|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
Are the 1910 COUPON (T213-1) cards really T206's ? ....I think so. ....What say you ?
Quote:
Here are larger front/back scans of the Rossman card. Rossman is an EPDG no-print; therefore, how can it have an EPDG transfer ? The Rossman card was printed with very few backs. Most likely because he was traded by Detroit to the St. Louis Browns (August 20, 1909). Plus, his Major League career ended Sept, 3, 1909. TED Z T206 Reference . |
#202
|
||||
|
||||
Ted, It's a "storage" transfer not a factory transfer.
|
#203
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Try and find some of these subjects with Tolstoi backs. Ted said he searched for twelve years and never even saw a scan of Rossman with a Tolstoi back. Here are the combined pop reports on some of the Coupon type 1 subjects with Tolstoi backs. Cree - 2 Donovan - 2 Dubuc - 2 Dunn - 1 Engle - 3 Hoffman - 0 Hunter - 1 Killian - 3 Laporte - 1 Rossman - 0 Thomas - 0 Willett - 1 Wilson - 3 Dunn, Rossman and Thomas were only recently confirmed with Tolstoi backs in the past year. Last edited by Pat R; 01-21-2019 at 11:29 AM. |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
Are the 1910 COUPON (T213-1) cards really T206's ? ....I think so. ....What say you ?
Quote:
Pat You have a better eye than I. Nice catch on the EPDG transfer on my Rossman card. TED Z T206 Reference . |
#205
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Pat - That is very interesting. What do you make of such a ridiculously low pop for those players? Tolstoi is in that middle range of tough backs which shouldn't be too difficult to find, yet these are super rare. Have you been able to see if these players were possibly "late" into production for some baseball reason? i.e. traded, called up, etc. ?! Perhaps Tolstoi added them to production late !?
__________________
Collector of Nashville & Southern Memorabilia |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
Are the 1910 COUPON (T213-1) cards really T206's ? ....I think so. ....What say you ?
Jeremy
Here are 27 subjects in the 1910 COUPON set which were NOT printed with these following 350 series backs….. CAROLINA BRIGHTS, EL PRINCIPE DE GALES, OLD MILL, POLAR BEAR. But were printed with the TOLSTOI back. Do we have enough imagination to figure this strange incongruity, or is this a case where...."Only the Monster Knows !" Byrne Charles Donovan (throwing) Doolan (fielding) Fletcher Hoffman (St Louis AL) Howell (portrait) Huggins (portrait) Huggins (hands at mouth) Hunter Killian (portrait) Knabe Lennox Marquard (portrait) McBride McElveen McIntyre (Detroit) Mitchell (Cincinnati) Mowery Myers (bat) Paskert Rhoades (hands at chest) Rossman Schmidt (portrait) Starr Street (portrait) Summers TED Z T206 Reference . |
#207
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
of the 350 only subjects are difficult to find with a Tolstoi back here are the combined pop reports of another group of confirmed Tolstoi's. Anderson - 4 Bush - 0 Blackburne - 4 Cross - 4 Easterly - 1 Hoblitzel - 2 Kisinger - 1 McElveen - 3 Mowrey - 4 Oakes - 3 Ritter - 4 Smith, Heinie - 0 Zimmerman - 2 The didn't begin printing the Tolstoi backs until sometime during the 350 only series and I think it might have been towards the end of the 350 only printing as that would explain why most of them are scarce with Tolstoi backs. |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
Pat - one of the things that surprised me the most after trying to work on a Providence master set was how tough the Tolstoi backs are for that 350 group.
__________________
Looking for a T206 Jimmy Lavender Cycle back plus several American Beauty and Tolstoi backs for Providence players. Successful sales transactions with jamorton215, gorditadogg, myerburg311, TAFKADixie, jimq16415, Thromdog, CardPadre Last edited by Rich Falvo; 01-24-2019 at 06:39 PM. Reason: clarity |
#209
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The pages in it are from early 1909 through 1912 here's the two index pages I posted in the other thread ATC Index Ledger page 1.jpg ATC Index Ledger page 2.jpg Some of the pages have examples of the cards pasted to them but the t206 pages were all removed and sold. Here's one of the pages I posted in the other thread an American Beauty page with a Willetts pasted to it who as you know is in the t213-1 set. ATC American Beauty Ledger page.jpg I know your a Southern League collector so here's an Old Mill page from the journal. In partial it reads Began packing nat'l players same as those in piedmonts began packing Jan 8th 1910 Began shipping Jan 9th 1910 Began packing one nat'l + 1 so league pict 3/15/1910 shipping 3/17/1910 Discontinued 12/14/10 img421.jpg If the type 1's were printed in 1910 they almost certainly should be in this journal. Quote:
Since Ted seems to be reluctant to view the journal and points to the stylistic design similarity's as one of the reasons they were printed in 1910 all the brands are on the index pages except Coupon. ATC Index Ledger page 1 - Copy.jpg |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?
