Attention S74 Silk Collectors

[Vintagecatcher]

Noticed some "Premium Envelopes" recently on eBay. Although none of the envelopes were stamped "Baseball Series," there was one that had an Actress Series Stamp.

S74 collector's have always speculated on how the S74 silks were packaged and how they reached the consumer. Were they packaged with the product or not?

Perhaps this envelope sheds some light on the topic.

If the silks were sent via these "Premium Envelopes" rather than with the product, that would make a lot of sense, and could explain why many silks still can be found in a prestine state.

Another question that longtime collector's have inquired about is why do many of the silks have a fold up the middle. I noticed that all of the "Premium Envelopes" listed on eBay, have a fold up the middle of the envelopes!

Any thoughts?

Patrick

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Vintagecatcher

Noticed some "Premium Envelopes" recently on eBay. Although none of the envelopes were stamped "Baseball Series," there was one that had an Actress Series Stamp.

S74 collector's have always speculated on how the S74 silks were packaged and how they reached the consumer. Were they packaged with the product or not?

Perhaps this envelope sheds some light on the topic.

If the silks were sent via these "Premium Envelopes" rather than with the product, that would make a lot of sense, and could explain why many silks still can be found in a prestine state.

Another question that longtime collector's have inquired about is why do many of the silks have a fold up the middle. I noticed that all of the "Premium Envelopes" listed on eBay, have a fold up the middle of the envelopes!

Any thoughts?

Patrick

Don't believe the really serious S74 silk collectors have always, or really ever, speculated on how the silks were packaged and delivered to the public. Please review the Red Sun ad in the middle of the HOME page of the following link closely, especially the fine print part where it states emphatically that the baseball player and actress photos were included in packs of Red Sun cigarettes. If you've ever seen the S74-1 white silks with Red Sun backs, they are exactly the same shape and condition as the ad-backed S74-1 white version silks for the other three brands they were also originally sold and distributed with, Old Mill, Turkey Red, and the uber-rare Helmar. It seems pretty clear from all the silks I've ever come across and handled that they were most likely all packaged and distributed in the exact same manner as well then, by being placed in cigarette packs. And the folds were from the silks being folded in half before placing then in the packs. That has not been a long-time question still unanswered for serious S74 silk collectors either. As a serious S74 silk collector myself, not sure where you're getting these questions you're supposedly saying are still being asked on our behalf.

http://www.s74silk.com/

As for the envelope you posted an image of, did you not notice that it clearly states the envelope contained five satin ribbons? Back in that day, ribbons were at times also used and distributed with tobacco products, but there was never any doubt or confusion as to the ribbons and these silk photos being two entirely different items. In fact, if you go back to the attached link, and click over to the MANUFACTURING page, you'll find a reference to, and examples of, what were known as ribbons. I don't believe these are anywhere close to, nor would ever be mistaken for, S74 silks.

And where do you get off with the comment about how many silks can still be found in a prestine state. (Did you mean pristine?) Not many S74 silks are still in what most serious silk collectors would ever consider as their pristine state. Between fraying, folds, staining, fading, and on and on, most silks exhibit obvious wear, handling and aging. Don't forget, unlike cards, these S74 silks were actually meant to be handled and used to make pillows, covers and other items. So I'm not sure where you definition of pristine is coming from.

