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

[canjond]

It seems about every year about this time, I start a thread about the infamous Ty Cobb backed cards.

What is known about this card's distribution is simple - we know nothing... everything is speculative. Was the card actually distributed in product (ie, the Ty Cobb tin bearing the same factory/district number)? Was it a point of sale give-a-way? Is it part of the T206 set?

Last year, I pointed out that the Cobb back in the REA auction had a wet sheet transfer on the front, seeming to indicate at least 2 sheets of these were printed... This year, the REA Cobb back seems to give us a few more clues...

While looking through the catalog, I noticed right away the back has clear evidence of tobacco staining - identical to what would be seen on a Polar Bear card. Does this mean we can conclusively say that Cobb backed cards were packaged in product instead of a point of sale give-a-way... no. Maybe an early collector had "sloppy fingers" when handling cards after putting a wad into his lip. However, the clear presence of tobacco on the back of the card seems to indicate to me that we may begin to lend credence to the idea that Cobb backed cards were actually packaged with the tobacco.

Thoughts?

[Chicago206]

The major determining factor in my opinion is that while each of the other 15 cigarette brands features at least 350 subjects, the Cobb back features just one. This alone excludes the card from being in the same class as the rest of the T206 cards. It is more of an ego driven fantasy card than a true T206 issue.

[E93]

Originally Posted by Chicago206

The major determining factor in my opinion is that each of the other 15 cigarette brands features at least 350 subjects,

Had you read or done your own research with regard to my detailed critiques of your views when you floated this same idea about a month ago, you would realize that this statement is simply not true. Please name the 350+ Uzit, or Drum, or Carolina Brights subjects that qualify those brands as "T206" by your definition.

You are going to have to come up with another arbitrary criteria that does not correspond with the criteria set by the man who coined the name "T206" if you want the other 15 brands to all still be considered "T206" by the "Chicago" definition.

I do not know a single T206 collector who would agree with your criteria for T206 designation. Since you are admittedly (as of a month ago) new to pre-War cards and clearly don't know what you are talking about on this one, why don't you just sit back, listen, and learn.

Didn't you claim to be going away about a week ago anyway?
JimB

[E93]

Jon,
You may have missed it, but there were a couple of extensive threads on this topic just about a month ago.
JimB

[canjond]

Originally Posted by E93

Jon,
You may have missed it, but there were a couple of extensive threads on this topic just about a month ago.
JimB

Jim - must have missed them... my bad

[E93]

Jon,
That is a very interesting observation regarding the tobacco. Perhaps at least some were distributed in tins.
JimB

[benchod]

It is more of an ego driven fantasy card than a true T206 issue.

What?

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by benchod

It is more of an ego driven fantasy card than a true T206 issue.

What?

I wish there were a few coin collectors in here. They would immediately know what I am talking about. 1913 Liberty Nickel, 1804 Dollar, 1894-S dime.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Chicago206

I wish there were a few coin collectors in here. They would immediately know what I am talking about. 1913 Liberty Nickel, 1804 Dollar, 1894-S dime.

And every “REAL” coin collector fantasizes about owning one of those hallowed coins. Unfortunately, even if they become available, they are simply unaffordable. I’ve never spoken to a T206 scarce ad back enthusiast that doesn’t dream of owning a Cobb w/a Cobb back.