T206, or not....let's have a continuing conversation....Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco card

[RCMcKenzie]

Greg, did the issuers think there was a set complete at 524, or did collectors make that up many years later? That's all I'm saying. T206 is flawed as a set compared to e102, where the checklist is on the back.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not my expertise by any means, but I like Frank's analogy of a cousin. In any event since T206 is just an after the fact classification anyhow, not sure why it really matters.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Greg, did the issuers think there was a set complete at 524, or did collectors make that up many years later? That's all I'm saying. T206 is flawed as a set compared to e102, where the checklist is on the back.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. Your reply quoting my post seemed to state that you think 150 and 350 are not the same set and should be separate, and that the set is just considered a set because Burdick said it was? It doesn't say anything about whether its 524 or 520 or 510 or 483 or any other number?

This question of how many cards make a basic set seems to be a very different question. I don't know how many Fullgraff or whoever was the PM for T206 would say were unique cards. Probably a little short of 524, the printing certainly indicates some of what people like to count as 524 were not considered new cards, just corrections to an existing card during the print run or updates.

That doesn't seem to affect whether a card is or is not part of the set though. None of the primary evidence seems to suggest that 150 and 350 series cards were conceived of as different sets, or that T206 was treated differently than the numerous other sets that aren't considered special today.

A Ty Cobb back card, of course, would not affect the set size of a basic T206 set in any way designated as T206 or T-UNC or whatever else. It's not a unique image or caption or front.

[Casey2296]

I'm not a T206 guy so no dog in this fight but that is a very special card and props to those that own one.

[RCMcKenzie]

I should have just said your name without quoting your whole point.

The background is from old threads and TedZ's assertion that T213-1 should be called T206, which I agree with, but the reason I have been able to collect them, is because they have been called T213-1, and viewed by collectors as crummy broders, instead of very rare-backed t206's.

I can see keeping Piedmont 150 350 and 460 together. It gets complicated when you put Clarence Beaumont SC 150 30 with a Demmitt Polar Bear as the same set. One is in a cigarette product, and one is in a pouch of tobacco. Why not throw in a Cobb from a tin can with some gloss?

I think it's a fun topic, like the green bird on the 1978 Topps Bob Forsch topic, not a terribly important topic.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I should have just said your name without quoting your whole point.

The background is from old threads and TedZ's assertion that T213-1 should be called T206, which I agree with, but the reason I have been able to collect them, is because they have been called T213-1, and viewed by collectors as crummy broders, instead of very rare-backed t206's.

I can see keeping Piedmont 150 350 and 460 together. It gets complicated when you put Clarence Beaumont SC 150 30 with a Demmitt Polar Bear as the same set. One is in a cigarette product, and one is in a pouch of tobacco. Why not throw in a Cobb from a tin can with some gloss?

I think it's a fun topic, like the green bird on the 1978 Topps Bob Forsch topic, not a terribly important topic.

Whether T213-1 should be called a T206 is a good choice of a case where it is not so clear what the intent was. Is T30 and T118 the same set? T3 and T9? I would certainly classify T3 and T9 as one by designer intent. I don't think anyone in 1910 considered that a set could not be issued with scrap and cigarettes both; that seems to be a modern thought creation. Other sets were and carry the same designs, in the same series, at the same time, with the same set name and have no indication at all that they were considered different sets. It seems very hard to conclude, relying on the primary evidence, that Piedmont and Polar Bear and American Beauty were conceived as completely different sets instead of the same set being packaged with multiple brands, often closely related to each other in the ATC corporate structure.

I think we know that having the same picture used does not make a card from the same set. Nobody argues a Victory is a T206 or that a T219 is a T218; there were several reuses and reprintings that were their own sets. I think the difference with the Cobb back is not that it came in a tin or has some gloss (other sets have glossed and unglossed; T69), but is that it was a very limited release single promo card and probably wasn't thought of as part of any set at all; just a standalone promo for with a tiny print run. Is George Bush part of the 1990 Topps set? No. Is it related to it by virtue of using the design and being from the time? Sure. Just like a T223 is related to a T220.

I would hope nobody would consider any topic in a baseball card group terribly important in the grand scheme of things

[t206fanatic]

My two cents would be the card is adjacent to the set, but not a core member. I think I'd prefer to see T213-1's added to the official T206 set before the Cobb/Cobb

[RCMcKenzie]

Nice card, Jeff.

