|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>i will be down in NC next week...maybe Brian and myself could rummage thru some factories...<br /><br />is this post 100?
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Guys,<br /> I'm in the middle of The Carolina game, so I don't have much time, but remember than the break up of the ATC was done by Factory, not by brand. That should give you guys a few clues to work on until I come back.<br /><br /> Be well Brian<br /><br />PS For you T206 nuts, that explains A LOT about the lack of certain factories showing up with certain poses, especially in the 460 series....<br /><br />I will list the breakup numbers as soon as I have time
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p><br />Ted,<br /><br />I tracked down a book about Durham from 1895 that I believe has a sketch of the factory in your postcard and an identification of the cross streets. Being the largest factory in Durham as of 1895 (and having been purchased by ATC in 1890), I think it is more likely that the the subject factory is Factory 42. I will post more details on Monday when I get back to my office.<br /><br />Michael,<br /><br />I have little to add to Dave Hornish's post about how the manufacturing and distribution process worked. I also agree, however, with his characterization that this as a mere presumption.<br /><br />One further question that I have been pondering: Is the DISTRICT number listed on the backs of T206 cards (and for that matter other T- cards) a CONGRESSIONAL district number? I believe that Durham now resides in North Carolina's fourth congressional district, which is the district identified on T206 cards from North Carolina. However, congressional district boundaries change after almost every census and I have not yet been able to find data on congressional districts from the early 20th century and match it to Richmond, Durham, etc. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.<br /><br />Scot<br />
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>See the smoke emanating from the L&M smokestack....that's all the remaning Ty Cobb "SMOKING Tobacco"<br /> cards going up in smoke.<br /><br />Incidently Jim, since you have had (or still do have) this card....I have observed that Ty Cobb's eyes are Blue<br /> on this card; where on the T206 Red Cobb his eyes are Gray. Can you tell us if my observation is correct, and<br /> a consistent one ?<br /><br />I have noticed a similar eye color difference in the T206 Elberfeld portrait cards. The New York version depicts<br /> Elberfeld with Brown eyes, while in the Washington version he has Blue eyes.<br /><br />TED Z
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Ted,<br />I just looked at my Piedmont 350 Cobb and Ty Cobb back under 10x loupe and the eye color on the two is identical. They are both blue in my opinion. The blue partially covers an outline of the eye in grey which may give the appearance of a greyish blue, but under magnification, it definately looks like a blue layer on both. Whatever one wants to call the color, the color is the same on both.<br />JimB
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>Here are a couple of interesting links:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.owdna.org/History/history25.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.owdna.org/History/history25.htm</a><br /><br /><a href="http://digitaldurham.duke.edu/hueism.php?x=photograph&id=500" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://digitaldurham.duke.edu/hueism.php?x=photograph&id=500</a><br /><br /><br />I wonder if a District has some relationship to US customs bonding or is a tax district after seeing this (admittedly more current):<br /><br /><a href="http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/10apr20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/aprqtr/27cfr44.11.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/10apr20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/aprqtr/27cfr44.11.htm</a><br /><br /><br />Given that there were tax stamps on the tobacco packaging a taxing district is plausible.<br /><br />Has anyone ever done research at Duke University on this or any other aspect of tobacco and tobacco card production? That would seem to be the logical university library to really delve into such matters.<br /><br />Dave<br /><br />Sorry-trying to fix the links, they are acting weird.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>Sorry, should shown this with the other links:<br /><br />It shows all US tobacco related cases over a lo-o-o-o-ng period of time.<br /><br />Here's a reference that includes packaging of Coupon cigarettes:<br /><br /><a href="http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness/28918.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness/28918.html</a><br /><br /><br />and another good one:<br /><br /><a href="http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/tobacco/history2.htm#1900-1950" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/tobacco/history2.htm#1900-1950</a>
