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

[sgbernard]

Originally Posted by Potomac Yank

My 219 different type 2's keep telling me that.

Whoah, that makes me incredibly jealous. When you give up the hobby and those T209 IIs hit the BST, give me advanced notice, ok?

To answer your point, Joe, that's sort of what I was saying though: they are two sets, but they're under the same ACC heading. So if we are arguing about whether or not cards are different sets, that's one thing, but if we are arguing about whether or not different cards belong to the same ACC heading, that's very different. The Cobb belongs to the T206 set just like the T209 IIs belong with the Is: because the ACC says so. Jim's right, though, this is a lot of modern haggling for a classification system that wasn't in the minds of the people who were rolling these things out and putting them in cig packs in the first place.

[E93]

Thanks to Ted, Seth, and others for sparing me the need to reiterate these points again.
JimB

[Leon]

For the record Burdick always classified the Cobb back as a T206. Even in the 1953 ACC he included it.....Now, in his later revisions he took out Hustler from T206 but he left Cobb (back) as a T206. (He never listed Coupon as a T206 back )

For T209 Contentnea he listed them as type 1 and type 2.

[Potomac Yank]

Does this all mean that the yet unfound Abbaticcio back, with stains and a white border, has a chance at being a T206'r???

[Chicago206]

From page 14 of Scot Reader's "e-book":

"The backs of most T206 cards advertise the brand of tobacco with which the card was packed and shipped. T206 cards were distributed with 15 brands of tobacco, all of which were controlled by ATC. Some T206 collectors believe that two other brands under the control of ATC—Coupon and Ty Cobb—qualify as T206 brands; however, theirs appears to be a minority view."

From page 15 of the same resource:

"A further point raised by opponents is that these cards were distributed from Factory 33 in North Carolina, from which no other T206 brand was distributed. Some opponents have also asserted that these cards were printed after T206 distribution had concluded. Advertisements recently discovered in the Macon Weekly Telegraph indicating that the Ty Cobb brand was launched in February 1910 call this final assertion into question.10 However, the possibility that the mysterious “Cobb with Cobb back” cards were contemporaries of T206 seems unlikely to convince most opponents to welcome these cards into the T206 family."



It appears that im not the only person who doesnt see the Cobb back as being a true T206 card either!

[Baseball Rarities]

Is the Ty Cobb with Cobb back listed on VCP? If so, can someoned point me in the right direction - I cannot seem to find it.

[terjung]

http://www.vintagecardprices.com/car...lue-Prices.htm

[Baseball Rarities]

Thanks Brian. Right in front of me.

[Potomac Yank]

Does that mean that it now belongs in the T206 set?

[Abravefan11]

Dumb question:

If F.R. Penn produced the Ty Cobb brand tobacco in 1910 and ATC didn't take over F.R. Penn until 1912...does that mean anything?

[Leon]

While I respect Scot Reader's voluminous writings on T206 there is clearly not a consensus on the Cobb back as being included or not, in T206. That being said there would be no "T206" without the person that invented it, Jefferson Burdick. If anything, when there is not a clear consensus on an issue, we should go back to what Burdick wrote since he is the one that imagined it. There is no debate that he came up with the ACC system of classifying cards in the US. And I realize that even Jefferson said his ACC was, and always will be, a work in progress. He stated the Cobb back was a T206.