t206 cobb/cobb backs

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by rats60

It is like people who call 1949 Leaf Baseball cards 1948 or the 1952 Topps Mantle his rookie card. He made a mistake and it just keeps getting carried forward.

No that is not the same. It is his own terminology that we all adopted. If you want to change the classification then you would have to change the name for the set. It really is more of an argument of semantics. It was the original definition and classification so it will stay that way. Just like t213-1 has its own classification even if others now disagree with Burdick's choice.

I believe each series could be considered its own set, but that doesn't change the fact that Burdick defined it all as one set so it stays that way. Just because I disagree with it doesn't change it.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

No that is not the same. It is his own terminology that we all adopted. If you want to change the classification then you would have to change the name for the set. It really is more of an argument of semantics. It was the original definition and classification so it will stay that way. Just like t213-1 has its own classification even if others now disagree with Burdick's choice.

I believe each series could be considered its own set, but that doesn't change the fact that Burdick defined it all as one set so it stays that way. Just because I disagree with it doesn't change it.

t206 were "defined" by burdick as white borders. with this loose definition...t213 1 and t206 cobb/cobb as well as many many other issues could be included.

truth is that burdicks classification system was revolutionary for the era...but as times change...and more info is garnished...so do classifications. IE planet pluto!

[tedzan]

This Cobb is scarcer than the Ty Cobb/Ty Cobb card.

Last time I checked the Pop Report's data, there are less than 10 of this AB 460 graded.


.



TED Z
.