T220 Silver - Uncut Edition

[G1911]

Let’s talk about the Silver sheets, as there seems to be no point in holding off discussion anymore and the secret is clearly out. So these started appearing a few weeks ago on eBay listed as ‘early reprints’. Suspicious, as I have never seen a fake of a T220-1 Silver border, good or bad. The White borders have some Dover reprints, but I’ve never seen any attempt to reproduce the silvers at all. Doesn’t mean it’s legit though, I wasn’t sure at first. The first listed was for $19.50 minimum bid and it didd not even sell. I saw it on the relisting, offered the seller $100 (I figured that was a fair risk, considering what I did and did not know at the time) if he would list it at a BIN. He declined, I won it for like $20. Once I had it in hand, it was obviously real.

They are missing the silver final layer, and are blank backed. The tan underlayer of ink, that rests below the silver, is present. If you look closely you can see this on final production cards, the silver is usually not applied truly perfect and and part of this is visible on one of the four edges. There are numerous tiny recurring print defects on final production cards, that line up with one of the 8 slots present on these sheets. For example, some copies of the Driscoll/Glover card have what appears to be a stain in the upper right corner. It’s not, it’s a recurring print defect, on 1 of the 8 slots on the sheet and recurring in final production cards. Under microscope and magnifying glass examination, everything matches up right to a proper c. 1910 American Lithographic product. The panel of Ben Jordan includes a September, 1910 (which lines up pretty much exactly right to when I would have guessed production was beginning) acceptance mark. The Donovan sheet, of course, cannot possibly be an early reprint as there is no evidence anyone in the hobby knew this card existed until 2005. I thought it should exist as the 25th card, and not Jack Goodman, because of the image’s background type (more here: https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=260805), but when it first appeared, it had a completely different background from the white border version of the Donovan Today card. Thus, even if someone produced a fake by giving a silver border to the white border Donovan card, it couldn’t possibly be like this and match the proper silver border Donovan. I can provide close up’s and pictorial evidence better than the auction photos later, though Net54 likes to neuter image quality. I'm on vacation right now so they aren't in front of me, but I will post further pics this week. Because of the 80kb file size limit, shoot me a DM if there's something you'd like to see in full, higher quality

I won the next several listings for between $10 and $89. One bidder ran a few of them up just a little bit; an odd sum to bid. Too much to pay for a fake, far too little for something real. Presumably they were in the same boat I was initially, unsure if authentic and taking a little risk. I thought the Donovan sheet would give it away, as it obviously can’t be what it was described as. I got that one for $90. The next batch of 5 another member here noticed and ran the price up between $150-$400. That was the end of it for me. I bid a little under $2,000 on them by the end, the last 2 my bids got topped on Beecher and Moore. I thought my bids had a good chance of holding even if these got publicly outed, but pricing stuff like this is always a total crapshoot. I had hoped to keep the sheet together, partially for research purposes to piece a sheet together and partly to frame that recreated sheet on my wall for display. If one of you guys here was the winner, I’d love to know so that we may share information on them and see if we can put together the panels in sheet order to further public knowledge of the issue. After Beecher and Moore closed, the seller yanked the listings for Carney, McCoy and Dempsey.

Hopefully the others appear and we can at least get images of all together. The layout will be interesting, and have clues to other American Tobacco/American Lithography sets in the larger formats (I suspect T218-3, at least, mirrors the look of this sheet with the block format printing of a subject). It may also give some clues to the short printing. Either the final layout was changed or Donovan was not intended originally to be a short print (which I suspect is so); he was likely pulled early on as, even if the layout was changed to put a single Donovan on a sheet, he would not be nearly so difficult as he is. I know of only 3 proven copies with a photo (POP reports would suggest 4 extant; I know where 3 reside), it does not exist in 1/8 the supply, or 1/16 or even 1/32 of the other cards. If there is a James Corbett panel, its presence and layout position, or lack thereof, may suggest something as well.

There is a lone Jack McAuliffe card like this, blank backed and without the layer of silver metal, known to the hobby.

There were also some E229 panels listed that I won. This set was not thought to be a product of American Lithographic (at least not by myself), but now I suspect it actually was. American Lithography is known to have had most of these athletes under contract in 1910, and the sheets were found “in a house” presumably near his New York location. These E229 sheets stopped coming up for sale early as more T220-1’s were listed, it’s not near a full sheet that has appeared. We don’t really have a track and field forum anywhere and they aren’t non-sports, so I hope it may be forgiven to include them in this discussion here anyways. I asked the seller about where he got these, and he said "In a box in a house clean out". The New York location of the seller would make me suspect a family of an American Lithographic employee, but who knows for sure. I see these are not the first panels to appear. There is no picture but the Met has a listing for one in the Burdick Collection (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/720963), mislisted as being from the 1920's.

