My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info [Archive]

Archive

02-08-2007, 07:35 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisSome new and interesting notes from doing some research at the Philadelphia Library this past Sat. 1st....I'll reprise my theory....it conjectures that the scarcity of the T206 Plank card can be explained by the American Caramel Co. (ACC) forcing the American Tobacco Co. (ATC) to stop issuing their Plank card.....ACC having 1st acquired the exclusive rights to Plank and 1st to issue his BB card . Here are the series of events..... Eddie Plank went to Gettysburg (his hometown) College. The Director of this Coll. back then was David Franklin Lafean. Milton Hershey started the Lancaster Caramel Co. in 1896 and sold it to David F. Lafean in the early 1900's. Lafean then established the ACC in Philadelphia in 1905. During this period, Connie Mack's Phila. A's were winning pennants with a formidable team of players. Most outstanding and the "hometown" favorite was Eddie Plank, a very deliberate southpaw pitcher. Lafean....being a sharp businessman, capitalized on this "A's fever" and enhanced the marketing of his Candy product with BB card premiums; thus, the E90-1 cards were issued in series from 1908 - 1911. Lafean was also a shrewd politician (in his later life he became a US Congressman). Therefore, it's very likely that Lafean legally enforced his exclusive rights to his "guy", Eddie Plank; causing ATC to remove their Plank from the market. Final proof of this theory will require actual documentation, which I will try to find, next time I am in Philly. Until then, this circumstantial evidence that I have presented here, is quite plausible....and certainly very thought-provoking. Gentleman.... a very similar scenario occurred in 1954, when Sy Berger (of Topps)....an avid Ted Williams fan....forced the Bowman Gum Co. to cease and desist from issuing their Ted Williams card (#66). I am very grateful to Frank Wakefield for all the research he presented in support of this theory in the initial Thread on this subject. OK....I am open to any and all questions regarding this subject....so, shoot away ? TED Z

Archive

02-08-2007, 12:27 PM

Posted By: Pennsylvania TedIn anticipation of the usual question....why was Plank singled out, and not the other 11 A's players in the E90-1 set ? Well, with the exception of Bender and Davis the following A's players were not portrayed in the 1st (or 150 series) of the T206 set. And, Heitmueller, "Shoeless Joe" Jackson and "Stuffy" McInnis were not at all in the T206 set..... HR Baker Jack Barry Chief Bender Eddie Collins Harry Davis Jimmy Dygert Heinie Heitmuller Joe Jackson Harry Krause Stuffy McInnis Eddie Plank Ira Thomas The long time connection Plank had with Lafean, that goes back to 1900, I feel is the "key" here. TED Z

Archive

02-08-2007, 04:46 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldTed, you should go to the library more often!! That is great. Plank because he's college educated, he was intelligent enough to not sign away rights to different folks simultaneously... Plank was a star, gotta assert rights to him. And Lafean's connections with Plank, no doubt Plank was loyal to Mr. Lafean. Where were you when I used to write term papers.... Frank.

Archive

02-08-2007, 05:53 PM

Posted By: john/z28jd Ted,you certainly put alot of thought into this but i wouldve started with trying to find out about compensation for being in the t206 set first.If he didnt get paid but they put out his card he couldve told them to pull the card and they wouldve had to. Plank is in so many sets from that era that its hard to believe he could have an exclusive contract. Hes in 23 sets produced from 1908-1911 but only 6 are E cards,thats alot of sets to explain. Youd also have to explain why theres only a few rarities in other sets like e90 and t207 where you couldnt explain it by a short print run on a group of players. I think its just like Wagner,they had a compensation problem and maybe thats why you dont find some players in the set because their teammate told them not to sign,or they decided it on their own when they saw he wasnt in it. Babe Adams and Sam Leever who both shouldve been in the set being key members of the 1909 Pirates World Series teams arent in the set,theyre in the e90-2 set but then Leever appears in the t205 set and Adams doesnt but hes in some E sets. So why would they have an exclusive contract with him too being a Pittsburgh player

Archive

02-08-2007, 10:10 PM

Posted By: Richard MassonActually, the absence of certain players like Adams and Leever in T206, and their inclusion in an American Caramel team set like E90-2 lends credence to Ted's theory. Why is Connie Mack not in T206 when they included McGraw?

