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 ?

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHarmonica

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

Just another tobacco card similar to the T213's. I just think that cards to be included in a grouping need to have more in common than not to make sense. And the Cobb back has more differences than similarities than all the other 15 brands that make up T206.

[ChiefBenderForever]

It's a T-COBB type 1 and the glossy could be T-COBB type 2

[teetwoohsix]

I can agree with that too,Barry.
I guess this wouldn't be too much of an issue if they had used a unique front of the card,rather than the Cobb Red portrait.
This is an interesting subject,that I'm sure has been worked over many times.
At this point,I'm OK with JimR's list of backs,and OK with this one being excluded from the list-just as I would be OK if he did include it.
Also,just to add that I WISH I could get my hands on one of these Cobb/Cobb cards at one point in my life!!!!!!!!!!

Regards-Clayton

[E93]

Chicago206,
Since you have decided to move this conversation to a different thread, I will cut and paste what I said in the thread where the conversation began. It sure would be nice if you could specifically respond to the arguments I made. I have responded to every one of yours.
JimB


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago206
With all but 1 or is it 2 Cobb backs displaying a glossy front, and NONE of the other 15 Cigarette companies having ANY glossy fronts, why do you think the Cobb back even belongs on this list at all? Isnt it perfectly clear these cards were produced completely seperate from all other T206's? This card doesnt qualify as a true T206 card IMO.

My response:

Chicago,
This has been debated extensively here in the past. In a nutshell, "T206" was a designation coined by Burdick (not by the American Tobacco Company in 1909-11) and used in the American Card Catalog to indicate the white border baseball subjects used as fronts for the American Tobacco Company brands advertisements issued from 1909-1911. We know from more than one period newspaper article that Ty Cobb brand was issued by the ATC in 1910. Burdick included it in his book as a T206 brand and it meets his qualifications. Since he coined the taxonomy and defined its parameters, I think it makes perfect sense to go with his evaluation, especially since it still meets his criteria by our knowledge today. Unless one wants to do a complete overhaul of the taxonomy and eliminate American Beauties because of their smaller size, or divide it into sets by brand, or series, or factory, I don't think a partial change to the long established paradigm is advisable. To me, it makes sense to keep the parameters as simple and straightforward as possible. I hope that helps.
JimB

[E93]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago206
Can you name a single T206 cigarette brand that features just 1 subject? Can you name a single T206 cigarette brand that features a glossy front surface on 85% of the known cards? Why should the Cobb back be considered a part of the T206 set? Because thats how it was categorized 70 years ago? 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".


My response:


I suggest you read my response to your initial questions above.

In response to your questions here, Jefferson Burdick is the person who invented the classification scheme that is still used today, including the designation "T206". Nowhere does he indicate the number of subjects that need to be on the fronts of advertising backs. Nor does he indicate that a glossy front would eliminate a card from consideration. He lists all the advertising brands included with the T206 designation and the one quality they all have in common is that they all advertised American Tobacco Company products between 1909-1911. A typo on the spelling of Uzit is hardly evidence that the Ty Cobb brand should be disqualified. There was debate a few years ago about wether the Ty Cobb brand was a brand issued by the ATC and if so, when it was issued. That debate was resolved last year with period newspaper articles and other evidence that Ted Z produced about a period collection. FYI, the recent find of two new examples also appeared within a larger period collection of T206s.

If you want to change the classification system and establish your own criteria for designation, more power to you. If it is convincing enough, I am sure the collecting world will follow you. You should use a term other than "T206" however because T206 includes brands like Ty Cobb and American Beauty that have physical qualities that differ from the other brands in most cases. And you might want to consider the exclusion of Polar Bear since that was the only brand where the cards were placed with loose tobacco as opposed to cigarettes.
JimB

[E93]

Let me give another example to explain the reasoning. Let's assume one woman made it into the major leagues. Generally speaking, the classification category of Major League ball players only tends to include men, but now there is a single example of a woman in that category. Should she not be included among Major League ballplayers because she has some different anatomy? Because the criteria is simply that one plays in the major leagues, not have male organs is a non-issue. Having different biological characteristics was never a criteria for determining wether or not somebody was a major league ballplayer. One can make a new category of major league ball players with male organs, but that does not change the old category.

Likewise, if one wants to make a new category for tobacco cards that includes all white bordered ATC cards with baseball fronts produced between 1909-1911 and advertising ATC brands, but excluding those for which 85% of known copies have a glossy front or for which the brand only has one front, that is fine. But it is not "T206".

By the way, the glossy front that bothers you so much begs the question of why 20% of them do NOT have a glossy front. Perhaps they started without it and then ATC decided to make the cards for this limited edition specialty brand special and added the gloss. WHo knows? Would that eliminate it? I don't think so.
JimB

[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

[tedzan]

Hey guys, we re-hashed this subject a little over a year ago in a thread that came close to 100 posts.
Some really great info was posted in that thread. So, why "re-invent the wheel"....here's the link to it,
it's really worthwhile reading it. And, if necessary, we can continue this debate.