I’d love to hear from the rest of you about these, if one of you was the winner of the final 2 sales, you have noticed something else about these, a better theory on the SP’ing from it, or anything else it may suggest. Also seems a good time for a general review of what we do and do not know about this issue. Pretty cool find the seller has accidentally made for the research side of the hobby here. Happy to have won half the set before it got away from me, these are my favorite issue as I've written about probably too many times here. Once in a lifetime chance.

I’m off to get my scissors and cut up this Donovan sheet, think I could get a PSA 9 on some of them.

[John1941]

That's amazing.

I assume you're joking about the scissors.

[wicker56]

Very interesting. Prices on this really oddball stuff are always fun to watch. Thanks for sharing.

[Pat R]

Greg is there other known Beecher examples missing the L like the one on the sheet?

[Tao_Moko]

Jackpot!

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by John1941

That's amazing.

I assume you're joking about the scissors.

LOL, same.


Would love to see some pics of the backs.

[G1911]

For the record, I am joking about cutting them up. I hate grading and would never ruin them for a potential grade. These would probably get A's anyways, due to the pre-production nature.

The Beecher in the 7th slot was evidently corrected before final production. No Beecher's are known like this.

The backs are all completely blank, except for this acceptance mark on the Ben Jordan, which is the upper right corner of the sheet.

[G1911]

Here are seller's images of the ones I own and have in hand.

[G1911]

And here are the cards that went to another bidder, #3 to figure it out, for $1,907 and $2,083 to top my bids:

[G1911]

And the 3 the seller canceled once he figured out or was told what he had:

[G1911]

And here are the 6 e229 panels that were listed. All 6 are also in my physical possession. Note that 3 and 5 are the same.

[G1911]

Another note I should have made - it's not evident in photos, but in hand all of these are amazingly bright and bold in color. T220 and E229 usually look good color wise, but these are much bolder than pretty much any I have ever seen. Which makes sense for a pre-production sheet presumably ran with full ink and then stored in a box for decades.

[scooter729]

Holy crap, Greg - this post was the first I heard of this. Insane! Can you share one of the eBay listings? I tried to search and couldn’t find - curious if they were listed poorly, which is why no one saw them?

Congrats - glad they ended up with someone like yourself! This far beats the mail day you got from me!

[Pat R]

Congrats Greg it's nice that most of them went to someone who will keep them together and intact.

[G1911]

I was pretty confident my mail day from you was the highlight of my year, Scott! The Jackson cabinet is still on my desk on display.

They weren't listed great, which was definitely why I got a bargain. They were labelled as 'early reprints' in the auction titles. On the other hand, they were listed in the Tobacco Cards section, with "Mecca" in the auction title. I was pretty confident others would notice; some must have seen and assumed they were indeed reprints.

I didn't think I had as good of a bargain as I've evidently got; I really thought I was likely to continue winning even as other bidders got in. The $2K bids felt like paying a lot for a favorite set, but I bid based on value to me instead of market (who knows what market is). The Donovan is presumably worth multiples of the others.

Here's the Jackson as an example, sold listing for "Mecca reprints" will produce them all.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/12488838824...8AAOSwhldhNshZ

I am hoping we can produce a full sheet and it's layout from this, but as they divide into multiple hands it will be tougher; I think there are more the seller has that are now going somewhere else for property listed sale than we have seen. When I get back home I will take the last 5 I got and try to sort all 13 together as best as possible as a starter; some of them definitely connect (Edwards/McGovern horizontally, Jackson/Lavigne vertically, Jordan is the upper right corner). If a full sheet had all the cards, which I think is the most likely layout, we are missing panels that might appear of:
Choynski
Coburn
James Corbett
Young Erne
Jack McAuliffe
Tommy Ryan
Randall/Belasco fight

I'll !@#$ my pants if a Jack Goodman appears.

[D. Bergin]

Damn!

[DaveW]

Wow! Those are awesome Greg, congrats!

[RCMcKenzie]

Nice find, Greg, congrats. I like the e229 Track and Field panels. It's wild that Burdick had one and it's at the MET. The best my brother and I could do before the internet was a 1964 Topps Koufax.

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Damn!

Well put Dave! I love it when stuff like this shows up. Thanks for sharing your find with the board. I imagine these were all pre-production samples. They must have been in some printers files all these years to survive in such nice condition.

[Pat R]

Did you ask the seller if he was the one that cut them into panels?
It's odd that some of the boxers only have the right side border of a sheet and
some of the track and field athletes only have the left side. border of a sheet.

[G1911]

I too have noticed the left/right side split; it’s possible these were on the same pre-production sheet and this is all a single sheet. I have to try and piece them together when I get back from my trip, but wouldn’t totally rule this possibility out yet. I think there are more panels that have not been seen yet in both sets. There’s so little uncut material from the ATC/American Lithographic partnership that I wouldn’t be shocked to learn multiple sets could appear on a single sheet. The smaller size cards do not appear to have been printed in this block format, with a card repeating horizontally as well instead of in vertical strips. I think this format was likely used on other larger size cards; Adam’s miscut of Summers (boxing pose) in T218-3 would suggest it likely used this format too. I’m not aware of anyone thinking E229 was an American Lithographic product before, but the checklist fits with them.