And lastly, at the bottom of the envelope you posted the image of, it notes it is for/from the Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., and just to the right of the company name, it appears to show/reference the company or product was from or had something to do with what appears to be St. Louis, which I'm thinking was possibly referring to St. Louis, Missouri then. The back end of the city was ripped off, but I'm not really familiar with any other cities named St. Louis, so guessing we're talking Missouri after all. The Ligget & Meyers Tobacco Co. still survives today as the Liggett Group, the fourth largest tobacco company in the U.S., and is currently headquartered out of Durham, NC I believe. And though eventually acquired by the American Tobacco Co. monopoly back in 1899, prior to that, Ligget & Meyers actually started out as a small snuff mill originally owned and operated by John Edmund Liggett's grandfather, Christopher Foulks, in the very early 1800's in New Egypt, NJ. Foulks later moved the business around 1822 to Belleville, Illinois, and then in 1833 (Surprise, surprise!) he moved it again to St. Louis, Missouri. His grandson, John Edmund Liggett, then joined him in the business sometime in the mid 1840's. In 1869, the company created the first ever blended cigarettes (Turkish and Virginia tobaccos), and in 1873 went into a partnership with George Smith Meyers, also from Missouri, and formally incorporated the Liggett & Meyers Tobacco Co. In 1876 the company introduced L&M Plug Chewing Tobacco, and by 1885 became the world's largest manufacturer of plug chewing tobacco. And then as I noted earlier, they were swallowed up by the ATC in 1899.

Now because of the original use of silk/satin ribbons with tobacco products, like cigars, from in the 1800's, I'm going to guess that maybe, just maybe, that envelope you're showing, and the clear reference it has to containing satin ribbons, might possibly refer to cigar ribbons, or even smaller cigarette ribbons, that did come into play as advertisements for tobacco products as early as 1858, and really took off in the 1870s. So S74 silks don't really seem to fit the possibility of having been distributed in such envelopes.

Also, though Liggett & Meyers did eventually become part of the ATC conglomerate that produced the S74 silks, I don't think I've ever heard or seen any reference or info indicating that any of the four different brands had anything to do with Liggett & Meyers when the silks were being distributed. Red Sun I believe was distributed in the deep South, primarily out of/around New Orleans if memory serves. Don't believe Ligget & Meyers ever had any operations in that part of the country so, Red Sun probably not part of L&M. Helmar was created in 1907 and handled by a different ATC subsidiary, S. Anargyros. So once again, not Ligget & Meyers. Old Mill was a brand originally created by the ATC/Duke Trust in 1890, long before Ligget & Meyers was acquired and even had anything to do with the ATC. Oddly enough, the Old Mill brand was awarded to L&M, but not till AFTER the ATC was forced to break up in 1911, and all the T206, T205, S74, and other then current baseball advertising issues ceased production. So also not L&M associated during S74 silk production. And finally, the Turkey Red cigarettes brand is one I couldn't really find any historical info on. Not sure why, but couldn't find anything specifically tying Turkey Red to Liggett & Meyers either. Meanwhile, I did find info and links of L&M to the Chesterfield, Fatima, and Piedmont cigarette brands, as well as the aforementioned Old Mill brand, but only after they split up the ATC in 1911 and had ceased distribution of the S74 silks.

So again, I'm fairly confident that Ligget & Meyers didn't really have anything to do with the S74 silks, and that envelope you posted an image of has nothing whatsoever to do with another or alternative distribution technique/method for the S74 silks either.

https://archives.lib.duke.edu/catalog/liggettmyers

[Mozzie22]

Originally Posted by BobC

Don't believe the really serious S74 silk collectors have always, or really ever, speculated on how the silks were packaged and delivered to the public. Please review the Red Sun ad in the middle of the HOME page of the following link closely, especially the fine print part where it states emphatically that the baseball player and actress photos were included in packs of Red Sun cigarettes. If you've ever seen the S74-1 white silks with Red Sun backs, they are exactly the same shape and condition as the ad-backed S74-1 white version silks for the other three brands they were also originally sold and distributed with, Old Mill, Turkey Red, and the uber-rare Helmar. It seems pretty clear from all the silks I've ever come across and handled that they were most likely all packaged and distributed in the exact same manner as well then, by being placed in cigarette packs. And the folds were from the silks being folded in half before placing then in the packs. That has not been a long-time question still unanswered for serious S74 silk collectors either. As a serious S74 silk collector myself, not sure where you're getting these questions you're supposedly saying are still being asked on our behalf.

http://www.s74silk.com/

As for the envelope you posted an image of, did you not notice that it clearly states the envelope contained five satin ribbons? Back in that day, ribbons were at times also used and distributed with tobacco products, but there was never any doubt or confusion as to the ribbons and these silk photos being two entirely different items. In fact, if you go back to the attached link, and click over to the MANUFACTURING page, you'll find a reference to, and examples of, what were known as ribbons. I don't believe these are anywhere close to, nor would ever be mistaken for, S74 silks.

