Cobb/Cobb card in Goodwin Auction

[E93]

This is verging on the ridiculous now. I have owned four different Cobb backs including the other non-glossy example. I have personally held four other examples in my hands, for a total of 8 of the 14 known. I have seen scans of virtually every other example. And I have personally owned and held thousands of other T206s in my hands over the past 30 years. The non-gloss example that was graded ten years ago is real! There is no doubt about it. In addition to not having gloss, it looks to be hand cut and thus, probably was used in some sort of proof run for the printer. Not having hash marks does not mean the printer did not use it as a proof, even if the hobby might not technically designate it that way. Perhaps the Goodwin example was from the same sheet. WHo knows? It has a similar deep red background, which makes sense for an early print run; it makes sense that the ink would be strong for a first run. And the heavy ink may have caused the bleed over the border. I have only seen scans of the Goodwin example but it looks real to me. The fact that only 14 or 15 are known does not mean that thousands were not printed in 1910. Most are probably in the dustbin of history. Like Leon, I doubt that so many hobby experts like Ted, Bill Goodwin, PSA graders who have handled 10,000s of T206s and are probably extra careful with a Cobb back, and some more private T206 experts who saw the card would all have been duped. If that is the case, expect the population to increase to about 100 in the next few years. I would also expect T206 Wagner and Plank pops to start increasing too. Can we substitute the conspiracy theories for a little sanity please?
JimB