T206 Wagner and Plank - They both didn't want their image on Tobacco cards

[Pat R]

We are all just speculating until/if we find solid proof but I think that Plank being pulled might have had something to do with several different legal battles and new Tobacco Laws at the time of the T206 printings.

I have to head out but I will try and get some of the information together when I get back. Greg and I were in a discussion about all of this a few months ago that I wanted to look into more but haven't got around to it maybe he will chime in here about it.

Some of what was involved is right around the time when the T206's were printed there was a new law (mentioned in the Neal Ball letter among other documents) about having permission to use a players image. One exception was if the image was prior to 1904? (I have to check on the year) and Planks E107 which is the same image as his T206 falls in that category.

The majority of what we found was in court proceedings right at the time of the T206 printings and there is a ton of information to sift through including
different laws for each state/city and Philadelphia was one of the cities that was pushing for stricter laws. One of the court cases involved a legal battle between ATC and the Peoples Tobacco (T216).

[Carter08]

One argument I don’t love is the argument that Honus couldn’t have objected to tobacco because his leaf card shows him chewing. I get the argument from a superficial standpoint but it doesn’t hold for a bunch reasons - guy could be fine with tobacco for himself but not kids, he could have changed his mind after about 30 years, might be fine with chew but not cigarettes, etc.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Carter08

One argument I don’t love is the argument that Honus couldn’t have objected to tobacco because his leaf card shows him chewing. I get the argument from a superficial standpoint but it doesn’t hold for a bunch reasons - guy could be fine with tobacco for himself but not kids, he could have changed his mind after about 30 years, might be fine with chew but not cigarettes, etc.

I am one of those that falls on this side, I fully believe it's a myth. The real story likely has more to do with a tad of payola' for him to allow it vs. some noble venture.

I think that holds water like a screen door.

Most people tend to ignore the reference of history and use only a magnifying glass of current knowledge. During the T206 production, doctors would have been often touting the health benefits of smoking and the chance of your doctor walking into your exam room with a lit cigarette was likely very good. This continued well through the 30's, 40's , and 50's. To say that these 2 took some elite stance while ignoring of other tobacco releases seems questionable.

To be honest though, the truth means little. The story is ingrained and will never change, whether it is truthful or not. The facts for either are lost to time. Cobb will never regain his public reputation, we will never know the extent of Shoeless Joe's involvement, and we will never know the truth on this.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I am one of those that falls on this side, I fully believe it's a myth. The real story likely has more to do with a tad of payola' for him to allow it vs. some noble venture.

I think that holds water like a screen door.

I don’t disagree. As long as you’re not relying solely on the leaf card argument.

[mrreality68]

Ryan great collection

And I agree with your in-depth summary

I believe in this case the biggest part of the value discrepancy is the “ legend” and Icon of Wagner over Plank.

Both players are great but Wagner had the Mystique about him

[MVSNYC]

Johnny, great thread. I don't have anything else to add, but I think Sean & Ryan posted some great points.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Most people tend to ignore the reference of history and use only a magnifying glass of current knowledge. During the T206 production, doctors would have been often touting the health benefits of smoking and the chance of your doctor walking into your exam room with a lit cigarette was likely very good. This continued well through the 30's, 40's , and 50's. To say that these 2 took some elite stance while ignoring of other tobacco releases seems questionable.

At the time of T206 production, there was a very vocal anti-tobacco segment of the public. Journals of the time are filled with anti-tobacco articles, largely focused on it's negative health impacts (both true and imagined) and the view that it was somehow morally damaging. It is nigh impossible to gauge how unusual this view was among the public, but it was very common in the press and papers, and amongst health and exercise centric publications, and seems to have played a not insignificant role in the government targeting of the ATC at the local, state and federal levels. It wouldn't have been an elite stance, or ahead of its time, for an athlete to either be against tobacco and it's use or to not want to take any part in the public dialogue about it either way. At least one other ATC short printed athlete subject wrote public articles about distaste for tobacco and it's negative health impact.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by G1911

At the time of T206 production, there was a very vocal anti-tobacco segment of the public. Journals of the time are filled with anti-tobacco articles, largely focused on it's negative health impacts (both true and imagined) and the view that it was somehow morally damaging. It is nigh impossible to gauge how unusual this view was among the public, but it was very common in the press and papers, and amongst health and exercise centric publications, and seems to have played a not insignificant role in the government targeting of the ATC at the local, state and federal levels. It wouldn't have been an elite stance, or ahead of its time, for an athlete to either be against tobacco and it's use or to not want to take any part in the public dialogue about it either way. At least one other ATC short printed athlete subject wrote public articles about distaste for tobacco and it's negative health impact.

