Cobb back is not T206 and here's why...

[usernamealreadytaken]

Every T206 back has the phrase "Base Ball Series" except for Carolina Brights and Hindu which have "Base Ball Subjects." Either way, the appearance of "Base Ball" identifying the issue is the key. Though this might lead some to believe that "Coupon" backs should be classified as T206, the color and caption of their front lettering knocks 'em out (along with the timing of their print run).

Ty Cobb backs: You're outta here!!

[ullmandds]

Your theory doesn't knock out t213-1 coupon type I's...

[usernamealreadytaken]

One claim to keep them out is that every other T206 back references some number of players (150/350/350-460, Large Assortment, Assorted Designs, etc).

I think either Coupon 213-1 goes in, or El Principe De Gales go out...

[Jim VB]

I disagree also, but for a more basic reason. Unless you are the guy who invented the categorization system that coined the terminology T206, you don't have the right to change it. If, under the system he invented, it's a T206, then it's a T206. Period.

This entire process of organizing something that was issued over 100 years ago is funny, in a way. The original issuers never gave it a thought. They were just printing cards to entice people to use their products. They didn't care what player was from what set. They didn't get too involved in what color ink they were using. They just got a printer to print little pieces of cardboard with a baseball player on the front and their ad on the back. As the promotion worked well, they started to expand both the number of players and the number of brands.

Flash forward almost 30 years and a collector tries his best to establish some rhyme or reason to what they had done. He spends the next 25-30 years on the job, fine tuning it.

His body of work becomes the accepted standard over the world, for US issued cards of all types.

Now, another 40 years later, some guys on a message board think they can change that? Sorry. It's a T206 until Jefferson Burdick says it isn't.

That doesn't change anything to most collectors. I still have 520/524 and I don't need another Cobb. Now if you're a back collector, then you might feel that need. I don't know of anyone with a complete collection of fronts and back combos, but if he's around, that guy needs one also.

[usernamealreadytaken]

I like the intellectual nature of the dialogue that some engage in on the board; SOMEONE BEFORE US SAID THATS THE WAY IT IS SO THATS THE WAY IT IS!

There was a time when slavery and disallowing women the right to vote was the way it is...wonder how history would have played out if society took the approach "our forefathers said that was how it was so who are we to question that and try to get it right?"

[usernamealreadytaken]

The point of this board, as I see it, is to share knowledge and ideas on the cards we collect. This process has enhanced the hobby, and specifically that of T206. Theories and postulates have been and are proposed and the vast majority are quashed based on facts and evidence. However, the few that prove to be sound by way of this process are cherished and provide needed and wanted insight on what happened in a few factories between 1909-11...

[E93]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

I disagree also, but for a more basic reason. Unless you are the guy who invented the categorization system that coined the terminology T206, you don't have the right to change it. If, under the system he invented, it's a T206, then it's a T206. Period.

Exactly. "T206" is an arbitrary category coined by Burdick. One could argue that it would have made as much sense for him to distinguish 16 or 17 or more different sets, but he did not. He used the label to apply to baseball subjects (white border) used to advertise tobacco brands owned by the ATC between 1909-1911. ATC was a major shareholder in the Ty Cobb brand and Burdick included it. If one wants to exclude it, then you should come up with your own classification scheme, but do not call it "T206". That label is copyrighted.
JimB

[Peter_Spaeth]

Agree completely with the Jims. Sometimes the conventional wisdom is right.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by usernamealreadytaken

I like the intellectual nature of the dialogue that some engage in on the board; SOMEONE BEFORE US SAID THATS THE WAY IT IS SO THATS THE WAY IT IS!

When that "someone" before us invented the term "T206", then yes, that is the way it is.
It's not Henry Volkswagon......It's Henry Ford......and a Ford is not a Volkswagon .

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by usernamealreadytaken

SOMEONE BEFORE US SAID THATS THE WAY IT IS SO THATS THE WAY IT IS!

There was a time when slavery and disallowing women the right to vote was the way it is...wonder how history would have played out if society took the approach "our forefathers said that was how it was so who are we to question that and try to get it right?"

That's not what I said, but you have chosen to not understand it.

I have no idea whether or not the Cobb/Cobb was intended to be part of the same set. It doesn't matter. It's a T206 because the guy who made up the term T206 said it was. The intent of ATC isn't relevant. ATC didn't call them T206. Burdick did. It's not your right to change his classification system to suit your thoughts. If you want to make it part of a different set, or its own set, go right ahead. Come up with a new system. Don't use Burdick's.


