T206, or not....let's have a continuing conversation....Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco card

[tedzan]

Factory #33......Reidsville, North Carolina


.




ATC tobacco brand.... Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco ....this card was issued in 1910. IMO, it should be classified as a T206.





TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[FrankWakefield]

Respectfully, with it's glossed front, and the 'only card with that back' factor...
I see no way that the Ty Cobb King of the Smoking World cards are T206s. I concede the card was for inserting into an American Tobacco Company product, but so were T205s, T207s, and lots more. It's no more a T206 than a T213 is... Same size and same year, T210s must be T206s, too?

Nope. That card is a close cousin, nothing more.

[skelly423]

When it comes to t206, I don’t ever want to be on the opposite side of Tedzan. If he says it’s a t206, it’s a t206. I don’t care if it’s Mickey Mantle on the front of the card.

[RCMcKenzie]

It looks like PSA calls them T206. I assume Burdick did not know about these? What would these be called if not T206? T-unc?

(example of card from PSA website)

[rats60]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

It looks like PSA calls them T206. I assume Burdick did not know about these? What would these be called if not T206? T-unc?

(example of card from PSA website)

PSA calls 1949 Leaf Baseball 1948 Leaf Baseball too.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by rats60

PSA calls 1949 Leaf Baseball 1948 Leaf Baseball too.

When did 524 cards become a "set of T206"? Do we know who became the first collector to complete a 524 set? I would think when people started to see a card with a Piedmont 150 back, they thought they were looking for a set of 150 cards. I understand the view that "Burdick catalogued them" argument, but I don't think he called these Cobb Cobb's anything, unlike T213-1.

[G1911]

I would call it a T-UNC. It doesn't really need a set designation as it is a single promo card instead of a set.

They re-used a T206 image for a one-off promo card. If this is a T206, so is T213, T214, T215. T219's and C52's would have to be T218's. Burdick was never fully consistent, but to make this consistent we would have to rewrite the entire system.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by t206fanatic

My two cents would be the card is adjacent to the set, but not a core member. I think I'd prefer to see T213-1's added to the official T206 set before the Cobb/Cobb

Jeff

I completely agree with you regarding the 1910 COUPON (T213-1) cards. This group of 68 cards were issued circa Summer of 1910
and should be considered as part of the T206 family.



1910 COUPON (T213-1) Major League (48) subjects







1910 COUPON (T213-1) Southern Association (20) subjects









TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by tedzan

ATC tobacco brand.... Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco ....this card was issued in 1910. IMO, it should be classified as a T206.

Admittedly I am far from the expert level on T206 that many are, but this has always been my belief for all the back variations. I just see there being one set with different advertising back variations, the Cobb back is just another.

Unless the entire classification standard is changed something like M101's with different advertising backs having different catalog subset numbers, I have to be in with Ted here. I also don't see the former ever happening as it would be chaos with grading and people would grumble up a storm.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Admittedly I am far from the expert level on T206 that many are, but this has always been my belief for all the back variations. I just see there being one set with different advertising back variations, the Cobb back is just another.

Unless the entire classification standard is changed something like M101's with different advertising backs having different catalog subset numbers, I have to be in with Ted here. I also don't see the former ever happening as it would be chaos with grading and people would grumble up a storm.

If the Cobb was added to the T206 set and you had a master set of all of the currently confirmed t206 combinations in front of you with all the necessary information and you were asked to separate them each time by the following

Brand - you would have 1 Cobb back and the next smallest stack would be 60 (Uzit)

Factory number - 1 Cobb (factory 33) and the next smallest stack would be 200 (factory 649)

What company the brand was Owned by in 1910 - American Tobacco Co. = 5281 T206's F. R. Penn = 1 T206 (Ty Cobb tobacco)

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Admittedly I am far from the expert level on T206 that many are, but this has always been my belief for all the back variations. I just see there being one set with different advertising back variations, the Cobb back is just another.
x
Unless the entire classification standard is changed something like M101's with different advertising backs having different catalog subset numbers, I have to be in with Ted here.

I also don't see the former ever happening as it would be chaos with grading and people would grumble up a storm.

Justin

Your last statement....hit the nail precisely on it's head. Very true, very true.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[tedzan]

This vintage post card of Factory #33 identifies the American Tobacco Company as the manufacturer of the Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco.


Factory #33......Reidsville, North Carolina





TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Exhibitman]

Problem with that, Ted, is that the PC may post-date the ATC's acquisition of the plant.

