Further Thoughts about Red Cobb with Cobb back

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

In my studying they have been known about since the 1950's.....according to Burdick and Bray and what I have read...(the checklist shown is from mid-late 50's to early 60's time frame)

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I'm going to agree with Dave and say the Cobb brand "piggy-backed" on the success of all the other tobacco cards circulating and were released after the 460 series, perhaps well after. They saw how popular the cigarette cards were and copied the idea for a brand that likely failed and disappeared very quickly. Who knows, maybe Ty Cobb tobacco was poor quality and didn't catch on with the public, and ultimately failed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Ted,

Thanks for the compliment, but I didn't have anything groundbreaking to say about Cobb w/Cobb. I generally agree with those who have said that the card doesn't belong in T206 for the following reasons:

1. Glossy front (although I understand this may be in dispute)
2. No evidence of distribution as a tobacco product insert
3. No evidence of contemporaneous issuance with T206 subjects

I believe what define T206 primarily are: (1) common look, (2) common mode of distribution (i.e. tobacco product insert) and (3) a common time of distribution (i.e. 1909-1911). If it could be shown that Cobb w/Cobbs were not issued with fronts that are glossier than what we all agree are T206 cards, were distributed as inserts in tobacco products and were issued contemporaneously with what we all agree are T206 cards then I would probably change my view.

I know I am going to get myself in trouble here since some will say that there is no proof Wagner (Pittsburg) ever made it into Sweet Caporal or Piedmont packs--to which I say that if that can ever be proven Wagner (Pittsburg) probably should not be considered part of the T206 set either. (Which would save a lot of us the pain of knowing that we will never have a complete T206 set due to the inability to afford a Wagner--although most of us would still be lacking the Doyle variation, I suppose).

I don't think the fact that Cobb w/Cobb is the only subject with a particular brand (Ty Cobb Tobacco) or the only subject with a particular factory designation (No. 33, North Carolina) are dispositive of whether it is properly part of T206. If my factors (1) through (3) were met then I think I would welcome Cobb w/Cobb to the set.

Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Leon beat me to the "punch" with proof positive. But, us old dudes were well aware of this
card: however, I don't recall any huge excitement over it as is now....it was seldom seen,
so I guess "out of sight....out of mind", back then.

The Joe Doyle error, which is equal in rarity to this Ty Cobb back card, is more of a mystery
since it was an unknown card, till the mid-1980's. Burdick was unaware of it.

Sorry to be nit-picking on something you said earlier in this Thread.....

"Barry: I think it is important to note that everything about the card is consistent with T206."

This Ty Cobb's FACTORY #33, is unique to this card.....and, that's what sets it apart from all
the 524 - T206's. This is not a trivial factor in this debate.

And, the North Carolina District infers that it was most likely issued with an L&M product.....
possibly post 1911.

T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul Kaufman

I don't collect this set, but I also asked SGC to remove the card from its set registry listing about a year ago. No response from SGC. I found their listing of it in the set registry to be inconsistent, since they did not list any other T206 by card back type. It is unfair to require this card to have a complete SGC T206 set.......a Cobb Portrait Red of any back type should suffice. Just my two cents.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

for whatever it's worth, PSA used to have the Cobb/Cobb as part of the set reg, now it has since been taken out.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Wentz

Of the total population of Ty Cobb brand tobacco cards, there is at least one (PSA Authentic) example where the front and back are flipped -- meaning the reverse is glossy like a T213 or Tango Egg and the obverse has the traditional dull, matte finish. Furthermore, this specimen is obviously hand-cut by an amateur (wavy edges) and the fact that it could very well be a printer's trial or scrap lends more credence to the general consensus that this is a mere test or promotional issue and not part of the T206 White Border set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

now... the cobby red is the earlier one (from what I've been told).

Looking at the back of the Cobb/Cobb - it is green.

While this may or may not have made a difference from a printer's perspective (maybe marginal difference / maybe none)... from a pure marketing stand point - If your brand was green, wouldn't you go with the green portrait on the front?

Can I admit that as circumstantial evidence that the cobb/cobb came out prior to the green portrait cobb? That is why the green wasn't chosen... because it wasn't a known option yet.

Okay.. its not a rock solid argument - but we don't have much to go on.


If it can be shown that the "Ty Cobb" brand was out after the T206 printing... then in my eyes it is not a T206. If it was out during the T206 print run... I think it should be included.

And if we find out Ty Cobb brand was prior to the T206 printing... then that is a new scenario altogether - and we may have to consider the card the mother of all T206s!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I used to own the PSA "Authentic" Cobb/Cobb back (until a couple of weeks ago) and it did not have the gloss on the front. It was just like every other T206 Cobb red on the front. Contra Brian Wentz' claim, it did NOT have gloss on the back either. Unless Brian is referring to a different "Authentic" example, the one PSA "Authentic" example that I am aware of does not have any gloss on either side.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

"And if we find out Ty Cobb brand was prior to the T206 printing... then that is a new scenario altogether - and we may have to consider the card the mother of all T206s!!!"

