T206, or not....let's have a continuing conversation....Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco card
 

Factory #33......Reidsville, North Carolina


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




ATC tobacco brand.... Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco ....this card was issued in 1910. IMO, it should be classified as a T206.


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


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Respectfully, with it's glossed front, and the 'only card with that back' factor...
I see no way that the Ty Cobb King of the Smoking World cards are T206s. I concede the card was for inserting into an American Tobacco Company product, but so were T205s, T207s, and lots more. It's no more a T206 than a T213 is... Same size and same year, T210s must be T206s, too?

Nope. That card is a close cousin, nothing more.

When it comes to t206, I don’t ever want to be on the opposite side of Tedzan. If he says it’s a t206, it’s a t206. I don’t care if it’s Mickey Mantle on the front of the card.

It looks like PSA calls them T206. I assume Burdick did not know about these? What would these be called if not T206? T-unc?

(example of card from PSA website)

PSA calls 1949 Leaf Baseball 1948 Leaf Baseball too.

When did 524 cards become a "set of T206"? Do we know who became the first collector to complete a 524 set? I would think when people started to see a card with a Piedmont 150 back, they thought they were looking for a set of 150 cards. I understand the view that "Burdick catalogued them" argument, but I don't think he called these Cobb Cobb's anything, unlike T213-1.

I would call it a T-UNC. It doesn't really need a set designation as it is a single promo card instead of a set.

They re-used a T206 image for a one-off promo card. If this is a T206, so is T213, T214, T215. T219's and C52's would have to be T218's. Burdick was never fully consistent, but to make this consistent we would have to rewrite the entire system.

This is the "Burdick said" these are T206's theory. I think it's okay to use his nomenclature, but I keep my Piedmont 150's in a different box than my AB350NF's.

I don't think it's just Burdick said". 150 and 350 are different series, but they were considered a set by the makers. There are clearly different sets of T cards. Sometimes drawing the lines can be murky for certain issues, but Burdick did not just make these sets up. The lithographers and American Lithography clearly thought of them as individual sets, as their surviving records tell us.

Greg, did the issuers think there was a set complete at 524, or did collectors make that up many years later? That's all I'm saying. T206 is flawed as a set compared to e102, where the checklist is on the back.

Not my expertise by any means, but I like Frank's analogy of a cousin. In any event since T206 is just an after the fact classification anyhow, not sure why it really matters.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. Your reply quoting my post seemed to state that you think 150 and 350 are not the same set and should be separate, and that the set is just considered a set because Burdick said it was? It doesn't say anything about whether its 524 or 520 or 510 or 483 or any other number?

This question of how many cards make a basic set seems to be a very different question. I don't know how many Fullgraff or whoever was the PM for T206 would say were unique cards. Probably a little short of 524, the printing certainly indicates some of what people like to count as 524 were not considered new cards, just corrections to an existing card during the print run or updates.

That doesn't seem to affect whether a card is or is not part of the set though. None of the primary evidence seems to suggest that 150 and 350 series cards were conceived of as different sets, or that T206 was treated differently than the numerous other sets that aren't considered special today.

A Ty Cobb back card, of course, would not affect the set size of a basic T206 set in any way designated as T206 or T-UNC or whatever else. It's not a unique image or caption or front.

I'm not a T206 guy so no dog in this fight but that is a very special card and props to those that own one.

I should have just said your name without quoting your whole point.

The background is from old threads and TedZ's assertion that T213-1 should be called T206, which I agree with, but the reason I have been able to collect them, is because they have been called T213-1, and viewed by collectors as crummy broders, instead of very rare-backed t206's.

I can see keeping Piedmont 150 350 and 460 together. It gets complicated when you put Clarence Beaumont SC 150 30 with a Demmitt Polar Bear as the same set. One is in a cigarette product, and one is in a pouch of tobacco. Why not throw in a Cobb from a tin can with some gloss?

I think it's a fun topic, like the green bird on the 1978 Topps Bob Forsch topic, not a terribly important topic.

Whether T213-1 should be called a T206 is a good choice of a case where it is not so clear what the intent was. Is T30 and T118 the same set? T3 and T9? I would certainly classify T3 and T9 as one by designer intent. I don't think anyone in 1910 considered that a set could not be issued with scrap and cigarettes both; that seems to be a modern thought creation. Other sets were and carry the same designs, in the same series, at the same time, with the same set name and have no indication at all that they were considered different sets. It seems very hard to conclude, relying on the primary evidence, that Piedmont and Polar Bear and American Beauty were conceived as completely different sets instead of the same set being packaged with multiple brands, often closely related to each other in the ATC corporate structure.

I think we know that having the same picture used does not make a card from the same set. Nobody argues a Victory is a T206 or that a T219 is a T218; there were several reuses and reprintings that were their own sets. I think the difference with the Cobb back is not that it came in a tin or has some gloss (other sets have glossed and unglossed; T69), but is that it was a very limited release single promo card and probably wasn't thought of as part of any set at all; just a standalone promo for with a tiny print run. Is George Bush part of the 1990 Topps set? No. Is it related to it by virtue of using the design and being from the time? Sure. Just like a T223 is related to a T220.