And where do you get off with the comment about how many silks can still be found in a prestine state. (Did you mean pristine?) Not many S74 silks are still in what most serious silk collectors would ever consider as their pristine state. Between fraying, folds, staining, fading, and on and on, most silks exhibit obvious wear, handling and aging. Don't forget, unlike cards, these S74 silks were actually meant to be handled and used to make pillows, covers and other items. So I'm not sure where you definition of pristine is coming from.

And lastly, at the bottom of the envelope you posted the image of, it notes it is for/from the Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., and just to the right of the company name, it appears to show/reference the company or product was from or had something to do with what appears to be St. Louis, which I'm thinking was possibly referring to St. Louis, Missouri then. The back end of the city was ripped off, but I'm not really familiar with any other cities named St. Louis, so guessing we're talking Missouri after all. The Ligget & Meyers Tobacco Co. still survives today as the Liggett Group, the fourth largest tobacco company in the U.S., and is currently headquartered out of Durham, NC I believe. And though eventually acquired by the American Tobacco Co. monopoly back in 1899, prior to that, Ligget & Meyers actually started out as a small snuff mill originally owned and operated by John Edmund Liggett's grandfather, Christopher Foulks, in the very early 1800's in New Egypt, NJ. Foulks later moved the business around 1822 to Belleville, Illinois, and then in 1833 (Surprise, surprise!) he moved it again to St. Louis, Missouri. His grandson, John Edmund Liggett, then joined him in the business sometime in the mid 1840's. In 1869, the company created the first ever blended cigarettes (Turkish and Virginia tobaccos), and in 1873 went into a partnership with George Smith Meyers, also from Missouri, and formally incorporated the Liggett & Meyers Tobacco Co. In 1876 the company introduced L&M Plug Chewing Tobacco, and by 1885 became the world's largest manufacturer of plug chewing tobacco. And then as I noted earlier, they were swallowed up by the ATC in 1899.

Now because of the original use of silk/satin ribbons with tobacco products, like cigars, from in the 1800's, I'm going to guess that maybe, just maybe, that envelope you're showing, and the clear reference it has to containing satin ribbons, might possibly refer to cigar ribbons, or even smaller cigarette ribbons, that did come into play as advertisements for tobacco products as early as 1858, and really took off in the 1870s. So S74 silks don't really seem to fit the possibility of having been distributed in such envelopes.

Also, though Liggett & Meyers did eventually become part of the ATC conglomerate that produced the S74 silks, I don't think I've ever heard or seen any reference or info indicating that any of the four different brands had anything to do with Liggett & Meyers when the silks were being distributed. Red Sun I believe was distributed in the deep South, primarily out of/around New Orleans if memory serves. Don't believe Ligget & Meyers ever had any operations in that part of the country so, Red Sun probably not part of L&M. Helmar was created in 1907 and handled by a different ATC subsidiary, S. Anargyros. So once again, not Ligget & Meyers. Old Mill was a brand originally created by the ATC/Duke Trust in 1890, long before Ligget & Meyers was acquired and even had anything to do with the ATC. Oddly enough, the Old Mill brand was awarded to L&M, but not till AFTER the ATC was forced to break up in 1911, and all the T206, T205, S74, and other then current baseball advertising issues ceased production. So also not L&M associated during S74 silk production. And finally, the Turkey Red cigarettes brand is one I couldn't really find any historical info on. Not sure why, but couldn't find anything specifically tying Turkey Red to Liggett & Meyers either. Meanwhile, I did find info and links of L&M to the Chesterfield, Fatima, and Piedmont cigarette brands, as well as the aforementioned Old Mill brand, but only after they split up the ATC in 1911 and had ceased distribution of the S74 silks.

