Posted By:
Ted ZanidakisJamie, upon having re-read your initial post; and, then culminating with Scot's last two sentences......
"However, since the right to privacy is essentially a right to be left alone, it is possible that using a famous
baseball player’s likeness on a cigarette card would not have been deemed sufficiently invasive to violate it.
In short, if ATC had taken an aggressive legal position, it might have continued printing Wagner (Pittsburg)
with impunity, in which case the famed card might be as common today as any other Hall of Famer in the
first series."
The conclusion I arrive at, is that the T206 Wagner was not discontinued because Wagner simply told ATC
that "he did not want to endorse Cigarette smoking". Hey guys, he was a heavy Cigar smoker all his life.
I cannot conceive that a strong-willed James Buchanan Duke (ATC), or Joseph Palmer Knapp (of American
Lithographic) responding....
"alright Honus, we are removing your image from our BB card premiums....please, please don't sue us".
No, not when Wagner was the most popular BB player of that era......Would Goudey have ever removed
their Babe Ruth's......NEVER !
Gentleman, there is more to this story than the Wagner "myth". It took some strong legal action, such as
a "cease and desist" order, from another entity to force ATC to remove their T206 Wagner BB card.
According to my "Plank theory", that entity was American Caramel Co.(ACC). By virtue of their 1908 sets
(E91 and E90-1), ACC had the "1st rights" to a lot of the BB players. Thereby, forcing the removal of the
T206 Wagner, Plank, many of the Philadelphia A's, and some of the Pittsburg players from the 1st Series
of the T206 set.
Daniel Lafean, the founder of ACC, was also a very strong-willed personality. It was his close friendship
with Connie Mack that inspired Lafean to include BB card premiums with his caramel candy.
TED Z
07-04-2008, 10:02 PM
Player Consent and Inclusion in T206
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
