Yes and no... I actually have in my notes that ATC acquired F.R. Penn in 1903, and didn't fully transition it until 1912. Don't forget, this was the time when ATC was being broken up as a trust. There were many smaller brands owned and operated by ATC without full disclosure as to the breadth of ATC's holdings.

Assuming, for a minute, that ATC did not acquire F.R. Penn in 1903, the reason I still answered "yes and no" relates to when the card was issued in the product. If F.R. Penn controlled Ty Cobb in 1910, sold the brand to ATC in 1912, and then the Cobb card was produced in 1912, the date wouldn't matter per se (although I recognize that 1912 no longer puts the Cobb back in the T206 era).

That all being said, I'm pretty confident F.R. Penn was acquired in 1903.

Just because something is initially classified as "x", doesnt make it neccesarily a fact. Case in point is the Tuatara. It was originally classified as a lizard in 1831. It looks like a typical lizard, and the classification persisted for 36 more years. Then it was debated that there were in fact subtle, yet important differences (kinda like what we are discussing here). Its classification was changed in 1867. Whats a lizard have to do with a baseball card? It simply goes to show that classifications can be wrong, even by the person who first classifies them! Its really no different than what we are talking about.

Joe, your T206 set will never be complete without this card:

From page 194 of the Report of the Commissioner of Corporations on the Tobacco Industry (1911 edition):

"Control of the F.R. Penn Tobacco Company dates from 1903, when the Combination purchased, through the American Tobacco Company, two-thirds of the . . . common stock of the reorganized F.R. Penn Tobacco Company, a North Carolina corporation . . . ."

http://books.google.com/books?id=waQ...obacco&f=false

I get conflicting dates on the ATC take over of F.R. Penn with some information saying 1911 and some 1912.

That is your area Jon and I respect whatever you have to say on the matter.

Who had control of Penn and when could help with this debate.

Tim - we were posting at the same time. Hopefully the link above clears up the issue as this was part II of the official report generated by the US government. I believe the report was generated beginning in 1909 and published in 1911.

SG ... Why are you doing this to me? .....
 

*

Until now, I thought all I needed was the stinkin Wagner ... now you found that beautful unknown, and unseen by Ted, The Missing Abbaticcio back.

I Gotta Have It!

Why are you doing this to me? .....

Why are some speculating that this card was issued in "1912" ? ....Damn it, how many times do we have to state and reiterate
that this card was printed and issued in 1910 ! ?

We have Shawn's newspaper advertising evidence that the Ty Cobb Cut Plug Tobacco was available in the Spring of 1910.

We have the evidence from Senator's Russell's T206 collection which includes a Ty Cobb back card that was acquired in 1910
near Atlanta, Georgia (where he grew up collecting his tobacco cards).

How many times do we have to "bang this evidence into heads", till it sinks in. We've had numerous posts on this information,
yet some here continue to be contrarians. I, for one, cannot understand this ? Why, are we even re-hashing this "old news" ?

Is, it just because some people lack the intellectual curiosity required to simply click onto the SEARCH feature on this forum;
and, find this information ?

Damn man, how many times do we have to re-invent the "wheel" on this forum ? ?


T-Rex TED

"We have Shawn's newspaper advertising evidence that the Ty Cobb Cut Plug Tobacco was available in the Spring of 1910."


That means nothing at all. There is a pouch of Drum tobacco on ebay right now for just a grand.....but it doesnt contain a Drum backed T206 card, does it?

Ted - I didn't read Phil or Tim's post to be speculating on whether the card was issued in 1910. I read it to be speculating on WHO issued the card in 1910. If, in fact, F.R. Penn was not acquired by the ATC until 1912, I think that would be VERY pertinent. However, that was not the case, so all is still good. In 1903 and beyond, F.R. Penn was owned and controlled by the ATC.

Edited to add:

Ted - I also don't think it can be said with the certainty you make it "sound" that the card was issued in 1910. Yes, we have multiple newspaper ads that make it abundently clear that Ty Cobb tobacco was available in 1910, but none that I'm aware of make reference to a Ty Cobb card being issued in 1910. Also, the fact that Russell had one in his collection in or around 1910 does not mean we can pinpoint the date to 1910. We are only talking 2 years here. Circa 1910 can EASILY mean 1912. You and I agree on most T206 related things, but I couldn't make the same leap of faith as to a 1910 issue date based on your two facts above the same way you feel comfortable doing.

That all being said, I DO agree with you it is likely a 1910 issue date for other reasons. First, F.R. Penn was acquired by ATC in 1903. Second, we have advertisements that show Ty Cobb tobacco was issued in 1910 and to be honest, I don't believe the brand was around all that long based on the severe rarity of the tins so I would seriously doubt the brand even made it to 1911.

Yes, but you have given no indication of where the Ty Cobb brand violates the original classification scheme.

White border baseball subject: Yes
Premium advertising at ATC brand on back: Yes
Produced between 1909-1911: Yes

You attempted to show where it violated it by claiming there needed to be 350+ subjects. That arbitrary scheme, which would eliminate several other T206 brands as well, is NOT the criteria Burdick used.

