What We Have Learned About Ty Cobbs With a Ty Cobb Back

Chicago206 · #1 04-11-2010, 11:36 PM

" Please name the 350+ Uzit, or Drum, or Carolina Brights subjects that qualify those brands as "T206" by your definition. "

Ever seen a Drum backed card? Whats it say right beneath "Base Ball Series"? Just because not all 350 subjects have been accounted for does not mean they do not exist. I can tell you FOR A FACT however that just 1 solitary subject exists for the Cobb back!

E93 · #2 04-12-2010, 12:02 AM

There is no point in arguing with you. I am done.
JimB

Chicago206 · #3 04-12-2010, 12:04 AM

You are upset with me because I dont agree with your opinion....priceless!

Potomac Yank · #4 04-12-2010, 12:55 AM

Not as part of my T206 sets.

It is what it is.

A T206 it is not .....

wonkaticket · #5 04-12-2010, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago206

" Please name the 350+ Uzit, or Drum, or Carolina Brights subjects that qualify those brands as "T206" by your definition. "
Ever seen a Drum backed card? Whats it say right beneath "Base Ball Series"? Just because not all 350 subjects have been accounted for does not mean they do not exist. I can tell you FOR A FACT however that just 1 solitary subject exists for the Cobb back!

Do you even want to know why that statement is all wrong? Do you even care to learn or are you here just to hang out and bang on your keyboard?

Just asking before myself or any of us try to inform someone who just doesn't care to be informed.

teetwoohsix · #6 04-12-2010, 02:11 AM

Well,the one thing I've learned recently is that not all Cobb/Cobb's have the glossy finish on the front.

I wouldn't doubt if some of these cards had been packaged directly with the tobacco-there's always the possibility that they were distributed in multiple ways?

You would think there would be a little more data out there on this,seeing how popular Ty Cobb was-hopefully one day more information will surface about this-that would be awesome!!!

Sincerely,Clayton

tedzan · #7 04-12-2010, 03:24 AM

Hey Chicago206....why don't you start using the SEARCH feature here....before you post on subjects you are ill-informed of ?

We had several threads on this subject and here is the most recent one; and, the most informative.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...2Fty+cobb+back

This thread garnered almost 100 posts and we were able to come up with new info. regarding this mysterious Ty Cobb card,
that dates it within the "350 series" period (1910) of the T206 press runs.

Sit down, take a deep breath, and take the time to read every post in this thread. Then if you have any intelligent questions,
we will try to answer them.

Prior to this thread (Jan 2009), I was skeptical regarding this Cobb card. Now, I feel it should be considered as a T206.

[linked image]

TED Z

uniship · #8 04-12-2010, 06:34 AM

"Prior to this thread (Jan 2009), I was skeptical regarding this Cobb card. Now, I feel it should be considered as a T206."

Ted - i did not know you had a change of opinion on this issue. To me this is huge news as clearly you are one of the most respected and knowledgable T206 collectors out there.

Chicago206 · #9 04-12-2010, 07:27 AM

Ted, I have read that thread. Just because ATC made this card during the same period the other T206 cards were made means nothing. The United States mint was making Phillipines coinage in the exact same facility, and at the exact same time as they produced our coinage. Yet, not many would consider a 10 centavos to be a "U.S." coin.

When a card such as the Cobb back actually has more differences than similarities then other T206's, perhaps its time to consider it is simply a different species....even though it is very closely related. Subjects, Gloss, and Distribution concerns are the biggies here. They dont match the pattern of any of the other 15 cigarette brands. CLEARLY the Cobb back IS different Ted, or else we wouldnt even be having this discussion. And the discussion keeps coming up. Whats that tell you?

smokelessjoe · #10 04-12-2010, 07:44 AM

Found this in the book, "Ty Cobb: Safe at Home"...

Says the article is from the March 10 1910 Augusta Ga. Paper.

Though the image is blurry, notice that is says "Now on the market 10 cents the? package - Try One"

tedzan · #11 04-12-2010, 07:56 AM

1st....to compare the striking of various coins at the US Mint to the printing of T206 cards at American Lithographic
during 1909-1911 is totally absurd.

2nd....Regarding your......." When a card such as the Cobb back actually has more differences than similarities then
other T206's "

REALLY NOW ? ?

Is it not a White-Bordered card ?

Does it not have BROWN lettering in its caption ?

Does it not have the T206 stylistic designed back ?

Is the front not American Lithographic's SIGNATURE PICTURE (the red Cobb) ?

Finally, was it not printed and issued in the Spring/Summer of 1910 ?

Please answer these 5 questions....if you avoid them then my conversation with you ceases....as it is not worth my
time to debate with you.