And the whole bit about slavery???? You're just making yourself look silly on that.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by usernamealreadytaken

The point of this board, as I see it, is to share knowledge and ideas on the cards we collect. This process has enhanced the hobby, and specifically that of T206. Theories and postulates have been and are proposed and the vast majority are quashed based on facts and evidence. However, the few that prove to be sound by way of this process are cherished and provide needed and wanted insight on what happened in a few factories between 1909-11...

I agree, and certainly meant no animosity in any of my posts. My feeling is that there wasn't "thinking" going on in the planning and distribution of any of these sets. I think it was haphazard. ATC ordered some cards printed to move cigarettes. When it worked, they ordered more. After a few years, they did similar things, sometimes regionally, with other players and other brands. I don't believe there was any master plan that said these cards will go with this set, etc.

Moreover, I don't think they had any concept that men would be sitting around talking about their marketing plans, 100 years later.

[usernamealreadytaken]

Look, I have no deep interest either way on the Cobb/Cobb; it is what it is and calling it a T206, T206-1 or XSZ889 doesn't change what it looks like, when it was printed and how it was distributed or how somebody with a ton of money got it. And if anyone thought my intention with this thread was to have unanimous agreement and a rewrite of card cataloging, that is not so. I just threw an idea out for healthy debate and discourse. Sadly, the only one who responded (beyond "that's the way it is") was Peter who made a good, sound point to reject my theory.

[teetwoohsix]

That was well said,JimVB.

But usernamealreadytaken-why would EPDG be out?They do have "Base Ball Series" on the back.Just wondering about that.........thanks.

Sincerely,Clayton

Edit to say:Sorry Chris,I didn't see your name under your user name when I posted.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by usernamealreadytaken

Look, I have no deep interest either way on the Cobb/Cobb; it is what it is and calling it a T206, T206-1 or XSZ889 doesn't change what it looks like, when it was printed and how it was distributed or how somebody with a ton of money got it. And if anyone thought my intention with this thread was to have unanimous agreement and a rewrite of card cataloging, that is not so. I just threw an idea out for healthy debate and discourse. Sadly, the only one who responded (beyond "that's the way it is") was Peter who made a good, sound point to reject my theory.

Maybe if everyone responds the same way there is a reason for it? We have discussed this subject probably hundreds of times and we might discuss it 100's more.... What JimVB said is quite on the mark.

[sgbernard]

Originally Posted by Leon

What JimVB said is quite on the mark.

Agreed: we can argue whether it should have been designated T206, but the fact is that it was designated. That doesn't mean it's right (and it may not be right), it just means that it was. JimVB said it much better than me.

[Abravefan11]

While I agree with the veteran board members that if you're going to use the ACC designations that the Cobb back is a T206 because Burdick said so, I also think it should be acceptable to talk about why he may have classified cards the way he did and why we may classify them differently with what we know today.

Chris to answer your question if I were to classify the white border cards in a similar method to Burdick I would not include the Cobb back in a group with the other cards we call T206's. My opinion could be changed easily as I don't profess to have all the facts.

Though this subject has been discussed over and over I am curious what those that care think of the following.

American Tobacco had controlling interest in F.R. Penn at the time that the Cobb brand tobacco was produced. However the Penn family still had operational control of the company. Isn't it possible that Penn had ALC produce these cards for their tobacco with the blessing of ATC? If this were the case wouldn't it be an F.R. Penn issuse and not an ATC issue? Couldn't this also explain minor differences such as gloss?

Sorry Jim VB, some of us are just nerds for these kinds of details.

[teetwoohsix]

Wow Tim,that is an interesting theory,and it has my mind spinning!!

The tricky part for me is whether it would be considered an ATC issue or an F.R. Penn issue,,,,,,,,,,,,,because as you pointed out, American Tobacco had controlling interest in F.R. Penn at the time the Cobb brand tobacco was produced, but the Penn family still had operational control of the company.

With that being said, I would tend to think it would have to be considered an ATC issue,being that they had controlling interest.

I think you have came up with one of the best theories I have heard yet Tim, regarding the Cobb/Cobb-I'm sure I'll be dwelling on this all night-thanks

Sincerely,Clayton

[Chicago206]

Many, many things have been miscategorized throughout the history of mankind. Fortunately, most humans are logical creatures and very adaptable. We are able to admit when a mistake has been made, and then make the correction on most things. But much like the Catholic church, vintage card hobbyists have decided its better to be rigid and unchanging than to admit a mistake in judgement has been made. For this reason, the Cobb/Cobb will probably forever remain categorized as a T206, although incorrectly as such. It clearly displays more differences than similarities with the other 15 brands as a group. Just the fact that this topic is so frequently discussed is proof that something is amiss!

