Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I know we've had this discussion before, and I guess it may ruffle a few feathers, but the more I think about the Ty Cobb with Cobb back, the more I am convinced that it should not be part of the T206 set.

For starters, it originates from a unique factory and is coated with a glossy surface that is foreign to T206. Second, the extremely limited distribution, and the fact it is only found with a single pose of a single player, is not consistent with how T206 was issued.

My theory is that it was no more than a promotional item, perhaps given away in just a few major stores in the Atlanta area, to get people to smoke the new Ty Cobb brand. He was certainly Georgia's favorite son, and the company was just capitalizing on it. There was never any intention to print a set of any kind, but only to issue one card for the sole purpose of selling a tobacco brand that bore this great player's name. Therefore, the only reason it has been associated with T206 over the years is that it utilized the familiar red portrait. I believe it is an example of an erroneous designation that has never been rightly corrected.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dylan

This may very well be, and there are many one card sets. The Cobb with Cobb back will probably remain a mystery as to exactly what happened. In any case Im glad its out there, what a cool card!

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

When do you believe it was printed (year)?


My thoughts are... even if everything you say is accurate - if it was printed during the years other T206s were printed, I think it should qualify as part of the set.


Also... not knowing much about Ty Cobb branded smokes... did a major tobacco company just license his name? Thus the possibility these were a brand like Piedmonts targeted for Georgia customers and possibly part of the regular T206 run?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Joe-I was thinking the same thing right after I posted, and that is we don't even know the year it was printed. What if we found documentation that said it was distributed in 1912? Would you feel differently about it?

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

T213-4

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

As the owner of one, my feathers certainly aren't ruffled.

The Baltimore News Ruth card was pretty much the same thing -- a free giveaway in only a local market -- and it certainly hasn't had its popularity suffer any from it.

I certainly don't think that a T206 set collector has to have a "Ty Cobb back" card to complete his set. All they need is a "Red Cobb Portrait" with ANY back.

In other words, the reason people DESIRE the Cobb/Cobb card is NOT because it's a part of the T206 set. I think they desire it because:

a) It features one of the greatest players ever
b) It is truly a rarity with only a dozen known to exist
c) The back of the card is atually pretty cool
d) Like the T206 Wagner -- it just has a long history of being "wanted" by everyone in the hobby.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Richard, that was along the lines of my thinking also. T206 look but a glossy front.

Maybe a Louisiana tobacco company had the bright idea of doing the Ty Cobb brand of smokes but Cobb found out and put a stop to it. Louisiana did get away with including Wagner in their sets.

Cobb was a better businessman than Wagner though and he was from Georgia and not Pennsylvania, so he would have had more people looking out for companies trying to make a buck off of him.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

Hal- only your "b" reason holds up for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Barry: I think it is important to note that everything about the card is consistent with T206.

Most of the other coupon cards have a different type set for the player's name, or even different color ink.

The Cobb/Cobb is printed just like a T206 and has the same dimensions and same border sizes, etc.

And as far as the "glossy front" is concerned...

I just had my card in hand a week ago and did not notice the front being any different than other T206 cards.

Maybe SOME have a glossy front and others don't? I really have only seen one (mine) in person, so I have never seen one that someone considered really glossy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

MVSNYC:

You don't think reason (a) has anything to do with it???

You think people would pay that much money for a card of Bert Kling if it said "Bert Kling Tobacco" on the back and only 12 existed??

[Archive]

Posted By: John

I have never considered this card part of the set, for many of the same reasons Barry, most notably the glossy finish.

Not that I wouldn’t like to have one, but even if I did it would not be displayed with my T206 set. I draw the line as needing Plank, Magie,Wagner & Doyle to finish the set.

Interesting that yours is not glossy Hal, the few I have seen have a sort of sheen to them. Also I found it odd if its true that a group of these was found in one location???

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I like Richard's idea, creating a fourth type of Coupon. I think T206 most closely resembles T213 Type 1 anyway.