You can try to show where it violates the classification scheme set up by Burdick, but you cannot change his classification scheme and still call it "T206". It is not your designation to change.
JimB

Jon - You're right I was just asking about who controlled Penn and when. Not trying to reinvent the wheel, but rather actually participate in the research.

Ted,
I share your frustration, as do many others who have contacted me privately.
JimB

"Frustration"
 

"Ted,
I share your frustration, as do many others who have contacted me privately.
JimB "


You are "frustrated" that not everyone agrees with your assesment? As I stated previously, if this was as "clear cut" as you make it out to be, then why is the subject continually revisited?

Jim - well this is my fault for starting this thread. With that being said, my original intent still holds true. I still believe this is the first instance where direct evidence present on a Cobb back clearly indicates it was in contact with tobacco. This, in my book, is a fairly significant step in continuing to prove how and why the cards were produced and issued.

I wasn't questioning when the card was produced, the evidence is very clear on that.

I was curious as to who was controlling Penn at the time the card was produced as I thought that may have some importance to the cards designation.

My intentions weren't to frustrate anyone.

For the love of our sanity...sell your stuff and leave the hobby like you said you would!!

I don't know Ted .....
 

*

Maybe as many times as we had to beat it into your head that the Slow Joe error card was real.

Outside of yourself, the card was known by tobacco collectors as real since 1987.

You only discovered the Doyle error a couple of years ago.

There's an archived thread where Barry was turning blue in the face trying to convince you that the error was REAL.

Come on man, get off your cross, or horse.

One thing fot certain is Ty Cobb is king of tobacco and Jim Morrison is king of lizards.

Amen!

Jon,
My frustration is 100% with Chicago206 who seems to have gotten out of line when logic and reason were distributed. I think the information you brought to our attention about tobacco staining is very interesting. Looking at the example in Goodwin, it looks to have mild staining as well.
JimB

Changed my mind. Think i'll stick around a bit. By the way, look at every post I have made here. Have I attacked anyone, or been anything OTHER than a perfect gentleman in these discussions? Yet you are pushing me out the door because my opinion differs from yours?


Edited to add: In fact, i've just made another major purchase! :-)

I get a kick out of this board ... :)
 

Some can't handle different opinions .....

Whilst others know what button to touch ..... :)

You gotta luv those flippers .....

Ty Cobb with Ty Cobb back
 

Maybe it's me, but it seems like every Ty Cobb with a Cobb back, the card seems to be out of focus. Every card I looked at, Cobb's eyes seem to be fuzzy, or maybe the registration is bad on each card?

Anyone else notice this?

Tony

Best thread ever.

Yup .....
 

*

That's found on most non T206 cards. :)

If you want to participate in this forum like a normal person and not like an antagonist, you ought to keep your posts to a minimal and your opinions to yourself for awhile. Like I previously mentioned, because of your behavior, you have zero credibility -- no one cares about your opinion and even those of us that might agree would never stick up for you right now. You are radioactive.

Take a couple weeks off, share some pick-ups in the Pick Up thread, but leave your opinions at the door -- no one is interested.

You gotta Luv this thread .....
 

*

Then why are you answering? :)

Joe: A sadist is someone who wouldn't hurt a masochist. :)

This one is pretty sharp. I traded this to a board member a few years ago. By the way, there is no gloss on this one either.
JimB

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/2...bbfrontcut.jpg

Edited to add: This is the nicest example in the hobby.

Wrong ... wrong ... wrong psychology .....
 

*

whitehse why don't you try reverse Psy.
Something like:

Hi Chi-town, don't ever change your eva-changin modes.
You keep remindin us of Sybil, or was it The Three Faces of Eve?

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be watching the BST for it.


I'm enjoying the substantive parts of this thread. Good points, explanation and observations all around, for the most part. Leon makes a good point in that if there isn't consensus, then it makes sense to go by what Burdick originally decided - sort of like having to knock him off the hill. I like the thought of that.

And for my money, Ted is practically a national treasure when it comes to T206 discussions. So I'm not spending a whole lot of time trying to decide if I should consider his opinion or that of someone that is admittedly new to the hobby.

As to Chicago thinking that people are getting on him merely because they disagree with his assessment, well I guess I disagree with his assessment. It's like hearing a big crash, looking up and seeing a Chevy wrapped around the light post. Steam coming out from under the hood. Hysterical driver. Probably you can figure that the Chevy just hit the light post. So if someone wants to come by and say that the Chevy was already smashed up and just parked in front of the lamppost, using vague logic like one tire is less flat then the others and the lamppost is tilted toward the street, I think the howls of frustration and derision are less about disagreeing with a reasonable assessment and more about not wanting to hear random and undeveloped thinking. Even more so on this, one of the hobby's more sophisticated issues. If that makes sense.

And Jon - thank you for the observation on the tobacco stains. I might not know anything about this or that factory or exact dates of issue, but that's something I can appreciate right away in terms of the implications.

J

Yeah ... but where are the stains .....
 

*

If you don't find stains ... You must acquit .....

