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

[whitehse]

Originally Posted by Chicago206

"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?

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

[sgbernard]

Originally Posted by whitehse

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

Amen!

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by whitehse

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

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! :-)

[Potomac Yank]

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

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

You gotta luv those flippers .....

[e107collector]

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

[nam812]

Best thread ever.

[Potomac Yank]

Originally Posted by e107collector

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

*

That's found on most non T206 cards.

[E93]

Originally Posted by e107collector

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

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



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

[Potomac Yank]

Originally Posted by E93

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



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

*

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

[toppcat]

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......

[Sean]

Originally Posted by e107collector

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

While reading this old thread I came across this observation. Is this generally true of Cobb back cards? I've looked at Ryan's card and it seems fuzzy, but that could be the scan? I know that the recently found "matchbox" Cobb back has this same poor registration. The red background seems to be shifted down slightly, causing the eyes to appear unfocused. Does anyone know if this is true of the cards in the Lucky 7 find? And does it seem to be true of all Cobb backs?

[CuriousGeorge]

I have one with no issues.

[ullmandds]

Since i last saw this thread...what have i learned??? That the cobb w /cobb back is still not a t206...and that it is likely more common than drum, uzit, lennox, ab 460, cycle 460, coupon type I,III, t214, blank back...among others!!

[Sean]

Originally Posted by CuriousGeorge

I have one with no issues.

Great card Steven. Does it feature the glossy finish?

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Chicago206

Changed my mind. Think i'll stick around a bit.

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.

[Potomac Yank]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

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.

*

Then why are you answering?

[Kawika]

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

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by Chicago206

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

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

[Chicago206]

Ok

[Abravefan11]

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

[Chicago206]

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.

[E93]

Originally Posted by Chicago206

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.

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

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by jmk59

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

A reminder of why Joann needs to post more frequently.

[Potomac Yank]

Originally Posted by whitehse

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

*

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?