NOT the Cobb card in this 1913 set!

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Though this is Cobb sliding, this is NOT the listed Cobb card in the 1913 National Game set. This is 1 of the 6 common pose cards listed at the end and books for $7.50 in Near Mint.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2785390993&category=31718

[Archive]

Posted By: brian p

The label is inaccurate, in that the set has a bust shot of Cobb, but this card in the past few years has a premium attached to it (or at least some sellers try to get more bucks from it) because the picture is of Ty Cobb sliding into a base. You have to get lucky to buy it for low dollar amount the other action shots go for.

Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

This is the equivilant of a 1967 Topps Mickey Mantle Checklist card. It's a genuine Cobb, just don't confuse it with the other Cobb.

[Archive]

Posted By: slacks

Yeah, I clued in the $2000 bidder, he and the seller got into it and the seller ended up cancelling the auction. Not my business, but I'd hope someone would do the same for me.

But of course it'll be back...

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

slide does), then I think there SHOULD be some premium over the common action photos in the set. $2,500 is a bit thick, though.

[Archive]

Posted By: slacks

I agree. PSA has the wrong label (who knows, could be a WIWAG card) and the seller clearly represented it as a card with an SMR of $2500. Odds are someone down the line will be wronged.

Julie, how about I buy it for you (I've got deep pockets and will double the SMR NM price of $7.50), you can liberate it from the holder and the problem is solved?

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

as my auction money comes in, but I'm saving it all for...I'll never tell. Even if you guess RIGHT!

You want to BUY me the National Game Cobb? (sliding)

Julie Vognar
2161 North Valley St.
Berkeley, CA 94702

Oh. A joke. I see!

[Archive]

Posted By: slacks

Offered him $15 - he said $1500 wouldn't do it. Oh well...

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

In my opinion and even if the card itself is authentic and correctly graded, I beleive that grossly mispresenting the value is valid basis for a return. Of course pricing is an inexact science and people can reasonably differ on current and future value and comparing the price of this card to that card is usually okay, but the seller takes the responsibility if he misquotes by over 150X the published book price.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

It's even simpler than that. As the seller represents (by name, value and image) the card as being a different one, he is selling a fake ... And, no, I don't accept as a valid the excuse that PSA's label is deceptive. The seller takes responsibility for what he sells, even if his material error in description was accidental.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

* and, in issues of authenticity, 'material' error in description, means that the error in description signficantly effects the financial value. In some cases the discrepency can be materially important in a non-finanial way if it siginificantly effects the reasonable and clear (repeat: reasonable) expectations of the buyer. An example would be if an Iowa City collector makes it repeatedly clear to the seller that he only buys memorabilia depictiong Iowa and the seller assures him that the postcard pictures an Iowa farm. Even if there is no monetary issue, if it turns out the the farm is in Oklahoma, the seller would have perfect right for return of the item.

[Archive]

Posted By: slacks

I agree with you.

The reality might be that the seller himself mistakenly paid too much for it and is trying to share the love.

Unfortunately, this guy posts a lot on the PSA boards and gives the impression of being pretty ethical. If he doesn't want to accept a return, it could get ugly for the buyer even if the buyer has the law on his side.

The buyer might have some recourse against PSA because the card is mislabelled.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Mckee

Here is one PROPERLY labelled by a company that at least has some pre-war knowlege. Notice it didn't sell at the inflated $199.99 price.



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2781760797&category=31718

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

[Archive]

Posted By: slacks

I'm not convinced either. Not so much because of his face (hard to tell), but because Cobb slid into third on his right side.

And something about the picture just doesn't look like him, no matter what the seller or anyone else says.

[Archive]

Posted By: brian p

Thought I would provide a close-up of this card just to confirm that it is indeed Cobb. I don't think $200.00 for this card is money well spent...as David said earlier, it is comparable to a Topps checklist picturing Mickey Mantle. Worth something extra, but not especially desirable.

[Archive]

Posted By: brian p

I have always been confused by the perspective on this card. I would imagine Cobb is sliding into third, yet the umpire seems to be running in from the outfield, and the wall seems to be too close for it to be the one on the first base side. Perhaps it is a reversed negative?

Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: slacks

No I don't think so, unless he's doing some Germany Schaefer-style baserunning...

Or he flipped over the third base bag and...never mind.

slacks
Still not convinced it's Cobb either

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Interesting pic to say the least. Doesn't seem to be very Cobb-like to be sliding that far outside the bag in foul territory since he was notorious for going after teh player on the bag. The flipped pic doesn't look right for a pic take at 1B.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Just realized too that the photographer was in fair territory to take the pic.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: slacks

But remember that the bag is INSIDE the foul line. Also the base looks too square -- they really were bags still. Maybe it's the third baseman's arm after he spiked it off.

