t206 is a set which is extensively studied and collected by

back variation. Some think that the set should be subdivided along those lines, but more appear to think that other sets (backs) should be included in the basic t206 set structure. I leave this and related subjects for those far more enthusiastic about it than I am.

My interest follows a similar line including sets which appear to have been compiled from a group of players images by different manufacturers. One such group of cards includes the e90-1 set, and as indicated by Scott, also incorporates images from other sets. Actually, if researched, I believe that it will be found that the following sets share some images:
e90-1
nadja
crofts cocoa
crofts candy - red, black, blue
dockman
d303
t216
e101
e102
e105
e106

and possibly others. All with some card images selected from an apparent single pool of available candidates. Does anyone attempt to collect this group as a single assembly? Is there currently sufficient research established to list the cards which are common among these sets?

There are other groups of sets which share common fronts, and have been distributed by different manufacturers. Are any of them collected similarly to the way t206 is?


Gil

That's always been the great mystery of Burbick, why he grouped, or singled out backs the way he did. I've never been able to make rhyme or reason out of it. He was never one for creating checklists, just creating sets for cards.

I think a big reason that the t206 and t205 are grouped together becuase all the issuers were ATC brands. Similarily, all the Louisiana brands got a t216 designation. I'm sure which company owned Recruit and Napolian, but my guess it that they had to have ties to the Louisiana group since Red Cross is a back and the Anons a Luisiana factories. Kink in this theory is Cycle and Broadleaf are ATC companies.

Is it possible that t207 Cycle and Broadleaf backs are actually a seperate set from the rest of the t207s?

Jay

Just thinking that Ns have got the big monster in OJ
Ts have the monster in t206
maybe the Emonster can be created
then what? the Ws with exhibit, t517 and minis = the minimonster

sabrjay wrote:That's always been the great mystery of Burbick, why he grouped, or singled out backs the way he did. I've never been able to make rhyme or reason out of it. He was never one for creating checklists, just creating sets for cards.

This may sound disrespectful, but I don't think there is any particular reason why collectors should or need to stick to old checklists or designated sets when clearly there were some mistakes or inconsistencies made in the past. With so many more people interested in cards now (at least I think that's the case), and with so many resources, I think as a group, collectors today have more information than Burdick did back then.

Personally, I'm collecting two sets in different ways than the traditional way. One is just slightly different. I'm collecting the T206 set, but I'm also trying to complete the Polar Bear back, as I think that's a set in itself. The other is I'm collecting the E92 images as a set. One of the subsets of my set will be a complete Dockman set, but I also want to include other E92 images (regardless of whether they are labeled E92 or not) that don't have a Dockman back. In some sense, I am still using the traditional way to guide my collecting, but I'm also adding my own interest of what I think makes an interesting complete set. The analogy I make is that the E92 Dockman is a subset of the "set of E92 images" like the T206 Polar Bear is a subset of the complete T206 set, so I'm collecting the two sets in the similar way.

I have a great amount of respect for the work that Burdick did. What he did was absolutely amazaing, especially when you consider when he did it and he wasn't just looking for baseball cards.
Unlike some people, while Burdick's work was groundbreaking, it is by no means definitive and there is no reason why others couldn't improve upon what he started. To say that Burdick's work is the quivelent of a holy text and shouldn't be tampered with is just plain silly and short sighted.

For the most part, ACC designations have become dated and antiquated.

A thought just occured to me, why are Mellow Mints classified seperate from e101 and e102s? They use the same pictures and cards. They could easily grouped with e92s as they use the same pictures, but Meillo-Mints state a card set, which most likely why they didn't get grouped with e92s. Each of the different backs for e92s should be a seperate as it's obvious that each back does not have the same checklist of cards.

JAy