What We Have Learned About Ty Cobbs With a Ty Cobb Back
 

It seems about every year about this time, I start a thread about the infamous Ty Cobb backed cards.

What is known about this card's distribution is simple - we know nothing... everything is speculative. Was the card actually distributed in product (ie, the Ty Cobb tin bearing the same factory/district number)? Was it a point of sale give-a-way? Is it part of the T206 set?

Last year, I pointed out that the Cobb back in the REA auction had a wet sheet transfer on the front, seeming to indicate at least 2 sheets of these were printed... This year, the REA Cobb back seems to give us a few more clues...

While looking through the catalog, I noticed right away the back has clear evidence of tobacco staining - identical to what would be seen on a Polar Bear card. Does this mean we can conclusively say that Cobb backed cards were packaged in product instead of a point of sale give-a-way... no. Maybe an early collector had "sloppy fingers" when handling cards after putting a wad into his lip. However, the clear presence of tobacco on the back of the card seems to indicate to me that we may begin to lend credence to the idea that Cobb backed cards were actually packaged with the tobacco.

Thoughts?

The major determining factor in my opinion is that while each of the other 15 cigarette brands features at least 350 subjects, the Cobb back features just one. This alone excludes the card from being in the same class as the rest of the T206 cards. It is more of an ego driven fantasy card than a true T206 issue.

It is more of an ego driven fantasy card than a true T206 issue.

What?:confused:

I wish there were a few coin collectors in here. They would immediately know what I am talking about. 1913 Liberty Nickel, 1804 Dollar, 1894-S dime.

Had you read or done your own research with regard to my detailed critiques of your views when you floated this same idea about a month ago, you would realize that this statement is simply not true. Please name the 350+ Uzit, or Drum, or Carolina Brights subjects that qualify those brands as "T206" by your definition.

You are going to have to come up with another arbitrary criteria that does not correspond with the criteria set by the man who coined the name "T206" if you want the other 15 brands to all still be considered "T206" by the "Chicago" definition.

I do not know a single T206 collector who would agree with your criteria for T206 designation. Since you are admittedly (as of a month ago) new to pre-War cards and clearly don't know what you are talking about on this one, why don't you just sit back, listen, and learn.

Didn't you claim to be going away about a week ago anyway?
JimB

Jon,
You may have missed it, but there were a couple of extensive threads on this topic just about a month ago.
JimB

Jim - must have missed them... my bad

Jon,
That is a very interesting observation regarding the tobacco. Perhaps at least some were distributed in tins.
JimB

Jon, here is the previous thread
http://net54baseball.com/showthread....ight=cobb+back

Jim, well said in your first post. At least Peter Chao was entertaining.

" Please name the 350+ Uzit, or Drum, or Carolina Brights subjects that qualify those brands as "T206" by your definition. "


Ever seen a Drum backed card? Whats it say right beneath "Base Ball Series"? Just because not all 350 subjects have been accounted for does not mean they do not exist. I can tell you FOR A FACT however that just 1 solitary subject exists for the Cobb back!

Chicago206
 

There is no point in arguing with you. I am done.
JimB

You are upset with me because I dont agree with your opinion....priceless!:D

Would love to own a Cobb/Cobb ... But .....
 

Not as part of my T206 sets.

It is what it is.

A T206 it is not .....

:confused:

Do you even want to know why that statement is all wrong? Do you even care to learn or are you here just to hang out and bang on your keyboard?

Just asking before myself or any of us try to inform someone who just doesn't care to be informed.

Well,the one thing I've learned recently is that not all Cobb/Cobb's have the glossy finish on the front.

I wouldn't doubt if some of these cards had been packaged directly with the tobacco-there's always the possibility that they were distributed in multiple ways?

You would think there would be a little more data out there on this,seeing how popular Ty Cobb was-hopefully one day more information will surface about this-that would be awesome!!!

Sincerely,Clayton

Red Cobb/Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco back
 

Hey Chicago206....why don't you start using the SEARCH feature here....before you post on subjects you are ill-informed of ?

We had several threads on this subject and here is the most recent one; and, the most informative.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...2Fty+cobb+back

This thread garnered almost 100 posts and we were able to come up with new info. regarding this mysterious Ty Cobb card,
that dates it within the "350 series" period (1910) of the T206 press runs.

Sit down, take a deep breath, and take the time to read every post in this thread. Then if you have any intelligent questions,
we will try to answer them.

