Cobb/Cobb card in Goodwin Auction

[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

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by E93

Dave,
I was actually responding to Chicago206.
JimB

And THAT... is why he is leaving!

[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!

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Chicago206

Apparently my opinions on certain matters do not count because I have not been collecting for 25 years.

A little over dramatic, don't you think?

Sure your opinions count. They just don't count as much as someone who has been doing it for 25+ years.

You could learn a lot more if you talked a little less.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I thought Ted said he had never seen another Red Cobb with that color. if I misunderstood him, my apologies, but here is what he said:

"Since I had a real close-up look at this card back in the March Philly Show, the thing that strikes me is the darker
Red background color, as compared to all other Red Cobb cards."

Perhaps that was just an observation on his part and not an expression of any concern, I don't know.

[JP]

I've seen my share of Cobb/Cobbs myself, and this color seems vastly different to me as well, but I still attribute that to the potential gloss/no gloss difference, which would only exacerbate the difference in a scan.

[botn]

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.

Depends on their agenda, really.