I would hope nobody would consider any topic in a baseball card group terribly important in the grand scheme of things :D

I'd love to own one but in my opinion it's not a T206 for several reasons most of which have been mentioned before but something I don't recall being mentioned before is that all of the T206's were in ATC products but Ty Cobb Tobacco was produced by the F. R. Penn Tobacco Co. and The American Tobacco Co. didn't purchase F. R. Penn until 1911.

My two cents would be the card is adjacent to the set, but not a core member. I think I'd prefer to see T213-1's added to the official T206 set before the Cobb/Cobb

Nice card, Jeff.

Here was a post on this topic from 2010. Note Leon's points in posts 41 and 49. I am corrected. Burdick called it a T206.


www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=122677

Larry Fritsch was the first one to complete the 524 set. He discovered the Doyle error, but he kept his hobby discoveries to himself. It wasn't until a second Doyle was discovered in 1987 and auctioned off by Bill Huggins that the hobby became aware of it's existence.

I don't consider Doyle part of the set either. I would consider it part of the master set like the different backs. No Topps set requires you to have every error or variation to have a complete set. 1952 Topps is complete at 407 cards. You don't need the Sain/Page errors, Mantle, Robinson, Thomson variations, etc.

As far as the Cobb back, I believe that it was not issued until after production of the t206 set was complete. The Ty Cobb brand was not owned by ATC until after the break up of the ATC monopoly in 1911. It was a product of the FR Penn tobacco company which ATC had secretly invested in to keep in out of the government's antitrust case against. It seems very unlikely to me that there would be any cross promotion between two companies who were hiding their relationship.

T206 or not....let's have a continuing conversation....Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco card
 

Jim Blumenthal started the "ball rolling" regarding the Ty Cobb/TY COBB card when he posted this thread in 2006...... Senator Russel's tobacco card collection.......

Furthermore, Jon Canfield posted this Ty Cobb/Ty Cobb thread that sparked some spirited discussion. Including information revealing that the Ty Cobb Cut Plug Smoking
Tobacco was marketed in the Spring of 1910...... What We Have Learned About Ty Cobbs With a Ty Cobb Back

My research regarding this Ty Cobb card begins from reading Senator Richard Russell's biography. Russell was an avid baseball fan in his youth. As a 13-year old in 1910
he collected T206 cards, and OLD MILL (T210) cards.

The University of Georgia has on display Senator Russel's tobacco card collection which includes a near complete set of T206's (497 cards). It's missing Lundgren, Plank,
and Wagner). The highlights of his set are the T206 Cobb/Cobb card and the Doyle N.Y. Nat'L card.

It appears to me that 1910 was the only year he purchased PIEDMONT cigarette packs, since his parents sent him off to Military School in 1911.

Having said all this, I could continue with more information, but I will leave that for later.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Ted, did Russell have a magie? I don't think so. And is his collection solely piedmont? And do we know if he obtained cards after 1910? I ask because you seem to insinuate that he only bought cards in 1910, and perhaps only piedmonts. So given that it seems curious that he obtained a cobb/cobb.

T206, or not....let's have a continuing conversation....Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco card
 

Hi Jim

No Magie card.

Most of the missing 27 cards in his T206 set are from the 150/350 Series. Which suggests that his T206 collecting days did not start until 1910 (at age 13).

Furthermore, regarding the cards in the 150/350 series group, his collection included multiples of the Elite 11 subjects (with the rare PIEDMONT 350 backs).

Mr. Russell grew up in Winder, Georgia (near Atlanta), which has been the source of most of the Elite 11 cards.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

And the Senator didn't have all/only Piedmont cards, he had T210 Old Mills, also.

I am in the camp of the cobb/cobb NOT being a true t206...distributed in tobacco packs.

T206or not....let's have a continuing conversation....Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco card
 

Hi Frank

The T210 cards were already noted in my Post #20.

He had many of them; however, his T206 collection was quite huge.

Circa 2006 - 2007, I acquired quite a number of his duplicates (especially Elite 11 subjects) from one of his relatives in the Atlanta area.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Thank you, rats60. You have reminded me of the Doyle history. I have to relearn stuff all the time, as I forget a lot. I guess we will never know how many cards are in a T206 set. 52 Topps, as you say is 407. Did the ATC mean for collectors to chase Magie, Wagner, and Plank, or ignore them, etc.?

I follow the argument that Burdick was the classifier, so if he says T213-1 is not T206, then it is simply not, under his system.

I don't understand the argument that a Ty Cobb back is not a T206, when Burdick said that it was. Burdick created the idea of T206, so he is the final arbiter.

I suspect Burdick had at least a rough idea how complex the set really is. And rather than make it into three or 16 or more sets, he opted to put any card that seemed to be from the same set in that grouping.

If it's about this size, has white borders, and is on this sort of cardboard and has a brown caption then it's a T206.
Anything else is easy to categorize as its own set.

It's that way with a lot of large complex groups of related sets.
The old Judges
And the M-101s

T206, or not....let's have a continuing conversation....Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco card
 

Hi Jim

I forgot to respond to your last question. So here goes....Russell's Dad was a Circuit Judge who would often travel to Atlanta.
According to Richard's biography his Dad would occasionally take young Richard with him on these trips to Atlanta. A number
of Cobb/Ty Cobb Tobacco cards have surfaced from the Atlanta area, where I think they were just handed out as promotional
cards for this new Tobacco brand. And, that is how his Dad simply acquired this card for him.

