Cobb/Cobb....T206 card or something else?

[ullmandds]

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!

[barrysloate]

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.

[ullmandds]

good points barry...hmmmn...point of distribution...point of distribution...that is almost a smoking gun in my book...i still want one!

[ChiefBenderForever]

To be T206 or not ? I think it is, if not what is it ?

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHarmonica

To be T206 or not ? I think it is, if not what is it ?

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.

[ChiefBenderForever]

It's a T-COBB type 1 and the glossy could be T-COBB type 2

[teetwoohsix]

I can agree with that too,Barry.
I guess this wouldn't be too much of an issue if they had used a unique front of the card,rather than the Cobb Red portrait.
This is an interesting subject,that I'm sure has been worked over many times.
At this point,I'm OK with JimR's list of backs,and OK with this one being excluded from the list-just as I would be OK if he did include it.
Also,just to add that I WISH I could get my hands on one of these Cobb/Cobb cards at one point in my life!!!!!!!!!!

Regards-Clayton