So again, I'm fairly confident that Ligget & Meyers didn't really have anything to do with the S74 silks, and that envelope you posted an image of has nothing whatsoever to do with another or alternative distribution technique/method for the S74 silks either.

https://archives.lib.duke.edu/catalog/liggettmyers

Jesus, Bob! This guy steal your girlfriend or something? Seems like a bit of an overreaction.

[Touch'EmAll]

Here is a nice one - colored version. I thought they were all folded to go in cigarette packs. But this one appears to not be folded, hmm. And I have never been sure what the difference is between Colored vs. With Backing. I always just assumed simply two varieties folded into packs, but maybe there is more to that story.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Here is a nice one - colored version. I thought they were all folded to go in cigarette packs. But this one appears to not be folded, hmm. And I have never been sure what the difference is between Colored vs. With Backing. I always just assumed simply two varieties folded into packs, but maybe there is more to that story.

That's a beauty! At one time I had six different colored WaJos.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mozzie22

Jesus, Bob! This guy steal your girlfriend or something? Seems like a bit of an overreaction.

I merely asked very serious questions as to where he was getting his info about serious S74 collectors. As one myself, and on behalf of some others I've known, we're not asking any of the questions he's saying we all supposedly still are, so really little of what he was saying was true. So how do you feel and react when someone is basically putting words in your mouth and acts like they're speaking for you,...when they're really not and what they are saying is wrong?

I was merely being very honest, especially in explaining how the envelope he posted is not at all what he claimed it was. Still, vintagecatcher is a great guy and member, I mean no ill will towards him, nor intended any. If memory serves, he was looking for S74 silks of catchers for a while. I hope he finally found all the ones he was looking for.

I pretty much knew the answers to all his questions, and did a little extra research to be able to embellish the history and such that I also included in my response to add some more hobby history and background, for both him and others to see and learn. The S74 silks are a not so well-known throughout the hobby, and in my opinion, an extremely underappreciated set. Back in the late 1800s-early 1900s era, silks were a huge part of the tobacco advertising products put out by many different manufacturers, yet the S74 silks are the only baseball related silks ever produced. And before you throw the S81s and S110s at me, those are limited premiums, whereas I'm talking about the numerous other different silks (flags, actresses, animals, generals, etc.) of a similar size and distribution technique as the S74s.

A comment or two I posted was intended as a joke, maybe I should have added a smiling emoji or an "LOL" reference for you to better interpret my meaning. Trust me, If I am really trying to be mean and come down on someone, they will know it!!!

Hopefully you, and others, picked up some information/history you may not have known about the silks before, and some of the ancillary tobacco company history as well. It is all part of the hobby in the end.

Have a good evening.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Here is a nice one - colored version. I thought they were all folded to go in cigarette packs. But this one appears to not be folded, hmm. And I have never been sure what the difference is between Colored vs. With Backing. I always just assumed simply two varieties folded into packs, but maybe there is more to that story.

You do know that being made of a satin material, any of the silks that don't still have the paper backing attached can be easily ironed flat, right? One of the reasons why getting them graded, especially the S74-2 colored version silks that were not distributed with a backing attached, is kind of worthless. Think about it!

There are some of the ad-backed S74-1 white version silks that are on very rare occasions found without the folding of their paper backing. The is no definitive proof, but since the vast majority of ad-backed white silks all have the folded backs, the speculation is that those found in the hobby without having been folded were likely never distributed in the cigarette packs. Instead, they mere maybe used and given out as samples to sellers possibly, or maybe some factory workers grabbed a few and took them home to give to family, friends, or whomever. And since the TPGs that do grade the S74 silks count the folds against their condition, like they do creases in regular cards, is it really surprising to think that for those S74-2 colored silks that never had any ad-backings attached that someone submitting them for grading wouldn't opt to iron out those creases first? Again, think about it!

