Cobb back is not T206 and here's why...

[insidethewrapper]

It's been proven that Abner Doubleday had nothing to do with the invention of baseball. Do we still say he invented the game ? As more data is available it changes the answers to questions.

What is the big deal , if the classification of the Cobb with Cobb back is wrong then it needs to be corrected. The card is different ( inserted into a Tin, has glossy finish to it, different back than the others.

Maybe it should be a T206 - Tin Insert or a different number altogether

[barrysloate]

There clearly are characteristics regarding the Cobb back that are different from the other T206 brands, most prominently that only a single front was produced with it. But Burdick categorized it as T206, and while I do believe it is permissable to amend the ACC, we can only do so if we have irrefutable evidence that proves he was wrong.

In the case of this card, we have some valid theories but that's all they are. Nobody to date has been able to come up with the smoking gun that proves Burdick wrong. Until that time, let's leave it as part of the T206 set.

[ChiefBenderForever]

I think that the period ads promoting the card along with the tobacco tin is enough proof it is a T206, but my eyes are on the bigger prize, someday I hope to find the Holy Grail, open it and get the the rarest of the rare Jesus RC with the WWJD King of the World back !!

[Leon]

There are many issues where Burdick was clearly wrong. W600 comes to mind. It should have been M600. I think we COULD get a consensus on that one. There are numerous others. I feel that if we were going to change the ACC it would need to be done on a consensus basis. If there isn't a consensus then the item remains the way Burdick did it. Cobb/Cobb would stay as he put it. I am still on the fence on the card being a T206 so I revert back to Burdick. Just my thought...

[barrysloate]

Leon and I are on the same page. Even if you have some doubts, without any definitive proof it should be left as is.

[wonkaticket]

I would say that I have always been on the fence on this card. On any given day I’ve sway more towards a regional promotional issue or give away item. The fact that Russell had one from GA and Cobb being the Georgia Peach seemed a little convenient. Also the other finds I think for the most part have been down south correct? Then the find with the multiples a lot of these situations seem not so T206 in my eyes.

But then there are the striking similarities and as Barry said without a smoking gun, its home in T206 is as good as any.

Also not making it a T206 doesn’t help the checklist on completion of the T206 set much easier. In fact this card is more obtainable in regards to price and availability than Wagner and Doyle. Now if we can agree Wagner and Doyle are not T206’s perhaps I can finish the set next year.

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

I would say that I have always been on the fence on this card. On any given day I’ve sway more towards a regional promotional issue or give away item. The fact that Russell had one from GA and Cobb being the Georgia Peach seemed a little convenient. Also the other finds I think for the most part have been down south correct? Then the find with the multiples a lot of these situations seem not so T206 in my eyes.

But then there are the striking similarities and as Barry said without a smoking gun, its home in T206 is as good as any.

Also not making it a T206 doesn’t help the checklist on completion of the T206 set much easier. In fact this card is more obtainable in regards to price and availability than Wagner and Doyle. Now if we can agree Wagner and Doyle are not T206’s perhaps I can finish the set next year.

Even Scot Reader and the recent REA catalogue have both hinted at the card's controversial status as a T206. No other back has come under such intense scrutiny and/or debate. Theres a very simple reason for this.....its because the card is SO much different than all the other T206's. It literally begs to be disputed.

[barrysloate]

Chicago T206- we have disputed it, we have done so on every thread. But disputing it doesn't disprove it.

[Chicago206]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

It's been proven that Abner Doubleday had nothing to do with the invention of baseball. Do we still say he invented the game ? As more data is available it changes the answers to questions.

What is the big deal , if the classification of the Cobb with Cobb back is wrong then it needs to be corrected. The card is different ( inserted into a Tin, has glossy finish to it, different back than the others.

Maybe it should be a T206 - Tin Insert or a different number altogether

Be careful!!! You had better be able to prove that you have been collecting for 25 years, and have "handled tens of thousands" of cards before anyone will take your viewpoint seriously! Forget being a logical thinker...that has no merit on this board.

[insidethewrapper]

What proof would be needed to change the Cobb/Cobb from a T206 classification or keep it in the same classification as T206 ?

Would we need uncut sheets ? What evidence would need to be provided ? Then we need to see if such information exists. I love research.

[Abravefan11]

Over the course of three years and millions of cards printed American Lithograph did not change the printing specifications for the cards. They didn't change card stock, add gloss, change the color of the player identification, etc.

Why if the Cobb/Cobb was part of the same issue would they stray from their specifications for just this one card and not any others before or after?

This is what leads me to believe that ATC did not consider this card to be part of the same project, or someone else like F.R. Penn was responsible for the cards issue.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Over the course of three years and millions of cards printed American Lithograph did not change the printing specifications for the cards. They didn't change card stock, add gloss, change the color of the player identification, etc.

I agree, except for the perplexingly narrow American Beauty's.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by toppcat

I agree, except for the perplexingly narrow American Beauty's.

This was a cutting issue, the last process for the cards. This had no effect on how the cards were printed. The American Beauty's were printed just like all the other cards.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

This was a cutting issue, the last process for the cards. This had no effect on how the cards were printed. The American Beauty's were printed just like all the other cards.

Maybe, maybe not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Did any other t206s come out of factory 33? Does that matter?