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Continuing on your post (3/10) here on this thread.....<br /><br />I think you are right in identifying the Factory shown in my postcard as #42 in the 4th District<br /> of North Carolina (Durham).<br /><br />First, let's consider how the bottom line of a T206 American Beauty 460 reads......<br /><br />"FACTORY No 42 4th DIST. N. C."<br /><br />.....and a Ty Cobb back's bottom line......<br /><br />"FACTORY No 33 - 4, DIST. OF N.C."<br /><br />Other than the Factory #'s being different, the similarities between these two brands are thought<br /> provoking.....the same District in NC and the same GREEN ink.<br /><br />The other two styles of the American Beauty brand are the usual Factory #25, 2nd DIST. VA and<br /> were included in ATC cigarette packs (circa 1910).<br />The Am Bty 460 and the Ty Cobb brands were in L&M products that were issued in 1911 (or later).<br />This is certainly true for the rare Piedmont 460/42 cards that I believe were inserted in the L&M <br />labelled Piedmont cigarette packs....marketed in 1911.<br />I hope Jon Canfield can chime in here and confirm that there are American Beauty cigarette packs<br /> marked "Manufactured by the Liggett & Meyers Co."<br /><br />Your thoughts..... ?<br /><br />TED Z<br />
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Ted,<br /> Nice postcard.... It probably is from Factory 42, but most of those old building have been turned into condo's these days, so we may never know.<br /> But, it does follow alonng with the sequence of events which took place during the break up of the ATC in 1911. For the most part, the judge excepted Buck Duke's "break up" plan, and seperated the ATC into four different companies by factory first and brand second. Ligget& Myers 28% of the market and took over the following brands: American Beauty, Coupon, Fatima, Homerun, King Bee and Piedmont among others. Most of these factories were located in NC, so some of these brands being produced elsewhere were moved to there new homes in NC.<br /> P.Lorillard received Egyptian Deities, Helmar, Mogul, Murad, and Turkish Trophies, or 15% of the market and the overwhelming majority of the turkish tobacco brands.<br /> The scaled down ATC retained 37% of the market, with Pall Mall, Sweet Cap, Hassan, and Mecca.<br /> RJ Reynolds didn't receive any Cigarette brands, but did end up with 20% of the plug market. <br /><br />I'm not sure how many of the L&G factories are still in existence, but there were quite a few 12-18 years ago when I used to go to the Durham Bulls game. I'll take a walk down memory lane sometime and hit the Duke museum to see what I can find out. <br /> Be well Brian
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />Here is the image of the Durham ATC factory from the 1895 book.<br /><br /><img src="http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j41/sreader3/ATCFactory1895.jpg"> <br /><br />The handwritten notes from 1954 are interesting. They state that the site is bounded by Main St. on the south, Duke St. on the west and the Southern R.R. on the north and that the Chesterfield factory was on the site by 1954.<br /><br />Scot<br /><br />
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p>This 1924 phonebook page from the Durham Chamber of Commerce is also interesting. 1924 is of course after the 1911 breakup of ATC. The phonebook page separately lists the L&M factory on Main Street (see the above photo) and an ATC factory on PETTIGREW Street. One possible scenario is that in response to the 1911 breakup (that is, post-T206) ATC moved its operations to Pettigrew Street while L&M stayed at the Main Street facility. And, along with a new facility, there was a need for a new factory number. Could this be the origin of the mysterious Factory 33? Perhaps--and if so it would render Cobb w/Cobb back a NON-T206. Note that this sequence of events is consistent with the 1927 production at Factory 33 revealed by Jon.<br /><br />On the other hand, as Brian notes, after the 1911 breakup ATC continued to make other major brands, such as Pall Mall, Sweet Cap, Hassan and Mecca. If the ATC factory at Pettigrew Street was the elusive Factory 33, why would Jon's friend have no record of production of those brands at Factory 33?<br /><br />If only we could dial those 80-year old phone numbers and get clear-cut answers!<br /><br /><img src="http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j41/sreader3/AmericanTobaccoCompanyAddress1924.jpg">
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...to anybody who joined in my petition to remove the Cobb/Cobb back from SGC's T206 set registry. They have apparently done so -- though they have not yet renumbered the cards accordingly.<br /><br />And also a big thank you to SGC for listening to this customer's super-minor complaint.<br /><br />Now, I only have to worry about Wagner, Plank and Doyle. No biggees there....