I personally think that the majority of these Cobb cards were never stuffed inside the Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco tins.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

T206, or not....let's have a continuing conversation....Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco card
 

Jeff

I completely agree with you regarding the 1910 COUPON (T213-1) cards. This group of 68 cards were issued circa Summer of 1910
and should be considered as part of the T206 family.



1910 COUPON (T213-1) Major League (48) subjects

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...sSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...Sheet12xxx.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...sSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...eSheet12xx.jpg




1910 COUPON (T213-1) Southern Association (20) subjects

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...arrCran12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...artHart12x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...thThorn12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...olePerd12x.jpg


https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...Willett29b.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

The E102 set is not as straightfoward as it seems on the back, as 25 players are on the back checklist, but there are actually 29 cards, with two different pose variations for players Doyle, Miller, Wagner and Schmidt (with one of the Schmidt cards misspelled Smith).

Just trying to shift this tobacky thread into a candy thread, to the dismay of the doctors on here, but probably to the delight of the dentists.

Brian (E102, the King of the Anonymous Licking Candy World)

It's a set of 25 players with 29 cards and we don't know who made them or what they were given out with. Do we know e102 are candy cards? I kind of wish I hadn't posted in this thread, and just read, like JimB told that guy to do in 2010.

If, in front of us on a table, there were about a thousand white border tobacco cards that we know as T206s (no slabs) laying there on the table, face up, and one of them was the Ty Cobb / Ty Cobb card... It would leap out at us in our field of vision. It ALONE would be the only card with the glossy front. A lingering question would be why does only one of these cards have a glossy front?

We flip all of the cards face down (gently, they aren't in slabs). There would be a variety of backs... but only one card that has Ty Cobb King Of The Smoking Tobacco World. And all of the cards but one reference Baseball Subjects or Baseball Series.... all except one card, that sole glossy front card.

And if we asked a wife, a third grader, or most anyone with walking around sense (that would exclude me and most collectors) to find the one card on the table full of cards that is different from the others, I think they'd easily separate out that Ty Cobb / Ty Cobb card from the rest.

In my mind is this story of ATC folks going to Georgia to talk with Ty about lending his name to a new brand, and they had printed a sample of cards to give him. And that's where the cards came from, and how they happened to be found in Georgia.

Let me simplify that table of cards. There's about a dozen cards there, all have a red portrait Cobb on the front, although one has a glossy sheen on the front. And those backs... there's one Ty Cobb King of the Smoking World back, and the others are all Piedmont, Sovereign, Sweet Caporal, Cycle, Polar Bear, El Principe de Gales, and Old Mill. All but one of the backs have Baseball Series or Baseball Subjects.... and the one that doesn't is that Cobb King of the Smoking World card. Which card is different from all the others?

Good points frank it would also be the only factory 33 and non ATC owned brand from the T206 era in any complete set.

Attachment 551650


Attachment 551649

the Reidsville Review from 11/16/1909
 

there also are blurbs in other papers from June 1909 saying only "And now they have named a smoke after Ty Cobb"
https://photos.imageevent.com/imover...6__1909__1.jpg

Great thread Ted.

I think Frank makes a very compelling argument for why the Ty Cobb back is NOT a T206; although any self-respecting red cobb back run (like Jamie's) should include the Cobb back IMO.

On a different note, what is the prevailing argument for why T213-1 and T215-1 are not T206s? They were produced/distributed in 1910 (during the 1909-1911 print time), they have the same exact front pictures, including the black name print, and they were distributed in packs of cigarettes/tobacco. The only reason I can think to not classify them as T206 is because, unlike other established T206s, they have later versions (i.e., type 2, type 3, pirate, etc). In other words, T213 and T215 are not T206s because, unlike other T206s, their adds are carried on cards with the same fronts that were issued after 1911; thus the need to classify them as separate from T206 to catalogue the versions.

My opinion is the Cobb/Cobb back should not be considered a T206. From what I understand only a couple of people had them in small groups. I don't believe they were issued in packs if a couple had them all. I still think it was a promo card, maybe for Coke or car dealership in the Atlanta area etc.

I don't have an educated enough opinion on this to truly weigh in, I always considered it a T206 card though, because of the image of Cobb that I associated with the T206 set. A wonderful debate all around though, something that we can continue to discuss for a long time.

Hi Ryan, I think the main argument is the T213-1s and T215-1s were printed on much thinner paper stock than T206s.

(edited ... just T213-1s are thinner stock)

T215-1 Red Cross states "100 Designs" on the back. At the risk of being wrong for the 4th or 5th time this week, I read in the 2010 thread that there are 2 types of TyCobb/TyCobb cards. One type has gloss, and the other type does not.

T206, or not....let's have a continuing conversation....Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco card
 

I have several T215-1 cards, they were printed on the same cardboard stock as T206 cards are.

