Cobb/Cobb....T206 card or something else?

[Chicago206]

In a very cool recent post by CFC on back scarcity ratings, he interestingly leaves the Cobb back off the list. This has rekindled the age old debate on whether that card is actually an official T206 card. Its time to rehash the debate.

My contention is that just because the card was originally categorized by Burdick as a T206 card does not mean everything is set in stone. As people begin to learn more about subjects, old classifications can and often do change to reflect new findings and ideas. Being a fact that the Cobb back features just a single subject, while every other brand features at least 350 subjects is a major discrepancy. Another fact is that 85% of the known specimens have a different "finish" on the front than any of the other brands...this further differentiates this card. Finally, its even been speculated that the Cobb/Cobb may have been distributed as a stand alone promotion rather than being packaged with tobacco. We know of none of the other 15 brands that can make any of these claims.

All dogs have four legs, but not all four legged animals are dogs. Same may be said of this particular card. Although it was issued around the same time as other T206's, and has the same basic physical dimensions, the differences are so pronounced that one can only conclude it is in fact a different "species" altogether.

This post isnt meant to provoke arguments, but rather to provoke some logical thought and friendly debate on possibly one of the series' biggest mysteries!

[teetwoohsix]

I can't seem to find much of an argument within myself not to toss this into the T206 camp,like I can with the T213-1's.

As noted by TedZ recently,he witnessed this very card and it did not have the glossy finish.

If this card had other known series attached to it with different back designs,that came out in a succession (examp-1909,1910 diff.,1911 diff.,etc.)then I would find myself questioning it more.

I can go either way,but as a T206 collector who is going after one example of each back,this is one that I am not concerned about obtaining.Call it a T206,or not.I am ok with it being called a T206.Just my opinion........

Sincerely,Clayton

[ullmandds]

I have no problem grouping the cobb/cobb with t206 as burdick defined t206...it definitely fits into his parameters for t206...but then again so does t213 I and t215-I...I feel that updating designations/classifications for accuracy would be a beneficial thing to do...and I'm guessing at some point...someone will!

[barrysloate]

I've felt the Cobb back should not be part of the T206 set for the same reason Chicago206 stated- that because only a single player was issued it does not fit the pattern of other brands that are considered part of it.

The reason the ATC issued these cards was as a marketing ploy to get people to keep buying packs of their favorite brands, with the hope of finding another player for their set. Having only a single player with a Cobb back defeats that purpose- after one bought his first pack he would have been done. Unless he really liked the tobacco, he would have no reason to buy another pack.

Therefore, I think the card was distributed some other way, perhaps available at the counter at point of purchase, but clearly was not distributed the same way as the other fifteen brands. Whether the paper was glossy or not really doesn't factor into my theory.

[ullmandds]

good points barry...hmmmn...point of distribution...point of distribution...that is almost a smoking gun in my book...i still want one!

[ChiefBenderForever]

To be T206 or not ? I think it is, if not what is it ?

[E93]

Originally Posted by Chicago206

Being a fact that the Cobb back features just a single subject, while every other brand features at least 350 subjects is a major discrepancy.

This is simply not true. Drum, Uzit, EPDG, and I think CB, and Broadleaf all have less than 350 subjects - far less in some cases. Ted can supply the exact numbers.
JimB

[E93]

Chicago,
Why don't you explain what criteria you think Burdick had for inclusion in the category he coined, "T206"?

Like I said, if you want to come up with a different category with different parameters, more power to you. But that would not be "T206"
JimB

[E93]

Chicago206 said,
"Why should the Cobb back be considered a part of the T206 set? Because thats how it was categorized 70 years ago?"

Yep, it is called copyright.


Chicago said,
"Things change, they evolve as more info becomes available. Just remember that the same guy who called the Cobb/Cobb a T206 card, also called an Uzit an "Usit".

Greater knowledge about the Ty Cobb brand that has recently come to light has reaffirmed the notion that Burdick categorized it correctly according to his own scheme - white border baseball subjects used to advertise ATC Tobacco products between 1909-1911.
JimB