Piedmont, Liggett & Myers, and ATC: A Clarification

[Jlighter]

This is some interesting information. What became of these brands?

[Blitzu]

Ahh, but when the ATC owned LM they also put their names on the piedmont boxes. Only until after LM was formed did the piedmont box bear the LM name. So basically the piedmont boxes with ATC are from the T206 era and the LM boxes were from after.

This is the ATC box...

[Blitzu]

This was the LM non-T206 box

No one I think is disputing that LM didn't exist, but it's name wasn't put on these boxes till after the company was split up.

[White Borders]

Something I just came across to answer my question about Continental and Consolidated:

"1904: Duke forms the American Tobacco Co. (ATC) by the merger of 2 subsidiaries, Consolidated and American & Continental. The only form of tobacco Duke does not control is cigars--the form with the most prestige."

Tobacco Timeline Relevant to Durham, North Carolina

[canjond]

Craig-

Some of the confusion probably comes from my use of the word "acquired". It is my understanding from factory records that Piedmont (as well as other brands that were owned by the ATC prior to the trust dissolution) were distributed in cigarette packs bearing the American Tobacco Company designation. It was only after the trust was split up and certain manufactures re-emerged that cigarette boxes would start to bear different manufacturer marks, such as L&M. Accordingly, I don't believe there are any Piedmont cigarette boxes prior to the year 1912 that would bear an L&M name. Additionally, there is undoubtedly Piedmont cigarette boxes post-1912 that still bear the ATC designation as inventory was used-up before being reprinted with new designations.

One other interesting thing to note with the "Directory of Cigarette Brands, 1864-1988" information posted. As it relates to Piedmont, I believe the date 1905 relates to the start of the brand. I also believe the Liggett & Myers designation relates to who controlled the brand post- break-up of the ATC (I could be incorrect, but I was unable to find page vi to verify (not sure if you have access to it)).

In other words, I'm not sure it's technically correct to say that in 1905, Piedmont was created with the manufacturer being L&M. I actually believe Piedmont was created in 1905 with the manufacturer being the ATC. In fact, I actually believe that L&M and other various brands acquired by the ATC sat dormant, without every producing a product in the intervening years, until the trust was split. At that point, certain brands had the opportunity to be "reborn"... L&M being one of those brands.

Lastly, for reference is a Piedmont pack (with complete tax stamp) bearing the ATC designation on the box.

[canjond]

FYI - here is a bit more information on the continued manufacturing of the former trust brands (Piedmont included) after the dissolution of the ATC:

http://www.jimsburntofferings.com/pa...gett_duke.html

Finally, with respect to the pack in question, I was actually a bit surprised it's a 10-count pack. The packaging looks more akin to 12-count packaging (i.e., the tax stamp would say twelve along the bottom, not ten). Also, the "reg. u.s. pat. off." stamping on the front is interesting. I'm not sure when packagin frst began bearing that language (maybe someone else knows), but that may help better date the pack to a specific year.

[Blitzu]

Originally Posted by canjond

In fact, I actually believe that L&M and other various brands acquired by the ATC sat dormant, without every producing a product in the intervening years, until the trust was split. At that point, certain brands had the opportunity to be "reborn"... L&M being one of those brands.

Correct... and after the dissolution each company struggled to stay afloat since each one was only just a name under the ATC Trust. Their divisions for handling certain aspects of the Trust were spread all over the U.S. and now each one had to work completely independent of one another. So many struggled to build the same infrastructure that existed under the Trust.

It's also important to note that L&M wasn't even listed on the dissolution lawsuit as a company that existed under the ATC. That shows that it was just a name and carried no weight after the ATC took it over in the mid 1900's. Read if curious http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sgc80e00

Jon, I posted an observation on this subject and several other packs a little bit ago on this board and I brought up a question based on Leon's Carolina Brights box. On the side it said it was manufactured by Wells-Wighthead tobacco through L&M.

That leaves me to believe that the box was manufactured after 1911, and after the T206 run. I put it out there to see if anyone had a box of Carolina Brights with the ATC printed on the side of it? Do you have an example?

Thanks,
Jared

[Blitzu]

I also have a theory on how the L&M could exist on the sides of the box prior to 1911...

If you read this page http://www.jimsburntofferings.com/pa...nabrights.html

You'll see that Duke wanted to keep the ownership of a union made cigarette being sold in the south so he may have put and kept the name L&M on the box instead of the ATC to avoid outrage.

Yet I still don't think the box listed above was from the T206 era since it bears the name "L&M successor". That still makes me believe that it was produced after the Trust was dissolved.

Thoughts?


UPDATE: I think I found my answer on the side of one of the T91 cards which were produced by Carolina Brights in 1907... if you look at the pack on the side it says Well-Whitehead Tobacco Co. then underneath, instead of L&M it says Wilson N.C. USA.

That fits inline with the theory above that they left he name Well-Whitehead on the boxes and never printed the ATC name... so it's safe to say that the Carolina Brights boxes with Wilson N.C. USA printed on the side of the boxes with a 1910-11 tax stamp could have contained a T206 card.

See the picture

[White Borders]

Originally Posted by canjond

One other interesting thing to note with the "Directory of Cigarette Brands, 1864-1988" information posted. As it relates to Piedmont, I believe the date 1905 relates to the start of the brand. I also believe the Liggett & Myers designation relates to who controlled the brand post- break-up of the ATC (I could be incorrect, but I was unable to find page vi to verify (not sure if you have access to it)).

Hi John, I was able to find another copy of "Directory of Cigarette Brands, 1864-1988" that contains Page VI.

It says that the Manufactures "... are generally the most recent manufacturer of the brand."

Best Regards,
Craig

[White Borders]

Hi Ted,

Thanks for your posts. I noticed on the Fact 42 postcard it says "Home of Chesterfield". Correct me if I'm wrong, but Chesterfield wasn't an ATC brand and L&M introduced it shortly after the ATC breakup? Am I starting to catch on?

Best Regards,
Craig

[canjond]

Originally Posted by White Borders

Hi John, I was able to find another copy of "Directory of Cigarette Brands, 1864-1988" that contains Page VI.

It says that the Manufactures "... are generally the most recent manufacturer of the brand."

Best Regards,
Craig

So this makes sense then that L&M would be listed. I believe L&M controlled Piedmont (after the break-up) until the brand was discontinued.