The seller did not seem eager to discuss the cards with me, I got two perfunctory replies totaling 11 words to my inquiries before I stopped inquiring further. My reading implied the seller, an antique dealer, found them or had them consigned by someone in this condition already, presumably local to the New York area. I think more intel will come out when the remainder appear for sale, presumably at an auction house.

Major credit to the seller for integrity. By the time he shipped the last 5 of them to me the Beecher and Moore had ended and he surely knew he was losing several $K by not reneging on the auction and simply not shipping them to me. With so many threads about shady dealings, this gentleman did the exact opposite of what seems to be so common in the hobby these days.

[Exhibitman]

Alas I won none of them; Greg is lucky I did not spot the first load or he'd have paid at least 5x what he spent.

I contacted the seller and he told me that someone from a major AH contacted him and told him they could be worth $5,000 each. I think that is wildly optimistic for anything except maybe the Donovan and Jim Corbett SSPs. An 8-card proof of each would exceed the known pop of finished cards. For the others, frankly, the $2K each that they were going for on eBay was a very strong price. That's the problem with these cards: thin interest. Extraordinary rarity but thin market. I used to own three of the four known uncut N310 Mayo strips. Cost me $2K to get them and I barely got my investment out after years of trying. Anything like this is a crap-shoot. I mean, we think they're unbelievably cool and valuable but does anyone else? It's a conundrum, especially when two or three dedicated bidders go to war, because you are not likely to get what you think these very rare and very obscure items are worth if you are out of the equation as a buyer. Now, if you're spending sub-$100 per item, you really can't lose much but once you get into the $1500-$2000 range, well, that's a pretty nice other card you're foregoing.

[G1911]

I can’t see the commons going that high, that seems an incredibly optimistic assessment. If anyone thinks they’re worth $5,000, please give me a call and your shipping address.

I don’t think there’s much of a maybe on the Donovan and, if it exists, the James J. Corbett. I’d be shocked if 8 Donovan’s, 2/3 of the pop, went for less than $5K on the open market properly listed. Though I hope I’m wrong, I’d love to get the Corbett too if it’s in the find and I could justify doing that sum; only 250% of a common panel.

[Exhibitman]

Here's the thing, though. They are not finished cards. No matter who they show or how unique, they are not part of the set and therefore of limited utility to a card collector. A premium item to be sure but not the world-killers one might think. $5,000 for a boxing card or card-like item is rarified territory, probably no more than a few dozen cards would draw that price. The actual cards of Donovan and Corbett might not top $5k at auction; I could see them pooping out around half of that. I've had this same issue with original art and proofs from other sets: they just don't sell for what they "should".

I think the seller made a mistake terminating the eBay auctions. I doubt they will net more consigning to an AH. I am certainly not a buyer at those price levels and you are not either, I suspect. That doesn't leave a whole heck of a lot of lunatics willing to spend like drunken sailors on these items.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Here's the thing, though. They are not finished cards. No matter who they show or how unique, they are not part of the set and therefore of limited utility to a card collector. A premium item to be sure but not the world-killers one might think. $5,000 for a boxing card or card-like item is rarified territory, probably no more than a few dozen cards would draw that price. The actual cards of Donovan and Corbett might not top $5k at auction; I could see them pooping out around half of that. I've had this same issue with original art and proofs from other sets: they just don't sell for what they "should".

I think the seller made a mistake terminating the eBay auctions. I doubt they will net more consigning to an AH. I am certainly not a buyer at those price levels and you are not either, I suspect. That doesn't leave a whole heck of a lot of lunatics willing to spend like drunken sailors on these items.

I don't normally compete at the higher tiers of the hobby; when it becomes about money it's not much fun. I have no idea what they 'should' go for. But I'm absolutely a buyer at those levels; the Beecher and Moore went to ~$2,000 because that was my and another bidders bid (who knows how high they were willing to go though; we were both over $2,200 on Dempsey when it got yanked and that was my placeholder). I'd happily pay $5K for the Corbett. The last Corbett went for like $1,750 before the juice and before the hobby explosion off memory. 8 pre-production examples for $5K would be a significant bargain in my eyes.

I'd be awfully shocked if the gentleman who bid at minimum $2,083 on Beecher would value the Corbett under $5,000. Corbett and Donovan, from their transactions I am aware of, are like ~100x a common cards price. Obviously that shrinks greatly in this price tier, form and situation, but I would be absolutely shocked if they netted less than 2.5x a common card in pre-production form.

