Posted By:
WesleyIt is doubtful the Ty Cobb back is part of the T206 set. I agree with Scot Reader's reasoning from 2007:
Re: Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back March 6 2007, 4:22 PM
Ted,
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:
1. Glossy front (although I understand this may be in dispute)
2. No evidence of distribution as a tobacco product insert
3. No evidence of contemporaneous issuance with T206 subjects
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.
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).
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.
Scot
01-11-2009, 12:28 PM
Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode