Cobb/Cobb card in Goodwin Auction

[botn]

Someone provided me a scan of a non glossy version of a Cobb/Cobb and the differences which have been pointed out on Goodwin's example are all present on this other example as well.

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by botn

Someone provided me a scan of a non glossy version of a Cobb/Cobb and the differences which have been pointed out on Goodwin's example are all present on this other example as well.

This really makes me lean towards contemporary counterfeit. With such a supposedly miniscule original print run, why on earth would there be 2 distinct variations of this card? The fact that you saw a scan of another "non glossy" and it had all the same diagnostics as the Goodwin card makes me believe that a "few" counterfeits may be floating around.

Will the real Cobb/Cobb please stand up?!?!?

[botn]

Originally Posted by Chicago206

This really makes me lean towards contemporary counterfeit. With such a supposedly miniscule original print run, why on earth would there be 2 distinct variations of this card? The fact that you saw a scan of another "non glossy" and it had all the same diagnostics as the Goodwin card makes me believe that a "few" counterfeits may be floating around.

Will the real Cobb/Cobb please stand up?!?!?

Really, now. So no other possibilities than their being counterfeit? Someone with far more knowledge on the issue already commented stating a theory that the non glossy versions were pulled before final production and would be considered proofs. The scan I have is from a card which was graded almost 10 years ago.

[calvindog]

Is it true that Shoeless Joe Jackson got his nickname because he played baseball without any shoes on?

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by botn

Really, now. So no other possibilities than their being counterfeit? Someone with far more knowledge on the issue already commented stating a theory that the non glossy versions were pulled before final production and would be considered proofs. The scan I have is from a card which was graded almost 10 years ago.

Thats also a possibility as well. However, wouldnt you expect "proof lines" in the borders just like all other T206 proofs? Or was the Cobb/Cobb not a true T206?

[jmk59]

And wouldn't that hurt his feet?

[T206DK]

is there anyone on the forum that knows how many "glossy" cards exist as compared to non glossy ? I've never seen a definite count. I've heard of the supposed proof theory and don't think it's that valid. If the non gloss versions were proofs then the gloss versions were real, and I think there would be more of them out there. I tend to think that the non glossy cards may have been inserted into the tins of Ty Cobb tobacco. The Goodwin cards reverse has some staining on it, but upon closer inspection of the picture it doesn't necessarily look like tobacco. It actually looks like a water stain or some sort of liquid stain to me. It doesn't look like tobacco juice to me.
I have discussed with some other advanced collectors about the fact that they could be well made counterfeits or that some Lithograph printers were just messing around making a card of a popular player of the time. I think it's far fetched to think that a press operator or some employees would have just run these off for fun, or that someone would have made them after 1910. There is advertising to back up the cards reverse that has been discovered. I have gone back and looked through a lot of my old auction catalogs at Cobb backed cards and the goodwin card looks darker than the other Cobb backed red protraits I compared it to. Gloss or any finish added to the surface of a card would tend to make it look darker thought. Just my experience as a painter tells me that. I think there will always be some mystery and speculation involved with the Ty Cobb backed cards.

[E93]

This is verging on the ridiculous now. I have owned four different Cobb backs including the other non-glossy example. I have personally held four other examples in my hands, for a total of 8 of the 14 known. I have seen scans of virtually every other example. And I have personally owned and held thousands of other T206s in my hands over the past 30 years. The non-gloss example that was graded ten years ago is real! There is no doubt about it. In addition to not having gloss, it looks to be hand cut and thus, probably was used in some sort of proof run for the printer. Not having hash marks does not mean the printer did not use it as a proof, even if the hobby might not technically designate it that way. Perhaps the Goodwin example was from the same sheet. WHo knows? It has a similar deep red background, which makes sense for an early print run; it makes sense that the ink would be strong for a first run. And the heavy ink may have caused the bleed over the border. I have only seen scans of the Goodwin example but it looks real to me. The fact that only 14 or 15 are known does not mean that thousands were not printed in 1910. Most are probably in the dustbin of history. Like Leon, I doubt that so many hobby experts like Ted, Bill Goodwin, PSA graders who have handled 10,000s of T206s and are probably extra careful with a Cobb back, and some more private T206 experts who saw the card would all have been duped. If that is the case, expect the population to increase to about 100 in the next few years. I would also expect T206 Wagner and Plank pops to start increasing too. Can we substitute the conspiracy theories for a little sanity please?
JimB