Interesting prospect indeed!
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

"And, the North Carolina District infers that it was most likely issued with an L&M product.....
possibly post 1911. "

Ted,
Can you provide some information that would substantiate your inference? WHy does that make it "most likely issued with an L&M product" ? I simply do not know the information that perhaps you are presuming we all know. Please educate me. I am slow.


As a dinosaur professor of philosophy I am always looking for evidence; simple claims don't do the trick. I am not getting the reasoning here.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Scot wrote:

"2. No evidence of distribution as a tobacco product insert"

What about the tobacco ad on the back and existence of Ty Cobb brand tobacco tins? Even if it was a countertop promotion as opposed to inserted in the tins, I am not convinced that would disqualify it.


"3. No evidence of contemporaneous issuance with T206 subjects"

Thus far, no evidence to the contrary either. If such evidence does arise, I will agree that it is not a T206. Depending on the evidence, if such evidence ever does arise, the conclusions to be drawn could vary.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jim- you are absolutely correct that we have no definitive proof, and I admit everything I've said on this thread was speculation. It's just a gut feeling that there is something about this card, as I delineated in my several posts, that doesn't seem consistent to me. I wish there was more proof, and that we knew more about it. If I had to make a guess, I would say it is not part of the T206 set. But guesses can be wrong, too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Jim,
After the ATC was busted up in 1911, the brands were distributed to several different companies including L&M. I'll be happy to list the breakdown when I get back from dinner. Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

The Green Cobb and the Cobb (bat on) were printed 1st in the 150 Series.

The Red Cobb and Cobb (bat off) were issued in both the 350 and 460 series.

In fact the Red Cobb is a "Super Print", in that it can be found with almost any backs associated
with the 350/460 series.

Now from a back perspective.....the Sovereign 460 and American Beauty 460 backs are of course
Green, and are tougher than their earlier series' counterparts. Furthermore, the Am Bty 460 back
is a "4th Dist. N.C.".....this is the same exact district as the Ty Cobb back.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Ted said,
"Furthermore, the Am Bty 460 back is a "4th Dist. N.C.".....this is the same exact district as the Ty Cobb back."

This is evidence that seems to suggest the Cobb back is a T206!!!!! It is from the same district and classified in the same way as a definatively T206 brand.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

Thanks Ted.

Knowing that both portrait choices were available - I have to scratch my head at the decision to use the red one. Its not the one I would have chosen if I was doing a 'one-carder' with a green back (from a marketing standpoint).


Same district as the American Beauty... that is very interesting.

(great thread)

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Well I once, years ago, thought of the Ty Cobb wTC back card as a T206. When I learned they had glossy fronts, I wondered about it... and why no other players, just Ty.

For some reason I thought Ty, or some friend of his, got a "Ty Cobb" brand tobacco product going (which had to involve Ty's agreement so he either was in on ownership to some extent himself, or he got paid for it), and they got some cards printed. Not very many, or we'd see lots of them. Maybe only a few were printed as a novelty for the owners. At that point in time, cards weren't a necessary component for a product to be competitive. Since the cards look like the T213s, I used to perceive them as contemporary, which would have been after T206 and after the American Tobacco Trust.

So I like Richard's idea of T213-4. Hadn't thought of that, seems reasonable. Seems a great idea!

Scot is right on with the idea that The TC w TC back card doesn't meet the criteria of other T206s, it shouldn't be in the set.

Ted Z points out how the card even feels different, and in times past it was not considered part of T206.


I recall the first time I held a T213 Coupon card. I thought it was a funny T206, looked like them. Same size. But the blue names, the crackly coating on the front. And "Coupon" backs have the same style and period feel as does Cycle, Carolina Brights, Old Mill... Coupon fits right in. But when I get done thinking about how much a Coupon card was like a T206, I could see that it wasn't one.

And that is what we have here. Wanting it to be part of it doesn't make it so. And it might be good one day if the guidebooks gave it a separate designation.

Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Since you seem to doubt my info regarding the Ty Cobb card being a post 1911 issue....which,
I base on the "4th Dist. N.C." nomenclature on its back....I hope that Brian Weisner can provide
us some more definitive information.

Now, one of the reinforcing pieces of evidence that I have are my two Piedmont Tobacco packs.
I have an ATC pack issued in 1909 which is Factory #25 2nd Dist. Virginia and an L&M pack issued
in 1911, which is Factory #42 4th Dist. North Carolina.