Again, going off an impossible to prove thought due to time and that I was not in existence prior to the very early Seventies (lol). However, I would place media and journals much more on the "morally damaging" stance and say much like prohibition it was far less accepted by the public and a signification of wealth and status wished to be imitated.

I would change my wording to "morally" or "Christian" elite stance.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Again, going off an impossible to prove thought due to time and that I was not in existence prior to the very early Seventies (lol). However, I would place media and journals much more on the "morally damaging" stance and say much like prohibition it was far less accepted by the public and a signification of wealth and status wished to be imitated.

I would change my wording to "morally" or "Christian" elite stance.

It was prevalent in athletic, sport and exercise journals of the time - the exact group of people that Wagner and Plank were members of. Numerous athletes wrote editorials and statements about the dangers of tobacco use (one of the ATC’s short-printed boxing subjects among them). It would hardly be out of tune with the times for Wagner and or Plank to be anti tobacco as much of the sporting world was for reasons of health and morals (the athletic focused health and wellness journals tend to include the former in their anti-tobacco articles and op-eds). It would not be assigning the base ballers to a class that they were not a part of, many people in the athletic world at this time were against tobacco. It was not an idea restricted to Christian preachers and elitists.

There is no evidence that has been produced that Plank was anti tobacco or wanted his card pulled, or wanted his card pulled for an anti tobacco reason. There is the article from the time stating this happened with Wagner, which may ir may not be really true but is at least primary source evidence. While I do not buy, on evidentiary grounds, that this theory can reasonably be said to be true or even probably true, it also cannot be dismissed as being modern in its logic or out of step with the realities of 1909.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I am one of those that falls on this side, I fully believe it's a myth. The real story likely has more to do with a tad of payola' for him to allow it vs. some noble venture.

I think that holds water like a screen door.

Most people tend to ignore the reference of history and use only a magnifying glass of current knowledge. During the T206 production, doctors would have been often touting the health benefits of smoking and the chance of your doctor walking into your exam room with a lit cigarette was likely very good. This continued well through the 30's, 40's , and 50's. To say that these 2 took some elite stance while ignoring of other tobacco releases seems questionable.

To be honest though, the truth means little. The story is ingrained and will never change, whether it is truthful or not. The facts for either are lost to time. Cobb will never regain his public reputation, we will never know the extent of Shoeless Joe's involvement, and we will never know the truth on this.

Not that newspaper clips are 100% proof but there are several from the early 1900's that quote Wagner as saying he didn't want his picture used in cigarettes because of the kids. I haven't found anything on Plank refusing to have his picture used.

Wagner refuses to allow picture.jpg

Wagner.jpg

Wagner ad Part 1.jpg
Wagner ad Part 2.jpg

[JustinD]

Perhaps everyone is just thinking I am positive that I am right, lol. Not in the least.

I just have personal thoughts as I think that as time goes on history adds a romantic flavor to many things.

I only have a hard time with this as it is so specific to the T206 release, as there are so many other tobacco releases with both. Perhaps neither chose to pursue any legal actions toward the other releases and the American Litho Co. or ATC were the only companies polite enough to seek permission...I just don't know the why. While it could indeed be just as reasonable to take it all as fact, and I have no qualms with that in the least. There are just so many gaps in the T206 stories whether these two had disagreements with tobacco or not.

Personally I think financial reasons are a more logical explanation for the specific T206 issue than mere moral stance even if they did have a full moral stance on the subject.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Perhaps everyone is just thinking I am positive that I am right, lol. Not in the least.