I doubt anyone has challenged Polar Bear because of its 1 difference from the rest of the group. Same goes for American Beauty for its glaring 1 difference from the group. But the Cobb/Cobb has at least 2 major physical differences from the group, and then a couple of other differences in regards to distribution, time of issue (completely unknown and unproven), as well as control over who owned the company itself (at the time the card was assumed to have been produced). To me, the Cobb/Cobb is nothing more than an afterthought to the rest of the T206 series. It was produced as a slick marketing tool (most likely never even associated with distribution in actual tobacco products) to help sales of a very unpopular brand of tobacco. Think of it as the cardboard cutout of Michael Jordan from the 90's Gatorade ad campaign. Nobody would consider that a "sports card" even though its made of the same material. It was just a marketing tool, much like the Cobb/Cobb.

[usernamealreadytaken]

As far as EPDG, all of the other backs have some reference to a number of backs or "large assortment" or "assorted designs." Coupon 213-1 also reference baseball series but, like EPDG, provide no indication to the size/scope of the distribution...

After thinking on the Cobb/Cobb or any other back, I am content to let 'er rest. In other words, we will never successfully reclassify what is or is not a "T206" and the point that T206 is Burdick's creation is not lost on me. I like and encourage the investigation and theories, but at the end of the day, it is an arbitrary designation and the cards are what they are. It is up to the collector to pick what makes a complete set in their mind.

Put another way, "T206" have a list of backs included; it does not enumerate a set of criteria for being a T206 for us to then catagorize cards. Even if the smoking gun (an advertisement or legal document) conclusively puts Cobb at a later date or different distribution vehicle, it is a T206 becuase a "T206" is a "T206"...

[tedzan]

1st....what does the Catholic Church have to do with this subject matter ? ?

2nd....regarding your comment...."time of issue (completely unknown and unproven)"

IS TOTALLY FALSE !


We have Macon, Georgia Newpaper clippings reporting of this card in the Spring of 1910.

FURTHERMORE, Senator Russell's T206 and T210 collection (on display at the U. of Georgia) includes
a Ty Cobb back card. It is documented.....Mr. Russell collected his tobacco cards as a teenager in the
year of 1910. Therefore, American Litho. printed & issued this card in 1910.......

DO YOU GET IT, NOW ?


Once again, if you bothered to use the SEARCH feature on this forum you would have learned all this.
Before you made these erroneous comments.



TED Z

[ChiefBenderForever]

The Catholic church made some wonderful issues, I have a great Jesus RC with a rare Judas back.

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by tedzan

1st....what does the Catholic Church have to do with this subject matter ? ?

2nd....regarding your comment...."time of issue (completely unknown and unproven)"

IS TOTALLY FALSE !


We have Macon, Georgia Newpaper clippings reporting of this card in the Spring of 1910.

FURTHERMORE, Senator Russell's T206 and T210 collection (on display at the U. of Georgia) includes
a Ty Cobb back card. It is documented.....Mr. Russell collected his tobacco cards as a teenager in the
year of 1910. Therefore, American Litho. printed & issued this card in 1910.......

DO YOU GET IT, NOW ?


Once again, if you bothered to use the SEARCH feature on this forum you would have learned all this.
Before you made these erroneous comments.



TED Z

Ok, I aquired my Kirby Puckett rookie card in 2009. Does that definitively prove that the Kirby Puckett was produced in 2009??? See how silly you sound?

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHarmonica

The Catholic church made some wonderful issues, I have a great Jesus RC with a rare Judas back.

This was always one of my favorites.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Chicago206

Ok, I aquired my Kirby Puckett rookie card in 2009. Does that definitively prove that the Kirby Puckett was produced in 2009??? See how silly you sound?

You really aren't very bright, are you?

It does prove that it wasn't produced in 2014.

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

You really aren't very bright, are you?

There isnt a single logician in the world who would agree with Ted's following statement:




"FURTHERMORE, Senator Russell's T206 and T210 collection (on display at the U. of Georgia) includes
a Ty Cobb back card. It is documented.....Mr. Russell collected his tobacco cards as a teenager in the
year of 1910. Therefore, American Litho. printed & issued this card in 1910......."



It simply makes zero logical sense at all. I used the Puckett analogy to make this easier for people like you to understand the point Jim.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Chicago206

I used the Puckett analogy to make this easier for people like you to understand the point Jim.

Well, that didn't work. Better find another tactic

Ted's point was that the card could not have dated to a later year if it's documented that someone had it in 1910. So... 1910 or earlier.

