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

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by Chicago206

Edited to add: In fact, i've just made another major purchase! :-)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be watching the BST for it.


I'm enjoying the substantive parts of this thread. Good points, explanation and observations all around, for the most part. Leon makes a good point in that if there isn't consensus, then it makes sense to go by what Burdick originally decided - sort of like having to knock him off the hill. I like the thought of that.

And for my money, Ted is practically a national treasure when it comes to T206 discussions. So I'm not spending a whole lot of time trying to decide if I should consider his opinion or that of someone that is admittedly new to the hobby.

As to Chicago thinking that people are getting on him merely because they disagree with his assessment, well I guess I disagree with his assessment. It's like hearing a big crash, looking up and seeing a Chevy wrapped around the light post. Steam coming out from under the hood. Hysterical driver. Probably you can figure that the Chevy just hit the light post. So if someone wants to come by and say that the Chevy was already smashed up and just parked in front of the lamppost, using vague logic like one tire is less flat then the others and the lamppost is tilted toward the street, I think the howls of frustration and derision are less about disagreeing with a reasonable assessment and more about not wanting to hear random and undeveloped thinking. Even more so on this, one of the hobby's more sophisticated issues. If that makes sense.

And Jon - thank you for the observation on the tobacco stains. I might not know anything about this or that factory or exact dates of issue, but that's something I can appreciate right away in terms of the implications.

J

[Chicago206]

Ok

[Abravefan11]

Here is a larger image of the ad originally posted by Shawn.

[Chicago206]

Wait....that ad is dated 1910...yet it says Penn Tobacco. I was just informed earlier in this thread that ATC controlled Cobb Tobacco by 1903. Hmmmmm....the plot thickens.

[E93]

Originally Posted by Chicago206

Wait....that ad is dated 1910...yet it says Penn Tobacco. I was just informed earlier in this thread that ATC controlled Cobb Tobacco by 1903. Hmmmmm....the plot thickens.

If you were paying attention, you would know that you were actually informed that Penn Tobacco was bought by ATC in 1903. But paying attention does not seem to be your strong suit. It was one of a number of smaller tobacco companies owned by ATC before the monopoly was broken up in 1912.
JimB

[canjond]

In addition to what Jim said, it is fairly common for products to be marketed under the original company even after being purchased. For example, Allen & Ginter was acquired by the ATC in the 1890s, and then transferred to Liggett & Myers after the trust break-up of ATC. However, its packaging also said "produced by Allen & Ginter," and then somewhere (usually below that) would say "successor ATC" or "successor L&M."

Another observation from the ad, however. Not three cities are listed - one of which being Atlanta. This coincides with Ted's observations of a Ty Cobb back appearing in Russell's collection around 1910. Atlanta surely was one of the markets for this product.

[PWeso81]

Can someone give me a very, very short rundown of the problem with the Ty Cobb/Ty Cobb being considered a true T206?

Thanks

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by jmk59

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be watching the BST for it.

A reminder of why Joann needs to post more frequently.