Prior to this thread (Jan 2009), I was skeptical regarding this Cobb card. Now, I feel it should be considered as a T206.



<img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/acobbtycobb.jpg" alt="[linked image]"><img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/bcobbtycobb.jpg" alt="[linked image]">


TED Z

Ted's assessment
 

"Prior to this thread (Jan 2009), I was skeptical regarding this Cobb card. Now, I feel it should be considered as a T206."


Ted - i did not know you had a change of opinion on this issue. To me this is huge news as clearly you are one of the most respected and knowledgable T206 collectors out there.

Ted, I have read that thread. Just because ATC made this card during the same period the other T206 cards were made means nothing. The United States mint was making Phillipines coinage in the exact same facility, and at the exact same time as they produced our coinage. Yet, not many would consider a 10 centavos to be a "U.S." coin.

When a card such as the Cobb back actually has more differences than similarities then other T206's, perhaps its time to consider it is simply a different species....even though it is very closely related. Subjects, Gloss, and Distribution concerns are the biggies here. They dont match the pattern of any of the other 15 cigarette brands. CLEARLY the Cobb back IS different Ted, or else we wouldnt even be having this discussion. And the discussion keeps coming up. Whats that tell you?

Here is a New one for me!
 

Found this in the book, "Ty Cobb: Safe at Home"...

Says the article is from the March 10 1910 Augusta Ga. Paper.

Though the image is blurry, notice that is says "Now on the market 10 cents the? package - Try One"

Shawn
 

Great piece, Thanks for posting.


TED Z

Ty Cobb back
 

1st....to compare the striking of various coins at the US Mint to the printing of T206 cards at American Lithographic
during 1909-1911 is totally absurd.

2nd....Regarding your......." When a card such as the Cobb back actually has more differences than similarities then
other T206's "


REALLY NOW ? ?

Is it not a White-Bordered card ?

Does it not have BROWN lettering in its caption ?

Does it not have the T206 stylistic designed back ?

Is the front not American Lithographic's SIGNATURE PICTURE (the red Cobb) ?

Finally, was it not printed and issued in the Spring/Summer of 1910 ?


Please answer these 5 questions....if you avoid them then my conversation with you ceases....as it is not worth my
time to debate with you.


TED Z

In summary, each of the similarities/differences hold a weighted value. For example, saying they both have white borders means almost nothing since I can list over 100 other sets of cards (tobacco and not) that were also issued with white borders. In fact, thats like saying "They are both made from cardboard!". Simply a ridiculous comparrison. The difference that holds the most weight is the number of subjects. That alone precludes the Cobb back from being categorized with the other 15 brands as being T206. It is a "stand alone" issue which we dont even have concrete evidence that it was even distributed with tobacco. If...and thats a big if....it were ever discovered that the card WAS NOT distributed with tobacco (like ALL other T206's were), then its clearly not a T206 card.

I go away for a few days and return to find that Chicago206 has continued his whirlwind, friend making, tour of Net54.

Since Marshall Barkman III, has anyone alienated more people in a shorter time span?

Ty Cobb back
 

This card falls within the T206 rubric of being a White-bordered Tobacco card that was printed and issued in the T206 time period
which is 1909-1911. And, we have empirical evidence that this card was issued in 1910.

Of the 15 that are known, some are found with "glossy" fronts and others that have been found without glossy fronts.

Some have tobacco stains and others don't. So, your statements are incorrect.

And, regarding your......
" If...and thats a big if....it were ever discovered that the card WAS NOT distributed with tobacco (like ALL other T206's were),
then its clearly not a T206 card. "

Not, only are there some cards with tobacco stains; but, Shawn has posted several different Georgia newspaper clippings, advertis-
ing Ty Cobb Cut Plug Tobacco (tin).....the Factory (#33 N.C.) is on the tin and the Ty Cobb card.

Finally, the fact that this card stands alone because of its unique back, is a weak argument. The Demmitt and O'Hara (St Louis ver-
sions) stand alone with their single backs (that do not indicate "350 Series")....POLAR BEAR.

Incidently, POLAR BEAR is a Cut Plug Tobacco as is the Ty Cobb Tobacco.

TED Z

Get used to it. He does it every where he goes.

I think many of the objections (including the OP's) to inclusion of this card in the T206 set would not be voiced if this was a $100 card instead of a $40,000. one.
What next? Arguing against American Beauty's because they are narrower?

edited to say- I meant Chicago, not Jon, when stating the objection to inclusion in T206 was due to money and not substance.Apologies.