And that is a very nice silk by the way. Nice centering and color, both the top and bottom edge sealing marks are present, and only some minimal fraying at the bottom right corner present. Also seems to maybe be a partially missing thread on the right side of the silk as well, with what is remaining from the thread still visible in the bottom right corner. Still presents very well. So here's a great question for you. Knowing the vast majority of silks, including the colored version ones, were folded when distributed in the cigarette packs, should the TPG that graded this Mathewson silk as an 80/6 EX-NM, maybe have downgraded it quite a bit instead for it having been altered by ironing the fold/crease out before it was submitted for grading? Interesting question/dilemma, isn't it?

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Vintagecatcher

Noticed some "Premium Envelopes" recently on eBay. Although none of the envelopes were stamped "Baseball Series," there was one that had an Actress Series Stamp.

S74 collector's have always speculated on how the S74 silks were packaged and how they reached the consumer. Were they packaged with the product or not?

Perhaps this envelope sheds some light on the topic.

If the silks were sent via these "Premium Envelopes" rather than with the product, that would make a lot of sense, and could explain why many silks still can be found in a prestine state.

Another question that longtime collector's have inquired about is why do many of the silks have a fold up the middle. I noticed that all of the "Premium Envelopes" listed on eBay, have a fold up the middle of the envelopes!

Any thoughts?

Patrick

Thanks for posting. I saw those on ebay at the time and was curious about them, although not $99 apiece curious. The subject of how our collectibles were made available is always worthy of further exploration, IMO.

In addition to the envelope you posted, there was one that carried a stamped notation for state maps/flags. This was not folded in the middle but rather more toward one end, which makes me wonder if these were received by the retailer in folded form at all, or instead were folded by him after the fact. Maybe the fold line was dictated by the size of the packaging that contained the envelope.

All of the envelopes offered by that ebay seller pertained to Pay Car Scrap tobacco, which was packaged differently than the cigarette brands and of course contained a different product. I believe that Pay Car was around for many years, but a quick newspaper search showed no ads before 1912. I will defer to the tobacciana collectors for more accurate info. I see that Liggett & Myers, although part of the American Tobacco Company umbrella, does not identify with the ATC on the envelope, which may give insight as to when this offer first began.

The non-sports guys/gals may have more insight on the contents of this envelope. As we know, there were multiple subjects for these silks or satins over that second decade of the 1900's, and also many non-silk premiums obtained by redeeming coupons. As I understand the info on this envelope, the retailer received an envelope containing five “satins”, which he doled out to customers who presented two "half coupons". This would make it a point of sale collectible, as opposed to a package insert or redemption through mail. I have wondered whether certain baseball collectibles such as the p2 pins or px7 disks were made available in similar fashion. As for the S74 silks, I am unaware of any coupons from those brands that have surfaced for the “satins”, although they do exist for the oversized cabinet cards. It would seem, to date anyway, that those were made available only as pack insertions.

[Leon]

Nice thread....I don't have much to add except a miscut Camnitz.

[Pat R]

There is a page on the S74's in the old ATC journal that was discovered several years ago unfortunately unlike most of the other entry's it doesn't have the packing and shipping information and dates but based on the page number and location the packing and shipping dates appear to be around March/April of 1911.

img400.jpg

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Pat R

There is a page on the S74's in the old ATC journal that was discovered several years ago unfortunately unlike most of the other entry's it doesn't have the packing and shipping information and dates but based on the page number and location the packing and shipping dates appear to be around March/April of 1911.

Attachment 555520

Great info Pat. Hadn't seen that page/image before. What is also very interesting, and odd as well, is why would they attach a full size S72 actress silk, but then next to it attach an obviously trimmed, at both the top and bottom, S74-1 silk of Dots Miller? That Miller silk is clearly short, but why would they have done that? it wasn't like there wasn't enough room on the page to attach a full-sized one. And that is what I meant by it also being odd as well.

[BobC]

Sorry, double post.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by BobC

Great info Pat. Hadn't seen that page/image before. What is also very interesting, and odd as well, is why would they attach a full size S72 actress silk, but then next to it attach an obviously trimmed, at both the top and bottom, S74-1 silk of Dots Miller? That Miller silk is clearly short, but why would they have done that? it wasn't like there wasn't enough room on the page to attach a full-sized one. And that is what I meant by it also being odd as well.