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>On another thread on this board, "Welcome Back Mr. Lemke", Bob states that if he were still involved in the Standard Catalog, he had planned to move the Red Cobb with Ty Cobb back out of T206 and into its own category.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Well then I am glad he is not still involved with the Standard Catalog since such a change would be made without any definative evidence that would demand such a change. Until some evidence appears, I see no reason to change the designation. Ted always likes to talk about dinausors. Well the real dinausors of the hobby considered it a T206.<br />JimB<br /><br />Edited to add:<br />I did not mean that to be offensive to Bob Lemke. I greatly appreciate and respect what he has done for the hobby. My point is simply that I think changes to the catalog without supporting evidence is ill-advised.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I am curious on your thoughts on the origin of this Ty Cobb card ?<br /><br />And Bob, I still recall fond memories of your support of all my Bowman BB and FB articles you published<br /> in the early '80s in the BaseBall Cards Magazine and SCD.<br /><br />Thanks again,<br /><br />TED Z
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>I just got back with my time machine and have some answers....<br /><br />...I can say for sure that the cobb / cobb back was part of the T206 issue... I sat in on the board meeting and I saw Ty Cobb say - "I am too important to be on just one side of the card." Everyone agreed.<br /><br />...They printed just as many Plank cards as any other T206 - but, Plank's grandpa horded them all and put them in his attic - next to his set of 'Colonial Trash Can Kids' cards.<br /><br />...Doyle Natl was never printed that way - just fancy white-out experimentation done in the 1980s.<br /><br />...They really had trouble spelling Magie / Magee. There is actually a Magoo version out there as well. I will be sure to look for this one.<br /><br /><br />Oh, before I headed back I grabbed a stack of T206 Wagners so that we could each have one.<br /><br /><br />
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p> Hi Joe D,<br /> I'll email you my address and pay for the Insurance on my Wagner. LMK Thanks Brian<br /><br /><br />PS Jim B, Nice edit, but I don't think anyone thought you were being rude, just stating your opinion. Personally, I'm on the T-Rex/ Lemke side, but we will probably never really know. Be well Brian<br /><br /><br /><br />Hi Joe, Cobb would have demanded that everyone buy his Tobacco and have it with a Coke, so they should be plentiful. More likely they used Cobb's image without his permission, and he went postal..... Hello Newman.. except Ty would have shot the bastards.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Your apology notwithstanding......I find your comments regarding Bob Lemke ridiculous and very self-serving.<br /><br />Self-serving because your comments reflect your bias since you own this Ty Cobb card. Do you fear that its<br />value will diminish if it is discounted as a "T206" ?<br /><br />Ridiculous....because Bob for 32 years has been a tremendous force for keeping us informed in this hobby with<br /> his stewardship of SCD....The BASEBALL CARDS Magazine....SCD Standard Catalog of BB Cards, and other pubs..<br /><br />And Jim, I was referred to as a "dinosaur" by some Net54 members, some time back. So, having a sense of humor,<br /> I accepted this "title"; and, chose to be a "Tyranosaurus Rex", as its name is derived from the Greek "tyrannos"....<br />tyrant.<br /><br />T-Rex TED
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Eric Pugh</b><p>what do you all think of the investment potential of this particular card?