I just have personal thoughts as I think that as time goes on history adds a romantic flavor to many things.

I only have a hard time with this as it is so specific to the T206 release, as there are so many other tobacco releases with both. Perhaps neither chose to pursue any legal actions toward the other releases and the American Litho Co. or ATC were the only companies polite enough to seek permission...I just don't know the why. While it could indeed be just as reasonable to take it all as fact, and I have no qualms with that in the least. There are just so many gaps in the T206 stories whether these two had disagreements with tobacco or not.

Personally I think financial reasons are a more logical explanation for the specific T206 issue than mere moral stance even if they did have a full moral stance on the subject.

Justin, the reason it's specific to the T206 release is there was a new law passed right before they were starting the printing of the T206's. It is referred to in the Neal Ball letter and I have seen court documents that mention needing permission with an exception for images that the lithograph companies had prior to I think 1904, I'm trying to locate the document I saw that in but I haven't found it yet.

Here's the reference to the new law in the Neal Ball letter.
Neal Ball Letter - Copy.jpg

[JustinD]

Thanks Pat, that is a new piece for me!

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Justin, the reason it's specific to the T206 release is there was a new law passed right before they were starting the printing of the T206's. It is referred to in the Neal Ball letter and I have seen court documents that mention needing permission with an exception for images that the lithograph companies had prior to I think 1904, I'm trying to locate the document I saw that in but I haven't found it yet.

Here's the reference to the new law in the Neal Ball letter.
Attachment 507777

Okay I found it from 1908 and it appears that at the time it didn't require permission to use an image for advertising or trade purposes if it was from a picture that was acquired prior to 1905 and the ownership of the picture hadn't been transferred.

[IMG][/IMG]

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Perhaps everyone is just thinking I am positive that I am right, lol. Not in the least.

I just have personal thoughts as I think that as time goes on history adds a romantic flavor to many things.

I only have a hard time with this as it is so specific to the T206 release, as there are so many other tobacco releases with both. Perhaps neither chose to pursue any legal actions toward the other releases and the American Litho Co. or ATC were the only companies polite enough to seek permission...I just don't know the why. While it could indeed be just as reasonable to take it all as fact, and I have no qualms with that in the least. There are just so many gaps in the T206 stories whether these two had disagreements with tobacco or not.

Personally I think financial reasons are a more logical explanation for the specific T206 issue than mere moral stance even if they did have a full moral stance on the subject.

Justin, there are virtually NO tobacco releases with either. The only other tobacco issue with Wagner is t216 (and those were pirated from the E cards) and t216, t204 and t208 (a team specific issue) are the only T cards with Plank. I agree it was a long time ago anc there are all sorts of theories, but the anti-tobacco stance by BOTH Plank and Wagner appears the most likely (by far) reason they were pulled from
T206

[x2drich2000]

Ryan, while I agree with your premise, as an FYI, both Wagner and Plank are also in the T5 Pinkerton set.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

We are all just speculating until/if we find solid proof but I think that Plank being pulled might have had something to do with several different legal battles and new Tobacco Laws at the time of the T206 printings.

I have to head out but I will try and get some of the information together when I get back. Greg and I were in a discussion about all of this a few months ago that I wanted to look into more but haven't got around to it maybe he will chime in here about it.

Some of what was involved is right around the time when the T206's were printed there was a new law (mentioned in the Neal Ball letter among other documents) about having permission to use a players image. One exception was if the image was prior to 1904? (I have to check on the year) and Planks E107 which is the same image as his T206 falls in that category.

The majority of what we found was in court proceedings right at the time of the T206 printings and there is a ton of information to sift through including
different laws for each state/city and Philadelphia was one of the cities that was pushing for stricter laws. One of the court cases involved a legal battle between ATC and the Peoples Tobacco (T216).

Going off memory of our little research project:

We found legal cases in Wisconsin and Philadelphia in late 1908/early 1909 against the tobacco combination regarding the use of coupons and cards. Pat found some advertisements put into Philadelphia area newspapers in 1909 stating that the ATC and Polar Bear's (interesting that this brand and this brand only is highlighted) 'tags and coupons' were still being accepted at certain locations (implying there was reason consumers would think they were not good anymore). Much of the context is rather vague sometimes but the Philadelphia territory is highlighted in a number of documents as being distinct from other areas by the ATC, presumably in connection with stricter regulation in the Philadelphia area.