It's really too bad the page doesn't have more info.

With the s72-3 not including a brand it makes me wonder.
The s-74s would be easy to trim or deliberately cut short to use in a different brand alongside the non- branded actresses.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by BobC

Great info Pat. Hadn't seen that page/image before. What is also very interesting, and odd as well, is why would they attach a full size S72 actress silk, but then next to it attach an obviously trimmed, at both the top and bottom, S74-1 silk of Dots Miller? That Miller silk is clearly short, but why would they have done that? it wasn't like there wasn't enough room on the page to attach a full-sized one. And that is what I meant by it also being odd as well.

Yeah I'm not sure why they trimmed the Miller but Steve could be right about cutting the brand off because they were inserted in different brands.

Originally Posted by steve B

It's really too bad the page doesn't have more info.

With the s72-3 not including a brand it makes me wonder.
The s-74s would be easy to trim or deliberately cut short to use in a different brand alongside the non- branded actresses.

It is too bad because most of the other pages do have the brand and packing and shipping info.

I don't know if it's a case of the person that did that entry being lazy or not very thorough but they also neglected to enter the page on the index page.

img402.jpg

[nolemmings]

The Dots Miller silk did not trim off the brand name and factory info. The silk appears to be a s74-1; if so, it did not carry that information on the front anyway. So the mystery remains.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by steve B

It's really too bad the page doesn't have more info.

With the s72-3 not including a brand it makes me wonder.
The s-74s would be easy to trim or deliberately cut short to use in a different brand alongside the non- branded actresses.

Agreed Steve, but you never see any trimmed S74-1 silks like that out in the hobby. Now if the backing is off and they've frayed short like that, then yes. But that Dots Miller silk looks like the backing is still attached so that it had to be purposely trimmed to look like that. And if the shortness was due to fraying instead, that fraying would most likely be real obvious. But I honestly can't tell for certain without seeing that page in person.

As for the actress silk not having any brand identified, that is because it also came with a paper backing advertising the brands just like with the S74-1 baseball player silks. Later unbacked versions of the actress silks that had the tobacco brands on the front, just like the S74-2 colored version baseball players silks, were also released.

http://www.s74silk.com/related/

There are to my understanding 5 different recognized versions of the S72 actress silks. The S72-1 and S72-2 versions did not come with advertising backings, and showed the tobacco brands on the fronts of the silks. Both the A and B versions of the S72-3 silks did come with an advertising backing attached. The silk of Isabel D'Armond shown in the above image next to the Dots Miller S74-1 silk looks to be an S72-3A silk, with the image in an all brown/sepia tone. The actress silks shown on the site I included a link to just above are S72-3B full colored actress silks. Though at first glance the Helen Holmes image looks like it might be all brown/sepia toned, and therefore actually an S72-3A silk after all, when compared more closely to the D'Armond silk above, and also viewed in person, it becomes clearer it is an S72-3A full colored actress silk after all. Also note that the numerical references given by Burdick to the actress silks, 1 - 2 - 3, do not equate to their chronological release. The ad-backed S72-3 actress silks were likely released first, alongside the S74-1 baseball silks, with the unbacked S72-2 and S72-3 actress silks released later with the S74-2 colored version baseball player silks.

S72-1A ACTRESSES (Hvy prnt halftones, serrated, Old Mill) - 14

S72-1B ACTRESSES (Lt prnt halftones, two lengths, Old Mill, Turkey Red, Piedmont, The Pet - longer, Nebo, Zira - shorter) - 90

S72-2 ACTRESSES (Line Drawings, serrated, Old Mill) - 12

S72-3A ACTRESSES (Brown, As T27C) - 25

S72-3B ACTRESSES (Colored, As T27C) - 25

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Yeah I'm not sure why they trimmed the Miller but Steve could be right about cutting the brand off because they were inserted in different brands.




It is too bad because most of the other pages do have the brand and packing and shipping info.