As the $2K price was achieved with, the bidding suggests, only 3 people aware of what they actually were, I don't know if his decision was good or bad. It would seem unlikely he will lose a lot by yanking them. The only way he really loses is if it turns out only myself and the other bidder value them like this, and he consigns to an auction house that 1) the other bidder or myself does not see or 2) he picks one I have ethical qualms with and refuse to do business with for any item, which constitutes a lot of them. Otherwise, I don't see how he can lose, he'll likely have both of us competing again, but this time we won't be the only ones in the loop as they will be listed properly. On the other hand, I'm not sure there's much room to go up much more for the seller to recoup the increased fees charged by an auction house. We would need at least a third bidder to add a not insignificant percentage to our bids to make it much more profitable for the seller at the end of the day.

I really hope I am wrong and these aren't worth much and the other bidder disappears and decides he messed up, so that I can get them cheap and justify keeping them all to my grave. I'd rather get them all to display on my wall in a recreated sheet than have some expensive cardboard. I highly doubt I'm going to get any more than the 13 I have at this point after the Beecher and Moore results, though.

[Pat R]

Is it fair to assume the sheet was at minimum 34-36 inches wide?

[G1911]

We have:

3 bottom panels

3 top panels (one is clearly a corner).

3 panels x 4 cards x 2.5 inches = 30 inches, without the white margins.

Assuming all T220-1's are one sheet, which is not for sure yet, it would have to be about 34-36 inches at minimum.


For scorekeeping, we also have:
4 right panels (counting Jordan again, since he is obviously the top right corner)

0 left panels

9 panels that do not show clear evidence of being an edge, but as they are handcut (albeit pretty cleanly) some may have had the white frame cut off and thus cannot just be assumed to be interior panels.



A 5x5 layout of panels would be 16 edge panels, 9 interior panels, counting in my head. A different layout would probably be a sheet that either 1) didn't have all 25 cards or be 2) be very large.


I'm back home from vacation on Saturday to try and piece more together of the 13 I have access too to see what connects. Jackson and Lavigne vertically connect, Edwards and McGovern do horizontally.

[Pat R]

Thanks Greg. There is some information from that timeframe on possible sheet sizes used.

Full Obak sheet 31 x 23 1/2

18 card strip E91A approximately 27 inches

T206 plate scratches indicate a 34-36 inch sheet

[G1911]

I'm not up to speed on the plate scratches. I've seen the Obak and AC setups. I don't think they are the same printer, but I don't think that printer is known. I may be a little behind more recent discoveries though.

If we come up with a sheet about this wide, it would gives us 3 panels in a row, making it unlikely these are all from one sheet.

Before this find, my suspicion was multiple size sheets were used, and layouts were different for small format and large format cards. Large format cards seem to repeat top to bottom, and also horizontally. Small format cards don't seem to have been printed in blocks, but with a card repeating only vertically.

It's interesting we have only one corner piece and no left panels. I suspect either the sheet is huge, some of the interior-looking panels are trimmed to cut the white border, and/or The E229's fit into the same, large sheet.

I hope what we may learn from this is helpful to other sets in the ATC/AL partnership. I have some uncut T25 strips as well showing different cards adjacent to each other in a large format, different from T220-1 and T218-3.

[Pat R]

Yeah I was just pointing out the ability and possibility of them being printed on a large sheet.

I've seen some mention that the Obaks were printed by Schmidt Lithograph and it was mentioned in post #9 in this older thread that they used some similar lithograph presses as American Lithograph.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...773#post842773


There's also some information on the sizes of some of the presses used by ALC in this thread

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=125899

[G1911]

I'm not sure how the press sizes a decade prior will relate to the sheets, and produces quite a range of possibilities there.

Is there a source or evidence for Schmidt printing T212? the post here says they "used similar presses", and Obak is mentioned only once in passing without relation to Schmidt using my fancy command F. I presume the printer of T212 was the printer of T224/T229 based on the stylistic resemblances.


I can add T29 to the list of probably block-subject printed sets from miscuts. T25 is not in block format, T29, T218-3 are, most don't have cards cut so bad we can tell, or uncut material. 25 subjects on a sheet makes a lot of sense. If it was this way, I've seen no evidence of double printing to compensate for the Donovan and Corbett getting yanked from their sheet(s) very, very early on.


On a related printing note, does anyone know what happened to the second ledger that surfaced? Lelands sold it for $8k a couple years ago, it had information on T220 among other sets, but only a small sampling was shown in the listing (https://auction.lelands.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=976570). There may be some clues in here if its owner is willing to divulge. Much of the evidence that would help piece things together appears to be silo'd; there seems much more out there and extant than is talked about openly.

[Pat R]

I have no idea who printed the Obacks I just said it was mentioned that Schmidt did.

Originally Posted by tedzan

We have gone thru this numerous times in past threads over the years.

You cannot compare Schmidt Lithographic's (San Francisco) printing methods and machinery used to produce the OBAK's with
American Lithographic's (NYC) printing methods & machinery that produced the T206's, T205's, T209's, T210's, T211's, T213's,
T214's and T215's.

Where is your evidence that supports you making this claim ?

Furthermore, mathematically speaking, tell us how your "17" (or whatever) format maps into the following T206 structures ? ?