Ok

Here is a larger image of the ad originally posted by Shawn.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_UrSHvogCrmM/S8...bacco%20Ad.jpg

Wait....that ad is dated 1910...yet it says Penn Tobacco. I was just informed earlier in this thread that ATC controlled Cobb Tobacco by 1903. Hmmmmm....the plot thickens.

Despite the bickering, this is a excellent thread on a topic of interest to many of us here. It also seems that wherever you classify the Cobb/Cobb it may consist of a Type 1 (no gloss) and a Type 2 (glossy). It certainly seems like it is within the T206 orbit based upon the latest information summarized here and I appreciate Jon starting it and Ted, Rich,Jim and others continuing it.

I may be able to snag a Drum or Uzit back someday but the Cobb back will definitely mean my back run will be incomplete. That's okay - my set will be minus the big 4 when I am done too. ;)

That ad is great-we get Atlanta (the Russellcollection) and North Carolina (the factory) tied together in it and have the San Francisco intrigue added. That almost (but not quite) screams "Obak Cobb" to me!

In all seriousness, how far west did the ATC market before we get into the Obak/California territory and the west coast tobacco companies?

Some thoughts on the ACC while we are at it:

When Burdick put together the T206 listing he was grouping similar cards that were marketed together as well, I have always thought, which (the marketing together) is a key point. He and the other collectors that developed the T206 checklist may have had access to some primary source information we don't know and how they grouped T206's may have been influenced by such accounts. While not necessarily sacrosanct, the logic that generally went into the T card listings always seemed well thought out to me. I realize there are some exceptions but the ACC brought order from chaos and some chaos still remains.

In any event, the ACC numbering is designed so sub groups and extensions can be added, which Buck Barker and cohorts did with relish in the 60's with the Catalog Updates. They even changed the ACC numbering to a year based system for Topps and a few other annual issues starting around 1968.

For T206 you could develop a subgroup of say -1 for each back of normally sized cards that was issued in a slide shell pack, -2 for the narrower AB's and say a -3 for Polar Bear (and maybe even the Cobb), packed with loose tobacco, which highlights slight differences but retains the overall grouping.

Now, what about those Type 1 Coupons......

If you were paying attention, you would know that you were actually informed that Penn Tobacco was bought by ATC in 1903. But paying attention does not seem to be your strong suit. It was one of a number of smaller tobacco companies owned by ATC before the monopoly was broken up in 1912.
JimB

In addition to what Jim said, it is fairly common for products to be marketed under the original company even after being purchased. For example, Allen & Ginter was acquired by the ATC in the 1890s, and then transferred to Liggett & Myers after the trust break-up of ATC. However, its packaging also said "produced by Allen & Ginter," and then somewhere (usually below that) would say "successor ATC" or "successor L&M."

Another observation from the ad, however. Not three cities are listed - one of which being Atlanta. This coincides with Ted's observations of a Ty Cobb back appearing in Russell's collection around 1910. Atlanta surely was one of the markets for this product.

Can someone give me a very, very short rundown of the problem with the Ty Cobb/Ty Cobb being considered a true T206?

Thanks

This is a great thread, when distilled to the facts, very informative. Thanks Jim and Ted for the info. This should be archived.

A reminder of why Joann needs to post more frequently.

:D

My goodness
 

Jim B..how smug and cocky can you possibly be ?
Telling a guy..sit back and listen and learn ! PLEASE
Its a blog site for card collectors !
OK you do all the reseach and detailed critiques.. and we will all bow down to your allmighty " nerdness"

For what it's worth the Ty Cobb Tobacco advertisements appear as follows in 1910 newspapers:

Macon Telegraph, GA - Feb 8, 10, 12, 13. Mar 8

Augusta Chronicle, GA - Feb 20, 27 Mar 6, 13

Grand Forks Herald, ND - Mar 6

Bisbee Daily Review, AZ - Mar 6

Evening News, CA - Mar 8

The Augusta Chronicle's four ads were the only to feature the Cobb image Shawn originally posted and myself above.

I'm sorry, but Jim is anything but smug and cocky. He's one of the nicest, kindest, and extremely generous with his hobby knowledge.

Jim can speak for himself, but I just had to respond to such an off the mark comment.

I am still interested in knowing why this debate is so heated. I have no agenda. I am here to learn. I just do not want to read 200 posts to figure it out.

Thanks

I can suffer the "cockiness", if that's what it is, of those who know what they're talking about. It's the ill-informed assertions of those who don't know what they're talking about, that troubles me. Jim belongs to the former group.

JimB is the epitome of humility- a quiet gentleman that is very generous with his wealth of knowledge on this subject, among others. The fact that he has exhausted his patience on this thread is a testament to just how inane Chicago's posts are.

If you're too lazy to read the whole thread...you obviously don't care enough to learn why this card is so debated.:)

cobb
 

Anthony has said it well. JimB is the epitome of humility and ,for some time now, has been one of the key experts, if not the foremost expert, on
Cobb/Cobb back. When he speaks of these things, I listen and take notes like
my best doctoral students at the university do.

by the way, great eye re: the tobacco stain Jon C.
very,very helpful.

best,
barry