 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
05-10-2010, 07:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
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. 
Last edited by Abravefan11; 05-10-2010 at 10:13 PM. 
|
|
#2
05-10-2010, 08:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Wow Tim,that is an interesting theory,and it has my mind spinning!!
The tricky part for me is whether it would be considered an ATC issue or an F.R. Penn issue,,,,,,,,,,,,,because as you pointed out, American Tobacco had controlling interest in F.R. Penn at the time the Cobb brand tobacco was produced, but the Penn family still had operational control of the company. With that being said, I would tend to think it would have to be considered an ATC issue,being that they had controlling interest. I think you have came up with one of the best theories I have heard yet Tim, regarding the Cobb/Cobb-I'm sure I'll be dwelling on this all night-thanks Sincerely,Clayton
|
|
#3
05-11-2010, 09:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Many, many things have been miscategorized throughout the history of mankind. Fortunately, most humans are logical creatures and very adaptable. We are able to admit when a mistake has been made, and then make the correction on most things. But much like the Catholic church, vintage card hobbyists have decided its better to be rigid and unchanging than to admit a mistake in judgement has been made. For this reason, the Cobb/Cobb will probably forever remain categorized as a T206, although incorrectly as such. It clearly displays more differences than similarities with the other 15 brands as a group. Just the fact that this topic is so frequently discussed is proof that something is amiss!
I doubt anyone has challenged Polar Bear because of its 1 difference from the rest of the group. Same goes for American Beauty for its glaring 1 difference from the group. But the Cobb/Cobb has at least 2 major physical differences from the group, and then a couple of other differences in regards to distribution, time of issue (completely unknown and unproven), as well as control over who owned the company itself (at the time the card was assumed to have been produced). To me, the Cobb/Cobb is nothing more than an afterthought to the rest of the T206 series. It was produced as a slick marketing tool (most likely never even associated with distribution in actual tobacco products) to help sales of a very unpopular brand of tobacco. Think of it as the cardboard cutout of Michael Jordan from the 90's Gatorade ad campaign. Nobody would consider that a "sports card" even though its made of the same material. It was just a marketing tool, much like the Cobb/Cobb.
|
|
#4
05-11-2010, 09:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
As far as EPDG, all of the other backs have some reference to a number of backs or "large assortment" or "assorted designs." Coupon 213-1 also reference baseball series but, like EPDG, provide no indication to the size/scope of the distribution...
After thinking on the Cobb/Cobb or any other back, I am content to let 'er rest. In other words, we will never successfully reclassify what is or is not a "T206" and the point that T206 is Burdick's creation is not lost on me. I like and encourage the investigation and theories, but at the end of the day, it is an arbitrary designation and the cards are what they are. It is up to the collector to pick what makes a complete set in their mind. Put another way, "T206" have a list of backs included; it does not enumerate a set of criteria for being a T206 for us to then catagorize cards. Even if the smoking gun (an advertisement or legal document) conclusively puts Cobb at a later date or different distribution vehicle, it is a T206 becuase a "T206" is a "T206"...
|
|
#5
05-11-2010, 09:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ty Cobb back card
1st....what does the Catholic Church have to do with this subject matter ? ?
2nd....regarding your comment...."time of issue (completely unknown and unproven)" IS TOTALLY FALSE ! We have Macon, Georgia Newpaper clippings reporting of this card in the Spring of 1910. FURTHERMORE, Senator Russell's T206 and T210 collection (on display at the U. of Georgia) includes a Ty Cobb back card. It is documented.....Mr. Russell collected his tobacco cards as a teenager in the year of 1910. Therefore, American Litho. printed & issued this card in 1910....... DO YOU GET IT, NOW ? Once again, if you bothered to use the SEARCH feature on this forum you would have learned all this. Before you made these erroneous comments. TED Z
|
|
#6
05-11-2010, 09:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Catholic church made some wonderful issues, I have a great Jesus RC with a rare Judas back.
|
|
#7
05-11-2010, 09:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This was always one of my favorites.
__________________
Jim Van Brunt Last edited by Jim VB; 05-11-2010 at 10:01 AM.
|
|
#8
05-11-2010, 09:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Ok, I aquired my Kirby Puckett rookie card in 2009. Does that definitively prove that the Kirby Puckett was produced in 2009??? See how silly you sound?
|
|
#9
05-11-2010, 09:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It does prove that it wasn't produced in 2014.
