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

[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.

[BobC]

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.

Pat,

Despite what others may say or think, I see the logic and can go along with your point/theory. You can also possibly look to other circumstances in the hobby to support your position/theory also.

For example, look no farther than the F-50 ice cream/food card sets that are out there, Yuengling's, Harrington's, Tharp's, Sweetman's, etc. They are all the exact same cards images, and 60 card sets, with the only real difference being the different companies/distributors that are listed on the card backs. Pretty much the exact same thing with all the T206 cards, same fronts, different products/brands on the backs. So why aren't all these F-50 cards considered as just one set, like the T206's are? Everyone I've ever seen, heard of, or talked to in the hobby considered each of the different F-50 distributor's/brand's cards as entirely different sets. They have been referred to as Sweetman's, Yuengling's, Tharp's, Harrington's, and so forth, and never as just the F-50 set alone. The only other real difference I am aware of between the T206 set and the various F-50 sets is that all the T206 brands on the back were all wholly-owned by the exact same company, the ATC. Meanwhile, all the brands/distributors that had the F-50 cards prepared for them, are all completely different companies, with different owners. And having worked in and been involved with many different businesses pretty much my entire adult life, I understand and know that there is a world of difference between being a wholly-owned company (like all the different ATC brands appearing in the T206 set are) and an entity that is only partially owned by the same company (think all the companies that Warren Buffet's Berkshire-Hathaway owns a major interest in). Those are not even close to the same thing, despite what many might think or try to argue

And in the case of the different distributors/brands shown on all the T206 and F-50 cards, the only real difference I can see between them is that only one company (the ATC) wholly owned all the T206 brands, while the F-50 brands were all owned by entirely different companies. The fact that the company that supposedly distributed the Ty Cobb/Ty Cobb back cards was not also a wholly-owned subsidiary of the ATC would seem to be a pretty huge difference, and maybe the only real explanation for why they weren't ever considered as part of the T206 set. That and the fact that they were sometimes found with glossy fronts. Not considering them as part of the T206 set seems to go right along with the apparent treatment given to the various F-50 sets. So, for anyone saying the Ty Cobb w/Ty Cobb backs should be part of the T206 after all, they should also be arguing even more then that there should only be one F-50 set, with different backs like the T206 set, and no separate Yuengling's, Sweetman's, Tharp's, Harrington's, etc., sets after all anymore.

What you'll likely get in response from the naysayers is that your theory/point is weak or doesn't truly matter, simply because they don't really understand and/or know any better. Saying something is weak without any facts, logic, or even simple explanations as to why, to back up someone's accusation of your statement being weak, now that is what is really, truly weak!