Let's again debate Cobb's real 1st card ?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>In two recent Threads the question was raised....which card can be considered<br />Ty Cobb's actual 1st card. Past posts have debated over his 1907 Dietsche P/C<br />as being a legimate cardboard collectable. And, some do not accept it as his<br />very first (or true "Rookie") card. If this is so, then that limits the choice<br />to two major card sets....E90-1 or T206. Before you decide, do note the RF<br /> position indicated on the E90-1 card......So, what is your choice ?<br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/tycobbrook.jpg"><br /><br />American Caramel E90-1 issued in the 1st series in 1909 (or perhaps 1908) <br /> <br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/e90cobb.jpg"><br /><br />T206 Cobb's (Green portrait & Bat On) issued in the 1st series (150 Subjects) in 1909<br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/cobby.jpg"><br /><br />OR....any other Cobb cards....? ?<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andrew Parks</b><p><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/ap13/e102sgraded/websize/cobb.JPG"><br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott Gross</b><p>I like the rf vs. cf theory on the Cobb cards.<br /><br />But, just wondering: What is the reason e102's are considered a 1908 issue ?? Being an anonymose set, I would think it'd be harder to date than other caramels. Is it based on team affiliations (or other documentation)??

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dd</b><p>Wolverine and Dietsche post cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Andrew and Scott<br /><br />1st......The E102 Cobb is mis-labelled, all Guides classify this set as<br />being issued in 1910.....so, the SGC label is incorrect. Furthermore, the<br />E102 card indicates him playing CF....in 1908 he played in RF.<br /><br />In fact, my early Spalding Guides have him playing RF from 1907 - 1909.<br />And, I verified this information with my BB Encyclopedia. In 1910 he was<br />switched to CF as Sam Crawford (a full Lefty) took over the RF spot. <br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>This topic will definitely be setting up the debate of what truly is a card. Is a postcard a card? Let the debates begin... this is always an interesting topic.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Not so long ago all of the guides classified the E102's as 1908. Actually I thought they put them at 1909 now but don't have any references with me at work.... Now the question is "What is classified as a card?". The earliest example I can think of, with an ACC #, is the 1906 W601 of Detroit...and although it's a large premium, it predates most other cards/things....(I think)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>There was a time near the end of Nolan Ryan's career when the 1967 Topps Mets Team card was especially hot since Ryan's face was very visible on that card and his Rookie Card would not be till 1908.<br /><br />So, I think Leon has a very valid point as it refers any photo on a card Cobb is on in 1906<br /><br />Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>I thought the W601 Sporting Life Team Composites were released over the course of several years. Does the first Detroit composite that includes Cobb have the year printed on front?<br /><br /><br />Edited to ask whether someone can post a scan or photo of the W601 with Cobb.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve M</b><p>came in two forms, one being the large display items that were in bound volumes and the second in the postcard series. They are both dated on the fronts. While I have never seen a W601 Detroit postcard (which by the way is the last one I need for my set) I do believe that Cobb is on it and it will be dated 1906. That IS his "Rookie"!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I had a large composite but sold it because I had no way to display or store it. It always layed around in my office. It also had a stain on the Cobby portrait. I have seen a few of the large 1906 Detroit composites but not any of the postcards....although I am sure there are some out there...btw, nice plug Steve <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> If I see one I will let ya know....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>I believe postcards and exhibits count as cards, and can be rookie cards. I do not think that a team picture counts as a rookie card. <br /><br />This is my list of Cobb rookies:<br /><br />1907 Dietsche Detroit Tigers Postcards-Series 1 PC765 Batting <br />1907 Dietsche Detroit Tigers Postcards-Series 1 PC765 Fielding <br />1907 Sporting Life Cabinets W600 <br />1907 Wolverine News Postcards PC773-3 Bat <br />1907 Wolverine News Postcards PC773-3 Portrait <br />1907-09 Novelty Cutlery Postcards <br />1907-09 HM Taylor Postcard

