Wrong ... wrong ... wrong psychology .....
 

*

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?

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

Yeah ... but where are the stains .....
 

*

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

Ok

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

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_UrSHvogCrmM/S8...bacco%20Ad.jpg

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.

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......

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

In addition to what Jim said, it is fairly common for products to be marketed under the original company even after being purchased. For example, Allen & Ginter was acquired by the ATC in the 1890s, and then transferred to Liggett & Myers after the trust break-up of ATC. However, its packaging also said "produced by Allen & Ginter," and then somewhere (usually below that) would say "successor ATC" or "successor L&M."

Another observation from the ad, however. Not three cities are listed - one of which being Atlanta. This coincides with Ted's observations of a Ty Cobb back appearing in Russell's collection around 1910. Atlanta surely was one of the markets for this product.

Can someone give me a very, very short rundown of the problem with the Ty Cobb/Ty Cobb being considered a true T206?

Thanks

This is a great thread, when distilled to the facts, very informative. Thanks Jim and Ted for the info. This should be archived.

A reminder of why Joann needs to post more frequently.

:D

My goodness
 

Jim B..how smug and cocky can you possibly be ?
Telling a guy..sit back and listen and learn ! PLEASE
Its a blog site for card collectors !
OK you do all the reseach and detailed critiques.. and we will all bow down to your allmighty " nerdness"

For what it's worth the Ty Cobb Tobacco advertisements appear as follows in 1910 newspapers:

Macon Telegraph, GA - Feb 8, 10, 12, 13. Mar 8

Augusta Chronicle, GA - Feb 20, 27 Mar 6, 13

Grand Forks Herald, ND - Mar 6

Bisbee Daily Review, AZ - Mar 6

Evening News, CA - Mar 8

The Augusta Chronicle's four ads were the only to feature the Cobb image Shawn originally posted and myself above.

I'm sorry, but Jim is anything but smug and cocky. He's one of the nicest, kindest, and extremely generous with his hobby knowledge.

Jim can speak for himself, but I just had to respond to such an off the mark comment.

I am still interested in knowing why this debate is so heated. I have no agenda. I am here to learn. I just do not want to read 200 posts to figure it out.

Thanks

I can suffer the "cockiness", if that's what it is, of those who know what they're talking about. It's the ill-informed assertions of those who don't know what they're talking about, that troubles me. Jim belongs to the former group.

JimB is the epitome of humility- a quiet gentleman that is very generous with his wealth of knowledge on this subject, among others. The fact that he has exhausted his patience on this thread is a testament to just how inane Chicago's posts are.

If you're too lazy to read the whole thread...you obviously don't care enough to learn why this card is so debated.:)

cobb
 

Anthony has said it well. JimB is the epitome of humility and ,for some time now, has been one of the key experts, if not the foremost expert, on
Cobb/Cobb back. When he speaks of these things, I listen and take notes like
my best doctoral students at the university do.

by the way, great eye re: the tobacco stain Jon C.
very,very helpful.

best,
barry

I still don't think we should consider the card a T206.

The gloss is the main reason, and enough of a reason for me. That there is only one card with that back bolsters that. And it seems to me that some folks pull and tug at reasons because they seem to want it included. Nonetheless, it is a fine baseball card. Wish I had one. And if I did have one I'd not think it a T206. It reminds me of the first E90-3 I acquired, long before I knew anything at all about American Caramel cards. Seemed like an E90-1 with 'Chicago' on the back... As for tobacco stains, they mean nothing to me. I have a few E cards with what I think are tobacco stains. And some E cards with caramel stains. If I find a T205 with an ink stain would that mean it was distributed with a pen set, or with ink??

"JimB is the epitome of humility- a quiet gentleman that is very generous with his wealth of knowledge on this subject, among others. The fact that he has exhausted his patience on this thread is a testament to just how inane Chicago's posts are."

Can't put it any better than Anthony did. Jim VB is, ahem, a great guy. For real.

I alluded to this in a recent post but it bears repeating: a lot of guys here go way back. It is not just " a blog site for card collectors", Ralph, but a succession of places where collectors have gathered for years to talk story about vintage baseball cards. Occasionally a quarrel breaks out but eventually we return to the flow of the board. When a newcomer like Chicago comes aboard and attempts to dictate board protocol it is akin to someone bursting down the door and trying to rearrange the furniture. Any dig taken at Chicago by Jim or anyone else is fair game. (Plus he seems to thrive on the abuse). Dude would try the patience of a saint.

