Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I know we've had this discussion before, and I guess it may ruffle a few feathers, but the more I think about the Ty Cobb with Cobb back, the more I am convinced that it should not be part of the T206 set.<br /><br />For starters, it originates from a unique factory and is coated with a glossy surface that is foreign to T206. Second, the extremely limited distribution, and the fact it is only found with a single pose of a single player, is not consistent with how T206 was issued.<br /><br />My theory is that it was no more than a promotional item, perhaps given away in just a few major stores in the Atlanta area, to get people to smoke the new Ty Cobb brand. He was certainly Georgia's favorite son, and the company was just capitalizing on it. There was never any intention to print a set of any kind, but only to issue one card for the sole purpose of selling a tobacco brand that bore this great player's name. Therefore, the only reason it has been associated with T206 over the years is that it utilized the familiar red portrait. I believe it is an example of an erroneous designation that has never been rightly corrected.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Dylan</b><p>This may very well be, and there are many one card sets. The Cobb with Cobb back will probably remain a mystery as to exactly what happened. In any case Im glad its out there, what a cool card!

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>When do you believe it was printed (year)?<br /><br /><br />My thoughts are... even if everything you say is accurate - if it was printed during the years other T206s were printed, I think it should qualify as part of the set.<br /><br /><br />Also... not knowing much about Ty Cobb branded smokes... did a major tobacco company just license his name? Thus the possibility these were a brand like Piedmonts targeted for Georgia customers and possibly part of the regular T206 run? <br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Joe-I was thinking the same thing right after I posted, and that is we don't even know the year it was printed. What if we found documentation that said it was distributed in 1912? Would you feel differently about it?

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>T213-4

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>As the owner of one, my feathers certainly aren't ruffled.<br /><br />The Baltimore News Ruth card was pretty much the same thing -- a free giveaway in only a local market -- and it certainly hasn't had its popularity suffer any from it.<br /><br />I certainly don't think that a T206 set collector has to have a "Ty Cobb back" card to complete his set. All they need is a "Red Cobb Portrait" with ANY back.<br /><br />In other words, the reason people DESIRE the Cobb/Cobb card is NOT because it's a part of the T206 set. I think they desire it because:<br /><br />a) It features one of the greatest players ever<br />b) It is truly a rarity with only a dozen known to exist<br />c) The back of the card is atually pretty cool<br />d) Like the T206 Wagner -- it just has a long history of being "wanted" by everyone in the hobby.<br /><br /><br /><br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Richard, that was along the lines of my thinking also. T206 look but a glossy front.<br /><br />Maybe a Louisiana tobacco company had the bright idea of doing the Ty Cobb brand of smokes but Cobb found out and put a stop to it. Louisiana did get away with including Wagner in their sets. <br /><br />Cobb was a better businessman than Wagner though and he was from Georgia and not Pennsylvania, so he would have had more people looking out for companies trying to make a buck off of him.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>Hal- only your "b" reason holds up for me.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Barry: I think it is important to note that everything about the card is consistent with T206.<br /><br />Most of the other coupon cards have a different type set for the player's name, or even different color ink. <br /><br />The Cobb/Cobb is printed just like a T206 and has the same dimensions and same border sizes, etc.<br /><br />And as far as the "glossy front" is concerned... <br /><br />I just had my card in hand a week ago and did not notice the front being any different than other T206 cards.<br /><br />Maybe SOME have a glossy front and others don't? I really have only seen one (mine) in person, so I have never seen one that someone considered really glossy.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>MVSNYC: <br /><br />You don't think reason (a) has anything to do with it???<br /><br />You think people would pay that much money for a card of Bert Kling if it said "Bert Kling Tobacco" on the back and only 12 existed??<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>I have never considered this card part of the set, for many of the same reasons Barry, most notably the glossy finish. <br /><br />Not that I wouldn’t like to have one, but even if I did it would not be displayed with my T206 set. I draw the line as needing Plank, Magie,Wagner & Doyle to finish the set.<br /><br />Interesting that yours is not glossy Hal, the few I have seen have a sort of sheen to them. Also I found it odd if its true that a group of these was found in one location???<br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I like Richard's idea, creating a fourth type of Coupon. I think T206 most closely resembles T213 Type 1 anyway.<br /><br />Each of the 15 brands printed roughly 100 to 400+ of each player, so it is safe to say all made an attempt to issue some kind of collectable set. But to issue only a single pose, available only in a very specific geographic area, does not make for a set.<br /><br />There are some theories that T206 should really be 15 different sets. Why aren't N172 and N175 considered the same set? They share the same photography, and the only thing that distinguishes them is the banner at the top. I know this is digressing a bit, but my point is there is a lack of consistency as to what determines a set, and I think the Cobb back is not consistent with the way T206 was distributed.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>as far as the cobb/cobb t206s go, my official position:<br /><br />They're real, and they're spectacular.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>"Bert Kling"?