[T206DK]

I wasn't trying to spark a conspiracy FYI. I've only ever seen one of the Cobb backed cards and held it in my hand so I have nothing but that memory to serve me. I've never owned one and have no desire to either, so I have no emotional involvement with this card or with rare backs in general. I collect fronts of cards. What was just stated about the ink being darker at the beginning of a print run is true; after thousands of cards were printed, yes the ink would eventually get lighter. I don't believe that thousands of these cards were thrown away or destroyed though. I doubt the non gloss version is a proof either, there must be another explanation. Every proof I have seen has some sort of printers mark on it or has a blank back. I've only held a few thousand T206's in my hands and have only owned a few hundred, but I don't think that makes me any less qualified to state an opinion on the Cobb card. I bet a lot of guys on this forum haven't owned or held as many T206's as some others have, but that doesn't mean there ridiculous or not to be listened to. I like discussing these different theories about the origins of certain cards. I don't know, maybe there should be a section on the forum for those of us who don't claim to be the most adept or experienced collectors. We're not what I call "Toppers"; we don't have to always be better than everyone else, and make sure everyone else knows about it too. Luckily, there's little if any arrogance here, and only one person who refers to hmself as "we" comes to mind when I think about that. Sometimes it seems as if certain members of this forum just can't be inconvenienced with us collectors at the bottom of the totem pole. To me , this forum is a great cross section of those who collect older baseball cards and memorabilia. We all come from different backgrounds , and I believe most of us have a true love for the hobby and wish to learn and share info here.

[HRBAKER]

Jim,
Sanity doesn't sell papers.

[E93]

Dave,
I think you and I were composing at the same time. I was actually responding to Chicago206.
JimB

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by T206DK

I wasn't trying to spark a conspiracy FYI. I've only ever seen one of the Cobb backed cards and held it in my hand so I have nothing but that memory to serve me. I've never owned one and have no desire to either, so I have no emotional involvement with this card or with rare backs in general. I collect fronts of cards. What was just stated about the ink being darker at the beginning of a print run is true; after thousands of cards were printed, yes the ink would eventually get lighter. I don't believe that thousands of these cards were thrown away or destroyed though. I doubt the non gloss version is a proof either, there must be another explanation. Every proof I have seen has some sort of printers mark on it or has a blank back. I've only held a few thousand T206's in my hands and have only owned a few hundred, but I don't think that makes me any less qualified to state an opinion on the Cobb card. I bet a lot of guys on this forum haven't owned or held as many T206's as some others have, but that doesn't mean there ridiculous or not to be listened to. I like discussing these different theories about the origins of certain cards. I don't know, maybe there should be a section on the forum for those of us who don't claim to be the most adept or experienced collectors. We're not what I call "Toppers"; we don't have to always be better than everyone else, and make sure everyone else knows about it too. Luckily, there's little if any arrogance here, and only one person who refers to hmself as "we" comes to mind when I think about that. Sometimes it seems as if certain members of this forum just can't be inconvenienced with us collectors at the bottom of the totem pole. To me , this forum is a great cross section of those who collect older baseball cards and memorabilia. We all come from different backgrounds , and I believe most of us have a true love for the hobby and wish to learn and share info here.

Very well stated. I have had enough of the childish "you dont know anything cuz your new to this". Had I realized that this website was more of a good ole boys club than a come one, come all and lets talk cards, I doubt that my enthusiasm for collecting would have ever peaked. Apparently my opinions on certain matters do not count because I have not been collecting for 25 years. The ironic aspect of this is that even the "so called experts" on this forum...the ones who continually attack my views.....dont know certain things for sure either. This particular card is a perfect example....simply all just theories. My theories are not allowed!