I believe there is a correllation between the latter Tobacco district here and the Ty Cobb district,
that shows the Ty Cobb to have been issued later than the full run of the T206's.

Jim, do not dismiss the significance of the Factory #33 factor.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

I don't know if it means anything, but T209s were also printed in the 4th Dist, NC.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

So "4th Dist. N.C." could indicate that it either was an ATC (and thus T206) brand or that it was Liggett and Meyers (and thus not a T206) brand. There is evidence of that designation in both cases. We still need more information.

By the way, this is a great thread. I hope Brian can produce some definative information later.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

By the way, earlier today I read through a 65 page article on the early history of Liggett and Meyers and there was no mention of the Ty Cobb brand.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I find it pretty interesting that the ONLY two people on this thread who have held a Cobb/Cobb in their hands within the last week have BOTH said that theirs did NOT have a "glossy" front.

I'm starting to think that the "Georgia Find" of Cobb/Cobb cards may have had a previous owner who did something to the front of the cards to protect them or something???

Could THAT be how this "glossy front" rumor got started?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hal- that's a very interesting point, because while I saw REA's five in person, I'm not sure I've held another one. How could they be known with and without the glossy front? All five that REA had have since been slabbed, so nothing improper was found.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

With these Ty Cobb cards being so rare, can we trust the Grader to know the difference ?

I allude to the grading by SGC of the "fake" Joe Doyle several years ago. Did that occur due
to an inexperienced Grader, or to the scarcity of that card.....or a combination of both ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Hi Jim,

On your first point, we know from newspaper advertising sketches that Hindus and Old Mills were tobacco pack inserts. We know from a American Tocacco Company documents that Tolstois and Uzits were tobacco pack inserts. We have witnessed Piedmonts and Sweet Caporals pulled from tobacco packs in the modern era. There is no comparable direct evidence that Cobb w/Cobb was ever an insert. To the best of my knowledge, there is not even circumstantial evidence on par with the tobacco stains commonly seen on Polar Bears. I don't think the existence of Ty Cobb tins and the back advertisement on the card itself are evidence of distribution of Cobb w/Cobb AS AN INSERT.

On your second point, maybe you're right that a common mode of distribution is not always essential for inclusion in a set. Let's say hypothetically that in 1909 an American Tobacco employee had printed up a dozen copies of a T206-like batting pose of Eddie Collins and gave them out to his friends as keepsakes. None were ever put any into cigarette packs so that the general public could acquire them. Would Collins (Batting) then be properly considered part of the T206 set? I think reasonable minds may differ on this point, but I would probably say that Collins (Batting) in that event would not be part of the set. Or consider the real-world case of the Goudey Lajoie that (as I understand it) was actually made available only to those who wrote to the company. Is a '33 Goudey set complete without that card? I think so--although I would respect others who have a different view.

On your third point, you are right that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Cobb w/Cobb COULD have been distributed contemporaneously with T206 cards. However, most people require something more than a mere possibility that an entity belongs in a group before identifying the entity to the group (and thus would require more than a mere possibility of contemporaneous distribution of Cobb w/Cobb and T206 before identifying Cobb w/Cobb to the T206 set). Contemporaneous distribution of Cobb w/Cobb and T206 cards could be ruled out if Factory 33, North Carolina did not exist until after April 1911. That would be a great research topic.

Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

I don't know whether this is helpful to the discussion but my review of all 20th century tobacco non-sports sets T1 through T177 show none having a Factory 33 designation. All other factories that are known to T206 are represented.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I, too, have searched hi-n-lo to try to find another Factory #33 card of any kind, and have
not been able to.

I am glad you posted your information, as it sounds like it is a more comprehensive search.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

While looking for something else in a box of things, I found an "Official Political and other Valuable INFORMATION 1912" booklet from Liggett & Myers.

In the back it lists their different products--granulated plug cuts, plug cuts, long cuts, etc etc. and the last list is of their different cigarette brands. On that list, their is (baseball related) American Beauty, Broadleaf, Coupon, Cycle, Obak, Old Mill and Piedmont. Nothing about a Ty Cobb brand.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judson Hamlin

This is what happens while some of us work? Good thing my office blocks forums like this or I would get nothing done...
It seems likely that this card was printed by Amer. Litho, just like other E and T sets with the same style (E95/96 and T213/14/15 come to mind; and probably T210/11 as well). The similarity with T206 seems to end there, however. That is to say, it has no better claim to be included in that set than a T215-1 or a T213-1. There is no ATC paperwork that has survived, as with Uzit and other backs; there are no period newspaper ads, as with Hindu; and there are no other subjects- baseball or otherwise- with Ty Cobb advertising that have surfaced. In short, we have no evidence to show that this card was an element of ATC's distribution scheme of baseball insert cards in the 1909-11 time frame. A better case can be made that Coupon and Red Cross should be included in T206 since we can accurately date the first series of those issues to ATC and the 1909-11 time frame. The Cobb/Cobb is, and always be a valuable card but, despite the post- distribution opinion of Burdick, does not appear to be temporally related to the T206 set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Guys,
I have one of my top clients in town until Friday morning, but afterwards I'll see what I can do. Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

