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

[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

[E93]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago206
Can you name a single T206 cigarette brand that features just 1 subject? Can you name a single T206 cigarette brand that features a glossy front surface on 85% of the known cards? Why should the Cobb back be considered a part of the T206 set? Because thats how it was categorized 70 years ago? Things change, they evolve as more info becomes available. Just remember that the same guy who called the Cobb/Cobb a T206 card, also called an Uzit an "Usit".


My response:


I suggest you read my response to your initial questions above.

In response to your questions here, Jefferson Burdick is the person who invented the classification scheme that is still used today, including the designation "T206". Nowhere does he indicate the number of subjects that need to be on the fronts of advertising backs. Nor does he indicate that a glossy front would eliminate a card from consideration. He lists all the advertising brands included with the T206 designation and the one quality they all have in common is that they all advertised American Tobacco Company products between 1909-1911. A typo on the spelling of Uzit is hardly evidence that the Ty Cobb brand should be disqualified. There was debate a few years ago about wether the Ty Cobb brand was a brand issued by the ATC and if so, when it was issued. That debate was resolved last year with period newspaper articles and other evidence that Ted Z produced about a period collection. FYI, the recent find of two new examples also appeared within a larger period collection of T206s.

If you want to change the classification system and establish your own criteria for designation, more power to you. If it is convincing enough, I am sure the collecting world will follow you. You should use a term other than "T206" however because T206 includes brands like Ty Cobb and American Beauty that have physical qualities that differ from the other brands in most cases. And you might want to consider the exclusion of Polar Bear since that was the only brand where the cards were placed with loose tobacco as opposed to cigarettes.
JimB

[E93]

Let me give another example to explain the reasoning. Let's assume one woman made it into the major leagues. Generally speaking, the classification category of Major League ball players only tends to include men, but now there is a single example of a woman in that category. Should she not be included among Major League ballplayers because she has some different anatomy? Because the criteria is simply that one plays in the major leagues, not have male organs is a non-issue. Having different biological characteristics was never a criteria for determining wether or not somebody was a major league ballplayer. One can make a new category of major league ball players with male organs, but that does not change the old category.

Likewise, if one wants to make a new category for tobacco cards that includes all white bordered ATC cards with baseball fronts produced between 1909-1911 and advertising ATC brands, but excluding those for which 85% of known copies have a glossy front or for which the brand only has one front, that is fine. But it is not "T206".

By the way, the glossy front that bothers you so much begs the question of why 20% of them do NOT have a glossy front. Perhaps they started without it and then ATC decided to make the cards for this limited edition specialty brand special and added the gloss. WHo knows? Would that eliminate it? I don't think so.
JimB

[tedzan]

In my humble opinion......

Any white-bordered card with BROWN lettering in its caption, that was printed and issued by American Lithographic during 1909-1911
falls under the rubric that Burdick classified as a "T206". Therefore, this Red Ty Cobb....AND....the 68 cards of the 1910 COUPON set
are "T206's"......period !




Here is an excerpt from the Ty Cobb back Thread of a year ago with some very significant evidence regarding this Ty Cobb card.....
Please note the early Spring 1910 date of these newspaper clippings.


[QUOTE=Archive;655051]Posted By: Shawn

I am not sure what the article below is about, because I do not have a subscription to the site... I sure would like to read it though!
I have noticed that the "Ty Cobb" brand advertisements are prodominately in the "Macon Weekly Telegraph" paper in Ga. The months
seem to be Feb. and Mar. of 1910. If someone has a subscription to genealogybank.com, it would be nice to see some of the full advs.

"Macon Weekly Telegraph" 1910
















QUOTE]



TED Z

[Chicago206]

"Any white-bordered card with BROWN lettering in its caption, that was printed and issued by American Lithographic during 1909-1911
falls under the rubric that Burdick classified as a "T206". Therefore, this Red Ty Cobb....AND....the 68 cards of the 1910 COUPON set
are "T206's"......period !"


So then why did Burdick classify the Coupon set as T213? Are you saying he was wrong in doing so? Because thats basically what im saying with him including the Cobb/Cobb in the T206 group.

[teetwoohsix]

I don't think Burdick got any of it wrong.
I guess I may be the thorn in the side of everyone who thinks T213-1's are T206's-please don't hate me for it -it's only my opinion.
And trust me,I highly respect all of the board members who do think T213-1's should be T206's..............so.....with that being said.............

How about this:Is there the possibility that after the first Coupon run (T213-1)that Coupon decided their first series of cards resembled T206 "too much",and therefore chose to have the 2nd and 3rd series leave "no doubt" that these were NOT T206's,but their own unique set?
I mean,if they were meant to "be" T206 cards,why didn't they keep the same structure for the second and third series(T213-2 and T213-3)?

Just food for thought.I'm sure I'll never win this one,but I can't seem to convince myself otherwise.

Back to the Cobb/Cobb:Thanks for posting that TedZ,that is very interesting.It also would be interesting do do one of those polls to see what everyone thinks about how to classify the Cobb/Cobb card.

Regards,Clayton