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian E.</b><p>T206 Bat On<br />T206 Green<br />E90<br />E95<br />E101<br />E102

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>i agree that the postcards from 1907 are the definitive cobb rookies.<br /><br />pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>LEON<br /><br />Pick your reference....the current Lemke P/G has these sets as 1909, and<br />the current Beckett P/G has them as 1910.<br /><br />In this case I choose to have more confidence in Beckett's 1910 date.<br /><br />The 102 is essentially a subset of the 92. The pix are the same and the<br />E92 initiated the dual Wagner action (as opposed to the prior portrait)<br />cards with him. One with him batting and one throwing. These poses of him<br />were continued thru the subsequent E-type cards and also in the T216 series.<br /><br />Now, you might think that I'm being "nit-picking"....but the fact that the<br />E102 of Cobb indicates him as a Center-Fielder absolutely tells us that this<br />card was issued in 1910 (or afterward). Look it up in the BB Encyclopedia.<br /><br />I did, but I wanted a 2nd source, so I checked out my 1907 - 1911 Spalding<br />Guides to confirm this information. From 1907 - 1909 Cobb strictly played<br />RF; and, the only card that I am aware of that depicts this is the E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Enright, Daniel</b><p>The whole postcard thing has me not really understanding...........<br />Though it was made from paper, a postcard was not intended for any of the things that we consider a sports "card" to be:<br />Collected and KEPT, either as part of a set or for particular player adoration.<br />Swapped with others, to improve a collection.<br /><br />The very nature of a postcard is to write on, and send off to someone/somewhere else with no expectation of ever getting it back. It was merely the art-worked telegram of its day whose purpose was functional, though visually appealing in achieving its aim.<br />I would think it is only today, with all things paper and sports related falling under this sportscard umbrella thing we have created, that such thinking has eventuated........If it wasn't understood or meant for the purpose of collecting then, how can it be now?<br /><br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Ted--No question in my mind--Dietsche cards are his rookies with the fielding version being the much tougher one.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian E.</b><p>So since the E103 shows RF, does that make it a 1909 rather than a 1910 issue?<br /><br /><img src="http://homepage.mac.com/thurber51/.Pictures/E103/E103%20Cobb.JPG"><br />(not my card)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I am not arguing the point I was just saying that not so long ago the guides had the E102's at 1908. That's all. As for it being an '09 or '10 set it really doesn't matter to me since I don't collector rookie, prookie, or nookie (well, had to throw the last one in to make it rhyme) HOF'ers... <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Greg</b><p>Please forgive my ignorance as I have very little knowledge on the subject, but I saw this weekend, at an antique co-op, a 1907 Detroit Tigers team postcard with Cobb listed. It had some writing along the sides. I did not purchase the card, but if anyone has an interest in it, I could go back if you did. Thanks, Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>LEON<br /><br />No argument here, guy....I, too, don't collect "rookies", but I do love.....<br />......cookies. Ha !<br /><br />Seriously though, is Andrew's card just mis-labelled by SGC ?<br />Or, are they labelling every E102 as "1908" ? That I would find this as<br /> bad as the Grading Company's labelling 1949 Leaf BB as "1948".

