 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
03-24-2010, 02:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
I can't seem to find much of an argument within myself not to toss this into the T206 camp,like I can with the T213-1's.
As noted by TedZ recently,he witnessed this very card and it did not have the glossy finish. If this card had other known series attached to it with different back designs,that came out in a succession (examp-1909,1910 diff.,1911 diff.,etc.)then I would find myself questioning it more. I can go either way,but as a T206 collector who is going after one example of each back,this is one that I am not concerned about obtaining.Call it a T206,or not.I am ok with it being called a T206.Just my opinion........ Sincerely,Clayton 
|
|
#2
03-24-2010, 02:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have no problem grouping the cobb/cobb with t206 as burdick defined t206...it definitely fits into his parameters for t206...but then again so does t213 I and t215-I...I feel that updating designations/classifications for accuracy would be a beneficial thing to do...and I'm guessing at some point...someone will!
|
|
#3
03-24-2010, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've felt the Cobb back should not be part of the T206 set for the same reason Chicago206 stated- that because only a single player was issued it does not fit the pattern of other brands that are considered part of it.
The reason the ATC issued these cards was as a marketing ploy to get people to keep buying packs of their favorite brands, with the hope of finding another player for their set. Having only a single player with a Cobb back defeats that purpose- after one bought his first pack he would have been done. Unless he really liked the tobacco, he would have no reason to buy another pack. Therefore, I think the card was distributed some other way, perhaps available at the counter at point of purchase, but clearly was not distributed the same way as the other fifteen brands. Whether the paper was glossy or not really doesn't factor into my theory. Last edited by barrysloate; 03-24-2010 at 03:05 PM.
|
|
#5
03-24-2010, 03:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
To be T206 or not ? I think it is, if not what is it ?
|
|
#6
03-24-2010, 04:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Just another tobacco card similar to the T213's. I just think that cards to be included in a grouping need to have more in common than not to make sense. And the Cobb back has more differences than similarities than all the other 15 brands that make up T206.
|
|
#7
03-24-2010, 04:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's a T-COBB type 1 and the glossy could be T-COBB type 2
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| A most unique T206 card has surfaced....perhaps the 525th ? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 46 | 11-16-2008 06:54 PM |
| We all hate "What is it worth?" but...what is highest T206 reverse error card has gone for | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 0 | 06-02-2008 02:31 PM |
| Baseball Card - T206 Wagner 'Sweet Caporal' | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 07-14-2007 11:45 AM |
| Looking for this T206 card. | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 10 | 04-28-2006 12:16 PM |
| T206 Doctored Card Detection Kit Ideas....anyone think this would be a good idea | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 22 | 04-29-2005 02:39 PM |
Hybrid Mode
