 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
05-10-2010, 12:40 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 
|
|
#2
05-10-2010, 12:56 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.
|
|
#3
05-10-2010, 01:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
put your manager cap on.....
Quote:
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com
|
|
#4
05-10-2010, 01:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
05-10-2010, 07:56 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 10:13 PM.
|
|
#6
05-10-2010, 08:34 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
|
|
#7
05-11-2010, 09:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Many, many things have been miscategorized throughout the history of mankind. Fortunately, most humans are logical creatures and very adaptable. We are able to admit when a mistake has been made, and then make the correction on most things. But much like the Catholic church, vintage card hobbyists have decided its better to be rigid and unchanging than to admit a mistake in judgement has been made. For this reason, the Cobb/Cobb will probably forever remain categorized as a T206, although incorrectly as such. It clearly displays more differences than similarities with the other 15 brands as a group. Just the fact that this topic is so frequently discussed is proof that something is amiss!
I doubt anyone has challenged Polar Bear because of its 1 difference from the rest of the group. Same goes for American Beauty for its glaring 1 difference from the group. But the Cobb/Cobb has at least 2 major physical differences from the group, and then a couple of other differences in regards to distribution, time of issue (completely unknown and unproven), as well as control over who owned the company itself (at the time the card was assumed to have been produced). To me, the Cobb/Cobb is nothing more than an afterthought to the rest of the T206 series. It was produced as a slick marketing tool (most likely never even associated with distribution in actual tobacco products) to help sales of a very unpopular brand of tobacco. Think of it as the cardboard cutout of Michael Jordan from the 90's Gatorade ad campaign. Nobody would consider that a "sports card" even though its made of the same material. It was just a marketing tool, much like the Cobb/Cobb.
|
|
#8
05-11-2010, 10:10 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