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Jantz</b><p>Anyone want to make a guess on how many were printed?<br><br>Notice that it has a slight wet sheet transfer. <br><br><br><br><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1231661269.JPG" alt="[linked image]"><br><br>Also note the header. Ty Cobb Card Co.? Anyone?<br><br>Thanks everyone. This has become a very informative thread for me.<br><br>Thanks Again,<br><br>Jantz<br><br> <br><br>
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Anthony S.</b><p>Wow, that's a bump.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I might have started a new thread rather than bump up a year and half old one. I saw my name at the top of the board with 118 posts and didn't know why.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Eric Pugh</b><p>sorry about that - i should have started a new thread. i was perusing old great threads and replied to this thread on a whim. <br><br>
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>No problem Eric.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Eric -<br><br>To answer your question....<br><br>I think it will always be one of the most sought after cards in the hobby.<br><br>It has one of the most collected players on the front and back / a great image / a certain mystique about it / and scarcity.<br><br>It has it all.<br><br>As far as card investments go, I believe it will perform as well or better than most cards in the hobby.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>I like this Barry! If I buy on, I can cross this off of my want list. Was there ever a Ty Cobb brand tobacco small box issued? Similar to the 10 cigarettes ones that held T206's? I think that may help nix this card from the set if only the tin has been found. Dan.<br><br>
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>marshall barkman</b><p>In regards to the comment"are you afraid the card's value will go down if it was removed from the set" that i read from a member to the gentleman who owns a Ty Cobb backed card is riduculous and shows the general mentality of this board amongst certain individuals. I would venture to say that if a individual can afford to purchase a Ty Cobb backed card their is probably little in life that they fear. You don't make mad cash being afraid Boooyyyyyyy.<br><br>About 10 months ago i purchased a treasure trove of beautiful T-206 cards, 250 to be exact in which my main man Leon has proof of so please no personal comments as to my credibility. I wanted to vist with a gentleman who has brokered the deal on the Honus Wagner PSA 8 card the last two times to get his opinion on the cards. The very first statement that came from his mouth after he asked me if the traffic was bad- Is their any Ty Cobb backed cards in this collection, i have several clients who would pay dearly for that particular card in any condition. I smiled and said i wish but it was interesting to note the huge grin was on the gentleman's face in a quest to find another Ty cobb backed card and it was first and foremost on his mind in regarding T-206's and individuals that only need that card to complete the set. <br><br>In regards to Ty Cobb anything that has to do with the man will always be a treasure. A gentleman i met who resides in Georgia was seeking a game used pair of his spikes and had a 100,000 bounty on them if a person could provide the proper provenance on the spikes. It was about 5 years ago and i have since lost contact and i wonder if he ever found a pair?<br><br>If you want to play in the big leagues then don't bring a 75 mph fastball to the game and complain about it being a rare card because it is out of your financial capability to obtain. What makes set building such a rush is in fact hard and demanding sets that include almost impossible cards to find so when you do complete the set it is a major accomplishment. The card deserves to be in the set to recognize the individuals that own the entire set including that card and my hat is off to those that do.<br><br>By the way the SUPER CHARGERS will BRING THE NOISE so take the 7.<br><br><br>
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Everyone agrees it is a significant card and a great rarity. The debate is whether or not it is correctly part of the T206 set.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>marshall barkman</b><p>My vote is yes.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Marshall - I agree that it is part of the T206 set.<br><br>My opinion would change if there was some sort of evidence that it was printed years later than the other T206s were.<br><br>I would bet there is some sort of newspaper advertisement for Ty Cobb smokes that could help us date the brand.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>marshall barkman</b><p>I will contact one of my sources and see if he has any info in regards to the advertising. I just recently aquired his personal pipe and tobacco tin that was sold at Sotheby's, it was a prize that i really never on intended of getting rid of but a 1 of a kind photo came available and i traded for it. Cobb is my favorite player and baseball would not be where it is today if it were not for him hence my post. I am currently watching Mercedes sway and she is looking at the screen asking who the F is Ty Cobb. Ya gotta love it! I'll post back on my findings and try and track down a answer. Adios and here we go SUPER CHARGERS! Later.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Eric Pugh</b><p>in my research going through old posts last night, I believe Ted Z somehow determined that the cobb/cobb was indeed printed prior to 1912. <br><br>Ted - did i read that correctly or am i "mis-remembering" things?