Quote:
Where do you come-off saying I am "RELUCTANT" to respond to this journal you posted. I already reviewed it in the other thread you posted it in.....and, THERE'S NOTHING THERE THAT DISPELS THAT THE 1910 COUPON CARDS WERE PRINTED AND ISSUED IN 1910 ! That list is IRRELEVANT ! ! Where is a DATE on it ? Where are the other American Tobacco Co. (ATC) brands on that list ? For example....POLAR BEAR....RED CROSS (T215)...."PIRATE"...."TY COBB" The fact that POLAR BEAR is missing on this journal list certainly indicates that this journal list would have been dated PRIOR TO THE SUMMER of 1910. Anyhow, this list that you are "raving about" tells us NOTHING about when the "COUPON" cards were printed (or issued). ! Absolutely, nothing ! ! __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________ Furthermore, . . . Hey guys, Those QUOTES surrounding these three Brand names are very significant. These QUOTES indicate that these are new ATC brands which had not yet received an officially Registered TRADEMARK. Most people do not understand the importance of this, for it does INDEED set a timeline when these cards were printed and issued. Regarding the COUPON brand, it would be Circa Spring - Summer 1910. TED Z T206 Reference . |
#211
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The journal dates are from 1909-1912 with the latest packing date of 8/12 on the Nebo brand. It is my understanding that the dates on the T215's are approximate too and maybe the journal helps narrow the time frame down for them. As for the Polar Bears first off that's a pouch scrap tobacco I don't know all of the Tobacco brands on the index pages are any of the other brands pouch scrap Tobacco that had cards inserted in them? also several years ago when I was researching the print flaws I said the Polar Bears didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the t206 brands. You point out the similarity's in the Polar Bears to the Coupon perhaps the reason is they weren't printed and distributed with the other t206 brands. Here's what I posted in 2015 Quote:
Last edited by Pat R; 05-25-2021 at 01:41 PM. |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?
Pat
The journal list you are referring to (labelled Index) has 30 brands on it. It has NO DATE identifying it....and it does NOT include the POLAR BEAR brand. The POLAR BEAR brand was a MAJOR brand, the likes of which was printed on the backs of 250 subjects in the T206 set. The timeline of the first series of POLAR BEAR cards has been established as beginning circa Spring -Summer 1910. Therefore, that journal list of 30 brands that you are touting were generated prior to the Spring of 1910. Then of course it would not have any information regarding COUPON (or RED CROSS, or PIRATE, or TY COBB SMOKING TOBACCO). TED Z T206 Reference . |
#213
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
My god Ted who's the one making a "fool" of himself take your blinders off and read the whole journal not just the index page or read my posts that have some of them in it. Here I've circled the dates on a couple of them but take the time and read the whole journal it's been available on here for years. ATC American Beauty Ledger page - Copy.jpg ATC Cycle Ledger page - Copy.jpg |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?
Pat
I don't see any connections between those small "piecewise" journals and the large journal (listed with the 30 brands) labelled "INDEX", which you touted as being "evidence" for your cause. Show me how they are connected ? So, the dates on those are irrelevant to anything we are discussing with respect to when the 1910 "COUPON" cards were printed and issued. TED Z T206 Reference . |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
Just an observation from a fan of the Ledger pages. It seems to be a true index, as the page number on the American Beauty card page “95” corresponds to the American Beauty entry on the Index “95-119” but I also see a date of 1912 at the top of the second page.
|
#216
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The page with 1912 on it is the second index page which would be when they created that index page. Last edited by Pat R; 05-25-2021 at 01:17 PM. |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#218
|
|||
|
|||
Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?
