Would Cobb & Jackson Have Made T207's The Best T Set?

[ronniehatesjazz]

Was thinking about some of the nice players being in the T207 set that don't appear in others... Hooper, Wood, etc. and thought how much more fanfare the set would have if it included just one or two other superstars. I imagine the Cobb looking something like the bat on shoulder 06 version and maybe the Jackson as a side action pose (maybe like the 07 Bescher). If you combine those two cards with a redone WaJo and remove a few of the undesirables, like Konetchy, I think many would think of it as being right up there with the other tobacco sets and some would even put it on the top of the list. I know that would be asking a whole lot out of one set but what are your guys thoughts? Can you think of any other sets where a similar argument could be made?

[mechanicalman]

Interesting concept, but I think the colors of T206 would keep it far ahead of the pack.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Interesting thought Tyler. Although I don't think adding Cobb and Jackson would propel T207 to a higher level than T206. The monster has three very iconic cards in Wagner, Plank and Magie, plus four Cobbs and 524 total cards. T207 couldn't beat that if it had Cobb, Jackson and Wagner. Just my thoughts at the moment. Looking forward to hearing other's thoughts as well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Maybe I'm just not a fan of T207, but I can't imagine anything you could do to the player selection to bring it anywhere in the league of T206. And I am not even a T206 groupie.

[rats60]

T205 has the best design. T206 has the best player selection. You would need to add a lot more than Cobb and Jackson to t207 to compete with either of those. You are still missing Matty, Young, Collins, etc. plus the WaJo looks nothing like him and the design isn't colorful.

[Cozumeleno]

I doubt it ... and I say that as a big T207 fan. The missing players are just part of the pie. Despite the fact that I love the look of them, that's really the biggest reason why most people can't get into them.

Cobb and Matty would have helped. Jackson would have helped, too, given he wasn't in the others. But in the end, I still think you'd just have people more interested in pursuing those individual cards just for the players themselves than actually enjoying the set. It's not for everyone and I think that has a lot more to do with the design than the checklist.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

Can you think of any other sets where a similar argument could be made?

Add Ruth and Gehrig to the Diamond Stars set, and I think it draws a lot closer to 1933 Goudey.

[ullmandds]

babe ruth to CJ...end of story!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Add Ruth and Gehrig to the Diamond Stars set, and I think it draws a lot closer to 1933 Goudey.

4 Ruths in Goudey, it's still not close.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by gonzo
Add Ruth and Gehrig to the Diamond Stars set, and I think it draws a lot closer to 1933 Goudey.

4 Ruths in Goudey, it's still not close.

I think if Diamond Stars had both Ruth and Gehrig, it would top the 1934 Goudey set in demand, but still would lag behind the 1933 Goudey in popularity, just because of 1933's larger set size and overall classic art, versus the Diamond Stars acquired taste Art Deco stylings.

Brian

[drcy]

I like the T207s, though I'm a fan of Bela Lugosi movies.

[luciobar1980]

Originally Posted by rats60

T205 has the best design. T206 has the best player selection. You would need to add a lot more than Cobb and Jackson to t207 to compete with either of those. You are still missing Matty, Young, Collins, etc. plus the WaJo looks nothing like him and the design isn't colorful.

Man you’re not kidding about the Johnson not looking anything like him. It’s almost like they were looking at a different guy

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Originally Posted by gonzo
Add Ruth and Gehrig to the Diamond Stars set, and I think it draws a lot closer to 1933 Goudey.

4 Ruths in Goudey, it's still not close.

I think if Diamond Stars had both Ruth and Gehrig, it would top the 1934 Goudey set in demand, but still would lag behind the 1933 Goudey in popularity, just because of 1933's larger set size and overall classic art, versus the Diamond Stars acquired taste Art Deco stylings.

Brian

+1

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

Man you’re not kidding about the Johnson not looking anything like him. It’s almost like they were looking at a different guy

Look at the T206 pitching version.

[luciobar1980]

Yeah, that's not a great likeness either but the t207 is worse... doesn't even look like a good person, period. haha

[oldjudge]

Best set is the M101-4/5 issue--Cobb, Jackson, Wagner, Thorpe, Johnson, Alexander, Lajoie, and oh yah, the Ruth rookie.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Originally Posted by gonzo
Add Ruth and Gehrig to the Diamond Stars set, and I think it draws a lot closer to 1933 Goudey.

4 Ruths in Goudey, it's still not close.

I think if Diamond Stars had both Ruth and Gehrig, it would top the 1934 Goudey set in demand, but still would lag behind the 1933 Goudey in popularity, just because of 1933's larger set size and overall classic art, versus the Diamond Stars acquired taste Art Deco stylings.

Brian

I agree with this. Even though I love the art on the Diamond Stars, 33 Goudey would be hard to surpass, even if it only had 1 Ruth. Just a beautiful set!

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

I doubt it ... and I say that as a big T207 fan. The missing players are just part of the pie. Despite the fact that I love the look of them, that's really the biggest reason why most people can't get into them.

Cobb and Matty would have helped. Jackson would have helped, too, given he wasn't in the others. But in the end, I still think you'd just have people more interested in pursuing those individual cards just for the players themselves than actually enjoying the set. It's not for everyone and I think that has a lot more to do with the design than the checklist.

Good point. I love the look but I know others don't. I personally can't stand the look of most T206 cards and I'm bemused by the set's popularity, relative to other sets anyways. Majorities rule I suppose.

[BearBailey]

It would help but still not topping t3 in appearance or t206 in collectability.

[Misunderestimated]

The 1912 T205 set is smaller and more manageable than the T206 (and it has fewer doubles and minor league nobodies) and stats and bios on the back
... What if we add to that set of about 200 different subjects the following: Connie Mack, Lajoie, Flick, Wagner, Crawford, Plank, Joe Jackson, Max Carey, Harry Hooper, GC Alexander, Stan Coveleski (Rookie), Casey Stengel (Rookie), Buck Weaver (Rookie), Ray Schalk (Rookie) and Wilbert Robinson (Coaching the Giants).
Also minor league cards with the same design as the Jimmy Collins in the T205 set of : Joe McCarthy, Edd Rousch; Jesse Burkett, Billy Hamilton, Jake Beckley, Joe Kelly, Rube Wadell and few of the other top former Major League greats who were still active in the minors as players or player-managers.... I think "Orator" Jim O'Rourke even played at age 60 in 1912 for some minor league team.

While we are dreaming we could have umpire cards for the active Umps in 1912, including future HOfers Klem and O'Day and cards for AL commissioner Ban Johnson and future HOF owners Barney Dreyfus and Chas Comiskey... Spalding was still nominally involved in baseball but he had sold the Cubs in 1902 so I guess he would be out of reach even in a dream set... Jim Thorpe was not active in professional baseball -- he was a "free agent" according to my research so he's not really fair game either.
---
BTW - I wanted to add Branch Rickey but he was back in school in 1912 (U. Michigan with Geo. Sisler) -- after his notoriously poor career as a player and before he returned to professional baseball as a manager/scout/GM etc.... He still holds a record as a player -- he allowed 13 stolen bases as a catcher in a single game...

Anyway, maybe all of these additional subjects would bring the T205 set up to par with the Monster? Probably not.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

babe ruth to CJ...end of story!

Can't think of a better card.