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

Please note Post #89 in this thread. Some really substantial evidence is presented in this post.


TED Z

[ethicsprof]

My vote is to place Cobb/Cobb under the T206 rubric unequivocally.

arguments on JimR's thread re: the scarcity ranking of T206 backs are most
compelling.

best,
barry

[Comiskey]

I really don't understand why this debate comes up all the time. I believe that the Ty Cobb card should be placed in the T206 set and here's why:

1. It has the exact same "front" as all other T206's, i.e., font, color, appearance. We just had an argument about the T213-1's that should be included because they have the exact same front and a different advertising back. That in itself is an argument that explains why these white border tobacco cards that have the same appearance, font, etc., should all be included in the set

2. Whether or not it was made for mass distribution, it was designed to sell a product. As we have learned from our T206 experts (Ted, Scott, Wonka, etc) some cards were not distributed with all of the same backs. I have a Lundgren with an EPDG back that is pretty rare. Now, this is an example of a front/back combo that can be difficult to find.

3. It was part of the Bill Russell collection that was collected by the Senator during the years of 1909-1912. From what I have read, Senator Russell collected his cards from the "exact" time period that the T206 set was issued. This further proves that the card was distributed during this time.

4. Ted Z stated recently that he was able to touch and feel a new example to our collecting community. He stated that it did not have a gloss finish to it. I have heard in the past that this was a big reason why people felt that it did not have the proper characteristics of other T206's. This may prove them wrong.

These are just four examples of why I believe that it is and should be part of the T206 set. I have been collecting this set only for about 5-6 years, both in it's entirety and as a back collector. Sometimes I get the feeling that people might want this card excluded because of it's difficulty and price. I look at it as one of the Holy Grails in the T206 set and dream that one day I might be able to acquire it for my collection!

[tothrk]

I actually looked this word up and am still not sure what it means.

[barrysloate]

There are compelling arguments for both sides. I suggest that while we debate the topic, we accept the fact that for the foreseeable future it is part of the T206 set, and can only be removed if irrefutable evidence to the contrary were to surface. And since that is unlikely to happen, all we can do is continue to debate.

[tedzan]

In my humble opinion......

Any white-bordered card with BROWN lettering in its caption, that was printed and issued by American Lithographic during 1909-1911
falls under the rubric that Burdick classified as a "T206". Therefore, this Red Ty Cobb....AND....the 68 cards of the 1910 COUPON set
are "T206's"......period !




Here is an excerpt from the Ty Cobb back Thread of a year ago with some very significant evidence regarding this Ty Cobb card.....
Please note the early Spring 1910 date of these newspaper clippings.


[QUOTE=Archive;655051]Posted By: Shawn

I am not sure what the article below is about, because I do not have a subscription to the site... I sure would like to read it though!
I have noticed that the "Ty Cobb" brand advertisements are prodominately in the "Macon Weekly Telegraph" paper in Ga. The months
seem to be Feb. and Mar. of 1910. If someone has a subscription to genealogybank.com, it would be nice to see some of the full advs.

"Macon Weekly Telegraph" 1910
















QUOTE]



TED Z

[Chicago206]

"Any white-bordered card with BROWN lettering in its caption, that was printed and issued by American Lithographic during 1909-1911
falls under the rubric that Burdick classified as a "T206". Therefore, this Red Ty Cobb....AND....the 68 cards of the 1910 COUPON set
are "T206's"......period !"


So then why did Burdick classify the Coupon set as T213? Are you saying he was wrong in doing so? Because thats basically what im saying with him including the Cobb/Cobb in the T206 group.

[teetwoohsix]

I don't think Burdick got any of it wrong.
I guess I may be the thorn in the side of everyone who thinks T213-1's are T206's-please don't hate me for it -it's only my opinion.
And trust me,I highly respect all of the board members who do think T213-1's should be T206's..............so.....with that being said.............

How about this:Is there the possibility that after the first Coupon run (T213-1)that Coupon decided their first series of cards resembled T206 "too much",and therefore chose to have the 2nd and 3rd series leave "no doubt" that these were NOT T206's,but their own unique set?
I mean,if they were meant to "be" T206 cards,why didn't they keep the same structure for the second and third series(T213-2 and T213-3)?

Just food for thought.I'm sure I'll never win this one,but I can't seem to convince myself otherwise.

Back to the Cobb/Cobb:Thanks for posting that TedZ,that is very interesting.It also would be interesting do do one of those polls to see what everyone thinks about how to classify the Cobb/Cobb card.

Regards,Clayton