Quote:
Perhaps you can get an answer from Pat.....because I have asked him to explain why the POLAR BEAR brand is missing from that list of 30 brands (supposedly reflecting "entry's from 1909 and ends in 1912"). But, Pat avoids answering that simple question. TED Z T206 Reference . |
#219
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?
Quote:
Pat Sorry, but I did not get what you were driving at with that, when I first read it. And, I still don't understand what you are alluding to regarding similarity between 1910 COUPON cards and POLAR BEAR cards (other than they are both T206's). TED Z T206 Reference . |
#221
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
did so I was wrong about that. |
#222
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
you're just putting together bits and pieces to form an opinion. Ryan just posted his multi - overstrike back southern leaguers in another thread. T206 Mullaney, Brown Old Mill-Multi-Ghost - Back (1).jpg The backs are from a test print scrap, we have no way of knowing when each back was test printed but I think it's fair to assume it was close to the same time. The three backs on Ryan's cards are Piedmont, Old Mill and EPDG, those three backs are in a group together on the index page along with Hindu. img399 - Copy.jpg |
#223
|
||||
|
||||
The more meticulously I look through the journal the more things seem to come together. When I first found out about it on here I printed it out and
since then I have looked through it on several occasions when I was researching other things but over the past few day's I've been taking a much closer look at everything in it. It's really a shame that many of the t206 pages and others like Red Sun were removed from the journal. Some of them have been sold in auction so we have images of them but others like Sovereign, Broad Leaf and Drum as far as I know haven't. Looking at the pages that are available explains some things and adds to a lot of what we do know. I posted it earlier but here are a couple more things about it that I noticed. Up until recently the southern leaguers were thought to have been printed in 1910 with the Old Mill backs but in 2018 I found this ad. OLd Mill Ad.jpg The August 14 1909 date in that ad coincides with the date on the ledger that says they first started packing and shipping the Old Mill southern leaguers 7/09. The Old Mill ledger page could also explain why the "exclusive 12" subjects in the 460 only series are very tough with an old Mill back because the ledger page indicates they discontinued packing the Old Mills on 12/14/1910. |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?
Quote:
Thank you Pat....for confirming what I posted in my thread regarding the Exclusive 12 cards in the 460-only Series back in 2013. The UZIT backs are almost impossible to find with these 12 subjects, and the OLD MILL appears to 2nd in line in terms of scarcity. Furthermore, I also noted then that the T80 cards are extremely difficult to find with OLD MILL backs. Quote:
|
#225
|
||||
|
||||
No problem Ted as I said it certainly could explain the difficulty of the
"exclusive 12" subjects with an Old Mill back. But I do have to ask why do you accept this information from the journal but you won't accept the absence of the Coupons in it? |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?
Pat
As I have already said....that undated list of 30 brands (ATC) without POLAR BEAR data indicates to me that it reflects information prior to the introduction of the POLAR BEAR tobacco cards (circa SPRING 1910). We cannot ignore this timeline. I will get into this later today, as I have to leave right now. TED Z T206 Reference . |
#227
|
||||
|
||||
Ted, I told you several times the dates are there, Polar bear isn't and I gave you my opinion why. I have more to post maybe I'll convince you yet.
