"Sweet Recollections"....Erik's Philadelphia Caramel story

[tedzan]

Erik V

I received your book earlier today and have read it. It is an excellently researched story and a well-written book by you.

I'm very familiar with Daniel Lafean and his American Caramel Co. (ACC); and, I always wondered how Philadelphia Cara-
mel (and others) were able to compete with ACC. Thanks to you....I now know the rest of the story.

Thanks again,

TED Z

[Jay Wolt]

I rec'd my copy today too!
Looking foward to absorbing it shortly

[Rich Klein]

I too received my book today

Thanks!
Rich

[WarHoundR69]

I got my copy today. Great book, very pleased with it.

My youngest daughter looked at it and now she wants to collect the E animal sets.

[ErikV]

Ted,

Glad to hear the book arrived and that you enjoyed the read.
I am truly humbled by all the support and positive feedback
that everyone has shown. The book was a labor of love that
could not have been achieved without the help of so many!

Thanks again,

Erik

[cfc1909]

received mine too-thanks Erik

[mikedenero]

First, I would like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed Erik Vardon's book, Sweet Recollections. I received it on Saturday and read it over the weekend. Congrats, Erik!

Second, Erik was kind enough to graciously take my telephone call today, as I informed him that I have recently begun researching the E79 set and related historical background with the hope of writing an article about the set for our August e-Newsletter.

My questions focused primarily upon Erik's assertion in his book that the E95 baseball set (widely viewed as distributed in 1909) and the E79 boxing set were both printed and released together in 1909 (the E79 set is widely viewed as having been released in 1910). Erik's rationale for his hypothesis is that both sets have "identical designs, font styles, black ink backs ..." See pg. 47, note 1). Furthermore, Erik has narrowed the release date of the E95 set to sometime after June 5, 1909, since Cy Morgan appears on the cards (and checklist backs) as playing for the Philadelphia Athletics, the team to which he was traded on the aforementioned date.

While I disagree that the E95 baseball and E79 boxing sets have identical fonts on the back (see comparison below), I agree that the fonts on the fronts seem to be identical (are they also identical to the E80 boxing and E96 baseball sets?). Further, I would note that of the E95 and E96 baseball and E79 and E80 boxing sets, only the E95 baseball set's backs delineate "New Jersey" on the bottom thereof, rather than "N.J.," as it appears on each of the other three sets.

To nail down the E79 boxing set's approximate release year and/or time of year, we can look to the cards for clues. First, the set includes one card depicting the famous Tommy Burns vs. Jack Johnson fight, which occurred in Sydney, Australia on December 27, 1908. Thus, the set was undoubtedly released sometime thereafter (i.e., 1909 at the earliest). Furthermore, the set does not include a similar card of the even larger Jack Johnson vs. James Jeffries fight, which took place on July 4, 1910.

Surely, given that 8 of the set's 21 cards "fights" -- 5 identify both fighters (e.g., Johnson and Burns); 3 identify one one of the fighters depicted (e.g., Jack O'Brien and Fighting Partner), if the set had been released after July 4, 1910, it would have featured a Johnson vs. Jeffries card (although the set does feature a Jim Jeffries card, on which he is pictured alone). Note too, that the cards never use "vs." to describe the combatants (instead, the word "and" is used). Thus, because it does not, it seems that the set was released within the 18-month window between January 1909 and June 1910.

While two other "fight" cards do not provide additional clues due to the fights having taken place earlier than January 1909 (e.g., Gans and Nelson , as they fought three times: 1906 and twice in 1908; or Kaufman and Sullivan, as they fought twice: 1905 and 1907) or that both fighters are not identified (e.g., O'Brien and Fighting Partner), one other "fighting" card might add another clue, that of Jack Johnson and George Cole.

Johnson never fought Cole (likewise, Johnny Marto never fought Battling Nelson, but one of the E79 cards depicts both fighters and its caption reads "Johnny Marto and Battling Nelson. Lead to head."). While we cannot look to a nonexistent fight between Johnson and Cole for a clue to the E79 set release date, it is interesting that a New York Times article from May 20, 1909 about the Jack Johnson vs. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien fight listed George Cole as one of Johnson's "seconds" at the fight (to see the article, click here (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9406E2D8153EE733A25753C2A9639C946897D6CF)) . Thus, prior to the fight, he could have been one of Johnson's sparring partners. However, in one of his essays just days before the Johnson Jeffries fight on July 4, 1910, noted writer Jack London lists Johnson's sparring partners as Al Kaufman, Johnny Cotton (in other words, no George Cole). Thus, it would seem that we can narrow the release date of the E79 set to a 14 month window (April, 1909 to June, 1910).

