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

[Chicago206]

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]

vaguely related

[smokelessjoe]

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...

[Abravefan11]

Shawn thanks for the post.

As we know ATC had controlling interest in F.R. Penn in 1903. However according to information like what you just posted, the Penn family continued to run the company independent of ATC until 1912 when ATC took over operations.

I see it this way.

If F.R. Penn was in control and produced the card it is a separate issue from T206.

If you think ATC was in control then it could be considered a T206.

[tedzan]

You have presented some great insight into the F. R. Penn Tobacco Co. in Reidsville, NC (Factory #33) regarding the Ty Cobb
Cut Plug tobacco (circa 1910). Thanks, for all the info you have posted.

Combining all the info you have presented on this thread, and on my thread on this same subject back in Jan. 2009, along with
the evidence available from Senator Russell's T-card collection (on display at the U. of Georgia), we have pretty well unraveled
the mystery's of this unique Ty Cobb card. The evidence we have, leads to the fact that this card was issued sometime in the
Spring/Summer of 1910 (coincident with the Ty Cobb Tobacco tin). I think some cards were distributed in the Atlanta area as
promotional premiums (these are the ones found without the gloss). And, some where inserted in the Tobacco tins (these are
the ones with the gloss).

Now, in the presence of all this evidence, if one chooses to consider this Ty Cobb card a T206, or not....that's their perogative.

But, when a certain person on this forum persists to disregard these facts that several researchers have presented (in Jan 2009
thread and this thread), then there is no way of penetrating his "contrarian mind". So, let him "rant on", as he continues to make
a fool of himself.


T-Rex TED

[Tcards-Please]

Ted,

I'm sure you meant 2009 vice 1909 as the thread date.

r/

[timn1]

Ted is that old!

[tedzan]

I corrected the date. See what happens after 30 years of dealing with "The Monster"....it takes over your mind

Regards,

TED Z

[E93]

Thank you for all the kind words of support guys. I am humbled and very appreciative. What a surprise to wake up to this this morning.

I must say however, that I did lose my composure and get a bit combative in a way that I am not comfortable with for myself. I apologize to Chicago for my condescension.
JimB

[T206Collector]

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.