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

[usernamealreadytaken]

Every T206 back has the phrase "Base Ball Series" except for Carolina Brights and Hindu which have "Base Ball Subjects." Either way, the appearance of "Base Ball" identifying the issue is the key. Though this might lead some to believe that "Coupon" backs should be classified as T206, the color and caption of their front lettering knocks 'em out (along with the timing of their print run).

Ty Cobb backs: You're outta here!!

[ullmandds]

Your theory doesn't knock out t213-1 coupon type I's...

[usernamealreadytaken]

One claim to keep them out is that every other T206 back references some number of players (150/350/350-460, Large Assortment, Assorted Designs, etc).

I think either Coupon 213-1 goes in, or El Principe De Gales go out...

[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...

[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 .

[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.

[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.