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Please also note the fact that although virtually every vintage collector would like to own one, that does not make it a T206 either. We all agree it is a great rarity and an extremely desirable card, but that is an unrelated issue.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Well said Barry, Joe there’re real no doubt but do they belong on or in the T206 bus? This has always been a conundrum for me. In fact Barry has echoed some of the same questions I’ve been asking myself for quite sometime being a T206 amateur hobbyist.<br /><br />Who is Bert Kling, is he Johnny's Dad??

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>I believe that if the Cobb back was not associated with the T206 set, then it would not be worth nearly as much as the prices it sells for. <br /><br />If you call it a T2XX (it's own ACC number), then how could it be any better than a T214 or T215 Cobb? There may be a dozen Cobb backs, but a Red Cross or Victory Cobb is nearly a one of a kind.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Okay, problem solved. As of today it has a new designation:<br /><br /> T-Unc. with Ty Cobb back <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Edited to add I agree with Richard that its value would decrease, but for the sake of this discussion, are we trying to determine whether it is a T206, or to make sure it maintains its value? Again, separate issues.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>I recently wrote an e-mail to SGC to have them remove "Ty Cobb w/ Cobb back" from their set registry, i.e., in order to get 100% with SGC you need that back. Given that it is arguably not a T206 and, more importantly, not necessary for a complete set of fronts, I have no idea why SGC has this card listed where it is -- as a necessary component of a T206 fronts set.<br /><br />But I got no response. I'll bring it up at the next show I see them at. But in the meantime, if anyone wants to join my soap box issue to have this card removed from the SGC T206 set registry, please forward an e-mail to:<br /><br />service@sgccard.com<br /><br />I'll make it easy for you -- just copy and paste the following in the body of your e-mail. <br /><br />**I'd like to request that card number 97 in the T206 Set Registry -- Ty<br />Cobb (Portrait, Red Background, Ty Cobb Brand Back) -- not be included<br />in the SGC Set Registry. While it is arguably not even a T206 card, at a minimum it is a "back variation" card. Since the remaining 524<br />cards in the Registry are identified only by their fronts, even though<br />they might have any number of different backs, there is no reason to separately identify this card in the registry. Adding different advertising backs to the equation should be limited to a "Super Set" Registry.<br /><br />Thank you for your consideration.**

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Paul, <br /><br />Since I dont do the reg thing, are the big 4 on there as well? If so seems to me the Cobb/Cobb is the least of your worries for getting 100%. LOL

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Barry said,<br />"I think the Cobb back is not consistent with the way T206 was distributed."<br /><br />It came with tobacco. It was a promotional piece for selling tobacco. What more do you want?<br /><br />I have said this before, but I will repeat it here: T206 was a rather arbitrary designation for a number of different baseball picture cards inserted as a promotional piece with American Tobacco Company products between 1909-1911. If Ty Cobb brand was part of the ATC and they were produced during those years, then by definition, according to the ATC, it is a T206. Unless we are questioning the entire way ATC categorized cards and we are going to consider Piedmont , Sweet Cap, etc. unique sets (which is a legitimate claim), then I don't see why Ty Cobb brand should be signaled out. It you want to distinguish it because of the gloss on the front, then maybe T206-1. <br /><br /> I would want to see proof that it was produced by Coupon before calling it T213.<br /><br />What if Sweet Cap 350's had the same gloss? Would we categorize them as T213s?

