t206 cobb/cobb backs

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by uniship

The cobb/cobb back is truly one of the hobby's great cards. I'd say top 5 all-time personally. I just find it surprising that some of the other Cobb rare backs don't command more - especially the ones with lower pops than the cobb/cobb back.

I totally agree with the first half of your statement.

But...the Cobb/Cobb card is not a t206...it is a separate issue...a one of one...whose distribution is a mystery.

Comparing to other rare back t206's is like apples to mangos!

[uniship]

uh oh - saying cobb/cobb isn't a t206 - blasphemous!!

[scotgreb]

But...the Cobb/Cobb card is not a t206...it is a separate issue...a one of one...whose distribution is a mystery.

You've touched on an issue that has confused me (and likely others). Where does the hobby stand on this issue? My belief / opinion has been that the Cobb/Cobb is not part of the T206 set. Is there a definitive answer?

[Sean]

You could start a poll. My vote would be not a T206.

[ullmandds]

it is definitively...NOT a t206!

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

But...the Cobb/Cobb card is not a t206...it is a separate issue...a one of one...whose distribution is a mystery.

You've touched on an issue that has confused me (and likely others). Where does the hobby stand on this issue? My belief / opinion has been that the Cobb/Cobb is not part of the T206 set. Is there a definitive answer?

It is heavily disputed by some. My thought is that the term 't206' was coined and defined Jefferson Burdick since he called the Cobb/Cobb a t206 it is. If someone else comes up with another name for the set they can redefine the set as they please.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

It is heavily disputed by some. My thought is that the term 't206' was coined and defined Jefferson Burdick since he called the Cobb/Cobb a t206 it is. If someone else comes up with another name for the set they can redefine the set as they please.

It is like people who call 1949 Leaf Baseball cards 1948 or the 1952 Topps Mantle his rookie card. He made a mistake and it just keeps getting carried forward.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by rats60

It is like people who call 1949 Leaf Baseball cards 1948 or the 1952 Topps Mantle his rookie card. He made a mistake and it just keeps getting carried forward.

No that is not the same. It is his own terminology that we all adopted. If you want to change the classification then you would have to change the name for the set. It really is more of an argument of semantics. It was the original definition and classification so it will stay that way. Just like t213-1 has its own classification even if others now disagree with Burdick's choice.

I believe each series could be considered its own set, but that doesn't change the fact that Burdick defined it all as one set so it stays that way. Just because I disagree with it doesn't change it.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

No that is not the same. It is his own terminology that we all adopted. If you want to change the classification then you would have to change the name for the set. It really is more of an argument of semantics. It was the original definition and classification so it will stay that way. Just like t213-1 has its own classification even if others now disagree with Burdick's choice.

I believe each series could be considered its own set, but that doesn't change the fact that Burdick defined it all as one set so it stays that way. Just because I disagree with it doesn't change it.

t206 were "defined" by burdick as white borders. with this loose definition...t213 1 and t206 cobb/cobb as well as many many other issues could be included.

truth is that burdicks classification system was revolutionary for the era...but as times change...and more info is garnished...so do classifications. IE planet pluto!

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by rats60

It is like people who call 1949 Leaf Baseball cards 1948 or the 1952 Topps Mantle his rookie card. He made a mistake and it just keeps getting carried forward.

Well stated, rats60.

It "bugs" me when someone refers to the 1949 LEAF BB cards as "1948"....I know better, since these were the first color BB cards I collected as a kid in the Spring of 1949.

Or, calling a 1952 TOPPS Mantle his "rookie"....when I collected 1951 Bowman cards a year before I acquired my 1952 TOPPS Mantle in the Fall of 1952.

Furthermore, calling the 1910 COUPON cards "T213-1" also "bugs" me.... when my research has confirmed that these cards were issued circa Spring/Summer of 1910.
This timeline is exactly when the Ty Cobb/Ty Cobb card was also issued.


TED Z
.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Well stated, rats60.

It "bugs" me when someone refers to the 1949 LEAF BB cards as "1948"....I know better, since these were the first color BB cards I collected as a kid in the Spring of 1949.

Or, calling a 1952 TOPPS Mantle his "rookie"....when I collected 1951 Bowman cards a year before I acquired my 1952 TOPPS Mantle in the Fall of 1952.

Furthermore, calling the 1910 COUPON cards "T213-1" also "bugs" me.... when my research has confirmed that these cards were issued circa Spring/Summer of 1910.
This timeline is exactly when the Ty Cobb/Ty Cobb card was also issued.


TED Z
.

Good to hear from you, Ted. Hope all is well. I also always get a laugh when I hear somebody saying something about a 1952 Topps Mantle rookie--no such animal exists!

Highest regards,

Larry

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

But...the Cobb/Cobb card is not a t206...it is a separate issue...a one of one...whose distribution is a mystery.

You've touched on an issue that has confused me (and likely others). Where does the hobby stand on this issue? My belief / opinion has been that the Cobb/Cobb is not part of the T206 set. Is there a definitive answer?

Definitely not a T206. It's a one of one card, basically it's own set.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Definitely not a T206. It's a one of one card, basically it's own set.

And quite possibly never distributed in tobacco packs or tins.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

But...the Cobb/Cobb card is not a t206...it is a separate issue...a one of one...whose distribution is a mystery.

You've touched on an issue that has confused me (and likely others). Where does the hobby stand on this issue? My belief / opinion has been that the Cobb/Cobb is not part of the T206 set. Is there a definitive answer?

The hobby has been split on this for quite some time. My opinion is that sellers favor calling it a T206 simply because so many people collect T206. I certainly agree that it is not a regular T206 issue, through the latter's mode of distribution.

Happy collecting,

Larry