Here was a post on this topic from 2010. Note Leon's points in posts 41 and 49. I am corrected. Burdick called it a T206.


www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=122677

[Pat R]

I'd love to own one but in my opinion it's not a T206 for several reasons most of which have been mentioned before but something I don't recall being mentioned before is that all of the T206's were in ATC products but Ty Cobb Tobacco was produced by the F. R. Penn Tobacco Co. and The American Tobacco Co. didn't purchase F. R. Penn until 1911.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

T206 is flawed as a set compared to e102, where the checklist is on the back.

The E102 set is not as straightfoward as it seems on the back, as 25 players are on the back checklist, but there are actually 29 cards, with two different pose variations for players Doyle, Miller, Wagner and Schmidt (with one of the Schmidt cards misspelled Smith).

Just trying to shift this tobacky thread into a candy thread, to the dismay of the doctors on here, but probably to the delight of the dentists.

Brian (E102, the King of the Anonymous Licking Candy World)

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

The E102 set is not as straightfoward as it seems on the back, as 25 players are on the back checklist, but there are actually 29 cards, with two different pose variations for players Doyle, Miller, Wagner and Schmidt (with one of the Schmidt cards misspelled Smith).

Just trying to shift this tobacky thread into a candy thread, to the dismay of the doctors on here, but probably to the delight of the dentists.

Brian (E102, the King of the Anonymous Licking Candy World)

It's a set of 25 players with 29 cards and we don't know who made them or what they were given out with. Do we know e102 are candy cards? I kind of wish I hadn't posted in this thread, and just read, like JimB told that guy to do in 2010.

[FrankWakefield]

If, in front of us on a table, there were about a thousand white border tobacco cards that we know as T206s (no slabs) laying there on the table, face up, and one of them was the Ty Cobb / Ty Cobb card... It would leap out at us in our field of vision. It ALONE would be the only card with the glossy front. A lingering question would be why does only one of these cards have a glossy front?

We flip all of the cards face down (gently, they aren't in slabs). There would be a variety of backs... but only one card that has Ty Cobb King Of The Smoking Tobacco World. And all of the cards but one reference Baseball Subjects or Baseball Series.... all except one card, that sole glossy front card.

And if we asked a wife, a third grader, or most anyone with walking around sense (that would exclude me and most collectors) to find the one card on the table full of cards that is different from the others, I think they'd easily separate out that Ty Cobb / Ty Cobb card from the rest.

In my mind is this story of ATC folks going to Georgia to talk with Ty about lending his name to a new brand, and they had printed a sample of cards to give him. And that's where the cards came from, and how they happened to be found in Georgia.

Let me simplify that table of cards. There's about a dozen cards there, all have a red portrait Cobb on the front, although one has a glossy sheen on the front. And those backs... there's one Ty Cobb King of the Smoking World back, and the others are all Piedmont, Sovereign, Sweet Caporal, Cycle, Polar Bear, El Principe de Gales, and Old Mill. All but one of the backs have Baseball Series or Baseball Subjects.... and the one that doesn't is that Cobb King of the Smoking World card. Which card is different from all the others?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

If, in front of us on a table, there were about a thousand white border tobacco cards that we know as T206s (no slabs) laying there on the table, face up, and one of them was the Ty Cobb / Ty Cobb card... It would leap out at us in our field of vision. It ALONE would be the only card with the glossy front. A lingering question would be why does only one of these cards have a glossy front?

We flip all of the cards face down (gently, they aren't in slabs). There would be a variety of backs... but only one card that has Ty Cobb King Of The Smoking Tobacco World. And all of the cards but one reference Baseball Subjects or Baseball Series.... all except one card, that sole glossy front card.

And if we asked a wife, a third grader, or most anyone with walking around sense (that would exclude me and most collectors) to find the one card on the table full of cards that is different from the others, I think they'd easily separate out that Ty Cobb / Ty Cobb card from the rest.

In my mind is this story of ATC folks going to Georgia to talk with Ty about lending his name to a new brand, and they had printed a sample of cards to give him. And that's where the cards came from, and how they happened to be found in Georgia.

Let me simplify that table of cards. There's about a dozen cards there, all have a red portrait Cobb on the front, although one has a glossy sheen on the front. And those backs... there's one Ty Cobb King of the Smoking World back, and the others are all Piedmont, Sovereign, Sweet Caporal, Cycle, Polar Bear, El Principe de Gales, and Old Mill. All but one of the backs have Baseball Series or Baseball Subjects.... and the one that doesn't is that Cobb King of the Smoking World card. Which card is different from all the others?

Good points frank it would also be the only factory 33 and non ATC owned brand from the T206 era in any complete set.