The more intriguing question is the one raised by the other posts that show the Ty Cobb brand was Penn, not ATC: how did Penn get access to this ATC lithograph of Cobb? Did they cut a deal with the printer? If there was a hidden ATC ownership, did the ATC lend the art to Penn as a silent partner?

As for Coupons



Not a T206 but damn nice.

[steve B]

The info that's been put out there recently about ALC or a related printer registering the brand names, leads me to think that ALC owned the rights to use the images instead of ATC.
There may have been contracts with some degree of exclusivity, but there's a possibility it ended up being more like MSA than Topps. (Not a clear analogy, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment)

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by G1911

This postcard does not seem to pre-date 1915 in its origin. It looks like a much later postcard styling. Here is a copy with a 1951 mailing date: .......

The Postmark date on that Ebay example you are referring to means NOTHING !

Back in the 1940's and 1950's, us old-timers would frequently mail vintage Post Cards to one another.

The picture on that example (and my P/C) show the old Factory #33 Water Towers. Subsequent Water
Towers (> 1916) were modernized and display the Lucky Strike cigarette logo on them.

Look, I'm a vintage Post Card collector, and the style of printing and the texture of the cardboard on this P/C is an early 20th Century vintage product.






TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by tedzan

The Postmark date on that Ebay example you are referring to means NOTHING !

Back in the 1940's and 1950's, us old-timers would frequently mail vintage Post Cards to one another.

The picture on that example (and my P/C) show the old Factory #33 Water Towers. Subsequent Water
Towers (> 1916) were modernized and display the Lucky Strike cigarette logo on them.

Look, I'm a vintage Post Card collector, and the style of printing and the texture of the cardboard on this P/C is an early 20th Century vintage product.






TED Z

T206 Reference
.

As a knowledgeable vintage postcard collector, I am sure you are well aware that these textured linen postcards are mostly all from the 1920's to the 1950's. There are numerous articles on their dating you can find online easily.

The original photo on which the art is based may, of course, long predate the issue, as happened often. This is a common postcard with many online at any given moment. I would love to see any evidence that it predates the linen postcard era and is from the time you claim.

A date stamp is indicative of the times a postcard was actually used, subsequent to production. The only one I can find is from decades after your claim, and fits into the linen postcard period. Again, I would love to see one with pre-1916 postal marks.

Further, even if it is from before 1916, which does not appear to be the case, it is not evidence the ATC was handling the Ty Cobb brand in 1910, as you claimed it was evidence of. It would need to be from 1910 or earlier for it to be evidence that the ATC was controlling Penn before the 1911 purchase. Do you have any evidence at all that this is from 1910 or earlier?

I suspect the Cobb card is from 1910-1911, that the ATC was probably controlling Penn before the purchase, and that the Cobb card was printed by one of the lithographers in their orbit during this period. But this postcard is not evidence of that whatsoever.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Problem with that, Ted, is that the PC may post-date the ATC's acquisition of the plant.

The more intriguing question is the one raised by the other posts that show the Ty Cobb brand was Penn, not ATC: how did Penn get access to this ATC lithograph of Cobb? Did they cut a deal with the printer? If there was a hidden ATC ownership, did the ATC lend the art to Penn as a silent partner?

Adam

My P/C of the Reidsville Plant (Factory #33) has no date on the back of it. However, the fact that the picture of this Plant doesn't have the LUCKY STRIKE logo
indicates that this PC was available prior to 1915.

James Buchanan Duke (ATC founder) bought the F. R. Penn Co. in 1911. Duke made Penn a Manager in one of ATC's divisions.

Duke and Joseph P. Knapp (American Lithographic Co. founder) were close business partners, which suggests to me that more than likely is why the Red Cobb
was printed (1910) as a promotional piece for the Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco brand.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[nolemmings]

The American Tobacco Company started its connection with F.R. Penn Co. in 1903, and the Supreme Court's opinion in the Antitrust litigation states that the ATC owned 2/3 of the common stock in Penn (1,002 out of 1,500 shares). That seems like more than enough influence by ATC to promote the Ty Cobb tobacco brand and cards, despite ATC's argument that its acquisition of Penn "was made not with the purpose of destroying competition or acquiring a monopoly, but merely as an investment in the tobacco business."