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Barry -<br /><br />Sorry about tying the discussion to the value of the card. The point I was trying to make is that it is so desirable simply because it is linked to the t206 set. That is what creates the aura around it.<br /><br />A rarity the card is, but at a dozen know, it is not even close to some of the other Cobb rarities out there.<br /><br />It is similar to the discussion about what makes the t206 wagner the holy grail of card collecting. It is because of the t206 set. As we have discussed many times before, there is a long laundry list of Wagners that are far scarcer. <br /><br />But this hobby is about a lot more than population. It is about perceived population and real popularity.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Good points Jim, but was Ty Cobb part of the ATC?? Do we have proof of that, I don’t know that’s why I’m asking.<br /><br />Also what about the find of multiple cards in one location?? If this did happen as I have been told that seems unlikely that they were put into distribution, if so I would think more would survive. <br /><br />To me the card has always been at most a T206 proof or sample of some type to perhaps to add to the ATC’s already large distribution of cards. But I’ve always wondered about it being a part of the T206 set??<br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>I recall that several of the Cobb/Cobb's were found in Louisiana, New Orleans area to be specific. I once went to a card show in Metarie, LA(suburb of New Orleans) in 1981 and recall there being 2 examples of this gem.<br /><br />I don't believe it to be a strict Georgia issue, I think Louisiana had a share.<br /><br />Issue date of 1912-1914 makes sense to me.<br /><br />Not a T206 issue more than Coupon or Victory.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Jim- you mentioned the SC350 having a glossy front and, if so, it being a Coupon type card. It doesn't and the Cobb/Cobb does. I am of the ilk that thinks it wouldn't decrease the value if Cobb/Cobb wasn't classified as a T206, but I am biased too, so could be wrong. As for the argument of other Cobb cards (T214-T215) being worth more I still don't think so, imho. There are hundreds (or at least "hundred") of total T214's and T215's. There are about 12 known Cobb/Cobbs. Hal- As far as I know all Cobb/Cobb cards have glossy fronts, unlike T206's, except for one that is considered some sort of proof Cobb/Cobb. Interesting argument on a non-train wreck day.....best regards<br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>John,<br />I believe the group of 5 that REA auctioned in 1997 were found in a book by the gradson of a guy who owned a general store in Georgia at the turn of the century, lending evidence to the notion that they were distributed in the market, at least to some limited degree.<br />JimB

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Hey Guys.....let's EXAMINE this card closely.....the FRONT is printed like none of the T206 fronts.<br /><br />And, read the bottom line on the BACK......it has a unique Factory #33 North Carolina (N.C.)......<br />none of the 524 cards in the T206 set have this Fac.#. The only backs in the T206 set that have<br />a N.C. 4th Dist. Factory are the American Beauty 460, Sweet Caporal 460/42 and Piedmont 460/42<br /> cards, which were issued at the very end of the T206 production run (circa 1911). <br /><br />Therefore, "FACTORY #33, 4th Dist. N.C." on the Ty Cobb back tells us that this unique card was <br />produced subsequent to all the 524 cards in the T206 issue. And, indeed is a separate issue unto<br /> itself and I would venture to say it was issued sometime around 1912-1915. <br /><br />Most of us old "dinosaurs" in this hobby have seen and touched this card in it's "naked" form,<br /> and it doesn't even feel like a T206.<br /><br />IT IS NOT A T206......PERIOD.<br /><br />T-Rex TED

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>think that each back subset is really its own set? I tend to think that way myself. <br /><br />--Chad

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Leon,<br />But what if Sweet Cap 350s did have gloss? How would you classify them? Or more importantly, how would they have been classified in the ATC? Seems from the evidence that they would have simply been classified as T206s. THe gloss did not seem to bother Burdwick.<br />JimB