I don't know if it's a case of the person that did that entry being lazy or not very thorough but they also neglected to enter the page on the index page.

Attachment 555543

Todd/nolemmings already addressed yours and Steve's question/comment about the idea of cutting off the brand on that Dots Miller silk, as did I in my last post. Leaving the only real true question left, why did they bother trimming the silk in the first place just to attach a copy in their book/journal? No idea, and makes absolutely no sense why someone would have had to do that. Especially since they didn't have to trim the actress silk right next to it to also get it in the book/journal.

Now as for why they didn't make similar entries and include all the same details and distribution info for these silks as they did for all their other card and advertising releases, could it possibly have anything to do with the unique nature of the silks themselves and how they were not cards? Unlike cards, these silks obviously involved multiple manufacturers being involved, as I'm guessing the ATC didn't luckily for them find some manufacturer that just so happened to print cards, like would have been used for the backings on these baseball and actress silks, AND could also create/weave satin material and additionally be able to imprint images of ballplayers and actresses on it, all out of one single location.

Also, I don't really study or have a lot of knowledge regarding any other silk tobacco issues, aside from the S74 and S72 silks. But to my knowledge, I'm unaware of any other sport or non-sport silk related issues that ever came with a paper advertising backing attached to them, like with the S74-1 and S72-3 baseball player and actress silks did. And if I'm right and there weren't any others, that would truly make those ad-backed silks unique in the world of tobacco advertising. And again, maybe a possible reason why they didn't keep track of them in a similar manner as they did with the other issues recorded in the ATC books/journals. Pure speculation on my part though, but maybe something to at least think about.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by BobC

Todd/nolemmings already addressed yours and Steve's question/comment about the idea of cutting off the brand on that Dots Miller silk, as did I in my last post. Leaving the only real true question left, why did they bother trimming the silk in the first place just to attach a copy in their book/journal? No idea, and makes absolutely no sense why someone would have had to do that. Especially since they didn't have to trim the actress silk right next to it to also get it in the book/journal.

Now as for why they didn't make similar entries and include all the same details and distribution info for these silks as they did for all their other card and advertising releases, could it possibly have anything to do with the unique nature of the silks themselves and how they were not cards? Unlike cards, these silks obviously involved multiple manufacturers being involved, as I'm guessing the ATC didn't luckily for them find some manufacturer that just so happened to print cards, like would have been used for the backings on these baseball and actress silks, AND could also create/weave satin material and additionally be able to imprint images of ballplayers and actresses on it, all out of one single location.

Also, I don't really study or have a lot of knowledge regarding any other silk tobacco issues, aside from the S74 and S72 silks. But to my knowledge, I'm unaware of any other sport or non-sport silk related issues that ever came with a paper advertising backing attached to them, like with the S74-1 and S72-3 baseball player and actress silks did. And if I'm right and there weren't any others, that would truly make those ad-backed silks unique in the world of tobacco advertising. And again, maybe a possible reason why they didn't keep track of them in a similar manner as they did with the other issues recorded in the ATC books/journals. Pure speculation on my part though, but maybe something to at least think about.

Thanks for the clarification on the different silks Bob. I don't know if you've looked at the pages from the journal but the majority of them are instructions on what to insert in each product from 1909-1912 they even listed the ones that didn't have any inserts.

img403.jpg

I don't have an answer either as to why they trimmed the S74 but for the purpose it served I don't think it would have mattered maybe they had a sheet or whatever the uncut silks are called and that's the way the person cut it I'm sure there were probably more than one of these journals that were used for a reference in what to pack in the products.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Thanks for the clarification on the different silks Bob. I don't know if you've looked at the pages from the journal but the majority of them are instructions on what to insert in each product from 1909-1912 they even listed the ones that didn't have any inserts.

Attachment 555585

I don't have an answer either as to why they trimmed the S74 but for the purpose it served I don't think it would have mattered maybe they had a sheet or whatever the uncut silks are called and that's the way the person cut it I'm sure there were probably more than one of these journals that were used for a reference in what to pack in the products.