Each of the 15 brands printed roughly 100 to 400+ of each player, so it is safe to say all made an attempt to issue some kind of collectable set. But to issue only a single pose, available only in a very specific geographic area, does not make for a set.

There are some theories that T206 should really be 15 different sets. Why aren't N172 and N175 considered the same set? They share the same photography, and the only thing that distinguishes them is the banner at the top. I know this is digressing a bit, but my point is there is a lack of consistency as to what determines a set, and I think the Cobb back is not consistent with the way T206 was distributed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

as far as the cobb/cobb t206s go, my official position:

They're real, and they're spectacular.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

"Bert Kling"?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Please also note the fact that although virtually every vintage collector would like to own one, that does not make it a T206 either. We all agree it is a great rarity and an extremely desirable card, but that is an unrelated issue.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Well said Barry, Joe there’re real no doubt but do they belong on or in the T206 bus? This has always been a conundrum for me. In fact Barry has echoed some of the same questions I’ve been asking myself for quite sometime being a T206 amateur hobbyist.

Who is Bert Kling, is he Johnny's Dad??

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

I believe that if the Cobb back was not associated with the T206 set, then it would not be worth nearly as much as the prices it sells for.

If you call it a T2XX (it's own ACC number), then how could it be any better than a T214 or T215 Cobb? There may be a dozen Cobb backs, but a Red Cross or Victory Cobb is nearly a one of a kind.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Okay, problem solved. As of today it has a new designation:

T-Unc. with Ty Cobb back

Edited to add I agree with Richard that its value would decrease, but for the sake of this discussion, are we trying to determine whether it is a T206, or to make sure it maintains its value? Again, separate issues.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

I recently wrote an e-mail to SGC to have them remove "Ty Cobb w/ Cobb back" from their set registry, i.e., in order to get 100% with SGC you need that back. Given that it is arguably not a T206 and, more importantly, not necessary for a complete set of fronts, I have no idea why SGC has this card listed where it is -- as a necessary component of a T206 fronts set.

But I got no response. I'll bring it up at the next show I see them at. But in the meantime, if anyone wants to join my soap box issue to have this card removed from the SGC T206 set registry, please forward an e-mail to:

service@sgccard.com

I'll make it easy for you -- just copy and paste the following in the body of your e-mail.

**I'd like to request that card number 97 in the T206 Set Registry -- Ty
Cobb (Portrait, Red Background, Ty Cobb Brand Back) -- not be included
in the SGC Set Registry. While it is arguably not even a T206 card, at a minimum it is a "back variation" card. Since the remaining 524
cards in the Registry are identified only by their fronts, even though
they might have any number of different backs, there is no reason to separately identify this card in the registry. Adding different advertising backs to the equation should be limited to a "Super Set" Registry.

Thank you for your consideration.**

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Paul,

Since I dont do the reg thing, are the big 4 on there as well? If so seems to me the Cobb/Cobb is the least of your worries for getting 100%. LOL

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Barry said,
"I think the Cobb back is not consistent with the way T206 was distributed."

It came with tobacco. It was a promotional piece for selling tobacco. What more do you want?

I have said this before, but I will repeat it here: T206 was a rather arbitrary designation for a number of different baseball picture cards inserted as a promotional piece with American Tobacco Company products between 1909-1911. If Ty Cobb brand was part of the ATC and they were produced during those years, then by definition, according to the ATC, it is a T206. Unless we are questioning the entire way ATC categorized cards and we are going to consider Piedmont , Sweet Cap, etc. unique sets (which is a legitimate claim), then I don't see why Ty Cobb brand should be signaled out. It you want to distinguish it because of the gloss on the front, then maybe T206-1.

I would want to see proof that it was produced by Coupon before calling it T213.

What if Sweet Cap 350's had the same gloss? Would we categorize them as T213s?