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>"Since I dont do the reg thing, are the big 4 on there as well? If so seems to me the Cobb/Cobb is the least of your worries for getting 100%. LOL"<br /><br />I definitely hear where you are coming from, but after I acquired the Magie a few months back, I have gotten bolder. I have a whole 'nother issue with the Doyle -- for self-interested reasons, I'm happy to subscribe to the theory that the Doyles were created in the early 1980's. That leaves, for me, Wagner and Plank. Some day... some day.....<br /><br /><br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim- no, I am not actually saying it should be a Coupon. It's not that either.<br /><br />And yes, that it was distributed with a tobacco product and was promotional are two of the attributes it shares with T206.<br /><br />But here is where it differs. Any of the other 15 brands issued hundreds of different players as a means of getting consumers to continually buy its product. If we agree that is true, then after you've purchased your first pack of Ty Cobbs your set is complete, no need to buy any more. I think it was a promotional item, but I'm not even sure it came with the tins. Quite possibly when it first debuted, a consumer could get a sample card but that offer disappeared quickly. Even Drum cigarettes have hundreds of surviving examples. The total number of surviving Cobbs is so miniscule that I doubt it had much of a distribution at all. I just think there was something totally different about how they got into circulation, though I admit I don't know exactly how.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>"As for the argument of other Cobb cards (T214-T215) being worth more I still don't think so, imho."<br /><br />Maybe, maybe not. The point I was trying to make is that if the Cobb back was not associated with the t206 set, and was just another ACC number, it is far more common than a Cobb T214 or T215.<br /><br />"There are hundreds (or at least "hundred") of total T214's and T215's. There are about 12 known Cobb/Cobbs."<br /><br />This argument makes sense if you are a back collector and don't care about the front. However, if you are a front collector, and consider the back, then there is one, maybe two, each of the Cobb T214 and T215. At least, that is how this Cobb collector looks at it.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Ted wrote:<br /><br />"FACTORY #33, 4th Dist. N.C." on the Ty Cobb back tells us that this unique card was <br />produced subsequent to all the 524 cards in the T206 issue. "<br /><br />I am missing the line of reasoning that tells you it was issued after other T206s because it comes from a unique factory. Why could it not have been made in 1910?<br /><br />"Most of us old "dinosaurs" in this hobby have seen and touched this card in it's "naked" form,<br />and it doesn't even feel like a T206."<br /><br />This dinosaur touched a raw one last week and it felt a lot like a T206 to me.<br /><br />"IT IS NOT A T206......PERIOD."<br /><br />I thought the ATC and Jefferson Burdwick was the arbitor of what was a "T206" since he coined the term and delineated what it represents. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />JimB<br /><br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Here’s something else to consider, easily some of the most kept over the years cards are that of Cobb, especially the “red” background. <br /><br />So if it was presented to the masses right in Cobb’s very own backyard (superstar of the day, Georgia’s native son) in “Ty Cobb” brand smoking tobacco? Why do so few exist? <br /><br />As someone stated before there are other regional type issues that are scarce but not to the point of only 12 of one player and design? That never added up for me, and a card of Cobb to boot, not some printing variation of a common ballplayer or minor league star in a huge subset…<br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>CHAD<br /><br />There are many of us veteran T206 collectors that consider this to be so.<br /><br />The PIEDMONT brand is the "A" set....as it comprises of all 522 cards (excepting the St. Louis versions<br /> of Demmitt and O'Hara).<br /><br />The Sweet Caporal (Fac. #30) brand would possibly classify as the "B" set.<br /><br />The Sovereign brand would be the "C" set.<br /><br />And, so on and so forth.<br /><br />So, the Ty Cobb brand, finally would be the "last" set.<br /><br />T-Rex TED

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Any one have ready scans of front and back to add to our conversation.<br /><br />I once labeled the Cobb/Cobb a T366 or it T367 after Cobb's lifetime batting avg.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>To me it’s a question that could go both ways, it very well could be a T206. I agree with Jim just because it had a unique factory doesn’t keep it from being a T206. However there are other questions and things around this card that others have detailed above which could make it go the non T206 road.<br /><br />I’m not ready to not call it a T206, but I’m also not ready to not call it one either, I think we have a lot of research to do. One good place to start, was Ty Cobb brand part of the ATC?? <br /><br />However if I had to choose a betting position I would lean towards not T206 at this point.<br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I pulled out REA's 1997 catalog and stared at the five for a few minutes. There seems to be subtle differences in the colors, sort of muted and a bit lighter, but it could also be the quality of his images.<br /><br />I realize there is a counter to every argument against them being T206, and I wish we could find some documentation. But if someone asked me to guess when they were issued, I would say 1912-14. Why? Just a gut feeling.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>The North Carolina Dist. identifies this card as a post American Tobacco Co. issue....and, identifies it as<br /> a Liggett and Myers (1911) issue. Therefore, your statement that it was a "1910" issue does not hold.<br /><br />This transition of T-Companies was discussed in a prior Thread sometime back.<br /><br />TED Z

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I have done some limited research to try to figure out the years of production, but have not found anything yet.<br />JimB