TED Z

hangman62 · #12 04-12-2010, 10:01 PM

Jim B..how smug and cocky can you possibly be ?
Telling a guy..sit back and listen and learn ! PLEASE
Its a blog site for card collectors !
OK you do all the reseach and detailed critiques.. and we will all bow down to your allmighty " nerdness"

vintagewhitesox · #13 04-12-2010, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hangman62

Jim B..how smug and cocky can you possibly be ?
Telling a guy..sit back and listen and learn ! PLEASE
Its a blog site for card collectors !
OK you do all the reseach and detailed critiques.. and we will all bow down to your allmighty " nerdness"

I'm sorry, but Jim is anything but smug and cocky. He's one of the nicest, kindest, and extremely generous with his hobby knowledge.

Jim can speak for himself, but I just had to respond to such an off the mark comment.

brickyardkennedy · #14 04-12-2010, 10:18 PM

I can suffer the "cockiness", if that's what it is, of those who know what they're talking about. It's the ill-informed assertions of those who don't know what they're talking about, that troubles me. Jim belongs to the former group.

Griffins · #15 04-12-2010, 10:35 PM

JimB is the epitome of humility- a quiet gentleman that is very generous with his wealth of knowledge on this subject, among others. The fact that he has exhausted his patience on this thread is a testament to just how inane Chicago's posts are.

ullmandds · #16 04-12-2010, 10:39 PM

If you're too lazy to read the whole thread...you obviously don't care enough to learn why this card is so debated.

FrankWakefield · #17 04-12-2010, 10:46 PM

I still don't think we should consider the card a T206.

The gloss is the main reason, and enough of a reason for me. That there is only one card with that back bolsters that. And it seems to me that some folks pull and tug at reasons because they seem to want it included. Nonetheless, it is a fine baseball card. Wish I had one. And if I did have one I'd not think it a T206. It reminds me of the first E90-3 I acquired, long before I knew anything at all about American Caramel cards. Seemed like an E90-1 with 'Chicago' on the back... As for tobacco stains, they mean nothing to me. I have a few E cards with what I think are tobacco stains. And some E cards with caramel stains. If I find a T205 with an ink stain would that mean it was distributed with a pen set, or with ink??

PWeso81 · #18 04-12-2010, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ullmandds

If you're too lazy to read the whole thread...you obviously don't care enough to learn why this card is so debated.

Point taken. I am only a few months IN on this forum. I gotta tell ya, some of the most entertaining fodder I have ever read. I love this site. People I work with ask "Why do you collect cards?" I say..."Have you ever checked out N54?"

ethicsprof · #19 04-12-2010, 10:44 PM

Anthony has said it well. JimB is the epitome of humility and ,for some time now, has been one of the key experts, if not the foremost expert, on
Cobb/Cobb back. When he speaks of these things, I listen and take notes like
my best doctoral students at the university do.

by the way, great eye re: the tobacco stain Jon C.
very,very helpful.

best,
barry

wonkaticket · #20 04-12-2010, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagewhitesox

I'm sorry, but Jim is anything but smug and cocky. He's one of the nicest, kindest, and extremely generous with his hobby knowledge.

Jim can speak for himself, but I just had to respond to such an off the mark comment.

I'll second that. Jim is top shelf! If Jim was a Scotch at a bar he would be $45a glass and you would have to find away to hide the expense report from your boss.

Griffins · #21 04-12-2010, 11:24 PM

So we should just refer to him as 18 year old Macallan?

wonkaticket · #22 04-12-2010, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griffins

So we should just refer to him as 18 year old Macallan?

LOL, just what Jim wanted a new nickname..

Alright I'll pile in on this discussion. I'm on the fence as to if this is a T206 or not. There are strong points that could make this a good ol' T206. But there are some others that keep me on the fence.

One of those is and correct me if I'm wrong didn't a large % of the known examples of this card come from one find in the south? I find it odd that if we say have 12-14 of something and close to half come from one find in one geographical area something seems odd?

Does anyone know the deatils around the find I'm talking about or is this hobby folk lore passed on to me as a kid?

Cheers,

John

JP · #23 04-12-2010, 11:51 PM

Yes, 5 of the dozen or so known were found in 1997 and immediately auctioned off by REA...according to this writeup.

Kawika · #24 04-12-2010, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hangman62

Jim B..how smug and cocky can you possibly be ?
Telling a guy..sit back and listen and learn ! PLEASE
Its a blog site for card collectors !
OK you do all the reseach and detailed critiques.. and we will all bow down to your allmighty " nerdness"

"JimB is the epitome of humility- a quiet gentleman that is very generous with his wealth of knowledge on this subject, among others. The fact that he has exhausted his patience on this thread is a testament to just how inane Chicago's posts are."