[Abravefan11]

I really wanted to hear what a few board members thought about a couple of things concerning this card but as soon as Chicago posted I lost any chance of that happening.

Some people just suck the air out of the room.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Sorry Jim VB, some of us are just nerds for these kinds of details.

Tim,

Absolutely no reason for you to apologize to me. There is plenty of room for debate as to whether or not Burdick got it wrong or right, by including it in that set.

My point was, he did include it. And since it's his classification, it's a done deal.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

I really wanted to hear what a few board members thought about a couple of things concerning this card but as soon as Chicago posted I lost any chance of that happening.

Some people just suck the air out of the room.

Nah! We can go on without him!

[E93]

Originally Posted by Chicago206

It clearly displays more differences than similarities..

Clearly

[E93]

I nominate our resident T206 expert, Chicago206, to re-write the classification system for baseball cards so we can all follow the right way. Can we take a poll?
JimB

[barrysloate]

I vote that the T206 Cobb with Cobb back should be part of the E107 set. Anybody want to second that?

[tedzan]

After these comments of his......

"There isnt a single logician in the world who would agree with Ted's following statement:

"FURTHERMORE, Senator Russell's T206 and T210 collection (on display at the U. of Georgia) includes
a Ty Cobb back card. It is documented.....Mr. Russell collected his tobacco cards as a teenager in the
year of 1910. Therefore, American Litho. printed & issued this card in 1910......."

It simply makes zero logical sense at all. I used the Puckett analogy to make this easier for people like
you to understand the point Jim."


There is NO-WAY that any sane person on this forum can have a meaningful discussion with this HYPER -
ILLOGICAL THINKING - UNINFORMED IDIOT.....who is impervious to learning anything regarding vintage cards.

Why are we wasting our time guys, trying to inform him ? ?


TED Z

[E93]

Ted,
One of the reasons I am nominating Chicago for the job of re-categorizing T206s correctly is his keen intellect, his ability to (listen to and) follow logical arguments, and his immense skill at sifting through large amounts of information and conducting reasoned analysis in order to draw clearly rational conclusions.
Jim

[insidethewrapper]

It's been proven that Abner Doubleday had nothing to do with the invention of baseball. Do we still say he invented the game ? As more data is available it changes the answers to questions.

What is the big deal , if the classification of the Cobb with Cobb back is wrong then it needs to be corrected. The card is different ( inserted into a Tin, has glossy finish to it, different back than the others.

Maybe it should be a T206 - Tin Insert or a different number altogether

[barrysloate]

There clearly are characteristics regarding the Cobb back that are different from the other T206 brands, most prominently that only a single front was produced with it. But Burdick categorized it as T206, and while I do believe it is permissable to amend the ACC, we can only do so if we have irrefutable evidence that proves he was wrong.

In the case of this card, we have some valid theories but that's all they are. Nobody to date has been able to come up with the smoking gun that proves Burdick wrong. Until that time, let's leave it as part of the T206 set.

[ChiefBenderForever]

I think that the period ads promoting the card along with the tobacco tin is enough proof it is a T206, but my eyes are on the bigger prize, someday I hope to find the Holy Grail, open it and get the the rarest of the rare Jesus RC with the WWJD King of the World back !!

[Leon]

There are many issues where Burdick was clearly wrong. W600 comes to mind. It should have been M600. I think we COULD get a consensus on that one. There are numerous others. I feel that if we were going to change the ACC it would need to be done on a consensus basis. If there isn't a consensus then the item remains the way Burdick did it. Cobb/Cobb would stay as he put it. I am still on the fence on the card being a T206 so I revert back to Burdick. Just my thought...

[barrysloate]

Leon and I are on the same page. Even if you have some doubts, without any definitive proof it should be left as is.

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

It's been proven that Abner Doubleday had nothing to do with the invention of baseball. Do we still say he invented the game ? As more data is available it changes the answers to questions.

What is the big deal , if the classification of the Cobb with Cobb back is wrong then it needs to be corrected. The card is different ( inserted into a Tin, has glossy finish to it, different back than the others.

Maybe it should be a T206 - Tin Insert or a different number altogether

Be careful!!! You had better be able to prove that you have been collecting for 25 years, and have "handled tens of thousands" of cards before anyone will take your viewpoint seriously! Forget being a logical thinker...that has no merit on this board.

[wonkaticket]

I would say that I have always been on the fence on this card. On any given day I’ve sway more towards a regional promotional issue or give away item. The fact that Russell had one from GA and Cobb being the Georgia Peach seemed a little convenient. Also the other finds I think for the most part have been down south correct? Then the find with the multiples a lot of these situations seem not so T206 in my eyes.