I'm still waiting to hear from Jeremy since he's the one that completed a set or near set of the type 1 southern Leaguers. |
#228
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Here's the Carolina Brights page that was removed from the album and was sold in an auction. The part of the page that had the packing and shipping dates was removed. ATC Carolina Brights Ledger page 2.jpg But another Carolina Brights page with cards I'm not familiar with was still in the journal ATC Carolina Brights Ledger page 1.jpg Someone crossed it out but on the side it says began packing Ball pictures Piedmont back backs in Carolina Brights 12/8(or18) 1909 it goes on to say began packing 2 ball pictures with C.B. backs ATC Carolina Brights Ledger page 1 - Copy.jpg |
#229
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It wasn't an ATC brand until 1914 img482.jpg I also said like Coupon I think it's possible that the Polar Bears weren't printed with the other t206's. Now I'm not saying this is proof but the Owner of Polar Bear Tobacco Eddie Wilbern was a Baseball fan who even talked about buying the Brooklyn Dodgers. img481.jpg So he could have decided to use the past success of the cigarette inserts to promote his product and also could have been the reason for team changes on Demmitt and O'Hara. He was known to promote his products in interesting ways. img483.jpg |
#230
|
||||
|
||||
Some more evidence that Polar Bear could have been printed separately and even after t206's is a recently discovered original 150+
find of t206's and around 30 t205's with the 120+ t206's "almost Exclusively" Polar bear. It seems odd that if they were printed with the t206's that there weren't other brands of t206's in it but there were other brands of t205's which were printed after the t206's. https://blog.justcollect.com/blog/pe...ard-collection Last edited by Pat R; 06-04-2021 at 07:26 AM. |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
Hey guys,
History of Polar Bear.....and Factory No. 6, 1st District, Middletown, Ohio Paul Sorg and John Auer began producing cut plug tobacco in Middletown, Ohio, in the late 1870’s. In 1898, Continental Tobacco Company (one of the main holding companies under the American Tobacco Company umbrella) purchased the Middletown plant. In early 1899, Luhrman & Wilburn Tobacco Company of Cincinnati (one of the largest scrap tobacco manufacturers) was purchased by Continental. Continental then moved the Luhrman & Wilburn operations to the Middletown factory. Upon the break-up of ATC in 1911, the plant ownership changed to the P. Lorillard Company, which operated it until 1951. Note: the owners of the American Tobacco Company and the American Lithographic Company (ALC) , J. B. Duke and J. P. Knapp, respectively were very close business partners during the years of production of Tobacco cards. The POLAR BEAR cards of the T206 set were printed by ALC during 1910 - 1911. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________________________ The cards of Demmitt & O'Hara provide us an insight into the timeline when the POLAR BEAR (PB) cards were printed. The New York versions of Demmitt & O'Hara are 350-only Series subjects, which were printed prior to the PB press runs. Circa Summer 1910 timeline is confirmed by the Demmitt & O'Hara St Louis variations....since both of which were printed ONLY with PB backs. Demmitt & O'Hara were traded during the off-season in 1909. They both started the 1910 season with their respective St Louis teams. Early May of 1910, both of them were re-assigned to the Eastern League. Demmitt to Montreal and O'Hara to Toronto. This narrow window of their play with their St Louis teams in May 1910 absolutely confirms the timeline of these Demmitt and O'Hara cards to the Summer of 1910. Imperial Tobacco (C46)....Eastern (International) League cards TED Z T206 Reference . |
#232
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Where do we have proof of the distribution dates on the Polar Bears? Demmit and O'hara isn't proof. We have proof through ads and the ATC journal on the distribution of most if not all of the other t206 brands. The Polar Bear brand was organized by Wilbern img481 - Copy.jpg and it's obvious he was a baseball fan and spent money promoting baseball so why isn't it possible he was involved with re-using the t206 images in the Polar Bear Brand? img490.jpg When You compare Polar Bear to the other t206 brands you have 1 Demmitt and O'hara 2 the only t206 brand inserted directly with the tobacco in a pouch 3 A different back printing process than all the other backs (the lack of ink makes up the advertising while with all the other backs the advertising is printed in ink) 4 Print flaws that are found on all other brands aren't found on Polar Bears but the Dopner error/flaw is only found on Polar Bear. I think anybody that does research especially on the older cards knows that although it's helpful dating a distribution on the teams players played for at the time isn't always accurate. For decades most people including you thought the Southern Leaguer printing started in late 1909-early 1910 with the Old Mill backs until I found the ad that showed they were distributed in the summer of 1909 with Old Mill backs and the ATC journal shows the same thing. So what's your explanation for Polar Bear and Coupons absence in the journal now that you've seen that the dates are there for all the other tobacco products and the t206's coincide with newspaper and sporting life ads that were promoting them. Last edited by Pat R; 06-04-2021 at 02:06 PM. |
#233
|
|||
|
|||
If we assume authenticity and accuracy (there are some conflicts with data on the card backs in non-baseball sets compared to what the journal states), over 3/4 of the ATC journal is missing, based on the page numbering that goes to at least 380 in the surviving pages. Personally, I don't see how was can say a set is not in there, and that its lack of inclusion is evidence it is from a separate run as a result. We do not know the table of contents pages (which appear to have been amended as pages were added) are all present. We would need the entirety of the book to say this with any degree of certainty.
