T220 Silver - Uncut Edition

[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.

[G1911]

Edit: Found the fire. Page 171 of the court transcript of the 1919 case. Failed in the Newspaper records, but Fuillgraff testifies about it on cross. He places it in 1910, burned out the 511 West 129th Street office. Brett had the place "reorganized" afterwards. His office, alongside other salesman, was there, adjacent to the "bookkeepers". The loss of records appears to be creating problems for both sides of the money lawsuit, as what Fullgraff was paid for some things appears to have burned as well.

Perhaps this is where a lot of the card-relevant records went - burned up in early 1910 almost as soon as they were filed.

[G1911]

From our discussion of fish cards and the production numbers, further detail is made on pages 125-126 of the 1919 case.

Card counts, set names, dates and payment sums are testified too. all dates are, I believe, 1909. It is unclear to me at present exactly when a sale became commissionable, but it seems before actual printing and delivery, on booking?

"On October 18th, 47,250 for the American Tobacco Company, the Indian cigarette card". This is presumably T73.

"In August 14th, was 5,000,000 cigarette cards of the pugilists, fighters which I had to get the privilege to make" - presumably this is T225 again. Fullgraff implies he himself was getting the legal approvals, matching the Hyland letter too.

"October 21st American Sports Publishing Company 5,000 car cards, $223" - I do not know what this is, tiny production run.

"December 6th, Kedival company 3,000,000 fighters, cigarette cards, do you want the size, 25 subjects, 83 cents a thousand, $2,490" - Further T225? This can only be T225. 83 cents a thousand cannot necessarily be used to positively calculate other runs if we have his commission, he makes clear there was bulk discounting.

"December 9th, Kedival company, 3,000,000 Athletic cards" - another T225 order? Khedieval did a series of 10 show dogs (T96), 10 aviators (T28), and the 2 series of T225 pugilists.

"January 11th, Surburg company, 5,000 pugilists, banners, handers, that is $285.50" - Surburg is the other issuer of T225-1. The "banners, handers" may refer to the posters featuring the images of the 25 cards. A couple complete ones are known in the hobby, and some handcut cards from it.

"January 11th, the Kedieval company, 5,000 prizefighter banners, reproduction of the cigarette cards on a banner" - yep, it's the T225-1 posters.

'February 23rd, American Tobacco Company, 3,000,000 Fatima cigarette cards, 25 subject, $2,880.00" - T106?

"
ject, $2,880.00. February 25th, Surburg & Company, 2,500 fighting banners, fighters banners, that is a duplicate order, $125.00. February 25th, Kedival Company, 2,500 sighting banners, $125.00; February 26th, Surburg Company, 2,000,000, cigarette cards, duplicates of the fighters ,$1,040. Now, these two order up here were afterwards consolidated and put together, because in getting a larger run they could get a lower price." - more T225-1 and ad materials.

"That made $24,554.05 for my year's business. That is February 26th, and, those orders were brought over to March 1st, 40,000,000 fish cards and 30,000,000 cigarette cards on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of March." - the fish are T58, don't know the 30,000,000 reference.

"Then, they made those 15,000,000 on March 15th, put them together, so as to get a lower price and have a bigger edition. 40,000,000 fish cards and 30,000,000. And, these were in works in 1909. Mr. Frazier knew of the orders and therefore I was not worrying about my future business. I sold $55,000 the first three days of March 1910. That made me pretty hunky for the [Fullgraff is cutoff mid-sentence]" - Fullgraff made $$$$ off the ATC. $55K for just two of the sets in 3 days was an absurd amount of money in 1910. His commission is bumped up to 10% about this time. He seems to think the Fraziers have cheated him now, but trusts them at the time.


This raises to me the possibility that the ledger/journal is his notes for the 1919 court case, his first time in court he says.

[G1911]

Page 69: Before Brett, Fullgraff worked "a very short time" on pure commission for Trautman, Blampey & Bailey, lithographers. Before that he worked for "The American Lithographing Company.... seven or eight years". Before that, though possibly not immediately preceeding, he worked as a Lithographer for the Osborn Company.

This confirms the 1904 listing associating him with ALC. He definitely worked there, a very short time before he joined Brett, and for an extended time. He appears to have worked with them in the coming years on projects collaborating with Brett (Why ALC would need, of all things, a lithographer to print their images is not clear unless they are a shadow subsidiary). The letter he has Brett write to ALC recommending him and his work for employment after the cards are done seems even odder, they obviously knew all about Fullgraff and his work and both companies and Fullgraff himself know this very clearly. Again, it very much reads as a formality instead of a sincere letter.

[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