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>then the W600 wins. Is it possible to tell a 1907 issue W600 from ones that may have been issued in later years?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>I will put my two cents it for the postcards. Contrary to an earlier post, I dont think that the fact that it was issued with a post card back means they werent intended to be collected. Many exhibits came with postcard backs and I think it is accepted that they were meant to be collected. It is just as likely that the postcards were meant to be collectibles but the pc back was added to appeal to non-collectors and widen the "audience" that would view any advertisements.<br /><br />Further, there are plenty of items collected today that werent meant to be kept as collectables (incl. postcards of all kinds, coke bottles, etc.). In fact, one could argue that tobacco cards were never intended to be collectibles but were solely intended to be a form of advertising.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Elliot</b><p>W601's are not team pictures, but rather are composites of individual pictures. To me, the W601 would be Cobb's rookie (he even looks young in the pic), but we can certainly debate whether or not it's a card.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>W601s are poster-size aren't they?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Elliot - if he looks young, then that must be his rookie! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>H Murphy</b><p>What year did ther W555 officially make the scene?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Enright, Daniel</b><p>Well, I respect your position Josh, but I would argue that the very reason advertising was affixed to the 'back' of tobacco and similar cards, was becuase there was an expectation the cards would be kept and remind the owner of the product......<br />Further, the other collectables you mention have their own specific designations. A Coke bottle is a bottle and not a cap, or a tray, or a vending machine, and each is collected as such. Yes, they are all Coke collectables, and similarly paper items that have survived are ephemera, but not all are sportscards.<br />And lastly, re the postcards, I really don't think people of that era purchased cards meant for posting and decided they could afford it not fulfilling that purpose. Most people were generally poorer working class but could afford to send mail, and I believe that such mass produced items for the populace really were meant as such, not as novelties that happened to be postcards that were truly designed to be collected.<br />But just an opinion, to be sure.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ScottIngold</b><p>i also agree that the postcards from 1907 are the definitive cobb rookies.<br /><br />I think that actually having one will increase your stand in this regard.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>im not sure what Cobbs real rookie is but that is a beautiful E102. If that is ever for sale please let me know

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>My wife and I frequent many Antique Shops. Our collecting habits are quite<br />"eclectic" (or is it electric). From irridescent glass, pottery, trains, stamps<br />lanterns, old tools, spinning wheels, antique cars, to BB cards.<br /><br />Whatever, sends us down the path to a "Sentimental Journey". Not too long<br />ago, in California, I attended a show mainly dedicated to Post Cards. It was<br />well attended; and, I was amazed at what people were paying for postcards.<br /><br />More interesting was talking with some of the collectors at the show and I'll<br />tell you, they're just as avid a collecting bunch as we are with BB cards. My<br />big purchase that day was a large colorful post card depicting the exact<br />1956 Ford Victoria I had in my senior year in HS. This cost me $10 for another<br />trip down memory lane.<br /><br />All this to tell you guys, there is sentimental value in "dem der postcards",<br /> and in particular Sports related ones, so we should be careful before we en-<br />gage in diminishing their collectible mystique. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Clarke</b><p>My vote is for any of the postcards from 1907. JC in Atlanta!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brett</b><p>A postcard is a postcard. A baseball card is a baseball card. I say the e102 !

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Postcards have been collected as long as they have been produced. Most people, when they sent a post card would a send a card teling something about the location they were visiting, or they find a card that the person receiving the card would enjoy having. If the person was a Tigers fan, you'd probably send a card of Ty Cobb or another Tiger to that person. <br /><br />Almost every estate sale that I go to that invovles an owner that is in their 60s or older, I can almost gaurnetee that I will find a collection of postcards available.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home, I would be arrested. So, I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andrew Parks</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />All E102's are labeled 1908.<br /><br />Does anybody know the story as to why E102s were and still are in most circles thought to be 1908 if they aren't?