Cobb back is not T206 and here's why...

[Jim VB]

I disagree also, but for a more basic reason. Unless you are the guy who invented the categorization system that coined the terminology T206, you don't have the right to change it. If, under the system he invented, it's a T206, then it's a T206. Period.

This entire process of organizing something that was issued over 100 years ago is funny, in a way. The original issuers never gave it a thought. They were just printing cards to entice people to use their products. They didn't care what player was from what set. They didn't get too involved in what color ink they were using. They just got a printer to print little pieces of cardboard with a baseball player on the front and their ad on the back. As the promotion worked well, they started to expand both the number of players and the number of brands.

Flash forward almost 30 years and a collector tries his best to establish some rhyme or reason to what they had done. He spends the next 25-30 years on the job, fine tuning it.

His body of work becomes the accepted standard over the world, for US issued cards of all types.

Now, another 40 years later, some guys on a message board think they can change that? Sorry. It's a T206 until Jefferson Burdick says it isn't.

That doesn't change anything to most collectors. I still have 520/524 and I don't need another Cobb. Now if you're a back collector, then you might feel that need. I don't know of anyone with a complete collection of fronts and back combos, but if he's around, that guy needs one also.

[usernamealreadytaken]

I like the intellectual nature of the dialogue that some engage in on the board; SOMEONE BEFORE US SAID THATS THE WAY IT IS SO THATS THE WAY IT IS!

There was a time when slavery and disallowing women the right to vote was the way it is...wonder how history would have played out if society took the approach "our forefathers said that was how it was so who are we to question that and try to get it right?"

[usernamealreadytaken]

The point of this board, as I see it, is to share knowledge and ideas on the cards we collect. This process has enhanced the hobby, and specifically that of T206. Theories and postulates have been and are proposed and the vast majority are quashed based on facts and evidence. However, the few that prove to be sound by way of this process are cherished and provide needed and wanted insight on what happened in a few factories between 1909-11...

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by usernamealreadytaken

The point of this board, as I see it, is to share knowledge and ideas on the cards we collect. This process has enhanced the hobby, and specifically that of T206. Theories and postulates have been and are proposed and the vast majority are quashed based on facts and evidence. However, the few that prove to be sound by way of this process are cherished and provide needed and wanted insight on what happened in a few factories between 1909-11...

I agree, and certainly meant no animosity in any of my posts. My feeling is that there wasn't "thinking" going on in the planning and distribution of any of these sets. I think it was haphazard. ATC ordered some cards printed to move cigarettes. When it worked, they ordered more. After a few years, they did similar things, sometimes regionally, with other players and other brands. I don't believe there was any master plan that said these cards will go with this set, etc.

Moreover, I don't think they had any concept that men would be sitting around talking about their marketing plans, 100 years later.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by usernamealreadytaken

I like the intellectual nature of the dialogue that some engage in on the board; SOMEONE BEFORE US SAID THATS THE WAY IT IS SO THATS THE WAY IT IS!

When that "someone" before us invented the term "T206", then yes, that is the way it is.
It's not Henry Volkswagon......It's Henry Ford......and a Ford is not a Volkswagon .

[teetwoohsix]

That was well said,JimVB.

But usernamealreadytaken-why would EPDG be out?They do have "Base Ball Series" on the back.Just wondering about that.........thanks.

Sincerely,Clayton

Edit to say:Sorry Chris,I didn't see your name under your user name when I posted.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by usernamealreadytaken

SOMEONE BEFORE US SAID THATS THE WAY IT IS SO THATS THE WAY IT IS!

There was a time when slavery and disallowing women the right to vote was the way it is...wonder how history would have played out if society took the approach "our forefathers said that was how it was so who are we to question that and try to get it right?"

That's not what I said, but you have chosen to not understand it.

I have no idea whether or not the Cobb/Cobb was intended to be part of the same set. It doesn't matter. It's a T206 because the guy who made up the term T206 said it was. The intent of ATC isn't relevant. ATC didn't call them T206. Burdick did. It's not your right to change his classification system to suit your thoughts. If you want to make it part of a different set, or its own set, go right ahead. Come up with a new system. Don't use Burdick's.


And the whole bit about slavery???? You're just making yourself look silly on that.

[usernamealreadytaken]

Look, I have no deep interest either way on the Cobb/Cobb; it is what it is and calling it a T206, T206-1 or XSZ889 doesn't change what it looks like, when it was printed and how it was distributed or how somebody with a ton of money got it. And if anyone thought my intention with this thread was to have unanimous agreement and a rewrite of card cataloging, that is not so. I just threw an idea out for healthy debate and discourse. Sadly, the only one who responded (beyond "that's the way it is") was Peter who made a good, sound point to reject my theory.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by usernamealreadytaken

Look, I have no deep interest either way on the Cobb/Cobb; it is what it is and calling it a T206, T206-1 or XSZ889 doesn't change what it looks like, when it was printed and how it was distributed or how somebody with a ton of money got it. And if anyone thought my intention with this thread was to have unanimous agreement and a rewrite of card cataloging, that is not so. I just threw an idea out for healthy debate and discourse. Sadly, the only one who responded (beyond "that's the way it is") was Peter who made a good, sound point to reject my theory.

Maybe if everyone responds the same way there is a reason for it? We have discussed this subject probably hundreds of times and we might discuss it 100's more.... What JimVB said is quite on the mark.

[sgbernard]

Originally Posted by Leon

What JimVB said is quite on the mark.

Agreed: we can argue whether it should have been designated T206, but the fact is that it was designated. That doesn't mean it's right (and it may not be right), it just means that it was. JimVB said it much better than me.

[Abravefan11]

While I agree with the veteran board members that if you're going to use the ACC designations that the Cobb back is a T206 because Burdick said so, I also think it should be acceptable to talk about why he may have classified cards the way he did and why we may classify them differently with what we know today.

Chris to answer your question if I were to classify the white border cards in a similar method to Burdick I would not include the Cobb back in a group with the other cards we call T206's. My opinion could be changed easily as I don't profess to have all the facts.

Though this subject has been discussed over and over I am curious what those that care think of the following.

American Tobacco had controlling interest in F.R. Penn at the time that the Cobb brand tobacco was produced. However the Penn family still had operational control of the company. Isn't it possible that Penn had ALC produce these cards for their tobacco with the blessing of ATC? If this were the case wouldn't it be an F.R. Penn issuse and not an ATC issue? Couldn't this also explain minor differences such as gloss?

Sorry Jim VB, some of us are just nerds for these kinds of details.

[E93]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

I disagree also, but for a more basic reason. Unless you are the guy who invented the categorization system that coined the terminology T206, you don't have the right to change it. If, under the system he invented, it's a T206, then it's a T206. Period.

Exactly. "T206" is an arbitrary category coined by Burdick. One could argue that it would have made as much sense for him to distinguish 16 or 17 or more different sets, but he did not. He used the label to apply to baseball subjects (white border) used to advertise tobacco brands owned by the ATC between 1909-1911. ATC was a major shareholder in the Ty Cobb brand and Burdick included it. If one wants to exclude it, then you should come up with your own classification scheme, but do not call it "T206". That label is copyrighted.
JimB

[Peter_Spaeth]

Agree completely with the Jims. Sometimes the conventional wisdom is right.