It's not a very pleasing picture, whoever it is, whatever they're sliding into, wherever they are.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

who are you?

[Archive]

Posted By: slacks

Well, I'm slacks

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

inverse image, COBB doing a hook-slide past third. To me it looks exactly like Cobb, and is very typical of the way he slid - Cobb was an expert base-runner who did whatever it took to get to the base. This fits perfectly:

If the 3rd-baseman has the ball and is waiting for you, you either do it Pete Rose's way - run over him - or Cobb's way - slide in with spikes high.

If the 3rd baseman is waiting for the throw but it has a great chance of beating you, and especially if the throw is off-line (as it appears to be in this case), then a hook slide could work. The fact that there is no 3rd-baseman in the photo leads me to believe that the throw was off-line but when Cobb saw the fielder throw, it had plenty of time to beat him to the bag.

[Archive]

Posted By: slacks

Runscott: I agree with some of your points. However, in the inverse picture, the dust formation shows movement from left to right (granular to cloudy). Also, I don't think a hook slide would turn him around to face the plate still looking like he's stretching.

And spikes high? Don't get me started. Just like Conlon's famous picture of Cobb coming into Jimmy Austin (called "spikes high" by many), his (whoever he is) spikes were most definitely not "high," evidence by the fact the dirt is flying.

I'm not convinced it is Cobb. However, you've made a plausible explanation, which is harder than simply refuting (all that I've done).

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

It's from my T202, so not the greatest print.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

but much more poorly...everything in the photo is in keeping with my experience, especially the way the dirt is flying, although admittedly no one ever bothered to take my picture and I was thinking more about attaining the base than physics.

When you slide, you push dirt - it doesn't trail behind you like smoke - even the famous photo of Cobb sliding into Jimmy Austin shows a load of dirt flying past the bag. The dirt that you see behind a sliding ball player is dirt that he has pushed up and then slid through (I know this is academic). Could be that in this instance Cobb hit the dirt a bit late, but there is probably more dirt that is simply out of the photo.

But I realize that you don't think it's Cobb and that there's something strange about the slide. I guess it all comes down to personal opinions, but the fact is that this isn't a highly valuable card, regardless of who the player is or where he's heading with that slide.

Another explanation: the diagonal white base-line we are seeing might not really be a base-line - it's fairly light and might just be part of the coach's box, or deceptive lighting. Maybe the base-line actually runs horizontal across the bottom of the photo, even with the bottom part of the bag? If so, this looks extremely similar to the photo of Cobb in his famous "Cobb/Austin" slide.

I'm going to give up at this point - anyone want to debate whether or not Ruth called his shot? I have evidence that he did (evidence anyone can easily obtain)

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I think it's Cobb.....but then again I thought I bought a cabinet of Delehanty but it was his midget twin so what do I know? (that was rhetorical, please don't answer) and yes Julie...I think I got you on the plural "Nationals" kick....

[Archive]

Posted By: slacks

<<When you slide, you push dirt - it doesn't trail behind you like smoke - even the famous photo of Cobb sliding into Jimmy Austin shows a load of dirt flying past the bag. The dirt that you see behind a sliding ball player is dirt that he has pushed up and then slid through (I know this is academic).>>

It's academic, but I love it. I could talk about this all day. As if we have more pressing issues to discuss?

My point was that the granular part of dirt will precede the clouds. If you pick up a handful of dirt and toss it, grains will fly ahead and dust clouds will follow and dissipate. That's exactly what's happening in Conlon's picture (thanks, Julie) and the opposite of what appears in the inverse of this picture.

Your point about the line is certainly a good one. And of course they were much less careful about exactly where the lines were back then and making sure the bases were firmly attached to the ground - groundskeepers varied in expertise.

The last (?) point I thought of was that the stands seem an awfully long way away from the third base in the inverse picture. Those were "single-purpose" parks back then, and they usually crammed the crowds up pretty darn close to the action.

Good points, and I concede I have no hypothesis. But isn't it amazing how cool Conlon's shot is and how unrewarding this one it to look at?

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Slacks - I'm glad you reminded me about the stands. No matter how you twist it, they don't look right. But if you look closely at the area on either side of the ump's coat, it looks like he was "cut and pasted" into the photo. Same might be true for the stands - it could be the lighting, but it looks to me like the folks to the left are larger and whiter than the folks to the right.

Yes, Conlon was great and you must own his book, now available at bookstores for under $20.

[Archive]

Posted By: slacks

Runscott:

Good call. I agree. The whole picture is a dog's breakfast.

That 1912 version of Photoshop had a lot of bugs.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

The lighter people in the stands could have been caused by a streak of sunlight, I suppose, but the ump really looks cut and pasted!

No, don't buy it for me for $1500, or $14.00 either one!