Point taken. I am only a few months IN on this forum. I gotta tell ya, some of the most entertaining fodder I have ever read. I love this site. People I work with ask "Why do you collect cards?" I say..."Have you ever checked out N54?"

cobb
 

PWeso81,
I applaud your lack of defensiveness and your general equanimity in your response to Dr. Ullman.
Most refreshing.
Let me offer to you a resounding 'Welcome aboard!'
best,
barry

I'll second that. Jim is top shelf! If Jim was a Scotch at a bar he would be $45a glass and you would have to find away to hide the expense report from your boss. :D

So we should just refer to him as 18 year old Macallan?

LOL, just what Jim wanted a new nickname..

Alright I'll pile in on this discussion. I'm on the fence as to if this is a T206 or not. There are strong points that could make this a good ol' T206. But there are some others that keep me on the fence.

One of those is and correct me if I'm wrong didn't a large % of the known examples of this card come from one find in the south? I find it odd that if we say have 12-14 of something and close to half come from one find in one geographical area something seems odd?

Does anyone know the deatils around the find I'm talking about or is this hobby folk lore passed on to me as a kid?

Cheers,

John

Yes, 5 of the dozen or so known were found in 1997 and immediately auctioned off by REA...according to this writeup.

Wow. I am not one to dip into T206 conversations as I have only oned one in my life (and it wasn't a Cobb back), but this comment about probably the nicest guy in the hobby is too much.

Jim is one of those people who is so easy to defend that it isn't even funny. Before your comment, I would've also said that one never needs to defend him because he is so commonly respected and admired. So I am shocked that he has been called on the carpet, but allow me to assure you that for every one who has or will post defending Jim, there are dozens of others who wouldn't blink before doing so as well.

Enough of this pussy cat talk .....
 

Where's that Abbaticcio back, with white borders and stains.

I want it for my T206 set.

Speaking of "write-ups"
 

Just got my REA catalogue yesterday. Take a look at the Cobb/Cobb write-up. Even THEY allude to the fact that the card is debateable as to whether it should be a seperate series!!! But im the "ill-informed idiot"? You guys clearly have some type of agenda.

Interesting?
 

vaguely related

Fr penn
 

I think you will find the second page very interesting... NOTICE that the first page is the PETITION and the Second page is the ANSWER...

The "agenda" is with your tone and attitude -- not your opinion.

I think it has been said before on this thread, but I agree that debating whether this card is a T206 is really just questioning whether Burdick went too far by including it, since he is the man who defined what it means to be a T206.

I think we could all agree that if the Cobb/Cobb were definitively shown to have been produced in 1925, that we would say universally that it was not a T206. But beyond the definitional birth years of 1909-11, there will never be a consensus as to whether the lack of more fronts or distribution area or unique factory mean Burdick went too far. Since that was all basically at Burdick's fingertips at the time, the evidence really militates for a finding that Burdick did not go too far. And I think he probably deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Fortunately I only collect T206 fronts and I was able to persuade SGC to take its Cobb/Cobb down from its registry on the basis of it being a back designation. So I'll stick with a nice Sweet Cap Red Cobbie and let the back-interested folk keep caring.

Shawn thanks for the post.

As we know ATC had controlling interest in F.R. Penn in 1903. However according to information like what you just posted, the Penn family continued to run the company independent of ATC until 1912 when ATC took over operations.

I see it this way.

If F.R. Penn was in control and produced the card it is a separate issue from T206.

If you think ATC was in control then it could be considered a T206.

Hey Shawn England......
 

You have presented some great insight into the F. R. Penn Tobacco Co. in Reidsville, NC (Factory #33) regarding the Ty Cobb
Cut Plug tobacco (circa 1910). Thanks, for all the info you have posted.

Combining all the info you have presented on this thread, and on my thread on this same subject back in Jan. 2009, along with
the evidence available from Senator Russell's T-card collection (on display at the U. of Georgia), we have pretty well unraveled
the mystery's of this unique Ty Cobb card. The evidence we have, leads to the fact that this card was issued sometime in the
Spring/Summer of 1910 (coincident with the Ty Cobb Tobacco tin). I think some cards were distributed in the Atlanta area as
promotional premiums (these are the ones found without the gloss). And, some where inserted in the Tobacco tins (these are
the ones with the gloss).

Now, in the presence of all this evidence, if one chooses to consider this Ty Cobb card a T206, or not....that's their perogative.

But, when a certain person on this forum persists to disregard these facts that several researchers have presented (in Jan 2009
thread and this thread), then there is no way of penetrating his "contrarian mind". So, let him "rant on", as he continues to make
a fool of himself.