Second, Polar Bear absolutely was an ATC brand in the T206 distribution period, Continental was a subsidiary of the ATC they used to manage multiple smaller brands. That does not mean PB's were printed at the same time as other backs, but this does not seem to hold weight as a reason to support a claim it is a separate release. If PB's were from years years later, like in 1914 as was alluded, like T214, T213-2 etc., the selection and team captions are very, very odd. I can't see why Demmitt (he wasn't in the majors in 1911, 1912, or 1913) and O'Hara (never played a game in the majors after 1910) would be updated for late 1909 (Demmitt was swapped Dec. 16, 1909, not sure on O'Hara) trades and the numerous other players who changed teams or left the league were re-printed without any updates years later. That seems even odder to me. I've always thought PB was just printed at the end of the production run that included O'Hara and Demmitt. The PB cards also do not betray the low-quality print that the ALC 'reprint' issues had, like T213-2, T213-3, T223. This does not rule it out, of course. I'm not seeing much evidence to support the notion, certainly not a preponderance that the general understanding in the hobby is wrong or has less evidence than this claim. I don't have enough money into T206 to have a dog in the fight, I'm open to the notion if the evidence supports it. I'm just not seeing that evidence. I'd be happy to be proven wrong and learn something new, PB's are the coolest looking back in my book and I go out of my way to add them over other backs. EDIT: After looking at my copy of the .pdf'd ledger again, it is obvious the table of contents with brands is not complete and at least 1 full page of it is missing. This makes the claim that PB is NOT in the ledger even more difficult to sustain. Last edited by G1911; 06-04-2021 at 05:01 PM. |
#234
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In the other thread you made a couple of inaccurate points about the journal. Quote:
The two T53 dates you point out are when they were discontinuing two different products and substituting T53's in their place. On this one they are discontinuing the Auto drivers and substituting the cowboy's. img491.jpg and on this one they're discontinuing the Lighthouse's and substituting the cowboy's. img492.jpg and as I pointed out in the other thread March 27 and 28 wasn't the only dates they distributed the T36's that was just the days they started packing and shipping them. also from our previous discussion I don't see any proof of "impossible" dates in the journal. I think that if the Polar Bears and Coupons were printed in the same timeframe as the t206's it would be quite a coincidence that they are the only two missing from this journal however I was never suggesting they were printed in 1914 as you state I was suggesting they may have been printed shortly after the T206's or at a different facility than the t206's. Each individual person put's a different weight on information they find in their research but for me written information from the time of occurrence like this journal is at the top for me. The information in the card catalogs with some things are a best guess based on the information known at the time but that doesn't mean we have to stop looking or accepting new information when it becomes available. |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
2) If 3/4 of the journal, and some of the index at least, is missing how can we reasonably state Coupon and Polar Bear do not appear in the journal? This is going beyond the evidence. 3) I got the 1914 implication when you stated in 229 that " I found some more information why Polar Bear probably wouldn't be in the ATC Journal. It wasn't an ATC brand until 1914." I apologize if I misunderstood, but the inference seemed to be it wasn't an ATC brand (it factually was), and was thus not printed under the ATC/ALC parternship until it was. I already stated I think PB was printed at/near the end of the 350 run which you apparently do not agree with, so I'm not sure what your timeframe is if it is not this. 4) Yes, they are substituting a Hassan series for the Hassan T53's on two different dates, significantly apart. The pages attached in your post 234 give two different release dates for the Hassan T53 series. T53 release "Started Packing Mch. 29" and "Started Delivering March 29" according to letter 1. According to letter 2, T53's "Started Packing May 23, 1911" and "Started Delivery, May 29, 1911", producing two different release dates. Both cards in the journal are F30's. We may see different possible explanations and indications of what it can mean for other sets, but your claim that my claim they have two different release dates in the journal is an "inaccuracy" is plainly false. Are you alleging that the date a set "started packing" and "started delivery" in the journal is not a release date? Will this standard be applied to the T206 pages? 5) Yes, I strongly agree T36's were not a two day issue. That was the thesis. I said this in the part you bolded, and are claiming is an inaccurate statement (It's an opinion statement on an uncertain issue, not a claim to fact by the way) I made. Note that the sentence you bolded to claim is incorrect begins "I suspect...". A Posey letter states T77 is being replaced with T36 in Hassan 30 on March 27, 1911. T53 is then replaced in Hassan 30 with T36 on March 29, 1911, which is a 2 day gap. One of the Posey letters state they are being packaged and delivered March 27, in place of T218-3, with a Mecca 30 card pictured. The next letters states Mecca has exhausted the supply of T36 and is issuing T42 March 31st, a 4 day gap. 6) I 100% agree on the supremacy of primary sources, I do not see how you are inferring I am favoring secondary sources and catalogs over primary with your next statement. You already already know well that my argument is the