Hey Pat,

No, I have honestly not closely looked at and/or studied any of the pages from the ATC journal, though I am aware of it existing and being out there. Just never got quite that deep into the tobacco issues of individual products. Probably should take a closer look at some point though. Is there a source to actually view the complete pages of the Journal? If so, I was not aware of one, and have only seen someone post a page or image from time to time, like was done with this image posted in this thread.

And you're right, we'll likely never know why the Journal failed to list any details or info on the silks' distribution. Interesting to think about and discuss though.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

The Dots Miller silk did not trim off the brand name and factory info. The silk appears to be a s74-1; if so, it did not carry that information on the front anyway. So the mystery remains.

Well, I missed that.... Indeed the mystery remains

[steve B]

Originally Posted by BobC

Todd/nolemmings already addressed yours and Steve's question/comment about the idea of cutting off the brand on that Dots Miller silk, as did I in my last post. Leaving the only real true question left, why did they bother trimming the silk in the first place just to attach a copy in their book/journal? No idea, and makes absolutely no sense why someone would have had to do that. Especially since they didn't have to trim the actress silk right next to it to also get it in the book/journal.

Now as for why they didn't make similar entries and include all the same details and distribution info for these silks as they did for all their other card and advertising releases, could it possibly have anything to do with the unique nature of the silks themselves and how they were not cards? Unlike cards, these silks obviously involved multiple manufacturers being involved, as I'm guessing the ATC didn't luckily for them find some manufacturer that just so happened to print cards, like would have been used for the backings on these baseball and actress silks, AND could also create/weave satin material and additionally be able to imprint images of ballplayers and actresses on it, all out of one single location.

Also, I don't really study or have a lot of knowledge regarding any other silk tobacco issues, aside from the S74 and S72 silks. But to my knowledge, I'm unaware of any other sport or non-sport silk related issues that ever came with a paper advertising backing attached to them, like with the S74-1 and S72-3 baseball player and actress silks did. And if I'm right and there weren't any others, that would truly make those ad-backed silks unique in the world of tobacco advertising. And again, maybe a possible reason why they didn't keep track of them in a similar manner as they did with the other issues recorded in the ATC books/journals. Pure speculation on my part though, but maybe something to at least think about.

Good points here and in the earlier post.

I'm trying to remember if I've seen another "silk" item with a backing from that era. A couple quick searches shows some butterfly silks with backings, but the pic is small, and the back design seems more British than American.
https://www.antiquequilthistory.com/...nd-quilts.html

I'd be surprised if the material kept them from recording details, but without any solid explanation out side of the usual "they pasted the stuff in Friday at 4:55 and for got to finish Monday" sort of thing it's as good an explanation as any other.

My other thought on the trimmed baseball silk is that it was defective and cut short already but none of the other pages I've seen used an obviously defective card.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by steve B

Good points here and in the earlier post.

I'm trying to remember if I've seen another "silk" item with a backing from that era. A couple quick searches shows some butterfly silks with backings, but the pic is small, and the back design seems more British than American.
https://www.antiquequilthistory.com/...nd-quilts.html

I'd be surprised if the material kept them from recording details, but without any solid explanation out side of the usual "they pasted the stuff in Friday at 4:55 and for got to finish Monday" sort of thing it's as good an explanation as any other.

My other thought on the trimmed baseball silk is that it was defective and cut short already but none of the other pages I've seen used an obviously defective card.

Thanks for the link to the ad-backed British butterfly silks. I was not aware of any other silks with backings, and probably thinking more of US issues anyway. Didn't think of British issues. There may be some more out there as well, but for now, I still think the S74 and S72 ad-backed silks are fairly unique.

As for recording the distribution details, like I was saying, pure guessing on my part as to why not more info on the silks. Agree we'll likely never know.

Same thinking with that cut Miller silk in the journal page. No real idea why they would have to cut it short like that. Your theory is just as good as any other one. Again, something else we'll never probably know the correct answer to. Interesting stuff to talk about though.