150 Series
-------------
150-only group = 12 subjects
150/350 series = 144 subjects

350-only series = 204 subjects
------------------

350/460 series = 60 subjects....plus the 6 super-prints (which were usually Double-Printed)
------------------

460-only series
------------------
Exclusive 12 group = 12 subjects
Subjects printed only with 460 type backs = 36

Southern Lgrs. = 48 subjects
-----------------



Hey guys............
It does not require Rocket Science to see that the common denominator in all these Series structures is a factor of 12.



TED Z
.

Good luck with your panels.

[Exhibitman]

It is also possible that the proof sheet alignment was not replicated in the production sheet. I've only seen a few proof sheets before from other makers, but they were smaller than the production sheets; my guess is to make them easier to pass around the office for comment and approval.

I don't think the other ATC cards hold a candle to the ones made by the Obak/Pet/Kopec printer. Look at the depth and quality of image on these:




That's a lot more lithographic layers than the typical ATC product. The best of the other cards still have a more stylized, less layered quality:




As for T218 sheet alignment, I offer one humble piece of data:

[G1911]

As far as I am aware, this is the only "full sheet" of an ATC/AL partnership set known (not mine). It's a pre-production 'pass around' of T62, I believe, due to the tiny size that would have been completely impractical for actual production run.

I suspect the layout will tell us if this is similar, or what the probable full production run would have been. If it's one or two sheets, it's very likely the final layout as redoing the layout on a full-size sheet would seem to serve zero purpose. If it's just a couple cards together and this is many sheets, then it probably is a 'pass around'.

The Summers card is why I think T218-3 will follow this similar block printing format. I have a T29 Hippopotamus card suggesting it too was done in block format. But, my strips of T25's would show not all large-size cards in the partnership were done this way. Horizontal miscuts on the large size cards are almost non-existant. I have 3 or 4 vertical T220-2 white borders showing the same card on top of itself. Never seen a T220-1 Silver miscut either direction.

I love the West Coast T cards. It's a shame they never did a set in the larger physical format, the detail in the faces, the bold backgrounds. I've slowly begun T224/T229 the last couple months, up to a whopping 5 cards.

[Exhibitman]

I'm not sure who did the 1912 Capital [sic] Candy and Cracker set but the lithography strikes me as very similar to the West Coast cards:



I wish I could find more (I only have the Sheppard) but they are just rare as hens' teeth. And yeah, that's Jim Thorpe.

I also found another issue that has striking depth of imagery, from prewar Germany:

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

As far as I am aware, this is the only "full sheet" of an ATC/AL partnership set known (not mine). It's a pre-production 'pass around' of T62, I believe, due to the tiny size that would have been completely impractical for actual production run.

I suspect the layout will tell us if this is similar, or what the probable full production run would have been. If it's one or two sheets, it's very likely the final layout as redoing the layout on a full-size sheet would seem to serve zero purpose. If it's just a couple cards together and this is many sheets, then it probably is a 'pass around'.

The Summers card is why I think T218-3 will follow this similar block printing format. I have a T29 Hippopotamus card suggesting it too was done in block format. But, my strips of T25's would show not all large-size cards in the partnership were done this way. Horizontal miscuts on the large size cards are almost non-existant. I have 3 or 4 vertical T220-2 white borders showing the same card on top of itself. Never seen a T220-1 Silver miscut either direction.

I love the West Coast T cards. It's a shame they never did a set in the larger physical format, the detail in the faces, the bold backgrounds. I've slowly begun T224/T229 the last couple months, up to a whopping 5 cards.

There's a full sheet of S81 silks I believe that's an ATC/AL product.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

There's a full sheet of S81 silks I believe that's an ATC/AL product.

Thank you, I should have said “cards”.

[G1911]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen the Capital cards before. Those are awesome, Adam.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm not sure how the press sizes a decade prior will relate to the sheets, and produces quite a range of possibilities there.

Is there a source or evidence for Schmidt printing T212? the post here says they "used similar presses", and Obak is mentioned only once in passing without relation to Schmidt using my fancy command F. I presume the printer of T212 was the printer of T224/T229 based on the stylistic resemblances.


I can add T29 to the list of probably block-subject printed sets from miscuts. T25 is not in block format, T29, T218-3 are, most don't have cards cut so bad we can tell, or uncut material. 25 subjects on a sheet makes a lot of sense. If it was this way, I've seen no evidence of double printing to compensate for the Donovan and Corbett getting yanked from their sheet(s) very, very early on.


On a related printing note, does anyone know what happened to the second ledger that surfaced? Lelands sold it for $8k a couple years ago, it had information on T220 among other sets, but only a small sampling was shown in the listing (https://auction.lelands.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=976570). There may be some clues in here if its owner is willing to divulge. Much of the evidence that would help piece things together appears to be silo'd; there seems much more out there and extant than is talked about openly.