Ty Cobb Tobacco.jpg


img354.jpg

[nolemmings]

there also are blurbs in other papers from June 1909 saying only "And now they have named a smoke after Ty Cobb"

[Rhotchkiss]

Great thread Ted.

I think Frank makes a very compelling argument for why the Ty Cobb back is NOT a T206; although any self-respecting red cobb back run (like Jamie's) should include the Cobb back IMO.

On a different note, what is the prevailing argument for why T213-1 and T215-1 are not T206s? They were produced/distributed in 1910 (during the 1909-1911 print time), they have the same exact front pictures, including the black name print, and they were distributed in packs of cigarettes/tobacco. The only reason I can think to not classify them as T206 is because, unlike other established T206s, they have later versions (i.e., type 2, type 3, pirate, etc). In other words, T213 and T215 are not T206s because, unlike other T206s, their adds are carried on cards with the same fronts that were issued after 1911; thus the need to classify them as separate from T206 to catalogue the versions.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

If, in front of us on a table, there were about a thousand white border tobacco cards that we know as T206s (no slabs) laying there on the table, face up, and one of them was the Ty Cobb / Ty Cobb card... It would leap out at us in our field of vision. It ALONE would be the only card with the glossy front. A lingering question would be why does only one of these cards have a glossy front?

We flip all of the cards face down (gently, they aren't in slabs). There would be a variety of backs... but only one card that has Ty Cobb King Of The Smoking Tobacco World. And all of the cards but one reference Baseball Subjects or Baseball Series.... all except one card, that sole glossy front card.

And if we asked a wife, a third grader, or most anyone with walking around sense (that would exclude me and most collectors) to find the one card on the table full of cards that is different from the others, I think they'd easily separate out that Ty Cobb / Ty Cobb card from the rest.

In my mind is this story of ATC folks going to Georgia to talk with Ty about lending his name to a new brand, and they had printed a sample of cards to give him. And that's where the cards came from, and how they happened to be found in Georgia.

Let me simplify that table of cards. There's about a dozen cards there, all have a red portrait Cobb on the front, although one has a glossy sheen on the front. And those backs... there's one Ty Cobb King of the Smoking World back, and the others are all Piedmont, Sovereign, Sweet Caporal, Cycle, Polar Bear, El Principe de Gales, and Old Mill. All but one of the backs have Baseball Series or Baseball Subjects.... and the one that doesn't is that Cobb King of the Smoking World card. Which card is different from all the others?

I think that Frank makes the best argument. Considering the differences with both the backs and the glossy (Cobb back) or paper (Coupon) card stocks, it seems like the Red Cross and Coupons have more in common with T206 cards than the Cobb back has.

And there is the question of distribution as well. Ted, has anyone ever shown
how the Cobb backs were distributed? I know that some believe that they were in Cobb tins, but that seems unlikely. Do we know if they were ever in any type of pack? It seems like they could have just been a promotional giveaway, especially since more than half the known cards came from two finds.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Sean

And there is the question of distribution as well. Ted, has anyone ever shown
how the Cobb backs were distributed? I know that some believe that they were in Cobb tins, but that seems unlikely. Do we know if they were ever in any type of pack? It seems like they could have just been a promotional giveaway, especially since more than half the known cards came from two finds.

Hi Sean

No packs known.

The image on the Ty Cobb Tobacco tin is the batting version printed on the 1909 T206 Cobb
card. This is consistent with ATC's initial marketing of the Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco in 1909.




However, the image American Lithographic used for this Cobb card is the red portrait version.
Which was first printed in 1910 (or very late 1909).

To me, this imaging inconsistency suggests that the red portrait Cobb card was not intended
to be stuffed in the Tobacco tin.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[parkerj33]

Just had a thought regarding Burdick decision to group things together as t206 vs. t213-1, t215-1 etc... I think we all agree that there are plenty of reasons he could have considered a broader definition of t206 that included those sets, or perhaps narrower that didn't include the cobb/cobb. Perhaps his decisions were not completely arbitrary or completely his own? Maybe amongst he and the other collectors of that time (1920s-1940s: Bray, Conlon, Carter, Wagner, et al) prior to his first ACC publication, they had already effectively decided which cards should be grouped together as the t206 (which i believe based on leon's posting of original documentation was called the #521 white border set).

If there was already a loose consensus of what would be in a white border set (what we call t-206) perhaps he was just following the prevailing thoughts. Maybe the few collectors of the time were already not considering coupons or red cross's as t206.

fyi, it was called #521 but that # was only coincidentally close to the actual size of the set. i think #520 was t205, for example....and that might also have driven his motivation to make have the gold borders come before the white borders in his new numbering scheme.