Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

1) You posted the two Contents/Index pages that survive in 209. There is not another page in the surviving journal. Note that they record nothing before page 52. I find it extremely unlikely this is complete, and the first 51 pages of a ledger were just blank.


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.

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?

[jggames]

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"

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by jggames

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"

That is cool Jason thanks for posting that.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

[/B]


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?

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.

[jggames]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.
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.

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jggames

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.

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.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Greg, the reason for several replies is because Ted asked me why the Polar Bears weren't in the ledger in post #210, 212, and 218 and I gave a couple of reasons why I thought they might not be in the ledger.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

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

I understand your argument, and you may well be correct in this point, but the ledger does not seem to say that. We don't have T53 being discontinued and coming back, we have it stated to begin twice. T36 which is discontinued, we don't have a later re-release of in the surviving pages. It may be the way you think, it may not. I don't know if sets were one shots, went out of stock and brought back, could go either way. I suspect some were issued multiple times in fairly close succession, but that is mere conjecture off fragmentary evidence. None of us know. An inaccuracy is not a difference of opinion on slim evidence, it's a false claim to fact.

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.