupons being thinner stock.


Rhett,

Thanks for bringing the T215s into the conversation.

According to Lew's book, the T215 type 1s don't always "have the same wording in the captions..."

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...in favor of treating each of the different ad backs in T206 as a separate card set. But I am still quite willing to give Burdick's designation and logic full weight.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Given the monumental contribution Burdick made to the cataloguing of insert cards of all kinds, and the fact that he had virtually no references to use other than the knowledge and experience of fellow collectors, it is amazing the ACC designations are as accurate as they are. In fact, you would expect that some of the determinations he made fifty years ago would be disputed today.

Perhaps the T206 set, because of its complexity, is one of those sets where current opinion would differ from his. Maybe the T206 set should have been catalogued as 15 separate sets, or four different series, such as Piedmonts being T206A, Sweet Cap T206B, etc.

Likewise, because there were three different sets with Coupon backs, he felt it appropriate to designate them T213 Types 1,2, and 3. However, T213 type 1 is so similar to T206 that it could just as easily have been T206G, for example. And we are still debating where to put the Cobb with Cobb back, and there is still no universal consensus.

Perhaps some of Burdick's work needs to be revised, but his contributions are so sacrosanct that nobody dares take on such a task.