conflict on the cards themselves, not a date in a catalog, which I have never once cited. Who is arguing that we should "stop looking" for new information? When have I ever done this, since you are replying to me? If we're going to do this, can we stick to evidentiary grounds in good faith? I disagree with you, I do not claim you are not seeking truth and are trying to shut down the search for new information. People can simply and politely disagree. I find the cards themselves the best tell, as this journal is of unknown provenance, unknown custody, and unknown authenticity (and was apparently modified and had pages ripped out by at least one owner to sell for profit). A card can not have been packed and delivered before events in its back text happened. T218-1 and T218-2 (Or T220-2, if it is read that way, it is even more impossible) both appear to have impossible release dates given on pages 70 and 89 that do not mesh with the text on card backs that reference specific events after that date. T218-1 is given dates in January, and May (which someone seems to have notated with an update to be June 22), 1910. Card backs reference after January, that date is not possible but the others are. T218-2 could not be released June 16, 1910 (which is before one of the dates given for series 1 even, on page 85) because the backs run through at minimum July 4, 1910. If the reference to a Tolstoi series of this name means T220-2, that could not have been released in June, because it notes events through August of 1910. There are others that I think are a bit off that are not hard evidence, like T220-2 being a March, 1911 issue in a another Posey letter, that seems awfully late based on the card content. Most of the other card sets in the journal are not of a subject kept up-to-date with recent events and so do not provide much of a clue either way on the details of release. If authentic, and I am not even saying it is not authentic, I am saying I do not know and there is little evidence either way on the provenance and authenticity of this item and thus it should not be automatically assumed this source is Gospel, there appear to be some inaccuracies in it. I do not think the data here is paramount to what is stated on card backs. I do not see how it reasonably could be. 7) I have seen 0 evidence Polar Bear's were "printed at a different facility", they seem to clearly be from American Lithographic like the rest of the cards. If printed after the other 350 cards (I suspect they were), I do not see why we would think they were done by someone else and so perfectly copied the T206's. Or are we saying American Lithographic had another facility that they actively printed the white-border series at? If so, how could we possibly conclude which backs were printed at this second shop? 3/4 of the journal, at minimum, is missing. A ton of ATC/ALC sets are not in the surviving pages. |
#236
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1) The contents pages are about a particular brand/timeframe it's possible the first 50 pages were general information but even if they weren't with the order of the other t206's (and other issues) I'm pretty certain the Polar Bear or Coupon weren't on those pages. 2) In my opinion they would absolutely be on the first contents page all the other t206's (except maybe Broad Leaf I don't know for sure if there was another issue printed before t206's with a Broad Leaf back) are in chronological order based on their t206 distribution. 3)The Tobacco company information is a mess to try and figure out from that time. The American Tobacco Company had full control of some products and partial control of others and they were trying to hide some information because of the forced divide, The way I read the clip I posted they didn't gain full control of The Continental Tobacco Company until 1914. 4) The release date for the T53's is March 29 so if you bought a pack of 10 Hassan cigarettes that was packed before that date you would get an Auto Driver or a Light house in that pack if you bought one after that date you would get a Cowboy or a Light House in that pack until May 23 when they discontinued packing the Light House cards. I haven't checked all the packing dates on the Hassan inserts but if there wasn't something substituted right after the Light House cards were discontinued then every pack would have a Cowboy in it. My point is they didn't stop and restart packing the Cowboy's they were packed from March 29 until they were discontinued permanently. They just shared the packing with different cards over that period. 5) I think 4 covers this one. 6) The first part was a general statement and I respect if you disagree. For the second part ATC was only packing the cards so they were dependent on what ALC was printing for them. In most cases it wasn't a one time supply of a particular set ALC was printing them and supplying ATC with what they printed and cards within that set changed that's where were get some of the rarities found in most sets. In other words series 1 t218 cards weren't all necessarily printed in one printing. So lets say there were three phases of series one the third phase is where the cards that you question the dates on would have come from. 7) I'm not suggesting the Polar Bears weren't printed by ALC I'm suggesting they might have been printed at one of their other facility's like the one in PA. https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...can+Lithograph What are some of the ton of ATC/ALC sets from 1909-1911 that aren't in the journal? Last edited by Pat R; 06-06-2021 at 05:51 AM. |
#237
|
|||
|
|||
It seems reasonable to believe that Index is a full representation of the ledger's contents, if only just for practical purposes...they used it regularly and needed to get to pages quickly. A hidden "Coupon" or Polar Bear page just seems unlikely given all of the other brands' representation.