My card had a glossy front.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Hal,
I sold one and bought a different one in the past two weeks. The "Authentic" one, which is presumed to be a proof because of the lack of gloss and apparent hand-cut does not have a glossy front, but the other copy does have a glossy front.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: barry arnold

I have read and reread this thread a number of times---I understand full
well why you read and reread Scot's book, TRex!

Although I believe the evidence tilts the scales in favor of TyCobb/TyCobb's
non-T206 status,I feel most comfortable underscoring 3 points of Scot's
from above:
"I think reasonable minds may differ on this point."
"I would respect others who have a different view."
"This would be a great research topic."
Admittedly, I have extrapolated these points and utilized them for my own
purposes but I think they are congruent with Scot's general intent.
An absolutely fascinating thread that MUST break 300!

all the best,

barry

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I held the one Mastro auctioned off a couple years ago in my hand at a show.

This particular example absolutely without a doubt was glossy. Within seconds of inspecting it, I said "what the hell... it has a glossy front?"

The guy at the Mastro booth then went on about how it probably wasn't distributed like any other T206s and may have been issued in a tin or something.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I cannot emphasize this enough....but, the key to unravelling this mystery is in the bottom line
of this back which reads....

"FACTORY No 33 - 4, DIST. OF N.C."




So, let's do some more research and see if we can, with certainty, say it's a T206....or some
other issue.

T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Certainty may elude us.

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

Maybe it was a T206 promo.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

It seems as though we have moved from going on hunches to looking for evidence. I view this as a major step forward.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Ah, Ted, the age-old (well, ten year old) question. If an item is so rare that virtually none exist, how does anyone looking it over authenticate it? And how does anyone at Slabco do it, since they weren't the ones in on the finds, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brett

Someone should try to tack down the relatives of the people who actually worked at the factories where some t206s were made !

I think the Cobb with Cobb back is a t206

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Until we hear more from Brian W.....I am chasing down the "North Carolina district",
which implies the Liggett & Meyers tobacco company of that era (1911 to present).

I might be on a "wild goose" chase....but, one has to start somewhere.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Your very prescient question echos my post on this Thread on Mar 6th.

I will not get into PSA's mistakes......but, we have two significant examples of SGC grading very rare "T206
cards" that turned out to be FAKES.

1st.....the Matty (portrait) with the Red HINDU back, when any student of the T206 design knew that this
card was an impossible front/back combination.....SGC, subsequently, admitted their mistake.

2nd.....the Joe Doyle error FAKE, graded by SGC.....subsequently, they retracted this card.

I feel....and as you asked.....these gross mistakes were honest errors that occurred due to what I call the
"scarcity factor" of such cards; where the grader had never seen one before to compare.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

I contacted my friend out in California who is a leading expert on cigarette packs (not baseball related) and inquired about Factory 33, 4th District of N.C. to see if any other cigarettes were ever produced at the factory. As it turns out, the only record he had of cigarettes being produced there the F. R. Penn Tob. Co. made Penbarry Cigarettes there in 1927. Now, F.R. Penn Tob was related to the American Tobacco Company (successors).

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Could this be the "TY COBB Smoking Tobacco FACTORY #33 - 4" .....? ?

Couldn't resist posting this 1920's postcard of the Liggett & Meyers Factory in Durham, NC
We have to keep this Thread active.



TED Z collection

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

Is that the one they are converting into condos?

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

i'm actually embarassed to ask this (being a pretty knowledgable T206 guy)...

regarding factory numbers...were those the factories that were printing the cards, or where the cigarettes were made? or were the cards printed elsewhere then packaged in the factories where the cigs were made?

Ted/Scot?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

T206 were printed in New York by American Lithographic Company then presumably shipped to local factory where they were inserted in packs. I believe US law at the time required tobacco companies to identify the factory of origin for their product. Presumably this is why there are some overstruck factory numbers for some brands in T206, at least IMHO.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Ted,
Great post card. I believe that when the American Tobacco Trust monopoly was broken up by the government in an anti-trust suit in 1911 that part of the holdings went or were sold to Liggett and Meyers. Thus, it is possible that the Factory 33 could have been a part of ATT before 1911 and Liggett and Meyers afterwards. Either way, I can't help but fantacize about all the Ty Cobb back cards that may have been in that factory at one time.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

jimB-

...or still there in the basement storage...