Cigarette cards and coupons were made illegal in 1897 with a law forbidding essentially anything but the tobacco itself to be inside the box. The tobacco companies legal challenge lost. In July of 1902 an amendment was passed that rephrased it to ban coupons and 'indecent or immoral' pictures (perhaps a reason the T cards have few sets of actresses like the N cards, and the ones they did make are less sexual by the standards of that time than many of the N cards), but apparently there was some confusion whether this was specifically replacing the old legislation or supplementing it. In 1907, after a report from the Congressional Ways and Means Committee, it was amended again to specifically allow coupons and cards, as long as it did not materially increase the size of the package. The government being the government of course sought to profit by allowing the tobacco companies to advertise in their cigarette packs. They instituted a two cent tax in this clause on coupon redemptions. This seemed to me to pretty much explain why the spate of T cards came when it did. They weren't legal during most of the 'gap' between the Mayo set and the 1909 card explosion, and they were generally used instead of coupons because at this time there was a pain-in-the-rear tax and actually redeeming coupons, but no such tax on pictures instead of redemption prizes.

We found a ton of other stuff, much of which was posted in the Boxing board even though it applies across sports and non-sports, but I think this was the relevant parts that haven't been posted before.

[Lobo Aullando]

Man, I didn't even have to wait.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by G1911

Cigarette cards and coupons were made illegal in 1897 with a law forbidding essentially anything but the tobacco itself to be inside the box. ...

[tedzan]

Eddie Plank......

.

Eddie Plank was vehemently averse to any form of tobacco use. How do I know this ?

Here is a quote from Connie Mack to a sports journalist, who asked Connie.... "What is Plank's secret of his pitching success ?"

Connie replied.... "The secret of Plank's pitching success is no secret at all. It is a good strong arm, a powerful constitution to back it, and neither drinks, SMOKES,
chews tobacco, nor swears". **

Furthermore, I met Connie Mack III at a gathering of the Philadelphia A's Historical Society in Hatboro, PA. We had a nice conversation which included stories of Eddie Plank.

I have researched legal documents in the Philadelphia Library, but could not find any thing pertaining to any kind of possible legal action by Plank vs. ATC. However, a lawyer
friend, who informed me that back in the beginning of the 20th Century, the usual action was simply to file a "Cease and Desist" order in person (followed by a Handshake).

** Note....from Connie Mack's Biography (The Early Years), by Norman Macht.

Regarding John Wagner, we know he smoked cigars and chewed tobacco....I'll leave it at that.

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[mrreality68]

Great Looking Card Ted.

Many of us Wish we had one.

Some day

[Lobo Aullando]

Wasn't there also a change in the laws regarding tobacco product premiums? I recall reading that there were restrictions on those for a couple decades, and I've been wondering if that had any effect. (Folks should wait for more info before memory-banking this.)

And Plank was from Gettysburg, so there's some thought that even Unionists had some pretty hard feelings after the War.

Originally Posted by Pat R

We are all just speculating until/if we find solid proof but I think that Plank being pulled might have had something to do with several different legal battles and new Tobacco Laws at the time of the T206 printings.

I have to head out but I will try and get some of the information together when I get back. Greg and I were in a discussion about all of this a few months ago that I wanted to look into more but haven't got around to it maybe he will chime in here about it.

Some of what was involved is right around the time when the T206's were printed there was a new law (mentioned in the Neal Ball letter among other documents) about having permission to use a players image. One exception was if the image was prior to 1904? (I have to check on the year) and Planks E107 which is the same image as his T206 falls in that category.

The majority of what we found was in court proceedings right at the time of the T206 printings and there is a ton of information to sift through including
different laws for each state/city and Philadelphia was one of the cities that was pushing for stricter laws. One of the court cases involved a legal battle between ATC and the Peoples Tobacco (T216).