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

Barry -

Sorry about tying the discussion to the value of the card. The point I was trying to make is that it is so desirable simply because it is linked to the t206 set. That is what creates the aura around it.

A rarity the card is, but at a dozen know, it is not even close to some of the other Cobb rarities out there.

It is similar to the discussion about what makes the t206 wagner the holy grail of card collecting. It is because of the t206 set. As we have discussed many times before, there is a long laundry list of Wagners that are far scarcer.

But this hobby is about a lot more than population. It is about perceived population and real popularity.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Good points Jim, but was Ty Cobb part of the ATC?? Do we have proof of that, I don’t know that’s why I’m asking.

Also what about the find of multiple cards in one location?? If this did happen as I have been told that seems unlikely that they were put into distribution, if so I would think more would survive.

To me the card has always been at most a T206 proof or sample of some type to perhaps to add to the ATC’s already large distribution of cards. But I’ve always wondered about it being a part of the T206 set??

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

I recall that several of the Cobb/Cobb's were found in Louisiana, New Orleans area to be specific. I once went to a card show in Metarie, LA(suburb of New Orleans) in 1981 and recall there being 2 examples of this gem.

I don't believe it to be a strict Georgia issue, I think Louisiana had a share.

Issue date of 1912-1914 makes sense to me.

Not a T206 issue more than Coupon or Victory.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Jim- you mentioned the SC350 having a glossy front and, if so, it being a Coupon type card. It doesn't and the Cobb/Cobb does. I am of the ilk that thinks it wouldn't decrease the value if Cobb/Cobb wasn't classified as a T206, but I am biased too, so could be wrong. As for the argument of other Cobb cards (T214-T215) being worth more I still don't think so, imho. There are hundreds (or at least "hundred") of total T214's and T215's. There are about 12 known Cobb/Cobbs. Hal- As far as I know all Cobb/Cobb cards have glossy fronts, unlike T206's, except for one that is considered some sort of proof Cobb/Cobb. Interesting argument on a non-train wreck day.....best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

John,
I believe the group of 5 that REA auctioned in 1997 were found in a book by the gradson of a guy who owned a general store in Georgia at the turn of the century, lending evidence to the notion that they were distributed in the market, at least to some limited degree.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Hey Guys.....let's EXAMINE this card closely.....the FRONT is printed like none of the T206 fronts.

And, read the bottom line on the BACK......it has a unique Factory #33 North Carolina (N.C.)......
none of the 524 cards in the T206 set have this Fac.#. The only backs in the T206 set that have
a N.C. 4th Dist. Factory are the American Beauty 460, Sweet Caporal 460/42 and Piedmont 460/42
cards, which were issued at the very end of the T206 production run (circa 1911).

Therefore, "FACTORY #33, 4th Dist. N.C." on the Ty Cobb back tells us that this unique card was
produced subsequent to all the 524 cards in the T206 issue. And, indeed is a separate issue unto
itself and I would venture to say it was issued sometime around 1912-1915.

Most of us old "dinosaurs" in this hobby have seen and touched this card in it's "naked" form,
and it doesn't even feel like a T206.

IT IS NOT A T206......PERIOD.

T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

think that each back subset is really its own set? I tend to think that way myself.

--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Leon,
But what if Sweet Cap 350s did have gloss? How would you classify them? Or more importantly, how would they have been classified in the ATC? Seems from the evidence that they would have simply been classified as T206s. THe gloss did not seem to bother Burdwick.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

"Since I dont do the reg thing, are the big 4 on there as well? If so seems to me the Cobb/Cobb is the least of your worries for getting 100%. LOL"

I definitely hear where you are coming from, but after I acquired the Magie a few months back, I have gotten bolder. I have a whole 'nother issue with the Doyle -- for self-interested reasons, I'm happy to subscribe to the theory that the Doyles were created in the early 1980's. That leaves, for me, Wagner and Plank. Some day... some day.....