Finally, the card on which James Jeffries appears (by himself) might add yet another clue. Jeffries retired (a champion) to his alfalfa farm in 1905. Since the other 20 cards in the E79 set feature active boxers, it would seem likely hat it produced a Jeffries card only after he announced his decision to come out of retirement to fight Johnson. While I am unsure of that exact date, it appears that the Johnson vs. Jeffries fight was announced on Nov. 30, 1909 (see pbs.org "Unforgivable Blackness" timeline, click here (http://www.pbs.org/unforgivableblackness/sparring/timeline.html)). After this little tidbit, can we assume that the set's release date was sometime between November 30, 1909 and July 4th, 1910, effectively, between the announcement and the subsequent occurrence of the Jack Johnson vs. James Jeffries fight????

Such a release date would seem to support Erik's other theory that the Philadelphia Caramel Co. released sets to coincide with major events (see generally, Vardon, pg. 48; 60). Could it also possibly be that Philadelphia Caramel planned the E79 set before Jeffries came out of retirement but that shortly after the planning stage began, the Jeffries vs. Johnson fight was announced, thus adding the odd 21st card to the planned set of 20? After all, who makes a 21 card set, anyway? :)

Exhibitman --- your thoughts, please!!!

http://app8.sellersourcebook.com/users/37781/b_-_e79_-_attell_-_2.jpg
http://app8.sellersourcebook.com/users/37781/e95_-_cicotte_-_2.jpg

[ErikV]

Mike brings up an interesting topic; a timeline of when Philadelphia Caramel cards were released. Specifically, the baseball and pugilist cards.

In the book this issue was difficult for me to expand upon. Some of their sets were a bit easier to decipher than others. But overall, there was a fine line between keeping a casual reader interested in the story and a collector wanting to know these interesting tidbits. It is for this reason that the following information was omitted from the final version of the book.

There is wide acceptance within the hobby (and verified in the book) that the E95s were produced (and issued) after the summer of 1909. I tend to believe the E79s were released in conjunction with the E95s. (In his post Mike lays out an excellent theory as to a general timeframe for the E79 being issued.)

As for the E96 and E80s, I believe Philadelphia Caramel began working compiling names for these sets in the fall of 1909 and the start of 1910. (I didn't save the exact date, but with the exception of the St. Louis players in the E96 set, all remaining players played on their corresponding teams until the fall of 1909.)

In the spring of 1910 boxers such as Adolph Wolgast turned pro. He fought Oscar Nelson for the Lightweight Championship on Feb. 22,1910. A card commerating this fight is listed last on the E80 checklist.

All of this seems to coorespond with Mike's and my theory that the E79/E95 are "related" as are the E80/E96 sets. This also lends some credence to the theory that the E79/E95 may have been released in the fall of 1909, possibly even into 1910. When this supply was exhausted, the follow up sets (E80/E96) has already been compiled and were then released sometime after the spring of 1910.

I'd be happy to hear other opinions or input on this subject.

[justmike]

Where can I get a copy of this book?
Mike

[toppcat]

I just finished this; it was very informative and well researched. Erik is to be commended for such a fine job on an obscure subject. I imagine the research was far flung which makes it all the more impressive. The bookmark was a real nice touch too.

Hopefully we will see other monograph type books like this in the future from a few folks here.

[Hal Kaplan]

Erik,

I got mine yesterday and I've already finished it. I was the winner of the Net54 contest. Thanks Erik for your great book! It will be an important hobby reference for many years.

I have a question about something I didn't see mentioned in the book that may relate to Philadelphia Caramel. Christopher Benjamin's book "Most Valuable Baseball Cards" (1990) shows a picture of an "E95" Cobb that was hand-cut from a cardboard Philadelphia Caramel advertising sheet printed in 1909. The advertising card is missing the black border and the name and team designation at the bottom, but has Cobb's name and team in white script at the top of the photo. Do you know anything about this advertising sheet?

[ErikV]

Hal,

Glad to hear you enjoyed the book and thank you for the kind comments.

Sorry, but I'm not familiar with Mr. Benjamin's material. If you want to
contact me offline, I'd like to learn more about his work.

Erik