Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2111104)

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.

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 2111223)

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.

Attachment 462761
Attachment 462760

Attachment 462762

Attachment 462763

Originally Posted by jggames (Post 2111152)

I missed the claim that PB shouldn’t be considered T206 because they weren’t in the ledger. Or that the ledger had anything to do with the “T206” definition at all.

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.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2111457)

The thread is about if Coupon should be classified as T206. We have an argument in post 209 that Polar Bear and Coupon "almost certainly should be in this journal" if they were produced in 1910. The Journal dates covering 1909-1912 are highlighted in posts 209 and 211, suggesting that the cards are form a different time, though we have withdrawn from the 'it can't be from 1909 to 1912 because it wasn't ATC until 1914' that was originally part of it and the earlier replies. In bold red, it is said that "they weren't printed and distributed with the other t206 brands." If they were not printed and distributed, both in time and geographically, with the rest of T206, how should they possibly be classified T206? As the thread is quite specifically and explicitly about what should and should not be classified as T206, I struggle to see any relevance to the subject if this is not the argument. If I misunderstood Mr. Pat_R's argument, he's had several replies to correct this directly stated counterargument.

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.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2111457)

The thread is about if Coupon should be classified as T206. We have an argument in post 209 that Polar Bear and Coupon "almost certainly should be in this journal" if they were produced in 1910. The Journal dates covering 1909-1912 are highlighted in posts 209 and 211, suggesting that the cards are form a different time, though we have withdrawn from the 'it can't be from 1909 to 1912 because it wasn't ATC until 1914' that was originally part of it and the earlier replies. In bold red, it is said that "they weren't printed and distributed with the other t206 brands." If they were not printed and distributed, both in time and geographically, with the rest of T206, how should they possibly be classified T206? As the thread is quite specifically and explicitly about what should and should not be classified as T206, I struggle to see any relevance to the subject if this is not the argument. If I misunderstood Mr. Pat_R's argument, he's had several replies to correct this directly stated counterargument.

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.

Originally Posted by tedzan (Post 2107513)

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
.