If that's the case then figuring out where these two brands were printed becomes the fun historical hunt. I hadn't seen this posted yet, so I thought I'd share. Everyone knows Knapp and ATC printed everything, here is a direct connection to the Coupon's W.R. Irby New Orleans branch, which I hadn't seen before. "The Knapp Co Lith NY" |
#238
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#239
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
1) Nobody can possible know what is in pages 1-51, or if it ended at 380. None of us possibly can. 2) Same 3) That does not answer when the allegation is that Polar Bear was printed. We have walked back the 1914 not ATC claims, and so it isn't 1914. But it also isn't T206 time because it is not in the surviving elements of the ledger and wasn't done at the time they were. So when is it? Somewhere between 1911-1913? 4) They can't "start delivering" a Hassan 30 card in May if that Hassan 30 card was already being delivered in March and there was a continuous release and they have been doing so since March. Perhaps their verbiage is just imprecise and it was a continuous release (clearly alongside other sets). We do not know, the evidence is simply not here to be certain. We are all guessing on what is present. 5) The difference with T36 is we have claims of end dates, but I'm not sure it matters much. 6) There is zero evidence to indicate sets were not released as series, but in timed smaller waves instead. This is simply the assumption that best fits treating the ledger as gospel-source to explain everything. The only SP card in T218-1 is Handy, who was pulled between the Mecca and Hassan runs. Johnson (Green) was added late (He did not replace Handy) and is a super print. 3 cards had amendments made during the print run creating variations. None of this suggests wave release. Nothing in T206 suggests a handful of subjects were issued at a time, and then the next wave added and so on either. There is no actual evidence of waves being added late, much less a preponderance. There is no evidence Phil McGovern was a late addition whatsoever. 7) T68, T99, T219, some C issues they printed in this time frame like C52, T220-1 to name some examples from the top of my head I care about. Many later issues are not in what survives like T207, T227. Again though, we factually do not know what was in this complete ledger if its authenticity is assumed. Maybe T68 was included, I don't know, nobody does. A gospel source methodology, in which all other evidence is seen through the lens of needing to conform with the gospel-source, even if those explanations appear to contradict other facts and probabilities or are much less likely than simpler explanations, is an inherently flawed methodology. I agree with some of the claims coming from what is in the ledger (quite a few, actually), but some of the claims being made do not stand up to a reasonable evidentiary standard (I would use a preponderance standard, personally). That Polar Bear is not present in the 1/4 (at absolute most, we do not and cannot possibly know how long it actually was originally) of this work whose surviving contents pages are clearly not complete does not mean it was not produced as T206. One cannot claim to know what was and was not in this work when most of it is gone, and the table of contents is plainly missing at least one page. Disagreeing with someones interpretations of an incomplete book with unknown provenance and authenticity is not tantamount to favoring secondary and tertiary sources over primary. And so on and so forth. Is there a single shred of evidence to support a claim that since PB is not T206 (a rather fluid, after-the-fact construct) outside of this series of stacking assumptions based on presence in the ledger remnants? None has been produced. |
#240
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I certainly think it’s a T206 along with “Coupon” Type-1 - they just may not have been packed at the Ledger’s place of distribution. |
#241
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Greg, I never said everything in the journal is gospel. Admittedly I'm not good at putting what I'm trying to say in writing. The majority of the information in the ledger pages isn't about the printing of the cards it's about particular types of cards inserted in a particular product and when you look at different pages in some cases you can see where a particular product for a particular brands supply was exhausted but at some point more were printed and it was available again similar to when a grocery store runs out of a certain product. That doesn't necessarily mean that product was discontinued they just temporarily ran out of stock. I can tell you that with the T68's you brought up some of them at some point were printed right around the end of the T206 Tolstoi printing. We know this because some scrap cards of the t206 460 only series Tolstoi's/Piedmont's have been found that were cut from a sheet that was used as a test print and they have T68 subjects on them. 0 img393.jpg 0 img378 - Copy - Copy.jpg 0 Tannehill%20Test%20Print%20Scrap%20Back - Copy.jpg Ford b - Copy.jpg Last edited by Pat R; 06-07-2021 at 11:17 AM. |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