T-Rex TED

Ted,

I'm sure you meant 2009 vice 1909 as the thread date.

r/

No, he meant 1909
 

Ted is that old! :)

Thanks Frank......
 

I corrected the date. See what happens after 30 years of dealing with "The Monster"....it takes over your mind :)

Regards,

TED Z

Thank you for all the kind words of support guys. I am humbled and very appreciative. What a surprise to wake up to this this morning.

I must say however, that I did lose my composure and get a bit combative in a way that I am not comfortable with for myself. I apologize to Chicago for my condescension.
JimB

Thank you,
 

Hey Guys... No problem

I just appreciate the opportunity.

Shawn

They were all found in the album of a Georgia general store owner from the period if I remember correctly.
JimB

5 Card Find
 

Hi JimB

I recall that they were found not in an album, but loose in the pages of a book (I know I am splitting hairs). The gentlemen that presented the find to REA was from Georgia and the book had been in the family (always lived in Georgia).

And if I remember correctly, the book was a first edition, printed in March, 1910 and the cards were placed in the book ever since they were acquired in a tin of Ty Cobb Tobacco. I would have mentioned this information earlier, but I thought everyone knew this! (just kidding) :D

I like applesauce.

Don't feed the trolls.

Jim is good people.

+1

Great Scale
 

Now this is a large pack of smokes!:D

The Reidsville Review Tue Nov 16 1909
 

Little Tidbits:
The Reidsville Review Tue Nov 16 1909

The Reidsville Review Tue Jan 25 1910
 

The Reidsville Review Tue Jan 25 1910

Websters Weekly Thu Jan 27 1910
 

Websters Weekly Thu Jan 27 1910

The Reidsville Review Fri Jan 28 1910
 

The Reidsville Review Fri Jan 28 1910

The recent find was found with other cards that were clearly distributed with tobacco. The person who collected them could have acquired the Cobb from a promo of sorts but seems more plausible it was obtained in the same manner as the others it was mixed in with. Not hard evidence but lends credence to the Cobb back being at least partly distributed in the tin.

I see no mention of any baseball cards in the product. Don't you think that would be mentioned as popular as t206s were? I see no reason why ATC would allow Penn to use their image to promote the Ty Cobb brand while they were under threat of antitrust litigation from the government. They were successfully hiding their relationship, owning of Penn stock, and keeping it out of the case.

Factory #33, Reidsville, NC

ATC tobacco brand...... Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco


. . . . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...xFactory33.jpg


American Litho printed the red Cobb in the Spring of 1910. Initially for the 350 series of the T206 set. This timeline coincides
with ATC's introduction of the Ty Cobb Tobacco brand.




http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...cobbtycobb.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...cobbtycobb.jpg




As I have stated throughout this thread, I consider this card a "T206".



TED Z
.

As popular as the ty cobb tobacco seems to have been...you'd think there'd be way more tins...and if cards were inserted inside...there'd be way more cards out there.

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?

I have one with no issues.

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!!

Beautiful steven L!

Thanks!

And the back.

.... and especially the Broadleaf 460.:eek:

Great card Steven. Does it feature the glossy finish?

Yes it does.

Brain fart

Maybe a little out of focus, but I wouldn’t call blurry. Steven’s beats though

Ryan, your Cobb seems to have the red ink printed a little off right to left. The matchbox Cobb back has the red printed a little off top to bottom. And Steven's card doesn't feature any red shift.

I don't know if that tells us anything about the print run. Certainly nothing that I can see.

I dont know much about this issue but if these have tobacco stains on the back then this product was sold in a limited amount for a short time but only 15 survive? This baffles me when Cobb was such a large star of the time no one would keep this card except for a few and half came from the lucky 7 find.

I think that there are now 23 known, including a find of 5 cards and also the lucky 7. So more that half of them came from two sources.

my example also has solid registration..... what is interesting is the tone of darkness of the "D" on cobbs shirt.. i have seen most with a darker "D".. and a few including mine with a lighter "D".. just an interesting note on the variant of the card..

https://i.imgur.com/ADop47p.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/gkKUm8X.jpg

it would be interesting to see how many "light D" versions of the cobb back are out there.. im aware of 4.. mine and Ryans.. another one of the lucky 7s.. and an older scan i have of one other.. anyone have a picture of all known and can answer the question?...

3 of the 7 Lucky 7 have the light D, 2 of the 2.5 and the 1.5.

Hi Jamie

I posted a picture of a Ty Cobb / TY COBB which has a light "D".

Check-out my T206 REFERENCE thread....post #698.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

T206 Cobb
 

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.