__________________
Jim Van Brunt Last edited by Jim VB; 05-11-2010 at 10:01 AM.
|
|
#10
05-11-2010, 10:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
There isnt a single logician in the world who would agree with Ted's following statement: "FURTHERMORE, Senator Russell's T206 and T210 collection (on display at the U. of Georgia) includes a Ty Cobb back card. It is documented.....Mr. Russell collected his tobacco cards as a teenager in the year of 1910. Therefore, American Litho. printed & issued this card in 1910......." It simply makes zero logical sense at all. I used the Puckett analogy to make this easier for people like you to understand the point Jim.
|
|
#11
05-11-2010, 11:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
05-11-2010, 11:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Myself probably like some others on this board are more or less T206 novices. I love learning about all aspects of the monster. But how many times can the same issue be revisited without having any substantial value added?
__________________
My collection: http://imageevent.com/vanslykefan Last edited by Robextend; 05-11-2010 at 11:40 AM.
|
|
#13
05-11-2010, 11:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
how many times?
Quote:
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com
|
|
#14
05-11-2010, 12:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I think you are missing the key element. The "substantial value" part is actually added each time this topic comes up. If there werent a strong case against the card, you wouldnt see nearly as many...if any threads on it. The fact that this topic is so frequently discussed IS the substantial added value!
|
|
#17
05-11-2010, 10:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I vote that the T206 Cobb with Cobb back should be part of the E107 set. Anybody want to second that?
|
|
#18
05-11-2010, 10:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey JimB and Jim VB......
After these comments of his......
"There isnt a single logician in the world who would agree with Ted's following statement: "FURTHERMORE, Senator Russell's T206 and T210 collection (on display at the U. of Georgia) includes a Ty Cobb back card. It is documented.....Mr. Russell collected his tobacco cards as a teenager in the year of 1910. Therefore, American Litho. printed & issued this card in 1910......." It simply makes zero logical sense at all. I used the Puckett analogy to make this easier for people like you to understand the point Jim." There is NO-WAY that any sane person on this forum can have a meaningful discussion with this HYPER - ILLOGICAL THINKING - UNINFORMED IDIOT.....who is impervious to learning anything regarding vintage cards. Why are we wasting our time guys, trying to inform him ? ? TED Z
|
|
#19
05-11-2010, 10:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ted,
One of the reasons I am nominating Chicago for the job of re-categorizing T206s correctly is his keen intellect, his ability to (listen to and) follow logical arguments, and his immense skill at sifting through large amounts of information and conducting reasoned analysis in order to draw clearly rational conclusions. Jim
|
|
#20
05-11-2010, 10:38 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's been proven that Abner Doubleday had nothing to do with the invention of baseball. Do we still say he invented the game ? As more data is available it changes the answers to questions.
What is the big deal , if the classification of the Cobb with Cobb back is wrong then it needs to be corrected. The card is different ( inserted into a Tin, has glossy finish to it, different back than the others. Maybe it should be a T206 - Tin Insert or a different number altogether
|
|
#21
05-11-2010, 10:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There clearly are characteristics regarding the Cobb back that are different from the other T206 brands, most prominently that only a single front was produced with it. But Burdick categorized it as T206, and while I do believe it is permissable to amend the ACC, we can only do so if we have irrefutable evidence that proves he was wrong.
In the case of this card, we have some valid theories but that's all they are. Nobody to date has been able to come up with the smoking gun that proves Burdick wrong. Until that time, let's leave it as part of the T206 set.
|
|
#22
05-11-2010, 10:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Be careful!!! You had better be able to prove that you have been collecting for 25 years, and have "handled tens of thousands" of cards before anyone will take your viewpoint seriously! Forget being a logical thinker...that has no merit on this board. 
|
|
#23
05-11-2010, 10:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Tim, Absolutely no reason for you to apologize to me. There is plenty of room for debate as to whether or not Burdick got it wrong or right, by including it in that set. My point was, he did include it. And since it's his classification, it's a done deal.
__________________
Jim Van Brunt
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