Regarding the thinner cardboard stock which the 1910 COUPON (T213-1) cards are printed on, my understanding is that
these cards were never meant to serve as Cigarette pack stiffiners. A Cigarette pack for these cards has not been found.
1910 COUPON cards were either placed inside rectangular cartons containing a 100 Cigarettes, or pasted on the outside
of these cartons.


Rob

Over the years, I have closely examined several Ty Cobb / Ty Cobb cards; and, some have a faint glossy coating....while most of them do not.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I think that Frank makes the best argument. Considering the differences with both the backs and the glossy (Cobb back) or paper (Coupon) card stocks, it seems like the Red Cross and Coupons have more in common with T206 cards than the Cobb back has.

And there is the question of distribution as well. Ted, has anyone ever shown
how the Cobb backs were distributed? I know that some believe that they were in Cobb tins, but that seems unlikely. Do we know if they were ever in any type of pack? It seems like they could have just been a promotional giveaway, especially since more than half the known cards came from two finds.

T206, or not....let's have a continuing conversation....Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco card
 

Hi Sean

No packs known.

The image on the Ty Cobb Tobacco tin is the batting version printed on the 1909 T206 Cobb
card. This is consistent with ATC's initial marketing of the Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco in 1909.

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...eign150x12.jpg


However, the image American Lithographic used for this Cobb card is the red portrait version.
Which was first printed in 1910 (or very late 1909).

To me, this imaging inconsistency suggests that the red portrait Cobb card was not intended
to be stuffed in the Tobacco tin.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Just had a thought regarding Burdick decision to group things together as t206 vs. t213-1, t215-1 etc... I think we all agree that there are plenty of reasons he could have considered a broader definition of t206 that included those sets, or perhaps narrower that didn't include the cobb/cobb. Perhaps his decisions were not completely arbitrary or completely his own? Maybe amongst he and the other collectors of that time (1920s-1940s: Bray, Conlon, Carter, Wagner, et al) prior to his first ACC publication, they had already effectively decided which cards should be grouped together as the t206 (which i believe based on leon's posting of original documentation was called the #521 white border set).

If there was already a loose consensus of what would be in a white border set (what we call t-206) perhaps he was just following the prevailing thoughts. Maybe the few collectors of the time were already not considering coupons or red cross's as t206.

fyi, it was called #521 but that # was only coincidentally close to the actual size of the set. i think #520 was t205, for example....and that might also have driven his motivation to make have the gold borders come before the white borders in his new numbering scheme.

Admittedly I am far from the expert level on T206 that many are, but this has always been my belief for all the back variations. I just see there being one set with different advertising back variations, the Cobb back is just another.

Unless the entire classification standard is changed something like M101's with different advertising backs having different catalog subset numbers, I have to be in with Ted here. I also don't see the former ever happening as it would be chaos with grading and people would grumble up a storm.

I have also wondered if there wasn't something Burdick and others knew that hasn't been passed down for some reason. Maybe because they just figured it as too ordinary to write down, or because it was too obscure and finicky to think anyone but them would care.

There's plenty of stuff like that in another hobby of mine, for many things the best resource was written in 1902, and even some of the original records used as a source may be lost. (and that book has errors... ) A few things were "known" in the early 1930's and are being rediscovered.

T206, or not....let's have a continuing conversation....Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco card
 

Justin

Your last statement....hit the nail precisely on it's head. Very true, very true.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

If the Cobb was added to the T206 set and you had a master set of all of the currently confirmed t206 combinations in front of you with all the necessary information and you were asked to separate them each time by the following

Brand - you would have 1 Cobb back and the next smallest stack would be 60 (Uzit)

Factory number - 1 Cobb (factory 33) and the next smallest stack would be 200 (factory 649)

What company the brand was Owned by in 1910 - American Tobacco Co. = 5281 T206's F. R. Penn = 1 T206 (Ty Cobb tobacco)

T206, or not....let's have a continuing conversation....Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco card
 

This vintage post card of Factory #33 identifies the American Tobacco Company as the manufacturer of the Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco.


Factory #33......Reidsville, North Carolina

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



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Problem with that, Ted, is that the PC may post-date the ATC's acquisition of the plant.

The more intriguing question is the one raised by the other posts that show the Ty Cobb brand was Penn, not ATC: how did Penn get access to this ATC lithograph of Cobb? Did they cut a deal with the printer? If there was a hidden ATC ownership, did the ATC lend the art to Penn as a silent partner?

As for Coupons

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...0bat%20off.jpg

Not a T206 but damn nice.

The info that's been put out there recently about ALC or a related printer registering the brand names, leads me to think that ALC owned the rights to use the images instead of ATC.
There may have been contracts with some degree of exclusivity, but there's a possibility it ended up being more like MSA than Topps. (Not a clear analogy, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment)

T206, or not....let's have a continuing conversation....Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco card
 

Adam

My P/C of the Reidsville Plant (Factory #33) has no date on the back of it. However, the fact that the picture of this Plant doesn't have the LUCKY STRIKE logo
indicates that this PC was available prior to 1915.

James Buchanan Duke (ATC founder) bought the F. R. Penn Co. in 1911. Duke made Penn a Manager in one of ATC's divisions.