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jim- no, I am not actually saying it should be a Coupon. It's not that either.

And yes, that it was distributed with a tobacco product and was promotional are two of the attributes it shares with T206.

But here is where it differs. Any of the other 15 brands issued hundreds of different players as a means of getting consumers to continually buy its product. If we agree that is true, then after you've purchased your first pack of Ty Cobbs your set is complete, no need to buy any more. I think it was a promotional item, but I'm not even sure it came with the tins. Quite possibly when it first debuted, a consumer could get a sample card but that offer disappeared quickly. Even Drum cigarettes have hundreds of surviving examples. The total number of surviving Cobbs is so miniscule that I doubt it had much of a distribution at all. I just think there was something totally different about how they got into circulation, though I admit I don't know exactly how.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

"As for the argument of other Cobb cards (T214-T215) being worth more I still don't think so, imho."

Maybe, maybe not. The point I was trying to make is that if the Cobb back was not associated with the t206 set, and was just another ACC number, it is far more common than a Cobb T214 or T215.

"There are hundreds (or at least "hundred") of total T214's and T215's. There are about 12 known Cobb/Cobbs."

This argument makes sense if you are a back collector and don't care about the front. However, if you are a front collector, and consider the back, then there is one, maybe two, each of the Cobb T214 and T215. At least, that is how this Cobb collector looks at it.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Ted wrote:

"FACTORY #33, 4th Dist. N.C." on the Ty Cobb back tells us that this unique card was
produced subsequent to all the 524 cards in the T206 issue. "

I am missing the line of reasoning that tells you it was issued after other T206s because it comes from a unique factory. Why could it not have been made in 1910?

"Most of us old "dinosaurs" in this hobby have seen and touched this card in it's "naked" form,
and it doesn't even feel like a T206."

This dinosaur touched a raw one last week and it felt a lot like a T206 to me.

"IT IS NOT A T206......PERIOD."

I thought the ATC and Jefferson Burdwick was the arbitor of what was a "T206" since he coined the term and delineated what it represents.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Here’s something else to consider, easily some of the most kept over the years cards are that of Cobb, especially the “red” background.

So if it was presented to the masses right in Cobb’s very own backyard (superstar of the day, Georgia’s native son) in “Ty Cobb” brand smoking tobacco? Why do so few exist?

As someone stated before there are other regional type issues that are scarce but not to the point of only 12 of one player and design? That never added up for me, and a card of Cobb to boot, not some printing variation of a common ballplayer or minor league star in a huge subset…

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

CHAD

There are many of us veteran T206 collectors that consider this to be so.

The PIEDMONT brand is the "A" set....as it comprises of all 522 cards (excepting the St. Louis versions
of Demmitt and O'Hara).

The Sweet Caporal (Fac. #30) brand would possibly classify as the "B" set.

The Sovereign brand would be the "C" set.

And, so on and so forth.

So, the Ty Cobb brand, finally would be the "last" set.

T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

Any one have ready scans of front and back to add to our conversation.

I once labeled the Cobb/Cobb a T366 or it T367 after Cobb's lifetime batting avg.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

To me it’s a question that could go both ways, it very well could be a T206. I agree with Jim just because it had a unique factory doesn’t keep it from being a T206. However there are other questions and things around this card that others have detailed above which could make it go the non T206 road.

I’m not ready to not call it a T206, but I’m also not ready to not call it one either, I think we have a lot of research to do. One good place to start, was Ty Cobb brand part of the ATC??

However if I had to choose a betting position I would lean towards not T206 at this point.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I pulled out REA's 1997 catalog and stared at the five for a few minutes. There seems to be subtle differences in the colors, sort of muted and a bit lighter, but it could also be the quality of his images.

I realize there is a counter to every argument against them being T206, and I wish we could find some documentation. But if someone asked me to guess when they were issued, I would say 1912-14. Why? Just a gut feeling.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

The North Carolina Dist. identifies this card as a post American Tobacco Co. issue....and, identifies it as
a Liggett and Myers (1911) issue. Therefore, your statement that it was a "1910" issue does not hold.