But then there are the striking similarities and as Barry said without a smoking gun, its home in T206 is as good as any.

Also not making it a T206 doesn’t help the checklist on completion of the T206 set much easier. In fact this card is more obtainable in regards to price and availability than Wagner and Doyle. Now if we can agree Wagner and Doyle are not T206’s perhaps I can finish the set next year.

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

I would say that I have always been on the fence on this card. On any given day I’ve sway more towards a regional promotional issue or give away item. The fact that Russell had one from GA and Cobb being the Georgia Peach seemed a little convenient. Also the other finds I think for the most part have been down south correct? Then the find with the multiples a lot of these situations seem not so T206 in my eyes.

But then there are the striking similarities and as Barry said without a smoking gun, its home in T206 is as good as any.

Also not making it a T206 doesn’t help the checklist on completion of the T206 set much easier. In fact this card is more obtainable in regards to price and availability than Wagner and Doyle. Now if we can agree Wagner and Doyle are not T206’s perhaps I can finish the set next year.

Even Scot Reader and the recent REA catalogue have both hinted at the card's controversial status as a T206. No other back has come under such intense scrutiny and/or debate. Theres a very simple reason for this.....its because the card is SO much different than all the other T206's. It literally begs to be disputed.

[whitehse]

Originally Posted by tedzan

1st....what does the Catholic Church have to do with this subject matter ? ?

2nd....regarding your comment...."time of issue (completely unknown and unproven)"

IS TOTALLY FALSE !


We have Macon, Georgia Newpaper clippings reporting of this card in the Spring of 1910.

FURTHERMORE, Senator Russell's T206 and T210 collection (on display at the U. of Georgia) includes
a Ty Cobb back card. It is documented.....Mr. Russell collected his tobacco cards as a teenager in the
year of 1910. Therefore, American Litho. printed & issued this card in 1910.......

DO YOU GET IT, NOW ?


Once again, if you bothered to use the SEARCH feature on this forum you would have learned all this.
Before you made these erroneous comments.



TED Z

Ted...why do you even bother...I just dont think a certain someone will ever get it or even entertain an idea that is not his own. I understand there are questions on this card but like all the others ...if there is no definitive evidence to make a change....the classification needs to stay where its at! I wouldnt even waste your breath on this one because if he has nobody to argue with maybe he will just go away!! We can only hope!!

[Robextend]

Myself probably like some others on this board are more or less T206 novices. I love learning about all aspects of the monster. But how many times can the same issue be revisited without having any substantial value added?

[barrysloate]

Chicago T206- we have disputed it, we have done so on every thread. But disputing it doesn't disprove it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Robextend

But how many times can the same issue be revisited without having any substantial value added?

1,288,943 ..... we have a ways to go!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Is it time to have another Jack Dunn horizontal thread yet?

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by Robextend

Myself probably like some others on this board are more or less T206 novices. I love learning about all aspects of the monster. But how many times can the same issue be revisited without having any substantial value added?

I think you are missing the key element. The "substantial value" part is actually added each time this topic comes up. If there werent a strong case against the card, you wouldnt see nearly as many...if any threads on it. The fact that this topic is so frequently discussed IS the substantial added value!

[Robextend]

That is why every time I see any T206 thread appear I make sure I read every post, however I am not seeing anything new from the last few on the Cobb/Cobb discussion. I'm not saying not to start new threads on it, just an observation.

[ethicsprof]

I like very much when Leon says earlier in this thread: 'there are many issues
where burdick was clearly wrong. .....I feel that if we were going to change the ACC, it would be done on a consensus basis.'
Typically, in my world, this means doing the careful research, presenting the research to colleagues informally(similar to the best of the Net 54 discussions),presenting the research formally at conferences, publishing the best of the research in refereed journals,monographs, and books. Consensus is sometimes found after long years of openly discussing these conference papers, journal articles, and books.
As I see it, Burdick is THE book in the area of baseball classification.
It stands alone because it is alone.
Perhaps it is time to begin moving from the seminar stage where graduate students and undergraduate students argue with each other and their professors--and the informal presentation stage where professors argue with other professors. Using the search tool is helpful as are polls and surveys.
Perhaps it is also time to check out more thoroughly the list of publications
by our board members itemized on our website.
And then we offer our own informed and researched responses to each other,
without disparagement, without epithets, without ad hominem.
Just a thought. I know full well we're a blog and not a university.
But we have given birth to hundreds of publications, collaborations which
have produced great pieces in Old Cardboard, Collector Magazine, Reader's
monograph, The Old Judge tome, and others which would make Burdick proud
methinks.
best,
barry