Duke and Joseph P. Knapp (American Lithographic Co. founder) were close business partners, which suggests to me that more than likely is why the Red Cobb
was printed (1910) as a promotional piece for the Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco brand.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

The American Tobacco Company started its connection with F.R. Penn Co. in 1903, and the Supreme Court's opinion in the Antitrust litigation states that the ATC owned 2/3 of the common stock in Penn (1,002 out of 1,500 shares). That seems like more than enough influence by ATC to promote the Ty Cobb tobacco brand and cards, despite ATC's argument that its acquisition of Penn "was made not with the purpose of destroying competition or acquiring a monopoly, but merely as an investment in the tobacco business."

EDITED to add: the Anti-trust litigation was filed in 1907 and orally argued in January 1910, although the decision was not handed down until May 1911.

Like Steve said, the ATC does not appear to have owned the lithographs or the player rights. The contracts seem to be directly with the lithographers (Hylands makes no mention of tobacco at all), who are not all Knapp's American Lithographic, at least not directly (presumably they are shadow subsidiaries, designed to avoid anti trust law). The lithographic companies seem to be running product design and marketing for the ATC, they aren't just contracted printers.

Presumably there must have been an exclusivity contract for some period of time, otherwise we would probably have cards with all kinds of backs cashing in on the fad. This is deductive as no contract has surfaced. If the Cobb/Cobb card is from 1910, it would be the only copy of a T card made for the ATC sets made for a different or semi-independent firm between 1909-1912. At least, I cannot think of another example. Can anyone else? I would suspect they were tied to the ATC before public merger, like the lithographers, as more likely.

This postcard does not seem to pre-date 1915 in its origin. It looks like a much later postcard styling. Here is a copy with a 1951 mailing date: https://www.ebay.com/itm/14479874516...a369%7Ciid%3A1. The others on eBay don't have mailing dates on the back. This postcard is in not evidence the ATC was manufacturing Ty Cobb brand in 1910. It is evidence that they owned factory 33 decades later, which we already know.

T206, or not....let's have a continuing conversation....Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco card
 

The Postmark date on that Ebay example you are referring to means NOTHING !

Back in the 1940's and 1950's, us old-timers would frequently mail vintage Post Cards to one another.

The picture on that example (and my P/C) show the old Factory #33 Water Towers. Subsequent Water
Towers (> 1916) were modernized and display the Lucky Strike cigarette logo on them.

Look, I'm a vintage Post Card collector, and the style of printing and the texture of the cardboard on this P/C is an early 20th Century vintage product.


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



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

As a knowledgeable vintage postcard collector, I am sure you are well aware that these textured linen postcards are mostly all from the 1920's to the 1950's. There are numerous articles on their dating you can find online easily.

The original photo on which the art is based may, of course, long predate the issue, as happened often. This is a common postcard with many online at any given moment. I would love to see any evidence that it predates the linen postcard era and is from the time you claim.

A date stamp is indicative of the times a postcard was actually used, subsequent to production. The only one I can find is from decades after your claim, and fits into the linen postcard period. Again, I would love to see one with pre-1916 postal marks.

Further, even if it is from before 1916, which does not appear to be the case, it is not evidence the ATC was handling the Ty Cobb brand in 1910, as you claimed it was evidence of. It would need to be from 1910 or earlier for it to be evidence that the ATC was controlling Penn before the 1911 purchase. Do you have any evidence at all that this is from 1910 or earlier?

I suspect the Cobb card is from 1910-1911, that the ATC was probably controlling Penn before the purchase, and that the Cobb card was printed by one of the lithographers in their orbit during this period. But this postcard is not evidence of that whatsoever.

Todd, ATC may have been a majority shareholder but if the Cobb back was included in the T206 set it would still be the only card in the set that came from a product that wasn't officially owned by the ATC at the time.

Pat, not to take sides in the debate and with all due respect, that is a distinction without a difference.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

+1. Penn apparently was owned or at least controlled by ATC when the Cobb brand was born and the card produced. At most, the card was promoted under the Penn name only, but it would appear that the rights to use the lithograph would have flowed to ATC.

.

If you are arguing that the Ty Cobb brand was not "officially owned" by the ATC, whatever that means, then I would describe such argument as weak sauce.

It means exactly what I posted, they didn't officially or legally have outright ownership of the F. R. Penn company until 1911.

The American Tobacco Company—by stock ownership is the owner outright of the following defendant companies:

S. Anargyros [The S. Anargyros Company owns all the capital stock (10 shares) of the London Cigarette Co.]; F. F. Adams Tobacco Co.; Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Co.; Crescent Cigar & Tobacco Co.; Day and Night Tobacco Co.; Luhrman & Wilbern Tobacco Co.; Nall & Williams Tobacco Co.; Nashville Tobacco Works; R. A. Patterson Tobacco Co.; Monopol Tobacco Works; Spalding & Merrick.

The American Tobacco Co. also has the stock interest indicated in the following defendant corporations:

British-American Tobacco Co.—owns 1,200,000 shares of 1,500,000 shares of preferred stock, and 2,280,012 shares of 3,720,021 shares of common stock.

The Imperial Tobacco Co., etc.—owns 721,457 pounds sterling of 18,000,000 pounds sterling of stock.