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Ted said:<br />"The North Carolina Dist. identifies this card as a post American Tobacco Co. issue....and, identifies it as<br />a Liggett and Myers (1911) issue. "<br /><br />Can you please explain? How do you know that this factory was not owned by ATC?<br /><br /><br /><br />"Therefore, your statement that it was a "1910" issue does not hold."<br /><br />I never made such a statement. I asked a rhetorical question about why it could not have been made in 1910.<br /><br />"This transition of T-Companies was discussed in a prior Thread sometime back."<br /><br />Can you provide a link? I would like to learn about this.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />JimB<br /><br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Jim, <br /><br />I guess the point were all trying to make is that the Cobb/Cobb does not belong in the T206 set, Therefore I know you liked my Demmitt and he does belong in the set. So this one time I’ll trade you the Demmitt straight up and bail you out of this embarrassing situation you’ve gotten yourself into.<br /><br />I know others are probably like Wonka NO!!!!! <br /><br />But I have a big heart and I hate to see you suffer like this…<br /><br />I'll email you my address to send the card....but you pay the shipping!!!<br /><br />John<br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Scot Reader's great analysis is a great starting point. I am going to re-read it for the 3rd time.<br />I discover something new every time I read his book. I don't quite recall his "take" on this card;<br /> but, perhaps he will chime in on this Thread.<br /><br />TED Z

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>You know Ted some of us "Young Timers" only have to read books once.... <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/smileys/143.gif">

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>I have also never really considered the Cobb/Cobb back as a true part of the t206 set. If we consider that to be part of he t206 set, then we would also have to add all the T213-1's and T215-1's as being part of the t206 set. They are identical to t206's on the obverse, only really differing on the back. These two sets have much more in common with the t206 set than the Cobb/Cobb card.<br />-Rhett

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Thanks John. You got a deal. I feel so much better now. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />Gotta go teach a class.<br />JimB

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>well Barry, looks like you started a pretty hot thread...<br /><br />IMO, it was a promotional card, never intented on mass distribution.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Following up on Ted and Barry's ideas, could the Cobb with Cobb back be a later attempt by ATC to copy the Louisiana cards??<br /><br />Maybe someone associated with ATC saw the Coupon cards and thought the glossy fronts would be a better marketing tool for the kids (Ooh, shiny). I mean Topps, Upper Deck, etc did it with newer cards.<br /><br />Maybe the Cobb card was a test issue. ATC already had the front, just needed to print up a new back and add the gloss. They then could have decided that was not the way they wanted to go and scrapped the whole plan and started with a fresh design--T207. They have glossy fronts.<br /><br />Maybe, as I have read somewhere, the Cobb back was a promo card for the Ty Cobb tobacco brand and was given out ONLY at a coming out party for the new brand. I thought I read that there was a theory that the card was used as an admittance ticket for a party. Only those who had the card was allowed entrance into the party. This would explain the different N.C. printing company, the limited production run and the limited geographical distribution.<br /><br />The five found in the book could have been a kid's collection. His parents went to the party and picked up the other four when they saw them laying on a table. The couple of cards mentioned that wre found in Louisiana could have been from Louisiana tobacco executives. Maybe ATC was going to merge with the makers of Coupon or at least have a distribution deal with them and invited some executives to the party. Later, the deal could have been called off. Who knows?.<br /><br />Either way, I wouldn't mind owning a Cobb with Cobb back.<br /><br />David

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Richard- I agree with your analysis but we are talking about a very common front and a very rare back....so I made the correlation. For the record Jeff Burdick did count the Cobb/Cobb as T206 as well as other early collectors....I could never say Burdick was wrong about anything but I can say I have a different view. Let's do remember this too....from Walt Corson's peronal checklists, though he did have down Hustler also....... (see, I can argue both ways <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>)<br /><br /><img src="http://luckeycards.com/pocorson3x5checklist.jpg">

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Can some of you "old folks" at least tell me whether or not the Cobb/Cobb card has been known about in the hobby since the very beginning of time... or was it "discovered" in the 1980's, etc.??<br /><br />EDITED: Thanks Leon !

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>In my studying they have been known about since the 1950's.....according to Burdick and Bray and what I have read...(the checklist shown is from mid-late 50's to early 60's time frame)

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I'm going to agree with Dave and say the Cobb brand "piggy-backed" on the success of all the other tobacco cards circulating and were released after the 460 series, perhaps well after. They saw how popular the cigarette cards were and copied the idea for a brand that likely failed and disappeared very quickly. Who knows, maybe Ty Cobb tobacco was poor quality and didn't catch on with the public, and ultimately failed.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p>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