Archive

02-08-2007, 11:14 PM

Posted By: john/z28jd If Leever wasnt in the t205 maybe it would but they have all of the same cigarette companies as t206s and were made at the same time. Theyre also in the e90-2 set not e90-1, and the e90-2 is only 11 Pirates players,which includes Ham Hyatt who isnt in the t206s or t205s but is in the t207 set. Cy Morgan was a teammate of Plank and a good pitcher himself yet isnt in the t206 but is in the t204 and e96 like Plank,not in the e90 set which includes Plank, but he is in the t207 set unlike Plank.How would that be explained using his theory above? It couldnt be If you want to believe broken plate which could explain e90 cards like Mitchell and Sweeney just as easy as Wagner and Plank then i can live with that.If you want to believe that he wanted compensation and had his card pulled id believe that too but to think he had an exclusive contract way back then but somehow appeared in 17 other non-E sets during that time span is a little harder to believe. Honestly if they were paying players,how much could they offer him to only help sell their 1 cent candies and what would be left to pay the other 200+ players that appear in those sets? To deny the tobacco card companies which obviously put out a ton more cards over the same time span,they would have to make a substancial offer to keep him out of years of sets instead of appearing in both sets. and just exactly why would 2 different entities be trying to keep a player out of one set,is there really a huge amount of people that went to the store and said do i want caramel because i have a 1 in 120 chance of getting Eddie Plank or do i want to satisfy my nicotine yearnings. No! If someone wanted cigarettes theyre going to buy them no matter who might be inside,but they might buy a different type of cigarette because of the card.This isnt topps vs Donruss here its Marlboro vs Hershey

Archive

02-09-2007, 07:41 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisCompensation (or lack of it) for these BB players to be portrayed in BB card sets, in my opinion, is a negligible factor....as it really did not amount to much. So, I cannot see this applying to Plank's T206 card situation. Now, Sam Leever is in the E90-1 set, so I am not sure what you are asking about him ? However, he should have been in the T206 set. "Babe" Adams is not in the E90-1 set because his career did not get started until 1909....the E90-1 set was already out in the market by then. Adams was really great in the 1909 World Series, as he won 3 games with a 1.33 ERA. I have to run now, and I'll get to your 2nd post later. TED Z

Archive

02-09-2007, 08:39 AM

Posted By: barrysloateBabe Adams was in the E96 set, another Philadelphia issue.

Archive

02-09-2007, 08:41 AM

Posted By: john/z28jdI missed Leever in the e90 set when i skimmed thru the checklist,i was just looking for random players. Anyway,lets assume your theory is right and they pulled the Plank card. Maybe the same exact thing happened with Magee being a star player on the NL Philly team,but they worked something out with the tobacco companies and they then reissued the Magee card,this time spelling his name right. Did you ever consider that when you were coming up with your Magie/Magee theory?

Archive

02-09-2007, 12:41 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisI thought you would like the Lafean connection. David Franklin Lafean was quite a character in the greater Philadelphia scene at the turn of the last Century. What I find very interesting with him, is that he has roots in Lancaster and York and Philadelphia. All three of these cities were the "home bases" of the the various E-card sets. And, as we know, most of the pictures on these various E-cards are identical from set to set (except E91). TED Z

Archive

02-09-2007, 12:47 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisToo many "Q'S" from you.....OK, my reply to your post (2:14 AM) paragragh 3..... ...."If you want to believe broken plate which could explain e90 cards like Mitchell and Sweeney just as easy as Wagner and Plank then i can live with that.If you want to believe that he wanted compensation and had his card pulled id believe that too but to think he had an exclusive contract way back then but somehow appeared in 17 other non-E sets during that time span is a little harder to believe." JOHN.....You will never hear me use the excuse "broken plate".....it's the "panacea" for all unexplained scarce BB cards; and, I've never bought it. Printing firms have multiple (or redundant) plates for every image they print. Mike Mitchell and Bill Sweeney are very tough in the E90-1 set because they were in the short-printed last Series (of 20-30 cards). My theory on Plank applies only to the rivalry between ACC & ATC on their very first issues. That is the 1st Series of the E90-1 set which included Eddie Plank and was probably issued in 1908 (or early 1909). And, the 1st (150) and 2nd (350) Series of the T206 set which included Plank and was yanked....twice. All subsequent sets containing Plank are irrelevant to this argument. TED Z