The John Bollman Co.—of 2,000 shares of stock, owns 1,020 shares.

F. R. Penn Tobacco Co.—of 1,503 shares of stock, owns 1,002 shares (through Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Co.)

Pat,

Despite what others may say or think, I see the logic and can go along with your point/theory. You can also possibly look to other circumstances in the hobby to support your position/theory also.

For example, look no farther than the F-50 ice cream/food card sets that are out there, Yuengling's, Harrington's, Tharp's, Sweetman's, etc. They are all the exact same cards images, and 60 card sets, with the only real difference being the different companies/distributors that are listed on the card backs. Pretty much the exact same thing with all the T206 cards, same fronts, different products/brands on the backs. So why aren't all these F-50 cards considered as just one set, like the T206's are? Everyone I've ever seen, heard of, or talked to in the hobby considered each of the different F-50 distributor's/brand's cards as entirely different sets. They have been referred to as Sweetman's, Yuengling's, Tharp's, Harrington's, and so forth, and never as just the F-50 set alone. The only other real difference I am aware of between the T206 set and the various F-50 sets is that all the T206 brands on the back were all wholly-owned by the exact same company, the ATC. Meanwhile, all the brands/distributors that had the F-50 cards prepared for them, are all completely different companies, with different owners. And having worked in and been involved with many different businesses pretty much my entire adult life, I understand and know that there is a world of difference between being a wholly-owned company (like all the different ATC brands appearing in the T206 set are) and an entity that is only partially owned by the same company (think all the companies that Warren Buffet's Berkshire-Hathaway owns a major interest in). Those are not even close to the same thing, despite what many might think or try to argue

And in the case of the different distributors/brands shown on all the T206 and F-50 cards, the only real difference I can see between them is that only one company (the ATC) wholly owned all the T206 brands, while the F-50 brands were all owned by entirely different companies. The fact that the company that supposedly distributed the Ty Cobb/Ty Cobb back cards was not also a wholly-owned subsidiary of the ATC would seem to be a pretty huge difference, and maybe the only real explanation for why they weren't ever considered as part of the T206 set. That and the fact that they were sometimes found with glossy fronts. Not considering them as part of the T206 set seems to go right along with the apparent treatment given to the various F-50 sets. So, for anyone saying the Ty Cobb w/Ty Cobb backs should be part of the T206 after all, they should also be arguing even more then that there should only be one F-50 set, with different backs like the T206 set, and no separate Yuengling's, Sweetman's, Tharp's, Harrington's, etc., sets after all anymore.

What you'll likely get in response from the naysayers is that your theory/point is weak or doesn't truly matter, simply because they don't really understand and/or know any better. Saying something is weak without any facts, logic, or even simple explanations as to why, to back up someone's accusation of your statement being weak, now that is what is really, truly weak!

:rolleyes:Now you're adding the term "outright". It seems you do not understand what a majority stock interest means when one is determining ownership and control. And Bob, thanks for asserting that people who disagree with Pat don't understand or don't know better. It's always nice to be schooled by a self-acclaimed expert. I simply had no idea there was a difference between a wholly-owned subsidiary and a majority-held stockholder :rolleyes:. And of course the US Supreme Court should not have been concerned with companies that were not wholly-owned but were nonetheless controlled by the ATC-- what were they thinking?

The point was floated that the lithographer who created the Cobb depiction was free-lancing or able to sell to others. While I suppose that may be true, it remains that the lithographer used by the ATC in its tobacco brands likely agreed that ATC could use the Cobb depiction in other products it controlled. There is also no reason to think that Penn would have objected to the ATC using its controlling power to order production of the card, or that it was in any position to object. So to claim that the reason the Ty Cobb brand should be excluded from T206 because ATC did not wholly own the company that made the brand is, again, a fairly weak argument. In my humble, don't know any better, can't understand how this shit works opinion.

A better argument is that the card was not intended to be part of a set at all, but was instead a stand alone and possible promo card. Whereas the other cards were expressly intended and advertised as part of a series or assortment, no such claim was made here, and no other subjects are believed to have ever existed. It is somewhat difficult to grasp, again in my underdeveloped opinion, how this card could be considered part of a set, but since T206 itself is a creation of a collector/cataloger and is subject to interpretation, it seems there are alot of debatable points-----some stronger than others.

There is certainly a difference, though I am not sure it should be of much importance to whether or not it can be a T206 personally. I think Pat is pretty clearly correct in the claim to fact, whether or not that should be a decisive or even significant factor is an opinion one may or may not agree with.

Generally, the cards from subsidiaries like this have been considered a different set, like many of the C sets that are the same as the T set but having an Imperial back (or even no advertising on back and just assumed to be an Imperial Canadian release).

Is there even 1 other card issued by a tobacco company that the ATC was a stockholder of but kept operationally independent during the 1909-1912 card promotion that also has backs from the ATC direct and we consider part of 1 set? I cannot think of one off the top.


I am not a self-proclaimed expert, an expert proclaimed by any person or entity, or an intelligent feller.

I am not self-acclaimed, I've been working in and advising businesses for 40-50 years now as a practicing CPA in the public sector, and also in private industry as a Controller/CFO of multiple businesses as well. What qualifications do you have to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about?