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Leon beat me to the "punch" with proof positive. But, us old dudes were well aware of this<br />card: however, I don't recall any huge excitement over it as is now....it was seldom seen,<br /> so I guess "out of sight....out of mind", back then.<br /><br />The Joe Doyle error, which is equal in rarity to this Ty Cobb back card, is more of a mystery<br />since it was an unknown card, till the mid-1980's. Burdick was unaware of it.<br /><br />Sorry to be nit-picking on something you said earlier in this Thread.....<br /><br />"Barry: I think it is important to note that everything about the card is consistent with T206."<br /><br />This Ty Cobb's FACTORY #33, is unique to this card.....and, that's what sets it apart from all<br /> the 524 - T206's. This is not a trivial factor in this debate.<br /><br />And, the North Carolina District infers that it was most likely issued with an L&M product.....<br />possibly post 1911. <br /><br />T-Rex TED

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Paul Kaufman</b><p>I don't collect this set, but I also asked SGC to remove the card from its set registry listing about a year ago. No response from SGC. I found their listing of it in the set registry to be inconsistent, since they did not list any other T206 by card back type. It is unfair to require this card to have a complete SGC T206 set.......a Cobb Portrait Red of any back type should suffice. Just my two cents.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>for whatever it's worth, PSA used to have the Cobb/Cobb as part of the set reg, now it has since been taken out.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Brian Wentz</b><p>Of the total population of Ty Cobb brand tobacco cards, there is at least one (PSA Authentic) example where the front and back are flipped -- meaning the reverse is glossy like a T213 or Tango Egg and the obverse has the traditional dull, matte finish. Furthermore, this specimen is obviously hand-cut by an amateur (wavy edges) and the fact that it could very well be a printer's trial or scrap lends more credence to the general consensus that this is a mere test or promotional issue and not part of the T206 White Border set.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>now... the cobby red is the earlier one (from what I've been told).<br /><br />Looking at the back of the Cobb/Cobb - it is green.<br /><br />While this may or may not have made a difference from a printer's perspective (maybe marginal difference / maybe none)... from a pure marketing stand point - If your brand was green, wouldn't you go with the green portrait on the front? <br /><br />Can I admit that as circumstantial evidence that the cobb/cobb came out prior to the green portrait cobb? That is why the green wasn't chosen... because it wasn't a known option yet.<br /><br />Okay.. its not a rock solid argument - but we don't have much to go on.<br /><br /><br />If it can be shown that the "Ty Cobb" brand was out after the T206 printing... then in my eyes it is not a T206. If it was out during the T206 print run... I think it should be included. <br /><br />And if we find out Ty Cobb brand was prior to the T206 printing... then that is a new scenario altogether - and we may have to consider the card the mother of all T206s!!!<br /><br /><br /><br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I used to own the PSA "Authentic" Cobb/Cobb back (until a couple of weeks ago) and it did not have the gloss on the front. It was just like every other T206 Cobb red on the front. Contra Brian Wentz' claim, it did NOT have gloss on the back either. Unless Brian is referring to a different "Authentic" example, the one PSA "Authentic" example that I am aware of does not have any gloss on either side.<br />JimB

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>"And if we find out Ty Cobb brand was prior to the T206 printing... then that is a new scenario altogether - and we may have to consider the card the mother of all T206s!!!"<br /><br />Interesting prospect indeed!<br />JimB<br /><br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>"And, the North Carolina District infers that it was most likely issued with an L&M product.....<br />possibly post 1911. "<br /><br />Ted,<br />Can you provide some information that would substantiate your inference? WHy does that make it "most likely issued with an L&M product" ? I simply do not know the information that perhaps you are presuming we all know. Please educate me. I am slow.<br /><br /><br />As a dinosaur <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> professor of philosophy I am always looking for evidence; simple claims don't do the trick. I am not getting the reasoning here.<br />JimB<br /><br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Scot wrote:<br /><br />"2. No evidence of distribution as a tobacco product insert"<br /><br />What about the tobacco ad on the back and existence of Ty Cobb brand tobacco tins? Even if it was a countertop promotion as opposed to inserted in the tins, I am not convinced that would disqualify it.<br /><br /><br />"3. No evidence of contemporaneous issuance with T206 subjects"<br /><br />Thus far, no evidence to the contrary either. If such evidence does arise, I will agree that it is not a T206. Depending on the evidence, if such evidence ever does arise, the conclusions to be drawn could vary.<br />JimB<br /><br /><br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim- you are absolutely correct that we have no definitive proof, and I admit everything I've said on this thread was speculation. It's just a gut feeling that there is something about this card, as I delineated in my several posts, that doesn't seem consistent to me. I wish there was more proof, and that we knew more about it. If I had to make a guess, I would say it is not part of the T206 set. But guesses can be wrong, too.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p> Hi Jim,<br /> After the ATC was busted up in 1911, the brands were distributed to several different companies including L&M. I'll be happy to list the breakdown when I get back from dinner. Be well Brian <br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>The Green Cobb and the Cobb (bat on) were printed 1st in the 150 Series.<br /><br />The Red Cobb and Cobb (bat off) were issued in both the 350 and 460 series.<br /><br />In fact the Red Cobb is a "Super Print", in that it can be found with almost any backs associated<br /> with the 350/460 series.<br /><br />Now from a back perspective.....the Sovereign 460 and American Beauty 460 backs are of course<br /> Green, and are tougher than their earlier series' counterparts. Furthermore, the Am Bty 460 back<br /> is a "4th Dist. N.C.".....this is the same exact district as the Ty Cobb back.<br /><br />TED Z

