General Forum

I don’t see the T213 set(s) listed on the site. Maybe nobody has done it because of the three types? Wanted to see if I’m correct or if I missed it somewhere along the way. 

Anyone?

Just spotted this post. As a bigger and bigger fan of super vintage cards, I'm sad to say I didn't know about the T213 set(s). All I can say is, right you are. They are not here. Sounds like a checklist someone could put in. If it doesn't happen in the next week or so, I might try to do it. Good catch.

v3

I could also try, but as particular as many on here are, I'm concerned I might do it incorrectly, since there are three "series" to it and because years on early tobacco cards are sketchy.  I'd assume using the year per Burdick, but who knows LOL

I've also thought of giving this set a try. I put in the shelf because of it's complexity. Here's my thoughts on it if you (or someone) wanted to give it shot.

I think there are three possible ways to list this set:

The first by series, with each series listed under the appropriate year. This is probably the technically correct way to list this set. If this series had been issued within the last 50 years, this is probably the way it would be listed (Minus the ACC #). I personally don't like this way because it doesn't list the complete series together; which is generally the standard (as established by Burdick).

• 1910: "Coupon Cigarettes (T213-1)"
• 1914-16: "Coupon Cigarettes (T213-2)"
• 1919: "Coupon Cigarettes (T213-3)"

 The second is to list the series as one checklist with 1910-19 as the release years. This is probably the way Burdick would have developed the checklist. The ACC mentions that this set was released in two-series, but Burick did not assign an "a" or "b" designation to the set (at least not in the 1960 edition) so I'm assuming he saw the set as one contiguos checklist. I don't like this way because I don't think it accurately reflects what is now known about this set or represents the "industry standard" in how this set is viewed.

• 1910-19: "Coupon Cigarettes (T213)"

The third way is to list this series as one set consisting of 3 subsets like what is being done for the 2016 Topps Archive Signature Series. This is the way I like because it keeps the series together, but clearly lists the three subsets as seperate releases. The down side is that there is not a way to track set completion by the entire series in TCDB (at least I don't know of a way).

• 1910-19: "Coupon Cigarettes (T213)"
  • 1910: "Coupon Cigarettes-Type 1 (T213-1)"
  • 1914-16: "Coupon Cigarettes-Type 2 (T213-2)"
  • 1919: "Coupon Cigarettes-Type 3 (T213-3)"

This is complex but awesome set and it would be exciting to see it listed on TCDB. It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of some of the more experienced TCDB editors/contributors.

For what it's worth, I have started to put together these checklists. I'm going with the first method Chad listed unless someone (Are you reading, Admin?) stops me or beats me to it, which is quite likely, because it will take some time to get all of this close to accurate. 

v3

Each of those methods has pros and cons but I do think the first method is the cleanest. I’m somewhat new to pre-war and even newer to the T213s, but from what I’ve seen on Net54, most collectors reference the series. I’ve taken what they do and always refer to my one card of the set as T213-1.

Perhaps mine isn’t the proper point of view, but if to this point the set isn’t listed, we shouldn’t nitpick on HOW it’s listed. It’s just a good thing to have it in there.

In trying to enter my T36 set here, I discovered that it just listed the 25 fronts. Billy finally listed all the back variations for me. It’s basically method #3 and while it wouldn’t be my preferred way to have it listed, I’m thankful it’s even on here with the four back variations.

V3...I sent a message to admin asking which way we should go. Haven't got a reply yet.  I also started on the checklist, I'm half way through the second series. I've noticed that some of the checklists I've used as referances have had some errors. Both in team and player names. The teams can be confusing because so many leagues are represented in this set.

Maybe we should compare notes and split the work.?.

Ok, so I'm doing these checklists and it's awesome. There are teams I bet you've never heard of, like the Toledo Iron Men and the Jersey City Skeeters, and it's fascinating. 

But what's got me excited at the moment (look, I lead a very dull life, ok?) is that I think I've found an error in the Standard Catalogue of Vintage Baseball Cards! They've got Jack Warhop (known for giving up Babe Ruth's first two home runs) with a card with him on "Saint Louis." I can find no picture of this card anywhere. But Warhop never played for any Saint Louis team in the minors or majors. So, what the heck? Aha! He did play a short while at the relevant time (1916) for the Salt Lake City Bees. See it? "S.L." I figure the card must be him on Salt Lake City, for reasons known only to the card producers. So that's what I'm going with unless someone stops me. And then I want the card named after me in the Standard Catalogue. Unless there's a typo on the card that says "Saint Louis," because Al Bridwell never played with Nashville, but has a New York card that says "Nashville." So for him, I think the team should be New York Giants. This is so hard. 

(And this is soooo tedious. Yet sooooo fun.)

v3

V3...Admin's reply, "Sure, the 2nd method sounds fine." (See my earlier posts).

It could be a continuity thing, there are similar sets that are already listed like this. 1909-11 Obak (T212) is a set that also consists of three series issued in different years that has a combined checklist.

BTW...here's the Warhop card from T213-2...He's in a New York uniform?!