Can't put it any better than Anthony did. Jim VB is, ahem, a great guy. For real.

I alluded to this in a recent post but it bears repeating: a lot of guys here go way back. It is not just " a blog site for card collectors", Ralph, but a succession of places where collectors have gathered for years to talk story about vintage baseball cards. Occasionally a quarrel breaks out but eventually we return to the flow of the board. When a newcomer like Chicago comes aboard and attempts to dictate board protocol it is akin to someone bursting down the door and trying to rearrange the furniture. Any dig taken at Chicago by Jim or anyone else is fair game. (Plus he seems to thrive on the abuse). Dude would try the patience of a saint.

terjung · #25 04-13-2010, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hangman62

Jim B..how smug and cocky can you possibly be ?
Telling a guy..sit back and listen and learn ! PLEASE
Its a blog site for card collectors !
OK you do all the reseach and detailed critiques.. and we will all bow down to your allmighty " nerdness"

Wow. I am not one to dip into T206 conversations as I have only oned one in my life (and it wasn't a Cobb back), but this comment about probably the nicest guy in the hobby is too much.

Jim is one of those people who is so easy to defend that it isn't even funny. Before your comment, I would've also said that one never needs to defend him because he is so commonly respected and admired. So I am shocked that he has been called on the carpet, but allow me to assure you that for every one who has or will post defending Jim, there are dozens of others who wouldn't blink before doing so as well.

Potomac Yank · #26 04-13-2010, 04:00 AM

Where's that Abbaticcio back, with white borders and stains.

I want it for my T206 set.

Chicago206 · #27 04-13-2010, 04:44 AM

Just got my REA catalogue yesterday. Take a look at the Cobb/Cobb write-up. Even THEY allude to the fact that the card is debateable as to whether it should be a seperate series!!! But im the "ill-informed idiot"? You guys clearly have some type of agenda.

smokelessjoe · #28 04-13-2010, 06:13 AM

vaguely related

smokelessjoe · #29 04-13-2010, 06:31 AM

I think you will find the second page very interesting... NOTICE that the first page is the PETITION and the Second page is the ANSWER...

T206Collector · #30 04-13-2010, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago206

You guys clearly have some type of agenda.

The "agenda" is with your tone and attitude -- not your opinion.

I think it has been said before on this thread, but I agree that debating whether this card is a T206 is really just questioning whether Burdick went too far by including it, since he is the man who defined what it means to be a T206.

I think we could all agree that if the Cobb/Cobb were definitively shown to have been produced in 1925, that we would say universally that it was not a T206. But beyond the definitional birth years of 1909-11, there will never be a consensus as to whether the lack of more fronts or distribution area or unique factory mean Burdick went too far. Since that was all basically at Burdick's fingertips at the time, the evidence really militates for a finding that Burdick did not go too far. And I think he probably deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Fortunately I only collect T206 fronts and I was able to persuade SGC to take its Cobb/Cobb down from its registry on the basis of it being a back designation. So I'll stick with a nice Sweet Cap Red Cobbie and let the back-interested folk keep caring.

smokelessjoe · #31 10-12-2017, 04:34 PM

Websters Weekly Thu Jan 27 1910

rats60 · #32 10-13-2017, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smokelessjoe

Websters Weekly Thu Jan 27 1910

I see no mention of any baseball cards in the product. Don't you think that would be mentioned as popular as t206s were? I see no reason why ATC would allow Penn to use their image to promote the Ty Cobb brand while they were under threat of antitrust litigation from the government. They were successfully hiding their relationship, owning of Penn stock, and keeping it out of the case.

tedzan · #33 10-13-2017, 03:39 PM

Factory #33, Reidsville, NC

ATC tobacco brand...... Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco

. . . .

American Litho printed the red Cobb in the Spring of 1910. Initially for the 350 series of the T206 set. This timeline coincides
with ATC's introduction of the Ty Cobb Tobacco brand.

As I have stated throughout this thread, I consider this card a "T206".

TED Z
.

ullmandds · #34 10-13-2017, 05:15 PM

As popular as the ty cobb tobacco seems to have been...you'd think there'd be way more tins...and if cards were inserted inside...there'd be way more cards out there.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
for those who asked about my 1910 and 1911 cards	ptowncoug3012	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	16	01-04-2010 05:26 PM
T206 Cobb Red Background - Polar Bear Back SGC20 $600	Archive	Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T	0	04-16-2009 04:51 PM
WTB: T206 Ty Cobb back and Herzog (Boston) rare back	Archive	Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T	0	12-09-2008 01:29 AM
Cobb w/ Cobb Back Wet Sheet Transfer	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	8	03-25-2008 02:09 PM
M116 Cobb Young rare back value	Archive	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	2	12-24-2007 02:22 PM