Someone provided me a scan of a non glossy version of a Cobb/Cobb and the differences which have been pointed out on Goodwin's example are all present on this other example as well.

This really makes me lean towards contemporary counterfeit. With such a supposedly miniscule original print run, why on earth would there be 2 distinct variations of this card? The fact that you saw a scan of another "non glossy" and it had all the same diagnostics as the Goodwin card makes me believe that a "few" counterfeits may be floating around.

Will the real Cobb/Cobb please stand up?!?!?

Really, now. So no other possibilities than their being counterfeit? Someone with far more knowledge on the issue already commented stating a theory that the non glossy versions were pulled before final production and would be considered proofs. The scan I have is from a card which was graded almost 10 years ago.

Is it true that Shoeless Joe Jackson got his nickname because he played baseball without any shoes on?

Thats also a possibility as well. However, wouldnt you expect "proof lines" in the borders just like all other T206 proofs? Or was the Cobb/Cobb not a true T206?

And wouldn't that hurt his feet?

is there anyone on the forum that knows how many "glossy" cards exist as compared to non glossy ? I've never seen a definite count. I've heard of the supposed proof theory and don't think it's that valid. If the non gloss versions were proofs then the gloss versions were real, and I think there would be more of them out there. I tend to think that the non glossy cards may have been inserted into the tins of Ty Cobb tobacco. The Goodwin cards reverse has some staining on it, but upon closer inspection of the picture it doesn't necessarily look like tobacco. It actually looks like a water stain or some sort of liquid stain to me. It doesn't look like tobacco juice to me.
I have discussed with some other advanced collectors about the fact that they could be well made counterfeits or that some Lithograph printers were just messing around making a card of a popular player of the time. I think it's far fetched to think that a press operator or some employees would have just run these off for fun, or that someone would have made them after 1910. There is advertising to back up the cards reverse that has been discovered. I have gone back and looked through a lot of my old auction catalogs at Cobb backed cards and the goodwin card looks darker than the other Cobb backed red protraits I compared it to. Gloss or any finish added to the surface of a card would tend to make it look darker thought. Just my experience as a painter tells me that. I think there will always be some mystery and speculation involved with the Ty Cobb backed cards.

This is verging on the ridiculous now. I have owned four different Cobb backs including the other non-glossy example. I have personally held four other examples in my hands, for a total of 8 of the 14 known. I have seen scans of virtually every other example. And I have personally owned and held thousands of other T206s in my hands over the past 30 years. The non-gloss example that was graded ten years ago is real! There is no doubt about it. In addition to not having gloss, it looks to be hand cut and thus, probably was used in some sort of proof run for the printer. Not having hash marks does not mean the printer did not use it as a proof, even if the hobby might not technically designate it that way. Perhaps the Goodwin example was from the same sheet. WHo knows? It has a similar deep red background, which makes sense for an early print run; it makes sense that the ink would be strong for a first run. And the heavy ink may have caused the bleed over the border. I have only seen scans of the Goodwin example but it looks real to me. The fact that only 14 or 15 are known does not mean that thousands were not printed in 1910. Most are probably in the dustbin of history. Like Leon, I doubt that so many hobby experts like Ted, Bill Goodwin, PSA graders who have handled 10,000s of T206s and are probably extra careful with a Cobb back, and some more private T206 experts who saw the card would all have been duped. If that is the case, expect the population to increase to about 100 in the next few years. I would also expect T206 Wagner and Plank pops to start increasing too. Can we substitute the conspiracy theories for a little sanity please?
JimB

thanks for sharing ...
 

:) I wasn't trying to spark a conspiracy FYI. I've only ever seen one of the Cobb backed cards and held it in my hand so I have nothing but that memory to serve me. I've never owned one and have no desire to either, so I have no emotional involvement with this card or with rare backs in general. I collect fronts of cards. What was just stated about the ink being darker at the beginning of a print run is true; after thousands of cards were printed, yes the ink would eventually get lighter. I don't believe that thousands of these cards were thrown away or destroyed though. I doubt the non gloss version is a proof either, there must be another explanation. Every proof I have seen has some sort of printers mark on it or has a blank back. I've only held a few thousand T206's in my hands and have only owned a few hundred, but I don't think that makes me any less qualified to state an opinion on the Cobb card. I bet a lot of guys on this forum haven't owned or held as many T206's as some others have, but that doesn't mean there ridiculous or not to be listened to. I like discussing these different theories about the origins of certain cards. I don't know, maybe there should be a section on the forum for those of us who don't claim to be the most adept or experienced collectors. We're not what I call "Toppers"; we don't have to always be better than everyone else, and make sure everyone else knows about it too. Luckily, there's little if any arrogance here, and only one person who refers to hmself as "we" comes to mind when I think about that. Sometimes it seems as if certain members of this forum just can't be inconvenienced with us collectors at the bottom of the totem pole. To me , this forum is a great cross section of those who collect older baseball cards and memorabilia. We all come from different backgrounds , and I believe most of us have a true love for the hobby and wish to learn and share info here.

