Cobb/Cobb....T206 card or something else?

[barrysloate]

I've felt the Cobb back should not be part of the T206 set for the same reason Chicago206 stated- that because only a single player was issued it does not fit the pattern of other brands that are considered part of it.

The reason the ATC issued these cards was as a marketing ploy to get people to keep buying packs of their favorite brands, with the hope of finding another player for their set. Having only a single player with a Cobb back defeats that purpose- after one bought his first pack he would have been done. Unless he really liked the tobacco, he would have no reason to buy another pack.

Therefore, I think the card was distributed some other way, perhaps available at the counter at point of purchase, but clearly was not distributed the same way as the other fifteen brands. Whether the paper was glossy or not really doesn't factor into my theory.

[ullmandds]

good points barry...hmmmn...point of distribution...point of distribution...that is almost a smoking gun in my book...i still want one!

[ChiefBenderForever]

To be T206 or not ? I think it is, if not what is it ?

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHarmonica

To be T206 or not ? I think it is, if not what is it ?

Just another tobacco card similar to the T213's. I just think that cards to be included in a grouping need to have more in common than not to make sense. And the Cobb back has more differences than similarities than all the other 15 brands that make up T206.

[ChiefBenderForever]

It's a T-COBB type 1 and the glossy could be T-COBB type 2

[teetwoohsix]

I can agree with that too,Barry.
I guess this wouldn't be too much of an issue if they had used a unique front of the card,rather than the Cobb Red portrait.
This is an interesting subject,that I'm sure has been worked over many times.
At this point,I'm OK with JimR's list of backs,and OK with this one being excluded from the list-just as I would be OK if he did include it.
Also,just to add that I WISH I could get my hands on one of these Cobb/Cobb cards at one point in my life!!!!!!!!!!

Regards-Clayton

[E93]

Chicago206,
Since you have decided to move this conversation to a different thread, I will cut and paste what I said in the thread where the conversation began. It sure would be nice if you could specifically respond to the arguments I made. I have responded to every one of yours.
JimB


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago206
With all but 1 or is it 2 Cobb backs displaying a glossy front, and NONE of the other 15 Cigarette companies having ANY glossy fronts, why do you think the Cobb back even belongs on this list at all? Isnt it perfectly clear these cards were produced completely seperate from all other T206's? This card doesnt qualify as a true T206 card IMO.

My response:

Chicago,
This has been debated extensively here in the past. In a nutshell, "T206" was a designation coined by Burdick (not by the American Tobacco Company in 1909-11) and used in the American Card Catalog to indicate the white border baseball subjects used as fronts for the American Tobacco Company brands advertisements issued from 1909-1911. We know from more than one period newspaper article that Ty Cobb brand was issued by the ATC in 1910. Burdick included it in his book as a T206 brand and it meets his qualifications. Since he coined the taxonomy and defined its parameters, I think it makes perfect sense to go with his evaluation, especially since it still meets his criteria by our knowledge today. Unless one wants to do a complete overhaul of the taxonomy and eliminate American Beauties because of their smaller size, or divide it into sets by brand, or series, or factory, I don't think a partial change to the long established paradigm is advisable. To me, it makes sense to keep the parameters as simple and straightforward as possible. I hope that helps.
JimB

[tedzan]

Hey guys, we re-hashed this subject a little over a year ago in a thread that came close to 100 posts.
Some really great info was posted in that thread. So, why "re-invent the wheel"....here's the link to it,
it's really worthwhile reading it. And, if necessary, we can continue this debate.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...2Fty+cobb+back

Please note Post #89 in this thread. Some really substantial evidence is presented in this post.


TED Z