This transition of T-Companies was discussed in a prior Thread sometime back.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I have done some limited research to try to figure out the years of production, but have not found anything yet.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Ted said:
"The North Carolina Dist. identifies this card as a post American Tobacco Co. issue....and, identifies it as
a Liggett and Myers (1911) issue. "

Can you please explain? How do you know that this factory was not owned by ATC?



"Therefore, your statement that it was a "1910" issue does not hold."

I never made such a statement. I asked a rhetorical question about why it could not have been made in 1910.

"This transition of T-Companies was discussed in a prior Thread sometime back."

Can you provide a link? I would like to learn about this.

Thanks,
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Jim,

I guess the point were all trying to make is that the Cobb/Cobb does not belong in the T206 set, Therefore I know you liked my Demmitt and he does belong in the set. So this one time I’ll trade you the Demmitt straight up and bail you out of this embarrassing situation you’ve gotten yourself into.

I know others are probably like Wonka NO!!!!!

But I have a big heart and I hate to see you suffer like this…

I'll email you my address to send the card....but you pay the shipping!!!

John

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Scot Reader's great analysis is a great starting point. I am going to re-read it for the 3rd time.
I discover something new every time I read his book. I don't quite recall his "take" on this card;
but, perhaps he will chime in on this Thread.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: John

You know Ted some of us "Young Timers" only have to read books once....

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

I have also never really considered the Cobb/Cobb back as a true part of the t206 set. If we consider that to be part of he t206 set, then we would also have to add all the T213-1's and T215-1's as being part of the t206 set. They are identical to t206's on the obverse, only really differing on the back. These two sets have much more in common with the t206 set than the Cobb/Cobb card.
-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Thanks John. You got a deal. I feel so much better now.
Gotta go teach a class.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

well Barry, looks like you started a pretty hot thread...

IMO, it was a promotional card, never intented on mass distribution.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Following up on Ted and Barry's ideas, could the Cobb with Cobb back be a later attempt by ATC to copy the Louisiana cards??

Maybe someone associated with ATC saw the Coupon cards and thought the glossy fronts would be a better marketing tool for the kids (Ooh, shiny). I mean Topps, Upper Deck, etc did it with newer cards.

Maybe the Cobb card was a test issue. ATC already had the front, just needed to print up a new back and add the gloss. They then could have decided that was not the way they wanted to go and scrapped the whole plan and started with a fresh design--T207. They have glossy fronts.

Maybe, as I have read somewhere, the Cobb back was a promo card for the Ty Cobb tobacco brand and was given out ONLY at a coming out party for the new brand. I thought I read that there was a theory that the card was used as an admittance ticket for a party. Only those who had the card was allowed entrance into the party. This would explain the different N.C. printing company, the limited production run and the limited geographical distribution.

The five found in the book could have been a kid's collection. His parents went to the party and picked up the other four when they saw them laying on a table. The couple of cards mentioned that wre found in Louisiana could have been from Louisiana tobacco executives. Maybe ATC was going to merge with the makers of Coupon or at least have a distribution deal with them and invited some executives to the party. Later, the deal could have been called off. Who knows?.

Either way, I wouldn't mind owning a Cobb with Cobb back.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Richard- I agree with your analysis but we are talking about a very common front and a very rare back....so I made the correlation. For the record Jeff Burdick did count the Cobb/Cobb as T206 as well as other early collectors....I could never say Burdick was wrong about anything but I can say I have a different view. Let's do remember this too....from Walt Corson's peronal checklists, though he did have down Hustler also....... (see, I can argue both ways )

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Can some of you "old folks" at least tell me whether or not the Cobb/Cobb card has been known about in the hobby since the very beginning of time... or was it "discovered" in the 1980's, etc.??

EDITED: Thanks Leon !