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

[G1911]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Greg, did the issuers think there was a set complete at 524, or did collectors make that up many years later? That's all I'm saying. T206 is flawed as a set compared to e102, where the checklist is on the back.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. Your reply quoting my post seemed to state that you think 150 and 350 are not the same set and should be separate, and that the set is just considered a set because Burdick said it was? It doesn't say anything about whether its 524 or 520 or 510 or 483 or any other number?

This question of how many cards make a basic set seems to be a very different question. I don't know how many Fullgraff or whoever was the PM for T206 would say were unique cards. Probably a little short of 524, the printing certainly indicates some of what people like to count as 524 were not considered new cards, just corrections to an existing card during the print run or updates.

That doesn't seem to affect whether a card is or is not part of the set though. None of the primary evidence seems to suggest that 150 and 350 series cards were conceived of as different sets, or that T206 was treated differently than the numerous other sets that aren't considered special today.

A Ty Cobb back card, of course, would not affect the set size of a basic T206 set in any way designated as T206 or T-UNC or whatever else. It's not a unique image or caption or front.

[Casey2296]

I'm not a T206 guy so no dog in this fight but that is a very special card and props to those that own one.

[RCMcKenzie]

I should have just said your name without quoting your whole point.

The background is from old threads and TedZ's assertion that T213-1 should be called T206, which I agree with, but the reason I have been able to collect them, is because they have been called T213-1, and viewed by collectors as crummy broders, instead of very rare-backed t206's.

I can see keeping Piedmont 150 350 and 460 together. It gets complicated when you put Clarence Beaumont SC 150 30 with a Demmitt Polar Bear as the same set. One is in a cigarette product, and one is in a pouch of tobacco. Why not throw in a Cobb from a tin can with some gloss?

I think it's a fun topic, like the green bird on the 1978 Topps Bob Forsch topic, not a terribly important topic.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I should have just said your name without quoting your whole point.

The background is from old threads and TedZ's assertion that T213-1 should be called T206, which I agree with, but the reason I have been able to collect them, is because they have been called T213-1, and viewed by collectors as crummy broders, instead of very rare-backed t206's.

I can see keeping Piedmont 150 350 and 460 together. It gets complicated when you put Clarence Beaumont SC 150 30 with a Demmitt Polar Bear as the same set. One is in a cigarette product, and one is in a pouch of tobacco. Why not throw in a Cobb from a tin can with some gloss?

I think it's a fun topic, like the green bird on the 1978 Topps Bob Forsch topic, not a terribly important topic.

Whether T213-1 should be called a T206 is a good choice of a case where it is not so clear what the intent was. Is T30 and T118 the same set? T3 and T9? I would certainly classify T3 and T9 as one by designer intent. I don't think anyone in 1910 considered that a set could not be issued with scrap and cigarettes both; that seems to be a modern thought creation. Other sets were and carry the same designs, in the same series, at the same time, with the same set name and have no indication at all that they were considered different sets. It seems very hard to conclude, relying on the primary evidence, that Piedmont and Polar Bear and American Beauty were conceived as completely different sets instead of the same set being packaged with multiple brands, often closely related to each other in the ATC corporate structure.

I think we know that having the same picture used does not make a card from the same set. Nobody argues a Victory is a T206 or that a T219 is a T218; there were several reuses and reprintings that were their own sets. I think the difference with the Cobb back is not that it came in a tin or has some gloss (other sets have glossed and unglossed; T69), but is that it was a very limited release single promo card and probably wasn't thought of as part of any set at all; just a standalone promo for with a tiny print run. Is George Bush part of the 1990 Topps set? No. Is it related to it by virtue of using the design and being from the time? Sure. Just like a T223 is related to a T220.

I would hope nobody would consider any topic in a baseball card group terribly important in the grand scheme of things

[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

[RCMcKenzie]

Nice card, Jeff.

Here was a post on this topic from 2010. Note Leon's points in posts 41 and 49. I am corrected. Burdick called it a T206.


www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=122677

[Pat R]

I'd love to own one but in my opinion it's not a T206 for several reasons most of which have been mentioned before but something I don't recall being mentioned before is that all of the T206's were in ATC products but Ty Cobb Tobacco was produced by the F. R. Penn Tobacco Co. and The American Tobacco Co. didn't purchase F. R. Penn until 1911.