I, personally, don't feel the lack of additional subjects should preclude its inclusion with the T206 set. In fact, considering that that the brand is called "Ty Cobb" and the slogan "Ty Cobb King of the Smoking World," I actually would find it a little odd if any subject other than Ty Cobb would be included in the packaging. Imagine a Moose Grimshaw Ty Cobb backed card! I also think that when you take a step back and look at the T206 series as actually being 15-16 stand alone sets, all of which have been designated under the umbrella classification of T206, it's much easier to argue for its inclusion.

Ted, your wasting your breath.
 

If you need a stiff drink I will send you something.

I thought he was getting out because he didn't like this sort of bickering and arguing, yet he always seems to be at the center of it????

Ted, it was a pleasure shaking the hand of someone with 30+ years (I hope I have that right) of card collecting experience at this year's Philly show. Evcharisto polu for your many knowledgeable posts on T206s, we all stand to learn much from reading.

This is an issue of classification not personal opinion: the crucial factor of distribution puts the card, in my mind, in or out of Jefferson Burdick's ACC designation as a T206 (remember to those, ahem, who post: the T206 is an artificial category created by Burdick to describe a certain class of cards printed and issued in a similar manner in the same time). We can argue until we're blue in the face about what does and doesn't constitute our own definition, but as far as Burdick's is concerned, the fact that these ATC cards were distributed similarly puts them under his same umbrella.

Jon, that was a great call in the first post: I had missed those tobacco stains. I thought, no way he's right, but sure enough the REA card has what can only be tobacco stains and, as you point out, resemble quite clearly the polar bear staining of loose-tobacco. It's a clincher for me. I went back to other Cobb/Cobbs and found no such staining, so as far as I'm concerned this is an important new observation.

As a practical matter...
 

Aside from the theoretical question of whether Cobb/Cobb 'belongs' in T206, as a practical matter:

* If you are assembling a standard T206 front set (524 subjects), you don't have to worry about this card.

* If you are assembling a T206 back set, you are going to have to decide whether you need this card. I recommend getting one, just in case.

* If you are trying to obtain all possible T206 front/back combinations, you could work on that project for 500 years and never even know if you are done.

* If you are building a collection of all known Ty Cobb cards, you need this card!

What makes it part of a T206 set? .....
 

The Mono's have a white border, should it be part of the T206 set?

If an Abbaticcio back card was found, with stains,and a white border ... would you consider it part of the T206 set?

Absolutely not. Burdick's classification system was done 70+ years ago. Things change....the world being round, women having the right to vote, slavery ending, etc, etc. Just because thats "the way its always been" does not mean thats the way it will always be, nor does it mean its correct.

Joe, thanks for your reply. The Mono cards were not issued between 1909-11 by the American Tobacco Company, and they were not distributed in tobacco products made by the ATC. Same with our fictitious Abbaticchio back: if it had a white border, was made by the ATC, and was included as part of ATC tobacco products, then yes, I would include it. Does that make sense, I don't just consider the white border sufficient: ATC cards made during those years with a gold border are designated (again, by Jefferson Burdick's rubric) T205. So, there are several factors, and now that the Cobb/Cobb seems to have fulfilled Burdick's factors, I think it belongs under the classification he designated for cards with such characteristics.

Again: my congrats to Jon as I think that noticing the tobacco on the back proves in my mind that these were distributed with tobacco products just like other cards under the T206 heading.

No one who reads my posts will be surprised to see me bring it up, but this is like the T209 cards: under Jefferson Burdick's designation, cards issued by the Contentnea tobacco company and distributed with their products during 1910 are listed under the classification T209. Now, some of those cards are color some are black and white, and so we have T209 I and T209 II, but I don't think anyone would want to make T209 IIs into an entirely separate set just because one is color and one is black and white.

Edited to say: Marshall Chicago206 Chao, when Jefferson Burdick wrote his catalog, there was no slavery, American women had suffrage rights, and the world was largely agreed to be round. If you want to re-write the ACC, be our guest. But I don't think that was the original question: it was whether or not the Cobb/Cobb belongs in the ACC designation "T206." But you don't seem to be contributing much of substance here.

the thing that I wonder about is that some of the cards have gloss and some don't. Could it be that some were distributed in the tobacco, and others were used as displays or advertisement pieces or enticements ? This subject has always intrigued me, so I love the discussion and information that has been discovered as of today.

