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

[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

[ethicsprof]

My vote is to place Cobb/Cobb under the T206 rubric unequivocally.

arguments on JimR's thread re: the scarcity ranking of T206 backs are most
compelling.

best,
barry

[Comiskey]

I really don't understand why this debate comes up all the time. I believe that the Ty Cobb card should be placed in the T206 set and here's why:

1. It has the exact same "front" as all other T206's, i.e., font, color, appearance. We just had an argument about the T213-1's that should be included because they have the exact same front and a different advertising back. That in itself is an argument that explains why these white border tobacco cards that have the same appearance, font, etc., should all be included in the set

2. Whether or not it was made for mass distribution, it was designed to sell a product. As we have learned from our T206 experts (Ted, Scott, Wonka, etc) some cards were not distributed with all of the same backs. I have a Lundgren with an EPDG back that is pretty rare. Now, this is an example of a front/back combo that can be difficult to find.

3. It was part of the Bill Russell collection that was collected by the Senator during the years of 1909-1912. From what I have read, Senator Russell collected his cards from the "exact" time period that the T206 set was issued. This further proves that the card was distributed during this time.

4. Ted Z stated recently that he was able to touch and feel a new example to our collecting community. He stated that it did not have a gloss finish to it. I have heard in the past that this was a big reason why people felt that it did not have the proper characteristics of other T206's. This may prove them wrong.

These are just four examples of why I believe that it is and should be part of the T206 set. I have been collecting this set only for about 5-6 years, both in it's entirety and as a back collector. Sometimes I get the feeling that people might want this card excluded because of it's difficulty and price. I look at it as one of the Holy Grails in the T206 set and dream that one day I might be able to acquire it for my collection!

[tothrk]

I actually looked this word up and am still not sure what it means.

[barrysloate]

There are compelling arguments for both sides. I suggest that while we debate the topic, we accept the fact that for the foreseeable future it is part of the T206 set, and can only be removed if irrefutable evidence to the contrary were to surface. And since that is unlikely to happen, all we can do is continue to debate.