 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
05-10-2010, 11:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Wow
I like the intellectual nature of the dialogue that some engage in on the board; SOMEONE BEFORE US SAID THATS THE WAY IT IS SO THATS THE WAY IT IS!
There was a time when slavery and disallowing women the right to vote was the way it is...wonder how history would have played out if society took the approach "our forefathers said that was how it was so who are we to question that and try to get it right?" 
|
|
#2
05-10-2010, 11:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The point of this board, as I see it, is to share knowledge and ideas on the cards we collect. This process has enhanced the hobby, and specifically that of T206. Theories and postulates have been and are proposed and the vast majority are quashed based on facts and evidence. However, the few that prove to be sound by way of this process are cherished and provide needed and wanted insight on what happened in a few factories between 1909-11...
|
|
#3
05-10-2010, 01:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I agree, and certainly meant no animosity in any of my posts. My feeling is that there wasn't "thinking" going on in the planning and distribution of any of these sets. I think it was haphazard. ATC ordered some cards printed to move cigarettes. When it worked, they ordered more. After a few years, they did similar things, sometimes regionally, with other players and other brands. I don't believe there was any master plan that said these cards will go with this set, etc. Moreover, I don't think they had any concept that men would be sitting around talking about their marketing plans, 100 years later.
__________________
Jim Van Brunt
|
|
#4
05-10-2010, 01:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
however
Quote:
It's not Henry Volkswagon......It's Henry Ford......and a Ford is not a Volkswagon  .
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com
|
|
#5
05-10-2010, 02:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
That was well said,JimVB.
But usernamealreadytaken-why would EPDG be out?They do have "Base Ball Series" on the back.Just wondering about that.........thanks. Sincerely,Clayton Edit to say:Sorry Chris,I didn't see your name under your user name when I posted. Last edited by teetwoohsix; 05-10-2010 at 02:12 PM.
|
|
#6
05-10-2010, 01:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
That's not what I said, but you have chosen to not understand it. I have no idea whether or not the Cobb/Cobb was intended to be part of the same set. It doesn't matter. It's a T206 because the guy who made up the term T206 said it was. The intent of ATC isn't relevant. ATC didn't call them T206. Burdick did. It's not your right to change his classification system to suit your thoughts. If you want to make it part of a different set, or its own set, go right ahead. Come up with a new system. Don't use Burdick's. And the whole bit about slavery???? You're just making yourself look silly on that.
__________________
Jim Van Brunt
|
|
#7
05-10-2010, 01:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Look, I have no deep interest either way on the Cobb/Cobb; it is what it is and calling it a T206, T206-1 or XSZ889 doesn't change what it looks like, when it was printed and how it was distributed or how somebody with a ton of money got it. And if anyone thought my intention with this thread was to have unanimous agreement and a rewrite of card cataloging, that is not so. I just threw an idea out for healthy debate and discourse. Sadly, the only one who responded (beyond "that's the way it is") was Peter who made a good, sound point to reject my theory.
|
|
#8
05-10-2010, 02:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
put your manager cap on.....
Quote:
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com
|
|
#9
05-10-2010, 02:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
05-10-2010, 08:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
While I agree with the veteran board members that if you're going to use the ACC designations that the Cobb back is a T206 because Burdick said so, I also think it should be acceptable to talk about why he may have classified cards the way he did and why we may classify them differently with what we know today.
Chris to answer your question if I were to classify the white border cards in a similar method to Burdick I would not include the Cobb back in a group with the other cards we call T206's. My opinion could be changed easily as I don't profess to have all the facts. Though this subject has been discussed over and over I am curious what those that care think of the following. American Tobacco had controlling interest in F.R. Penn at the time that the Cobb brand tobacco was produced. However the Penn family still had operational control of the company. Isn't it possible that Penn had ALC produce these cards for their tobacco with the blessing of ATC? If this were the case wouldn't it be an F.R. Penn issuse and not an ATC issue? Couldn't this also explain minor differences such as gloss? Sorry Jim VB, some of us are just nerds for these kinds of details. 
Last edited by Abravefan11; 05-10-2010 at 11:13 PM.
|
|
#11
05-10-2010, 09:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Wow Tim,that is an interesting theory,and it has my mind spinning!!
The tricky part for me is whether it would be considered an ATC issue or an F.R. Penn issue,,,,,,,,,,,,,because as you pointed out, American Tobacco had controlling interest in F.R. Penn at the time the Cobb brand tobacco was produced, but the Penn family still had operational control of the company. With that being said, I would tend to think it would have to be considered an ATC issue,being that they had controlling interest. I think you have came up with one of the best theories I have heard yet Tim, regarding the Cobb/Cobb-I'm sure I'll be dwelling on this all night-thanks Sincerely,Clayton
|
|
#12
05-11-2010, 11:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Tim, Absolutely no reason for you to apologize to me. There is plenty of room for debate as to whether or not Burdick got it wrong or right, by including it in that set. My point was, he did include it. And since it's his classification, it's a done deal.
__________________
Jim Van Brunt
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