Your link doesn't work maybe this one will

https://auction.lelands.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=97657


This book indicates that the Old Masters Litho Corporation printed some of the T220's and T225's.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Your link doesn't work maybe this one will

https://auction.lelands.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=97657


This book indicates that the Old Masters Litho Corporation printed some of the T220's and T225's.

Thank you for correcting the link. Yes, I have the description of the auction and it's handful of images. Covers N's, T's, and possibly beyond the 1912 general end date. Gives exact dates for T225 printing, has an ad for T223 in it as well, but many of the pages aren't shown. It also seems to indicate Brett Lithography Co. printed cards as well. I presume these are both subsidiaries of American Lithography that bought out most of the NY area lithographers, but information online appears scant. I'm hoping it will turn up again in the hobby with an owner willing to share its information, as there is surely much more than in the listing.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by G1911

Thank you for correcting the link. Yes, I have the description of the auction and it's handful of images. Covers N's, T's, and possibly beyond the 1912 general end date. Gives exact dates for T225 printing, has an ad for T223 in it as well, but many of the pages aren't shown. It also seems to indicate Brett Lithography Co. printed cards as well. I presume these are both subsidiaries of American Lithography that bought out most of the NY area lithographers, but information online appears scant. I'm hoping it will turn up again in the hobby with an owner willing to share its information, as there is surely much more than in the listing.

Brett Litho?? That's what the stamp on your sheet says!

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Brett Litho?? That's what the stamp on your sheet says!

Nice catch Adam it states in the scrapbook that the Brett plant burned around
March 30 1910 maybe Fullgraff was doing some printing for them?

I found an interesting newspaper article on Brett Lithograph I will clip and post it.

[Pat R]

April 1902 newspaper article on Brett Lithograph Company
Sorry about the different sizes but I had to clip it in several parts

Brett Co. part 1.jpg
Brett Co. part 2.jpg
Brett Co. part 3.jpg
Brett Co. Part 4.jpg
Brett Co. part 5.jpg

Some more info on Alphonse Brett

https://digital.librarycompany.org/i...gitool%3A78923

[G1911]

It's a good thing you smart gents are here, because I was looking for a "Brett Little" as an employee of ALC or ATC like a dumbass, though it seems obvious now...

Until a year ago, my suspicion had been that American Lithographic did pretty much all the 1909-1912 American Tobacco cards, which I think was the normal opinion. I thought they had a more active role than is generally imagined, as it seems they were the ones securing athletes rights (inferred from the Ball letter), and not ATC, seeming like more than the role of a printer contracted to do a job. The ATC ledger doesn't have anything on indentifying the printer unless my memory is awry. This ledger from Lelands last year would suggest whoever Old Masters is and Brett Lithographic worked in partnership to produce some of the sets, at least.

The "prize fighters" referenced printed at Brett until they "burnt out" and then started at Old Masters must be T225-1, not T220 (the dates are before T220-1 or T220-2 is possible, because Gans date of death appears in the cards. Thus they can't have been done before mid-August, 1910 at the earliest). I thought t225 (and T28, T96) were not done by ATC/AL, and the Oxford/Surbrug/Khedieval brands weren't part of the ATC umbrella. Am I wrong there?

So there's multiple printers working in partnership (the 'burnt out' pass-off reference would seem to tell us this) to print ATC sets, even within the same set. My first thought is that this is because American Lithography dominated the New York printing business at this time. I have not succeeded in finding reference to Old Masters or Brett Litho as subsidiaries though; Pat's linked article even includes the transaction history of Brett without reference to them ever being an American Lithography subsidiary. This wasn't entirely uncommon then though; with the Monopoly laws being fairly fresh and enforced there were plenty of somewhat secret subsidiaries in a host of areas. If Old Masters and Brett Litho were not subsidiaries, they could be sub-contractors OR the entire picture is much more complicated and Lithograph companies were competing for orders and business from American Tobacco, and the long-standing view of the ATC/AL partnership is just wrong.

[G1911]

Starting with the E229's, as there are only 6 panels and it's easier. Actually, I should probably not call them E229. This could be the bread version (D353, I think), I believe there's no way to tell which series a card goes too if there is a blank back like these have. I'd love to know if there is, if we have a collector more knowledgeable of them, I don't know this set very well. Panel numbers are following the random order I put them in in post 11.

Panel 2 (Gilbert/Gilbert) is apparently the bottom left corner.

I believe Panel 3 (Gilbert/Flanagan) goes above it, the cut is a close match and the alignment mark seems to have it's bottom present on panel 2. 95% sure.

Fitting next to panel 3's right is panel 5 (Gilbert/Flanagan again). The edge is not as neatly cut as many of them are and it fits together perfectly, positive this connects.

The other 3 panels do not connect to any of this grouping. Panel 1 (Eller/Erickson) may fit right above panel 4 (Erickson/Irons), but the top and bottom edges are pretty cleanly cut and without all the panels here it's hard to be sure this one is 100% correct.