I think we are trying to impute 2010 knowledge and logic on 1910 baseball cards. They will NEVER match.

The "marketing" division of ATC (and I use that term loosely) just wanted to sell more tobacco. That's all. Period. If that meant re-using a front image with a different brand back, so be it. If that meant changing a team name, on the title, or on the picture itself, so be it.

I don't think that they envisioned that, 100+ years later, we'd be sitting around trying to classify, sort, and rearrange, their motives. Even when Burdick first did this job, these were "old" cards.


The work done over the years has unearthed an awful lot of "what" ATC did, but, in the end, finding "why" they did something, or even, what they intended to do, will always be a guess.

History re written to our likings :)
 

*

A very slight correction .....

Too late ... The T209 type 1, and T209 type 2, although put out by Contentnea ... are two totally different sets.

Type 1. As we all know, is made up of color images.

Type 2. Is made up of interesting early photographs ... and that's what makes it two different sets.

My 219 different type 2's keep telling me that. :)

The Cobb back is a T206, always has been and always will be.

Whoah, that makes me incredibly jealous. When you give up the hobby and those T209 IIs hit the BST, give me advanced notice, ok? :rolleyes:

To answer your point, Joe, that's sort of what I was saying though: they are two sets, but they're under the same ACC heading. So if we are arguing about whether or not cards are different sets, that's one thing, but if we are arguing about whether or not different cards belong to the same ACC heading, that's very different. The Cobb belongs to the T206 set just like the T209 IIs belong with the Is: because the ACC says so. Jim's right, though, this is a lot of modern haggling for a classification system that wasn't in the minds of the people who were rolling these things out and putting them in cig packs in the first place.

Thanks to Ted, Seth, and others for sparing me the need to reiterate these points again. :)
JimB

Burdick
 

For the record Burdick always classified the Cobb back as a T206. Even in the 1953 ACC he included it.....Now, in his later revisions he took out Hustler from T206 but he left Cobb (back) as a T206. (He never listed Coupon as a T206 back :o)

For T209 Contentnea he listed them as type 1 and type 2.

Hot Damn .....
 

Does this all mean that the yet unfound Abbaticcio back, with stains and a white border, has a chance at being a T206'r??? :)

From page 14 of Scot Reader's "e-book":

"The backs of most T206 cards advertise the brand of tobacco with which the card was packed and shipped. T206 cards were distributed with 15 brands of tobacco, all of which were controlled by ATC. Some T206 collectors believe that two other brands under the control of ATC—Coupon and Ty Cobb—qualify as T206 brands; however, theirs appears to be a minority view."

From page 15 of the same resource:

"A further point raised by opponents is that these cards were distributed from Factory 33 in North Carolina, from which no other T206 brand was distributed. Some opponents have also asserted that these cards were printed after T206 distribution had concluded. Advertisements recently discovered in the Macon Weekly Telegraph indicating that the Ty Cobb brand was launched in February 1910 call this final assertion into question.10 However, the possibility that the mysterious “Cobb with Cobb back” cards were contemporaries of T206 seems unlikely to convince most opponents to welcome these cards into the T206 family."



It appears that im not the only person who doesnt see the Cobb back as being a true T206 card either!

Is the Ty Cobb with Cobb back listed on VCP? If so, can someoned point me in the right direction - I cannot seem to find it.

Thanks Brian. Right in front of me.

Yippy ... it's in VCP .....
 

Does that mean that it now belongs in the T206 set? :)

Dumb question:

If F.R. Penn produced the Ty Cobb brand tobacco in 1910 and ATC didn't take over F.R. Penn until 1912...does that mean anything?

Chicago206
 

While I respect Scot Reader's voluminous writings on T206 there is clearly not a consensus on the Cobb back as being included or not, in T206. That being said there would be no "T206" without the person that invented it, Jefferson Burdick. If anything, when there is not a clear consensus on an issue, we should go back to what Burdick wrote since he is the one that imagined it. There is no debate that he came up with the ACC system of classifying cards in the US. And I realize that even Jefferson said his ACC was, and always will be, a work in progress. He stated the Cobb back was a T206.

It would mean that the Cobb back was not distributed by the ATC. Unless the Cobb back card was released in 1912. Then that would mean the card was not distributed in the same time frame as all other 15 branded T206 cards.

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.