Your implication that a person/party owning a majority of a company automatically gives them full control over that partially-owned company and that that it is the exact same full and complete control that can be exercised over a wholly-owned subsidiary, which is what the companies owning all the different brands recognized as being included in the T206 set apparently are. I did not do independent research myself, and am relying on the research of those others posting as to who was wholly owned, and who was not. But given the sources that other person quoted/showed, their research seems and looks pretty sound. And I don't disagree that owning more than 50% of a controlling interest in a company gives the "parent/holding" company an overall control of the subsidiary business in question. But not being a 100% wholly-owned subsidiary does mean that there are also minority or non-controlling shareholder interests, and there are laws in place to protect those non-controlling interests and also give them some voice in say in how the company is being operated. And that would include making decisions such as including Ty Cobb w/Ty Cobb backed cards in the T206 set.

The fact that the ATC didn't take full control and ownership of the F.R. Penn Tobacco Co. would tend to indicate that they likely left the management and employees of the company in place, at least initially, instead of summarily firing everyone immediately and putting them under the full ownership and control of ATC personnel, and calling all the shots with no input from others. Also, as noted in Pat's post, the ATC did not take direct control of the F. R. Penn Tobacco Co., either. They apparently bought another company, Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Co., and indirectly acquired their majority interest in Penn through that acquisition that took place in 1903 or 1904? I've seen both years referenced. So that is actually another potential layer between the ownership and control of Penn by the ATC, and potentially makes it a little more complicated for them to fully take over and control Penn outright. And either way, that acquisition date precedes both the date when the anti-trust suit was initially filed against the ATC (1907), and also when the T206 cards first came out (1909).

Additionally, let's look at the other companies only partially owned by the ATC at that time. Per Pat's post, the first two, British-American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco, both seemed to be British companies, so it makes perfect sense that neither of them would likely be included in a T206 set issue as I'm guessing they were only selling to an English market at the time. Make sense? And then, The John Bollman Co. was actually based out of San Francisco, CA, and I believe was responsible for the Obak card sets. So, since this was apparently a West coast company distributing a West coast brand(s), it also makes perfect sense that the ATC wouldn't bother including them in the T206 set either, since that set was primarily directed at Eastern and more middle-of-the-U.S. cities and people. That just leaves the F.R. Penn Tobacco Co. as the only Eastern based tobacco company and brand(s) (based out of NC I believe), and also fully controlled as you seem to claim by the ATC, that didn't seem to have at least one of their brands included as part of the main and original T206 set first issued starting in 1909. So, since the other ATC wholly owned companies that were also Eastern based got included in the T206 set from pretty much the start, why not any Penn Tobacco Company brand(s) as well then? It certainly couldn't have been from too many other brands overlapping each other, could it? Seems that of all the other brands that did get included in the T206 set that there was definitely some overlapping sales and distribution areas. And even if that was a possible consideration, why again was it just the one and only Eastern-owned company/brand that ATC did not 100% own that seems to have been completely excluded from the T206 set from its start?

Is it possible then that Pat's theory about a Penn Tobacco brand not being included in the T206 set from the start was at least partially because they weren't wholly owned by the ATC, is actually right and the most logical argument after all? And let me reinforce that with some added thinking and logic. Again, the anti-trust suit against the ATC was initially filed in 1907 I believe, two years before the release of the T206 set. Now attorneys for the ATC are looking at the fairly new back then Sherman Anti-Trust Act that I believe was originally passed in 1890. I may be off a year or so, so forgive me. Anyway, for the attorneys it wouldn't necessarily be a case with dozens of prior cases and test law and decisions to look over and research to better figure out how to defend the ATC. For the first 10 years or so after its enactment, as I understand it, very few cases were even brought under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and even then, the most successful was being prosecuted against trade unions, which some may argue was not the original intended target of the Act to begin with. So, it wasn't really until the 1900's under Teddy Roosevelt's time in office (1901-09), that more significant anti-trust cases started to get filed and brought against big conglomerate companies, like the ATC's case in 1907. So, if I'm an attorney for the ATC, looking to defend them against this anti-trust law, I can easily see them pulling out the stops to make it look like the ATC wasn't taking over and controlling everyone in the tobacco business. Now making that argument for a company you already wholly own 100% of is a pretty useless and stupid/lame argument, wouldn't you agree? But what about the companies you don't own 100% of? Were I one of the ATC's attorneys back then, I could easily see trying to advise and convince the ATC to not look like they completely controlled companies they only owned a part of. If nothing else, to make it look like they didn't completely control them all, when they, as you were pointing out, more or less actually did. So maybe as another added layer or trick in trying to show and convince a court and others, you do things like "not include a partially-owned company in the same T206 set you just launched for all your other wholly-owned companies and include them in your overall marketing campaign" to better assert and make it look like you, the ATC, actually did not have full control in decision making over such partially owned companies after all. Now, sharing/using the same Cobb images for Penn Tobacco's Ty Cobb backed cards as in the T206 set, does show some shared interests and overlap of control and influence, but certainly nowhere near the extent that would be considered if you had included Penn Tobacco in the same full blown marketing campaign which was the T206 set. Plus, no one seems to know if they ever did actually distribute the Ty Cobb w/Ty Cobb backed cards in an actual tobacco product, or if it was maybe just a test or some other special issue of sorts, never intended for full production and public distribution after all. At least not till maybe after the anti-trust case was hopefully settled in the ATC's favor? Do we even have definitive proof of exactly when these Ty Cobb backed cards were actually made, and then supposedly distributed? And if not, isn't it possible they weren't even produced till 1910 or even 1911, and then scrapped as the anti-trust case was found against the ATC? I'm not saying that is the absolute final answer and correct reason why the Ty Cobb w/Ty Cobb backed cards were maybe not ever released as part of the original T206 set starting in 1909. Nor that that therefore is the sole/main reason we should never have considered them as part of the T206 set. Some of your arguments and reasoning make some sense as well, but also only as theories and maybe educated guesses. Truth is, we'll likely never find out and know the complete, true and reals reason behind the Ty Cobb w/Ty Cobb backed cards, and if they were ever intended to be released as part of what became known and accepted as the T206 set or not. But to get after Pat with basically just a meh, "weak sauce" argument doesn't quite fly with me either.