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Ouch! I think I am bleeding out of the corner of my mouth. <br><br><br><br>I think I have just been called a non- big leaguer in the set collecting community.<br><br><br><br>ok, I have been called worse, I can live with that.<br><br><br><br>Weren't all of the other back brands issued in small cardboard boxes of 10 cigs?<br><br><br><br>Jon Canfield will know this immediately, a little help here Johnny.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>It is doubtful the Ty Cobb back is part of the T206 set. I agree with Scot Reader's reasoning from 2007:<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>Re: Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back March 6 2007, 4:22 PM <br><br><br>Ted,<br><br>Thanks for the compliment, but I didn't have anything groundbreaking to say about Cobb w/Cobb. I generally agree with those who have said that the card doesn't belong in T206 for the following reasons:<br><br>1. Glossy front (although I understand this may be in dispute)<br>2. No evidence of distribution as a tobacco product insert<br>3. No evidence of contemporaneous issuance with T206 subjects<br><br>I believe what define T206 primarily are: (1) common look, (2) common mode of distribution (i.e. tobacco product insert) and (3) a common time of distribution (i.e. 1909-1911). If it could be shown that Cobb w/Cobbs were not issued with fronts that are glossier than what we all agree are T206 cards, were distributed as inserts in tobacco products and were issued contemporaneously with what we all agree are T206 cards then I would probably change my view.<br><br>I know I am going to get myself in trouble here since some will say that there is no proof Wagner (Pittsburg) ever made it into Sweet Caporal or Piedmont packs--to which I say that if that can ever be proven Wagner (Pittsburg) probably should not be considered part of the T206 set either. (Which would save a lot of us the pain of knowing that we will never have a complete T206 set due to the inability to afford a Wagner--although most of us would still be lacking the Doyle variation, I suppose).<br><br>I don't think the fact that Cobb w/Cobb is the only subject with a particular brand (Ty Cobb Tobacco) or the only subject with a particular factory designation (No. 33, North Carolina) are dispositive of whether it is properly part of T206. If my factors (1) through (3) were met then I think I would welcome Cobb w/Cobb to the set.<br><br>Scot<br> <br>
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Wes, Wagner exists on a strip with other known T206 cards. Dan.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>Dan, Is there concensus that the Wagner strip is a legitimate issue? I remember threads from a few years ago questioning that strip's orgin.<br><br>
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>On Scot Reader's analysis, which I think is correct, the Cobb/Cobb back is not part of the T206 set.<br><br>If you want to add it, then you need to add Coupon backs and Red Cross, etc., which are (properly) not categorized as T206s.<br><br>Why stop there? If the T206 set is whatever you want it be, then let's include Obacks. They are close enough.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Weren't the coupons issued a few years later? 1914ish? Though I am with you in your thinking. <br><br>Hi Wes! I have always thought it was a legit item. Have you heard differently?<br><br>Can you direct me to a thread I may have missed? Thanks Dan.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>Here you go, Dan. In this old thread, Ted Z among others describe the strip as a "printing impossibility" rather than a production piece.<br><br><a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1176913819/last-1177201376/T206+Wagner+%26quot%3Bstrip%26quot%3B" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1176913819/last-1177201376/T206+Wagner+%26quot%3Bstrip%26quot%3B</a>....-++-<br><br><br>The Ty Cobb w/ Ty Cobb back is a great card and I would kill to have one. But I do agree with the near concensus that the card bares more resemblance to glossy T213 cards than to any T206.<br><br>
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>I can't get the entire thread up Wes. I hate the search feature here, or I ma just stupid. Don't answer that.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p><br><a href="http://tinyurl.com/a684sg" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/a684sg</a>
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Greg Ecklund</b><p>The arguments to include this card in the T206 set seem flimsy at best - if the card wasn't distributed in the same manner as the rest of the set then the argument for including it doesn't hold water. Plus the legit backs of the T206 set have a number of different subjects on the front - that the Cobb back has only the red Cobb front would classify it as more of a promotional card in my book. I don't collect T206 and don't have much interest in ever putting the set together, so I have no skin in the game in that regard.<br><br>All that said, even if it isn't a T206 (which it isn't) there's no reason that the card can't be appreciated for what it is - an incredibly rare and desirable card of one of the 2 or 3 best to ever play the game.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>Dan-not stupid, just Net54 clumsiness.....stupid software....once you get a search up, in the url/address bar substitute "thread" for "message"--just back out the latter and replace with the former and the whole thread will appear.
|
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>Dan - nope not all T206's were issued in 10 count slide and shell boxes... Most notably, Polar Bear (which were in tobacco pouches). Also, if subscribe to the possibility that Coupon cigarettes should be part of the T206 set, then they also don't fit the mold as Coupon only had soft packs, not slide and shells. Also, the type of packaging deviates in the T206 from typical slide and shells (SC, Piedmont, etc) to clam shell designs (EPDG).<br><br>Here is a link to T206 packaging...<br><a href="http://baseballandtobacco.com/t206.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://baseballandtobacco.com/t206.htm</a><br><br><br><br>================================ ======<br>For the premier online souce of information on baseball-related cigarette packs, visit <a href="http://www.baseballandtobacco.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballandtobacco.com</a>
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:23 AM. |