Old Judge Packs [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

03-31-2005, 07:06 PM

Posted By: Joe_G.I know this has been discussed from time to time in the past but I couldn't find anything on my particular question (although our forum's search does make it hard to find exactly what you are looking for). I just purchased an Old Judge pack with a tax stamp of Oct 1st 1888. I figured it would be very similar if not the same as all packs from 1887-1890 but that isn't the case. Here are pics of two different packs from two different forum members. In both cases, the boxes are tax stamped May 1st 1887. <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1112324081.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1112324071.JPG"> Here is my box which is tax stamped Oct 1st 1888. Either the graphic grew in size or the box is smaller. Can anyone tell me which is the case or give me dimensions on the 1887 packs? <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1112324090.JPG"> Also, is it fair to say Old Judge packs were being tax stamped nearly everyday of the year or did they only get stamped on the first day of the month etc.? Seems a bit strange that two packs share the exact same date while all three are from the 1st day of the month. Thanks in advance, Joe Gonsowski

Archive

03-31-2005, 07:26 PM

Posted By: Juliea tad under 2" across 2 15/16ths" high 7/8" thick Those are the outside dimensions--the interior box would be different.

Archive

04-02-2005, 10:17 AM

Posted By: Joe_G.I just received my Old Judge pack and was very pleased when I turned it over on its side and read the following printed on the seal: REFUSE THIS BOX IF EITHER SEAL IS BROKEN READ BASE BALL NOTICE INSIDE I'm guessing the baseball notice refers to the N173 offerings. That would also explain why the 2 1887 boxes attached in my initial post above and the two below (Sep 1 1887) from Mile Highs last auction do not have such a printed message. Only the 1888 & 1889 boxes should have this (the years N173s were offered). <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1112465660.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1112465669.JPG"> These latest two pics also suggest the design change to the box occurred between May & September of 1887. I'll post a picture of this if there is interest. Unfortunately, it's the worst side of my box which is otherwise very clean. It turns out my box was sitting in a pail sealed in a wall of a house that was built in the late 1880s until very recently (remodeling). Nice to find an Old Judge item so close to home (Mason, MI) and it was tax stamped the last month the Detroit Wolverines played. I like it. So what about the tax stamps? Do all Old Judge packs from the baseball years have them? Are they always from the 1st day of the month? So far, the five boxes I've looked at all have tax stamps and all are dated from the 1st of the month. Regards, Joe Gonsowski

Archive

04-02-2005, 11:28 AM

Posted By: Kevin CummingsThe tax stamp on my box has a February 1, 1887 date and the smaller graphic. <img src="http://members.aol.com/kkkkandp/ojbox.jpg">

Archive

04-02-2005, 01:43 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerJoe--I have four packs, three of which have the printing such that the words "Old Judge" cannot fit completely on the front of the box. One of mine, dated August 1,1888 has the baseball notice on the side. Another pack, also dated August 1,1888 does not. I also have a third pack dated Dec 1891. All these packs are the same size. I have a larger pack which looks like Julies in that the words "Old Judge" fit on the front. This is a post 1890 pack as it notes that Goodwin & Co. is a branch of the American Tobacco Co. This pack is bigger because, as it notes on the side, cigarette holders are packed in the box. This pack is 1 3/4"x 3"x 5/8". I'm not sure how Julie measured her pack but I would give that ruler a sobriety test. In answer to your original question I believe tax stamps were overprinted when received and they were used until they were used up. Therefore, a pack could have a tax stamp that was dated a long time prior to when the item was actually sold. However, this was probably not the case for Goodwin & Co.

Archive

04-03-2005, 01:41 PM

Posted By: Joe_G.Hate to keep pounding this back to the top with so few replies, but I still have a couple questions. (I appreciate the replies from Julie, Kevin, & Jay) OK, my pack measures as follows. LxWxH of the outside box (longest to shortest dimensions) come in at 2 13/16" x 1 5/8" x 5/8". The inside "sliding drawer" is slightly longer at 2 7/8". So let's say the box as a whole is 2 7/8" x 1 5/8" x 5/8". Not much larger than an N172 card. Jay has a post-N172 production box (post 1890, after the merger) that looks like the early boxes. That is, Jay's post 1890 box displays "Old Judge" entirely on the front like Kevin Cumming's Feb 1 1887, Trevor Hocking's May 1 1887, and Julie Vognar's May 1 1887 box. Can any of you three, or others, measure your early pack to see if it matches the larger dimensions that Jay shared from his post 1890 pack (3" x 1 3/4" x 5/8")? I'm sure they do. Note that the difference in these dimensions are a mere 1/8" in length & width. The question I have is whether these larger boxes are simply due to the addition of "cigarette holders" with the cigarettes as Jay mentions. That is, as a consumer, could you chose your Old Judge cigarettes with or without the "cigarette holders", hence two different size boxes, and perhaps two different prices? OK, to recap the information shared to this point, looks like all Old Judge packs (at least those during N172 production) have tax stamps that are dated from the first day of the month; likely the month ahead or in which they were received by the vendor/store. And being a hot commodity, likely sold shortly after. Packs during N173 production 1888/89 may be found with a notice printed in red on the seal stating "READ BASEBALL NOTICE INSIDE". And with another reply or two, maybe I can add that two different size boxes can be found depending on whether they included "cigarette holders" or not. So again, I'm looking for more information from the owners of the early packs that appear to be larger. What dimensions are they (same as Jay's post 1890 pack?) and do they make reference to having "cigarette holders" on the side? Thanks!

Archive

04-03-2005, 02:04 PM

Posted By: Kevin CummingsJoe: Mine measures approximately 2" W x 2 7/8" L x 7/8" D. Given that I wasn't using a very accurate measuring tool, I'd say Julie's and mine are the same size. Kevin

Archive

04-03-2005, 02:21 PM

Posted By: Joe_G.So we have at least 3 different size boxes (or at least two during 1887 - 1890). Julie, Trevor, & yours (Kevin) are a bit wider and deeper than my pack and all 4 of Jay's. I wonder if it was a difference in quantity packaged or more along the lines of whether "cigarette holders" or similar were included. I'm thinking there was a difference in quantity sold per pack. Here are similar pictures of Trevor's 1887 pack (slightly wider & deeper) & my 1888 pack (narrower & shallower). <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1112565836.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1112565867.JPG"> I have a lot to learn about quantity per package, cost, etc. Edited to add pics/content

Archive

04-10-2005, 06:45 PM

Posted By: Joe_G.Bump . . . , back to the top For anyone that may be following this thread, here are a couple more observations that I should have noticed earlier. The two different depths of the box (shallow 5/8" & deeper 7/8") seem to coincide with cigarette quantity. The tax stamps on the shallower 5/8" packs indicate 10 cigarettes. The tax stamps on the deeper 7/8" packs indicate 20 cigarettes. A bit strange that double the quantity doesn't correlate to double the depth but some of this could be explained by the way individual rows nest with each other. For instance, the higher quantity 20 packs are deeper as already stated, but also a small bit wider which might allow for the rows to nest with each other resulting in higher pack efficiency. The shallower (and slightly narrower) 10 pack may force the two rows to lie on top of each other (no nesting).