EDITED to add: the Anti-trust litigation was filed in 1907 and orally argued in January 1910, although the decision was not handed down until May 1911.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

The American Tobacco Company started its connection with F.R. Penn Co. in 1903, and the Supreme Court's opinion in the Antitrust litigation states that the ATC owned 2/3 of the common stock in Penn (1,002 out of 1,500 shares). That seems like more than enough influence by ATC to promote the Ty Cobb tobacco brand and cards, despite ATC's argument that its acquisition of Penn "was made not with the purpose of destroying competition or acquiring a monopoly, but merely as an investment in the tobacco business."

EDITED to add: the Anti-trust litigation was filed in 1907 and orally argued in January 1910, although the decision was not handed down until May 1911.

Todd, ATC may have been a majority shareholder but if the Cobb back was included in the T206 set it would still be the only card in the set that came from a product that wasn't officially owned by the ATC at the time.

[G1911]

Like Steve said, the ATC does not appear to have owned the lithographs or the player rights. The contracts seem to be directly with the lithographers (Hylands makes no mention of tobacco at all), who are not all Knapp's American Lithographic, at least not directly (presumably they are shadow subsidiaries, designed to avoid anti trust law). The lithographic companies seem to be running product design and marketing for the ATC, they aren't just contracted printers.

Presumably there must have been an exclusivity contract for some period of time, otherwise we would probably have cards with all kinds of backs cashing in on the fad. This is deductive as no contract has surfaced. If the Cobb/Cobb card is from 1910, it would be the only copy of a T card made for the ATC sets made for a different or semi-independent firm between 1909-1912. At least, I cannot think of another example. Can anyone else? I would suspect they were tied to the ATC before public merger, like the lithographers, as more likely.

This postcard does not seem to pre-date 1915 in its origin. It looks like a much later postcard styling. Here is a copy with a 1951 mailing date: https://www.ebay.com/itm/14479874516...a369%7Ciid%3A1. The others on eBay don't have mailing dates on the back. This postcard is in not evidence the ATC was manufacturing Ty Cobb brand in 1910. It is evidence that they owned factory 33 decades later, which we already know.

[GeoPoto]

Pat, not to take sides in the debate and with all due respect, that is a distinction without a difference.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

Pat, not to take sides in the debate and with all due respect, that is a distinction without a difference.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

+1. Penn apparently was owned or at least controlled by ATC when the Cobb brand was born and the card produced. At most, the card was promoted under the Penn name only, but it would appear that the rights to use the lithograph would have flowed to ATC.

[Pat R]

.

Originally Posted by Pat R

Todd, ATC may have been a majority shareholder but if the Cobb back was included in the T206 set it would still be the only card in the set that came from a product that wasn't officially owned by the ATC at the time.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

+1. Penn apparently was owned or at least controlled by ATC when the Cobb brand was born and the card produced. At most, the card was promoted under the Penn name only, but it would appear that the rights to use the lithograph would have flowed to ATC.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Pat R

.

If you are arguing that the Ty Cobb brand was not "officially owned" by the ATC, whatever that means, then I would describe such argument as weak sauce.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

If you are arguing that the Ty Cobb brand was not "officially owned" by the ATC, whatever that means, then I would describe such argument as weak sauce.

It means exactly what I posted, they didn't officially or legally have outright ownership of the F. R. Penn company until 1911.

The American Tobacco Company—by stock ownership is the owner outright of the following defendant companies:

S. Anargyros [The S. Anargyros Company owns all the capital stock (10 shares) of the London Cigarette Co.]; F. F. Adams Tobacco Co.; Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Co.; Crescent Cigar & Tobacco Co.; Day and Night Tobacco Co.; Luhrman & Wilbern Tobacco Co.; Nall & Williams Tobacco Co.; Nashville Tobacco Works; R. A. Patterson Tobacco Co.; Monopol Tobacco Works; Spalding & Merrick.

The American Tobacco Co. also has the stock interest indicated in the following defendant corporations:

British-American Tobacco Co.—owns 1,200,000 shares of 1,500,000 shares of preferred stock, and 2,280,012 shares of 3,720,021 shares of common stock.

The Imperial Tobacco Co., etc.—owns 721,457 pounds sterling of 18,000,000 pounds sterling of stock.

The John Bollman Co.—of 2,000 shares of stock, owns 1,020 shares.

F. R. Penn Tobacco Co.—of 1,503 shares of stock, owns 1,002 shares (through Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Co.)