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Andrew<br /><br />For years this set has been identified as a 1910 issue. Recently, the SCD Price<br /> Guide (for unknown reasons....ask Bob Lemke ?) calls this set a 1909 issue.<br /><br />Well then, will someone explain to me how the Germany Schaefer card identifies<br />him with the Washington team, if this set is a 1908 issue ?<br /><br />Schaefer was traded to Washington on August 13, 1909....period, case closed !<br /><br />Furthermore, this set is just a subset of the E92 set. The pix I believe are all<br />the same in both sets. As far as I know the E92 is still listed as a 1910 set.<br /><br />I don't know about you guys, but mis-labelled graded cards like these (and the<br /> mis-labelled 1949 Leaf BB as "1948") really upset me. Because, the collecting<br /> public is being mis-informed. And, this misinformation is then perpetuated. <br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>Brett - Dont you think your "a postcard is a postcard, and a baseball card is a baseball card" line is a bit simplistic. What is your definition of a baseball card? Is it size? Ok, if so, I guess a cabinet card isnt a baseball card. Is it something made out of cardboard and intended to be collected? Ok, if so, I think a postcard may qualify. They are clearly made out of cardboard and as Jay points out, have been collected since they were first produced. Daniel notes that people didnt have the disposable income to buy postcards and not use them - that, to me, is nothing more than a presumption. Postcards back then were probably given away as advertisements for different establishments/companies or cost no more than a penny. Just like today, there were "haves" who could afford to buy a postcard and "have nots" who obviously could not.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>Agreed Ted, a large percentage of collectors who do not focus on specific set completion or type sets collect cards which commemorate events which occured in baseball. The first to see significant impact is rookie cards, but others such as perfect games, MVP winners, etc. are similarly collected. For this type of collecting, the year of issue of a card is an important factor.<br /><br />However, until recently the primary thrust in "getting things right" has been the attempt to identify all of the cards in a set. Now, having made significant headway in that direction, correct identification of the year of set issuance is being addressed.<br /><br />Clearly, this hobby is still too young to have accurately identified the elements collected. Sounds ridiculous, but here we are.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Robert S</b><p>Without weighing-in on whether a postcard is a card is a card debate...<br /><br />In addition to the list of Cobb postcards listed by Richard, above, which included the 1907 Dietsche, Wolverine News, Novelty Cutlery and HM Taylor Postcards, is this one, below<br /><br />It is a 1907 American League Publishing Co. postcard, albeit in pretty tough shape (then again, it's the only one I've ever seen):<br /><br /><img src="http://vintageball.com/files/AmerLeagPub_Detroit.jpg"><br /><br />The Amer. League Pub. Co is the same Cleveland company that issued the single player cards in 1908, the listing for which is in the SCD big book and on OldCardboard.com.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>....what "ticks me off" me off is that all these various set dates were known and<br />establishes back in the 1980's. And, now (in the past 10 years) with the advent of<br />the Grading Co. we are going thru a "revisionist" period that is beginning trouble me.<br /><br />Oh, don't mind me guys, it's my Engineering mind....you can retire the body from an<br /> engineering career.....but, you can't take the Engineer out of the mind.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>Robert S<br /><br />Much thanks for sharing your very rare Detroit Team postcard with us. It is<br />the 1st time I've seen this Cobb card. However, I recognize 10 of the players<br />(Killian, Payne, Donovan, Jennings, O'Leary, Jones, Downs, Mullin, McIntyre,<br /> & Cobb) portraits on this card, as they are from the exact photos that were<br /> used to produce the T206 cards a couple of years later.<br /><br />T-Rex Ted<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Brian<br /><br />My deepest sympathy for you and your family and our prayers for<br />your Dad and Brother.<br /><br />To answer your question regarding the E103 Cobb indicating that<br />he was in RF. This card was more than likely issued in very early<br />in 1910 and reflects the previous year in which he played in RF all<br /> season. In 1910 he started in CF where he played for the rest of<br /> his career.<br />I am not familiar with the E103 set, other than I think a lot of the<br /> pictures are the same ones as in the M116 set.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>HandsAtNeck</b><p>Pennsy Ted:<br /><br />For quite a while, Hal has been on a campaign to set the date records straight and advise the guide publishers of his findings. If you can prove that date or other errors exist in the price guides, the publishers have been very receptive to that input.<br /><br />Gil