Jim,
Sanity doesn't sell papers. :D

Dave,
I think you and I were composing at the same time. I was actually responding to Chicago206.
JimB

And THAT... is why he is leaving!


;)

Very well stated. I have had enough of the childish "you dont know anything cuz your new to this". Had I realized that this website was more of a good ole boys club than a come one, come all and lets talk cards, I doubt that my enthusiasm for collecting would have ever peaked. Apparently my opinions on certain matters do not count because I have not been collecting for 25 years. The ironic aspect of this is that even the "so called experts" on this forum...the ones who continually attack my views.....dont know certain things for sure either. This particular card is a perfect example....simply all just theories. My theories are not allowed!

A little over dramatic, don't you think?

Sure your opinions count. They just don't count as much as someone who has been doing it for 25+ years.

You could learn a lot more if you talked a little less.

I thought Ted said he had never seen another Red Cobb with that color. if I misunderstood him, my apologies, but here is what he said:

"Since I had a real close-up look at this card back in the March Philly Show, the thing that strikes me is the darker
Red background color, as compared to all other Red Cobb cards."

Perhaps that was just an observation on his part and not an expression of any concern, I don't know.

I've seen my share of Cobb/Cobbs myself, and this color seems vastly different to me as well, but I still attribute that to the potential gloss/no gloss difference, which would only exacerbate the difference in a scan.

Depends on their agenda, really.

Other way around. I have no horse in the Cobb/Cobb race, but from some of the vicious replies I get when I state that I dont see it as a true T206, its clear that some here DO have a horse! So yeah, agenda's do fuel the bitterness I guess.;)

Let's do this again...I too vote for not a t206...someone start a poll!

Peter -

I'm on your side. I don't think it's a T206 but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. I've read the previous Net54 discussions and still come to this conclusion.

ive been collecting for 35 years but i am still clueless on this card. I am sure there are guys with 5 years collecting that know more then I on certain subjects.

It reminds me of a story i heard (could be an old wives tale) of a truck that got stuck in a bridge. No one could figure out how to get the truck unstuck as it was really wedged in the tunnel under the bridge. Many things were tried, but to no avail... no one could get this truck unstuck,not police, not firemen, not all the engineers. but everyone had an opinion on how to do it. Then a young kid rode up on his bike and asked what was going on. He then said, why dont they just let the air out of the tires.

I have a theory myself.....

I will say this first... No one here knows for sure, none of us were there. Assumptions are not facts, they are opinions. I know when i threw out an opinion before, guys came unglued because it differs from their opinion.

My girlfriend lets me know everyday my opinion doesn't count for much!

Relax and have fun, this is baseball cards!!!!!!!

This can be analyzed from a hundred directions. Different finishes could be simply from different batches. Sure only 15 are known today, but in 1911 or whenever, maybe 10000 existed, we dont know, maybe they were destroyed or never issued, or lost in a warehouse fire or the dog ate them. No one knows, they only assume. They could have been salesman promos or just press proofs that never materialized. From what i have gathered, the tobacco wasn't that popular and wasn't around long. Good chance, if the company discontinued the brand, maybe most, but not all the cards got pitched out in the trash!

Point is, the difference could be this: simply different batches of ink. It does happen. If they were printed a week or month apart.

Wait a minute.....Ted was there!













Kidding Ted.....I'm Kidding!!!!!

;) :D
Steve

I missed Chicago's other post so I thought Jim may have been talking to me.

I have a hard time telling when the member ChicagoT206 is trying to push peoples buttons, but it appears as though he may have been with his recent posts yesterday. It's fine to ponder the questions of 100 year old tobacco cards with other collectors on here ChicagoT206, but it's not right to try to pick fights with people or to muddy the waters of this forum with trash talk or nonsense. If you are truly new to collecting these cards and want to learn something sit back and read others posts for awhile and then ask questions. While collecting experience shouldn't disqualify one from participating in this forum, it does give credence to a persons opinion based on their experience. As I stated before, I've never owned a Cobb backed card and have not had a desire to, but I find it absolutely interesting figuring out when , where, why, and how many of these cards were produced. I also find it relevant to discuss the recent prices garnered by these cards in auctions as it reflects upon the card market in general ( vintage cards, that is).