T220 Silver - Uncut Edition

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I strongly believe the Tolstoi's were not a re-issue with the T206's there are several Tolstoi's similar to this one that indicate they were printed with the T206's.

https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=46257

Perhaps re-issue is too strong; not like T219 and T218, but issued some time after the other back in T220. I've found little to indicate production vs. issue time delays; how much they may have varied or if some smaller brands issued essentially surplus fronts with their ad slapped on the back. I don't know the T206 order myself very well.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

Perhaps re-issue is too strong; not like T219 and T218, but issued some time after the other back in T220. I've found little to indicate production vs. issue time delays; how much they may have varied or if some smaller brands issued essentially surplus fronts with their ad slapped on the back. I don't know the T206 order myself very well.

What makes T206's so tough is there are there are so many print groups print group 1 the 150/350 series print group 2 the 350 only series print group 3 the 350/460 series print group 4 the 460 only series and then there are the Southern Leaguers and the 6 super prints. The Tolstoi's weren't printed during print group 1 I think they were one of the last backs if not the last back printed in the print group 2 350 only subjects but after that it gets tougher to figure out.

[G1911]

No success on clarifying Old Masters, or tying Brett to ALC more directly. I did find some stuff on ALC registering numerous cigarette brands, none of which I have heard of, in a compilation of 1911 issues of The United States Tobacco Journal (https://books.googleusercontent.com/...BbP1Evfh_PuOvw). One of the brands is "Lady Derby"; Derby was of course an issuer of T59 and a tough back, perhaps an off shoot of this brand?

If Fullgraff, ALC and Brett were doing everything the evidence thus far indicates, it begs the question of what the ATC actually did beyond pack and ship cigarettes. So many of the functions of a businesses processes and growth, R&D, marketing, etc. seem to be happening from the lithographers and Fullgraff who may or may not have been on their payroll too.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

No success on clarifying Old Masters, or tying Brett to ALC more directly. I did find some stuff on ALC registering numerous cigarette brands, none of which I have heard of, in a compilation of 1911 issues of The United States Tobacco Journal (https://books.googleusercontent.com/...BbP1Evfh_PuOvw). One of the brands is "Lady Derby"; Derby was of course an issuer of T59 and a tough back, perhaps an off shoot of this brand?

If Fullgraff, ALC and Brett were doing everything the evidence thus far indicates, it begs the question of what the ATC actually did beyond pack and ship cigarettes. So many of the functions of a businesses processes and growth, R&D, marketing, etc. seem to be happening from the lithographers and Fullgraff who may or may not have been on their payroll too.

They did a lot of cigar box labels Greg, so it could be something to do with them.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

They did a lot of cigar box labels Greg, so it could be something to do with them.

Most all of these clearly are not for cards; but the copyright of a product or product logo would, one would think, be owned by the tobacco company, instead of the lithographic company doing their marketing and printing ads in various forms for them. The printer doesn't normally own the logo or name of a product for the firm they are printing ads for.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

Most all of these clearly are not for cards; but the copyright of a product or product logo would, one would think, be owned by the tobacco company, instead of the lithographic company doing their marketing and printing ads in various forms for them. The printer doesn't normally own the logo or name of a product for the firm they are printing ads for.

I must have misunderstood your post I thought you were talking about ALC registering cigarette brands and the link you posted doesn't work for me.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I must have misunderstood your post I thought you were talking about ALC registering cigarette brands and the link you posted doesn't work for me.

Let me try links again, validated these

1909: https://www.google.com/books/edition...gQ7_IDegQICxAD

1911: https://www.google.com/books/edition...J?hl=en&gbpv=0

ALC appears to be registering cigarette brands as trademarks. ALC is the printer of advertisements, pack wrappers, labels, cards, etc.. I found it odd they appear to be registering trademarks of cigarette brands for themselves. I would think this would obviously be something the ATC would do. When my company has a vendor print stuff or design a label, they don't get copyright to our brands. Again, the connection between the ALC and their apparent shadow subsidiaries and the ATC seems quite unusual. I'd love to stand corrected, perhaps I am misreading the source, but it strikes me as very odd.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by G1911

Most all of these clearly are not for cards; but the copyright of a product or product logo would, one would think, be owned by the tobacco company, instead of the lithographic company doing their marketing and printing ads in various forms for them. The printer doesn't normally own the logo or name of a product for the firm they are printing ads for.

When they're doing something for an existing company, of course the customer would handle copyrights.

I think what ALC was doing was producing art and names speculatively, maybe to keep the art department going between jobs or as a sales ploy.

If a company wants a new brand, and you can supply the branding images and name instantly because it's already made that's a big plus compared to ATC or anyone else having to have their own people doing the work.

Plus ALC would make the required masters for the packaging and be able to provide those materials very quickly.

If that's the case, and a lot of the cards went through Brett... Oh the stuff that may have been lost! Not only records about the card sets up to the fire, but unreleased material, possibly including proofs or art for speculative backs for brands that ultimately didn't go with baseball or other subjects.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by steve B

When they're doing something for an existing company, of course the customer would handle copyrights.

I think what ALC was doing was producing art and names speculatively, maybe to keep the art department going between jobs or as a sales ploy.

If a company wants a new brand, and you can supply the branding images and name instantly because it's already made that's a big plus compared to ATC or anyone else having to have their own people doing the work.

Plus ALC would make the required masters for the packaging and be able to provide those materials very quickly.

If that's the case, and a lot of the cards went through Brett... Oh the stuff that may have been lost! Not only records about the card sets up to the fire, but unreleased material, possibly including proofs or art for speculative backs for brands that ultimately didn't go with baseball or other subjects.

Prototypes, proofs, cards and whole sets in design stages. Fullgraffs testimony indicates a lot of material was burned up and the bookkeeping departments records lost. It almost hurts to think about the possibilities!

[steve B]

Oh, and just looking at that patent summary, it's for a stand up cardboard display where the sides fold back or forward so it can stand up. AND the back portion can be folded so it displays at an angle.

The full text here.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US.../en?oq=1600557