Panel 6 (Flanagan/Eller) does not fit with any of the other panels.

[G1911]

Using the edge pieces, because again, they are easier . I can fit 3 along the top edge. I'm using the cut, little marks in the borders, and little creases or abrasions some have to match a fit, as well as the wear marks in the white edges.

Frayne > Burke > Jordan fit together, with Jordan obviously being the top right corner.

Of the right edge panels, I only have one, Gans. Moore went to the other buyer, the seller yanked Dempsey. Gans does not fit beneath the Jordan.

There are no left edge panels.

On the bottom row, I can solidly put Edwards and McGovern together. there is brown on the tape on the back connecting them, but ignoring this the creasing and wear and cut fit perfectly. I am 99% sure we can put carney to the left of Edwards. My Edwards panel has a crease going off the edge below his knee. This lines up with a crease on the carney, and the damage in the white also lines up. I do not have Carney in hand (another pulled auction), but pretty sure he fits in right here based on the scans and damage locations.

So that's a significant stretch of the top and bottom rows. It seems to me to strongly suggest these were not pass around sheets like the T62 shown earlier. It must be a fairly large sheet or two. I'm hoping I can now piece internal panels together and with border panels, and then compare what I produce with the e229's and check if they fit together.

[G1911]

Getting somewhere.

1) Edwards is obviously a bottom panel, with the big white margin.

2) On top of Edwards is 100% Donovan of ToDay. There is a light crease on back that fits perfectly between the two, and the cut matches.

3) On top of Donovan is Lavigne. Lavigne has a tiny brown mark on back that fits with a very hard to see mark on the Donovan, and the cut again matches.

4) On top of Lavigne is Jackson. Lavigne has a rip, and an old brown tape on the back to cover it up. The tip of the tape stretches onto the Jackson panel. The cut also lines up perfect.

5) On top of Jackson is Frayne, I think. the cuts fit perfect; there's a slight dip on the second Jackson card at top row that aligns with an extension on the Frayne as well in that spot.

6) I’m pretty sure this puts together a complete column, but again the caveat that without them all in hand to ensure each fit is the best fit, I can't be 100% certain.

7) Now, Goldman fits next to Donovan and above McGovern. He fits well with Donovan on the cut. He is 100% above McGovern, there is a crease that aligns and several subtle shifts in color in the tan that lines up perfectly with Terrible Terry. This leaves three unplaced panels I have in hand: Corbett, Wilson, Driscoll.

8) None of these 3 panels fit beneath Burke. The Jordan column has an unknown bottom corner card, and Gans/Dempsey/Moore beneath Jordan, in some unknown order. It's not Gans right beneath Jordan. I believe Moore must be beneath Jordan, even without it in hand. There is a crease in the bottom right of Jordan that lines up perfect with a crease in the Moore panel.

9) Beneath Moore, goes my Gans sheet. Gans has several creases in the top of the first card running upwards. This matches some creases on the bottom of the Moore panel, 1st card second row.

10) This means Dempsey logically must be beneath Gans, if my column of 5 is correct. no creases to prove it, but the cuts visually match. The top left of the Dempsey swoops up a bit, matching a dip in the cut of the Gans. I wouldn't call that proof enough, but it logically has to be here anyways, so I am satisfied this placement is very likely. This means Dempsey is also to the right of Goldman. I see no tell tale evidence for or against this in the edges of the two panels.

11) Now I have to break from what is placed. Beecher goes above Wilson, though Beecher is one I do not own. Wilson has a large swoop up in his top border, starting at card 1 and arching into card 2. Beecher matches at the bottom, with that swoop resulting in his name being pretty close to the edge. It follows the arch perfectly.

12) So there's 2 more. Beecher/Wilson don't seem to fit in the gap between Burke and Goldman, nor does it seem to slow right above Carney. That rip in Lavigne should also be visible on the card adjacent to him, 2 above Carney. It's not on any surviving cards. That the rip was strengthened with tape before the sheet was cut (or at least, before Jackson was cut off from Lavigne) strongly suggests to me that this is the case. The card to Lavigne's left should also have some of this tape, as it sharply cut off.

13) I think Corbett fits to Jackson's left; it's a close cut, but no matching marks to aid me. I would not peg this one at positive, but probable.

14) I am pretty confident that Driscoll is to Corbett's left, which puts us at least 5 panels across now, if so. The cut here fits very, very well. I'm pretty sure here, but lacking identifying marks.

15) Wilson fits well next to Gans. He does NOT fit well above Golddman or next to Lavigne though, which would also have to be true if he was next to Gans. This would put Beecher below Burke, but the crease in Beecher doesn’t seem to fit with Burke. That corner crease could have come post-cutting of course, but so far my lesson has been that damage occurred before the sheet was cut. I don’t have Beecher in hand to test the fit.

16) Beecher/Wilson might go here, or somewhere else on the left side of the sheet. I don’t know.

