Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon
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.
|
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.