And couple all that with the original info/comments I added about the F-50 sets and how those not being distributed by the same owners also seems to preclude them from ever being considered as just one set with different backs (like the T206 set is), which you just ignored and never even bothered to address. But the meh, "weak sauce" argument to put down Pat's theory/idea, without some more logical and factual points and reasoning from you to back it up, is to me maybe even more of a "weak sauce" argument than Pat's ever was.

And regardless of who's reasoning may be right or wrong, which we'll never actually know, I am of the opinion that the Ty Cobb w/Ty Cobb backed cards should NOT be included as part of the T206 set. Just my personal opinion that you can agree or disagree with, but to which there is no definitive right or wrong answer. Have a great day.

First and foremost, I would like to apologize to Patrick for coming across as dismissive. I like to think that I can disagree without being disagreeable, but I know I often fail at that. I am sorry.

The question posed is thus: Should the Ty Cobb King of the Smoking World card be considered excluded from T206 because it was produced by a company owned, but not wholly owned, by the American Tobacco Company? I say no–exclude it if you will (and I would), but such basis is artificial and contrived, in my opinion.

Bob, I believe I considered, at least momentarily, most of what you scribed– or what I could discern from a cursory review. With all due respect, I find it wholly unpersuasive.

For one thing, you assert that laws would have been in place protecting minority shareholders(in Penn) such that they had “some voice in say in how the company is being operated. And that would include making decisions such as including Ty Cobb w/Ty Cobb backed cards in the T206 set.” Please cite me to any such law, as I find that assertion unsupported. Do you really believe that the minority shareholders would have been able to prevent or even make any significant noise to stand in the way of that decision? That a corporation’s decisions in marketing its products is something beyond normal operations that would require a shareholder vote? What shareholder interests are implicated by such decision that would give the directors pause when exercising their business judgment? At most I could see that creating a new brand of tobacco might require some level of approval or at least canvassing, but decisions regarding the insertion of a baseball card to promote it? Seriously?

Next, your theorizing as to what the defendants and/or their attorneys in the antitrust litigation were thinking when contemplating the issuance of a single baseball card under a single brand is, well, out there. The ATC had its tentacles all over the place in the Tobacco manufacturing and distribution market, both horizontally and vertically. The scope of their endeavor was massive.

Still, you say: “So maybe as another added layer or trick in trying to show and convince a court and others, you do things like "not include a partially-owned company in the same T206 set you just launched for all your other wholly-owned companies and include them in your overall marketing campaign" to better assert and make it look like you, the ATC, actually did not have full control in decision making over such partially owned companies after all.”

Sure–yeah, no. The thought that litigation of that size, then two plus years old, would be impacted by such decision or that it would go into the calculus at all is frankly absurd. Dozens of companies and hundreds of transactions were under scrutiny to determine whether an illegal combination had been formed and whether there had been a restraint in trade. Any decision by ATC (cough, I mean Penn) to create a new brand and include a baseball card in 1909 or 1910 was immaterial to the matter. I can just see the lawyers asking the court to consider this “new evidence” to show one way or the other that the outcome would be impacted somehow by this Ty Cobb baseball card activity. Uh-huh.

I do not hold myself out as any sort of expert, but I have been practicing law for nearly 40 years in areas that require some understanding of commercial and business practices. Perhaps Mr. Spaeth would chime in on aspects of the anti-trust litigation, as that is his bailiwick. I can say confidently, however, that your analysis from a general legal standpoint is lacking.

Thanks for the apology Todd but it wasn't necessary I think we both misinterpreted each others posts a little bit. The fact that Penn produced the Ty Cobb tobacco isn't even in the top three reasons why the Cobb back in my opinion doesn't belong in the set I only mentioned it because I didn't think it had been brought up before which I was wrong about because it's in the thread that Rob linked. I also don't think it would have been a legal issue because there are a couple of documents including the Ball letter that indicate it was the Lithograph companies not the Tobacco companies that had the permission to use the images on the T206's and other tobacco cards.