Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
The Ball letter became known more recently; there was no 'real hobby' to know of it until the 1940's at all.
Permission was to the lithographer and not ATC, so other sets they did could have used these likenesses. Presumably some of the smaller sets by other companies simply ignored the law and flew under the radar.
The letters appear to have been from the lithographic companies that produced the ATC set, on behalf of American Lithographic and Brett Lithographic. They were presumably then given to the ATC, as ATC was the defendant in the Porter case dealing with his letter and not one of the lithographic companies.
Most of them would disappear together because they were probably filed together. Over 99.9% of internal documentation on these cards has disappeared, there is no wealth of paperwork. We have 1 partial ledger, 1 possibly full ledger, these two contracts, a handful of uncut panels and strips from non-baseball sets and... I think that is it on all the ATC sets production, development and printing.
I am a sceptic, but believe the Ball letter is genuine. I see no evidence for forgery, Halper wasn't a forger he got duped as a buyer on some game-used material. It lines up with other evidence that surfaced later; if it was a fraud from this time it likely would reference ATC more directly and not the lithographer, and a more compelling name than Neal Ball would be chosen for $$$.
|
Thanks for the reply and the information.
I agree that the smaller companies could have ignored the law. And if the letter was on behalf of the lithographers, it would make sense that there would be fewer of them needed than if they had to be obtained by each individual tobacco, candy, gum firm that included them with their products.
I thought about the fact that the letter was from an fairly average player, rather than one of the stars of the day. But, if you were trying to make a convincing forgery, wouldn't that be the type of player that you would choose? Also, the all of the facts around the 1912 article dealing with Honus Wagner's refusal to grant permission to use his image were well known by the 1980's. So the content of the letter is not sufficient proof that it is not a forgery. Is there an explanation as to why it is on New York Highlanders stationary?
I am not arguing that the letter is a forgery, I'm just trying to understand how this letter survived where no other copies have every been discovered.
If they had to get sign off from everyone in the set, you would think that in some cases, they would have had to send more than one letter if players did not respond to the first request. Why have no copies come to light when the personal effects of the players of the time were sold off by family members in the decades after the cards were issued?