These exact cards are one of the reasons I used T68. I think you are making my point here. T68 series 2 was printed very close in time with T206 series 3 (and presumably distributed, it does not make sense that they ordered sets and then just sat on them for long periods of time or years, especially when they seem to run out of sets within 48 hours sometimes). It's first series was printed before (I do not have direct evidence of this, but it seems difficult to argue that series 2 came before series 1), probably similar timeframe as the first or second series of T206, but as a non-sport subject it's cards are less directly telling. And yet, it is not in the ledger, it's brands, ATC cigarettes, not in the surviving contents pages. This doesn't mean it isn't from the same period, issued in the same way, from the same company and place as the sets and parts of sets that are. This is my entire point; lack of presence in the surviving elements of the ledger (Less than a quarter of it, at best) does not mean it is from a different time or distribution. This is true for T68, it is true for Polar Bear, it is true for Coupon. I'm still unclear when it is being alleged PB was printed and distributed now, removing the not-atc-until-1914, if we disagree it was printed and distributed at the end of the 350 run (accounting for the updates to Demmitt and O'Hara but no other cards), when is the allegation that it was released? Post 209 suggests not 1910. But it's before 1914. Obviously we can't say an exact date, but are we alleging mid-late 1911 after the 460 series? 1912? 1913? I've still seen 0 evidence that it was printed or distributed at a different time from what the cards seem to suggest in the captions. I'd love to see it if it exists. |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As to your second point, the Ledger does not appear to belong to a place of distribution whatsoever. It includes many brands from many different factories, not a single distribution center/factory. If we must assign it to a geographical place, the inclusion of the Posey letters would indicate it came from a corporate office at 111 Fifth Ave. in NYC. |
#244
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by Pat R; 06-08-2021 at 05:11 AM. |
#245
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The Letters are from the Kinney Brothers packing plant to Posey at 111 Fifth Ave. The original Kinney Brothers building was at West 22nd St. NYC but it was gutted by a fire in 1892 I don't know if they rebuilt it or relocated. At the time of the fire they were processing 18,000,000 cigarettes a week. Last edited by Pat R; 06-08-2021 at 07:38 PM. |
#246
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
processed at a different facility. I'm pretty sure this journal was from the Kinney Brothers processing facility. The Posey letters in the journal are the original letters and the carbon copy's would have been sent to the fifth Ave. facility informing them what was being packed in the products. Polar Bear falls under the plug tobacco product and I still stand behind my opinion I posted before that it was at most only partially under the control of the American Tobacco company at that time Polar Bear t206's were printed. img500.jpg img482.jpg |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
Just picked this up from ebay. It’s cool to see the T206 brands, and nothing really turns on this 1912 booklet, but it would be cool to find the 1909-1911, simply to see what the cigarette packs may have said on the front (if it’s not already known).
|
#248
|
||||
|
||||
Cool
That's cool Jason...Jerry
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Interesting trivia about 1910 COUPON (T213-1) cards...show us some of these rare gems | tedzan | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 112 | 05-31-2021 06:33 AM |
FYI....1910 COUPON checklist (T213-1) | tedzan | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 21 | 09-03-2014 09:22 PM |
FS: 1910 T213-1 Type 1 Coupon | usernamealreadytaken | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 07-20-2012 03:16 PM |
F/S....1910 COUPON (T213-1) cards | tedzan | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 2 | 12-21-2011 01:58 PM |
T213-1 (1910 Type 1 Coupon) | usernamealreadytaken | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 11-02-2011 08:18 AM |