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Gil<br /><br />I am growing tired of "beating my drum" on the subject of incorrect dating of<br />BB cards by the Grading Co. I haven't convinced many on an issue as recent as<br />the 1949 LEAF BB cards, so how do you expect me to change the thinking on sets<br />issued almost 100 years ago ?<br /><br />Why can't Lemke & Co. or Beckett & Co. correct this MIS-INFORMATION being fos-<br />tered by PSA, SGC, etc, etc ? They don't have to take my word for it, just do a<br />little research (as I have done using my early 1900's Spalding Guides and my<br />BB Encyclopedia).<br /><br />Better yet, just read the fronts or the backs of these cards. In the 1949 Leaf<br />case, many of the 98 cards in the set have information that indicates it is<br />chronologically impossible that it could have been issued in "1948".<br /><br />Another example is the E102 Cobb card show on this Thread. Without any doubt<br />this set must have been produced in 1910 (or later) since Cobb didn't play CF<br />till 1910. Furthermore, the Germany Schaefer card depicts him with Washington.<br />This same Schaefer card appears in the E92, E102, E104, E105, and E106 sets.<br />He was traded from Det. to Wash. late in the 1909 season. And there are other<br />such examples that confirm what I am stating.....but no one really cares !<br /><br />Where is HAL when we need him....stuff like this is very important to him.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />I think you are improperly laying blame on the grading companies. SGC no longer dates e102s as being from 1908 - that cobb above was obviously holdered several years ago when lemke's guide (or whatever guide they go by) dated those cards as being from 1908. I dont think there is any disagreement as to the 1910 date for the e102s. The problem is that old slabs still exist with the old, no longer accepted, date. There is nothing the grading companies can do about that unless those cards are submitted for a reholder.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Josh<br /><br />Every E102 that I have seen in recent times Graded by SGC is labelled 1908.<br />Andrew Parks set is a perfect example of this, as every card in it is incor-<br />rectly dated.<br />Please don't think I'm trying to be argumentative, but I call them as I see them.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>HandsAtNeck</b><p>Ted: do you consider "argumentative" as a negative characteristic?<br /><br />Really tho, you are preaching to the wrong group. It is the book peddlers who have get their story straight, before Golden and his competitors show 'em up, big time (assuming that they can produce).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>GIL<br /><br />"Argumentative" is a long 13-letter word that can be taken either way.<br /> I like to think I am a "positive thinking" guy; therefore, I don't use it<br />with a negative conotation.<br /><br />I still owe you my live experience at Ebbetts Field in Sept. 1951 where<br /> your Giants edged out a win in the 9th inning against "dem bums". Now,<br /> that was exciting BaseBall at it's best. <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>The Cobb in this thread was graded a little over a year ago. Also I just received a shipment of E102's from SGC two months ago. In it were my Wagner Fielding, my Doyle Throwing, a Murphy and my Schmidt. All have 1908 labels.<br /><br /><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/ap13/e102sgraded/websize/doyle.JPG"><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jerry Spillman</b><p>The Sporting Life Publication Company made their first offering of this Ty Cobb baseball card in September of 1907. Neither the Carl Horner photo nor card format was changed during the remaining years that the card was available.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1144473488.JPG"> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>I stand corrected on the dating.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>Devil's Advocate time:<br /><br />Is this Mickey's true rookie card?? The number on his back is "6" not "7". He wore #6 in 1951.<br /><br /><img src="http://images1.collectors.com/psa/set_registry/m514804/47ExMMpinstripes.jpg"><br /><br />Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>Even if a postcard was purchased and mailed it does not necessarily mean that the buyer was not collecting them. It was not uncommon many years ago for travellers to send postcards to themselves at their home address. My dad has such a collection (no baseball postcards, though).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>Frank, <br /><br />If you could show that the card was distributed pre-1951, than I'd say yes. I dont think you can though.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>my vote<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1144516671.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>W600 wins!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Anson<br /><br />I do appreciate that you are the E101 guy. But, there is no way<br /> that the E101 cards were issued in 1909 as the SGC label on your<br /> Cobb card indicates.<br /> The E101 set, like it's "cousins" (E92, E102, E104, E105 & E106),<br /> was issued during 1910. They are all basically the same cards that<br />were probably produced at the same printing facility, but with dif-<br />ferent backs which advertise either Candy or Gum.<br /><br />I have provided factual data in an earlier post on this Thread to<br />confirm my "1910 Theory" regarding these sets. <br />