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Ted said,<br />"Furthermore, the Am Bty 460 back is a "4th Dist. N.C.".....this is the same exact district as the Ty Cobb back."<br /><br />This is evidence that seems to suggest the Cobb back is a T206!!!!! It is from the same district and classified in the same way as a definatively T206 brand.<br />JimB

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Thanks Ted.<br /><br />Knowing that both portrait choices were available - I have to scratch my head at the decision to use the red one. Its not the one I would have chosen if I was doing a 'one-carder' with a green back (from a marketing standpoint).<br /><br /><br />Same district as the American Beauty... that is very interesting.<br /><br />(great thread) <br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Well I once, years ago, thought of the Ty Cobb wTC back card as a T206. When I learned they had glossy fronts, I wondered about it... and why no other players, just Ty.<br /><br />For some reason I thought Ty, or some friend of his, got a "Ty Cobb" brand tobacco product going (which had to involve Ty's agreement so he either was in on ownership to some extent himself, or he got paid for it), and they got some cards printed. Not very many, or we'd see lots of them. Maybe only a few were printed as a novelty for the owners. At that point in time, cards weren't a necessary component for a product to be competitive. Since the cards look like the T213s, I used to perceive them as contemporary, which would have been after T206 and after the American Tobacco Trust.<br /><br />So I like Richard's idea of T213-4. Hadn't thought of that, seems reasonable. Seems a great idea!<br /><br />Scot is right on with the idea that The TC w TC back card doesn't meet the criteria of other T206s, it shouldn't be in the set.<br /><br />Ted Z points out how the card even feels different, and in times past it was not considered part of T206.<br /><br /><br />I recall the first time I held a T213 Coupon card. I thought it was a funny T206, looked like them. Same size. But the blue names, the crackly coating on the front. And "Coupon" backs have the same style and period feel as does Cycle, Carolina Brights, Old Mill... Coupon fits right in. But when I get done thinking about how much a Coupon card was like a T206, I could see that it wasn't one.<br /><br />And that is what we have here. Wanting it to be part of it doesn't make it so. And it might be good one day if the guidebooks gave it a separate designation.<br /><br />Frank.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Since you seem to doubt my info regarding the Ty Cobb card being a post 1911 issue....which,<br /> I base on the "4th Dist. N.C." nomenclature on its back....I hope that Brian Weisner can provide<br />us some more definitive information.<br /><br />Now, one of the reinforcing pieces of evidence that I have are my two Piedmont Tobacco packs.<br />I have an ATC pack issued in 1909 which is Factory #25 2nd Dist. Virginia and an L&M pack issued<br /> in 1911, which is Factory #42 4th Dist. North Carolina.<br /><br />I believe there is a correllation between the latter Tobacco district here and the Ty Cobb district, <br />that shows the Ty Cobb to have been issued later than the full run of the T206's.<br /><br />Jim, do not dismiss the significance of the Factory #33 factor.<br /><br />TED Z <br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>I don't know if it means anything, but T209s were also printed in the 4th Dist, NC.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>So "4th Dist. N.C." could indicate that it either was an ATC (and thus T206) brand or that it was Liggett and Meyers (and thus not a T206) brand. There is evidence of that designation in both cases. We still need more information.<br /><br />By the way, this is a great thread. I hope Brian can produce some definative information later.<br />JimB

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>By the way, earlier today I read through a 65 page article on the early history of Liggett and Meyers and there was no mention of the Ty Cobb brand.<br />JimB

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>I find it pretty interesting that the ONLY two people on this thread who have held a Cobb/Cobb in their hands within the last week have BOTH said that theirs did NOT have a "glossy" front.<br /><br />I'm starting to think that the "Georgia Find" of Cobb/Cobb cards may have had a previous owner who did something to the front of the cards to protect them or something???<br /><br />Could THAT be how this "glossy front" rumor got started?