17) I suspect the Driscoll Glover represents the left edge and that the white margin on the left was trimmed off before sheet cutting, or there is a 6th row that would have to make some repeat panels at this point. Beecher's crease doesn't line up with him, hard to tell. That would mean Wilson to Donovan's left and above Carney. He's not quite a perfect fit with Donovan, but close. I don't have Carney to do close comparison work with.

18) So that’s 15 panels placed together, with 2 more placed together apart from the rest (Beecher/Wilson) and McCoy unplaceable because I don’t have him in hand and the image doesn’t give enough clues. The presumed other panels now must surely have existed to fill the slots.

19) 5 panels in a column makes sense from a checklist perspective. 5x5 makes a lot of sense for a 25 card series; as this was clearly intended to be. Cards measure ~2.5' x 3 5/16. 10 cards in a column, 5 unique, would be a hair over 31 inches tall without the white margins. 5 panels wide, 20 cards in a row, would produce 50 inches. It seems this sheet is 5 panels wide, or more. Pretty clearly 5 tall, I think.

20) I am now positive this was not a pass round prototype sheet like the T62. it is clearly not quite final production though, several changes were made. Beecher was corrected as noted earlier. I suspect the uneven borders on Jordan (especially) and Carney were too. I would suspect the silver layer was applied over some of the white margins; otherwise any card from the top row centered down would be found without silver at its top edge. This is not the case, so it must have been more liberally applied.

21) This seems to kill my old theories about Donovan being on an edge with James J. Corbett filling the columns above/below him, and his yanking leading to Corbett’s yanking for production ease.

22) Though not quite final production, I think it more likely than not that this is what a final production layout would be. It’s not a pass around, and re-doing it would be seemingly pointless. No sheet layout (even 2 or 3 sheets with only one total slot for each of them doesn’t account for it) can adequately account for Donovan and Corbett’s SP’ing, they deductively had to have been pulled.

23) If they were pulled, which seems the only reasonable explanation, something else probably went in the slot. Or, they manually removed and separated the cards in this slot to avoid DP’ing a card and redoing the sheet. 23 cards doesn’t come out even almost no matter what you do.

24) I cannot fit any of the E229 panels with the T220-1 panels.

25) In my photo I have used standard cards to represent sheets I do not have in hand, I don’t own enough Dempsey’s to do it quite right. Wilson/Beecher aren’t placeable with the rest yet, and so are off by themselves; they aren’t necessarily over somewhere below Driscoll, I just don’t have enough space on my table. Net54 hates quality pics and caps me at like 80kb, so this may look like crap after it slaughters the quality but I hope the idea comes through:

[Pat R]

That's a large sheet 34-36 inches x 50-52 inches ?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

It's a good thing you smart gents are here, because I was looking for a "Brett Little" as an employee of ALC or ATC like a dumbass, though it seems obvious now...

Until a year ago, my suspicion had been that American Lithographic did pretty much all the 1909-1912 American Tobacco cards, which I think was the normal opinion. I thought they had a more active role than is generally imagined, as it seems they were the ones securing athletes rights (inferred from the Ball letter), and not ATC, seeming like more than the role of a printer contracted to do a job. The ATC ledger doesn't have anything on indentifying the printer unless my memory is awry. This ledger from Lelands last year would suggest whoever Old Masters is and Brett Lithographic worked in partnership to produce some of the sets, at least.

The "prize fighters" referenced printed at Brett until they "burnt out" and then started at Old Masters must be T225-1, not T220 (the dates are before T220-1 or T220-2 is possible, because Gans date of death appears in the cards. Thus they can't have been done before mid-August, 1910 at the earliest). I thought t225 (and T28, T96) were not done by ATC/AL, and the Oxford/Surbrug/Khedieval brands weren't part of the ATC umbrella. Am I wrong there?

So there's multiple printers working in partnership (the 'burnt out' pass-off reference would seem to tell us this) to print ATC sets, even within the same set. My first thought is that this is because American Lithography dominated the New York printing business at this time. I have not succeeded in finding reference to Old Masters or Brett Litho as subsidiaries though; Pat's linked article even includes the transaction history of Brett without reference to them ever being an American Lithography subsidiary. This wasn't entirely uncommon then though; with the Monopoly laws being fairly fresh and enforced there were plenty of somewhat secret subsidiaries in a host of areas. If Old Masters and Brett Litho were not subsidiaries, they could be sub-contractors OR the entire picture is much more complicated and Lithograph companies were competing for orders and business from American Tobacco, and the long-standing view of the ATC/AL partnership is just wrong.

This is along the lines of what I have suggested as a possibility for a few years now about the t206's. It would be the answer to many question about the T206's if there were several facility's and/or firms involved in printing the t206's over the 2+ years they were distributed.

[Exhibitman]

If they were pulled for some reason it could explain why there are some, but only a handful, in the wild. Like the 1948 Leaf Graziano, which was pulled but definitely had some go to market in packs.