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)