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Hal- that's a very interesting point, because while I saw REA's five in person, I'm not sure I've held another one. How could they be known with and without the glossy front? All five that REA had have since been slabbed, so nothing improper was found.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>With these Ty Cobb cards being so rare, can we trust the Grader to know the difference ?<br /><br />I allude to the grading by SGC of the "fake" Joe Doyle several years ago. Did that occur due<br />to an inexperienced Grader, or to the scarcity of that card.....or a combination of both ?<br /><br />TED Z

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p>Hi Jim,<br /><br />On your first point, we know from newspaper advertising sketches that Hindus and Old Mills were tobacco pack inserts. We know from a American Tocacco Company documents that Tolstois and Uzits were tobacco pack inserts. We have witnessed Piedmonts and Sweet Caporals pulled from tobacco packs in the modern era. There is no comparable direct evidence that Cobb w/Cobb was ever an insert. To the best of my knowledge, there is not even circumstantial evidence on par with the tobacco stains commonly seen on Polar Bears. I don't think the existence of Ty Cobb tins and the back advertisement on the card itself are evidence of distribution of Cobb w/Cobb AS AN INSERT.<br /><br />On your second point, maybe you're right that a common mode of distribution is not always essential for inclusion in a set. Let's say hypothetically that in 1909 an American Tobacco employee had printed up a dozen copies of a T206-like batting pose of Eddie Collins and gave them out to his friends as keepsakes. None were ever put any into cigarette packs so that the general public could acquire them. Would Collins (Batting) then be properly considered part of the T206 set? I think reasonable minds may differ on this point, but I would probably say that Collins (Batting) in that event would not be part of the set. Or consider the real-world case of the Goudey Lajoie that (as I understand it) was actually made available only to those who wrote to the company. Is a '33 Goudey set complete without that card? I think so--although I would respect others who have a different view.<br /><br />On your third point, you are right that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Cobb w/Cobb COULD have been distributed contemporaneously with T206 cards. However, most people require something more than a mere possibility that an entity belongs in a group before identifying the entity to the group (and thus would require more than a mere possibility of contemporaneous distribution of Cobb w/Cobb and T206 before identifying Cobb w/Cobb to the T206 set). Contemporaneous distribution of Cobb w/Cobb and T206 cards could be ruled out if Factory 33, North Carolina did not exist until after April 1911. That would be a great research topic.<br /><br />Scot<br /><br />

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>I don't know whether this is helpful to the discussion but my review of all 20th century tobacco non-sports sets T1 through T177 show none having a Factory 33 designation. All other factories that are known to T206 are represented.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I, too, have searched hi-n-lo to try to find another Factory #33 card of any kind, and have<br /> not been able to.<br /><br />I am glad you posted your information, as it sounds like it is a more comprehensive search.<br /><br />TED Z

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>While looking for something else in a box of things, I found an "Official Political and other Valuable INFORMATION 1912" booklet from Liggett & Myers.<br /><br />In the back it lists their different products--granulated plug cuts, plug cuts, long cuts, etc etc. and the last list is of their different cigarette brands. On that list, their is (baseball related) American Beauty, Broadleaf, Coupon, Cycle, Obak, Old Mill and Piedmont. Nothing about a Ty Cobb brand.

Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
 

Posted By: <b>Judson Hamlin</b><p>This is what happens while some of us work? Good thing my office blocks forums like this or I would get nothing done...<br />It seems likely that this card was printed by Amer. Litho, just like other E and T sets with the same style (E95/96 and T213/14/15 come to mind; and probably T210/11 as well). The similarity with T206 seems to end there, however. That is to say, it has no better claim to be included in that set than a T215-1 or a T213-1. There is no ATC paperwork that has survived, as with Uzit and other backs; there are no period newspaper ads, as with Hindu; and there are no other subjects- baseball or otherwise- with Ty Cobb advertising that have surfaced. In short, we have no evidence to show that this card was an element of ATC's distribution scheme of baseball insert cards in the 1909-11 time frame. A better case can be made that Coupon and Red Cross should be included in T206 since we can accurately date the first series of those issues to ATC and the 1909-11 time frame. The Cobb/Cobb is, and always be a valuable card but, despite the post- distribution opinion of Burdick, does not appear to be temporally related to the T206 set.