[Chicago206]

In a very cool recent post by CFC on back scarcity ratings, he interestingly leaves the Cobb back off the list. This has rekindled the age old debate on whether that card is actually an official T206 card. Its time to rehash the debate.

My contention is that just because the card was originally categorized by Burdick as a T206 card does not mean everything is set in stone. As people begin to learn more about subjects, old classifications can and often do change to reflect new findings and ideas. Being a fact that the Cobb back features just a single subject, while every other brand features at least 350 subjects is a major discrepancy. Another fact is that 85% of the known specimens have a different "finish" on the front than any of the other brands...this further differentiates this card. Finally, its even been speculated that the Cobb/Cobb may have been distributed as a stand alone promotion rather than being packaged with tobacco. We know of none of the other 15 brands that can make any of these claims.

All dogs have four legs, but not all four legged animals are dogs. Same may be said of this particular card. Although it was issued around the same time as other T206's, and has the same basic physical dimensions, the differences are so pronounced that one can only conclude it is in fact a different "species" altogether.

This post isnt meant to provoke arguments, but rather to provoke some logical thought and friendly debate on possibly one of the series' biggest mysteries!