Archive

02-09-2007, 07:03 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldJohn... You've shot at Ted's idea with nonsense. Plank isn't in 23 sets. I don't think you can count 23 sets even if you count each of the different Conlon sets as a separate set, and you count Calahans and new stuff. You should count card distributors from his playing days, not individual sets. Please go look at the other thread.... Plank's in E107... Breisch Williams is a predecessor to American Caramel. Plank stays fairly loyal to American Caramel. E90-1s are next, and he is in them. Some of the other issues he's in are regional, such as T208. Not really a competitor of American Caramel, probably not distributed in in Philadelphia, under American Caramel's radar. Same for T204 Ramly. But the American Tobacco Trust products were distrubuted there, they would have been noticed. I really think Ted has tuned his radar in on what probably happened years ago. It is consistent with the letter that was auctioned that solicits a player, consistent with Wagner's disappearance, E107s predate E90-1s and Plank is there, for his hometown candy company and his old college president... Again, great detective work, Ted.

Archive

02-09-2007, 08:38 PM

Posted By: LarryAccording to a google search I recently did, Eddie Plank did not graduate from Gettysburg College but played for the college team, he actually attended the prep school at gettysburg until he was drafted by the A's....he may not have been as scholarly as believed...

Archive

02-09-2007, 08:51 PM

Posted By: john/z28jd Frank,i got the 23 sets from that time period from Brett Domue's website of checklists of each pre-ww2 Hall of Famer. Are you trying to discredit Brett's(and others) years of hard work and research without actual knowledge,or do you know something everyone else doesnt? Can you go thru his extensive checklist and say with 100% certainty that he is wrong in so many instances? Please do before you criticize, because my post was based on the actual proven fact, while Ted's was based on speculation just like his Magie thread. If he doesnt want imput or thoughts on the subject why ask what we think? Sounds like you didnt go into this open-minded

Archive

02-09-2007, 11:32 PM

Posted By: Eric EverettIts work like this that CAN provide a paragraph in baseball card history books. Ted said he'll be looking for more proof the next time he goes to Philly. Well if/when he finds that proff his theory will be cemented in fact and we can all enjoy the knowledge. If not its still a plausible theory and...<future here> -Eric

Archive

02-10-2007, 05:53 AM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldGoodness gracious... proven facts (not to be considered with other types of facts), years of hard work, 100% certainty, and a WEBSITE... that seals it for me. I've never heard of Brett Domue and am unaware of his website. If you look at a Beckett listing and ignore the cards from Conlon's, Fleer, and other post playing days, you get this: 1914 CJ 1915 CJ D303 E104 E106 E107 E224 E90-1 E91 E93 E95 M116 T204 T206 T208 T216 W555 WG2 WG4 That's 19 card sets. What other sets from his playing days have him on a card? And you're right that Ted merely looked in a library... nothing as factual as a website. So did you go look at the other thread and see the history of the sets? Don't you reckon that When American Caramel had Plank in what we now call E90-1, that they didn't mind Plank being in their own E91? And E107's candy company was a predecessor of E90-1s, so there's no harm or foul there... You believe what you want. And I do sincerely wish you well with your beliefs.

Archive

02-10-2007, 06:22 AM

Posted By: JohnEddie Plank Year Set ACC Description 1902 Sporting Life Cabinets W600 Street 1902 Sporting Life Cabinets W600 Uniform 1903 Breisch Williams Type I E107 1906 Fan Craze American League WG2 1906 Lincoln Publishing A's Postcards 1907-09 Novelty Cutlery Postcards 1908 American Caramel Co. E91 Set A 1908-09 Greenfield's Chocolates Postcards (Rose Co.) 1908-09 Rose Company Postcards 1909 American Caramel Co. E91 Set B 1909 Philadelphia Caramel E95 1909 Ramley T204 1909-10 German Baseball Stamps 1909-10 W555 W555 1909-11 American Caramel Co. E90-1 1909-11 White Borders T206 1909-13 Sporting News Suppliments M101-2 4/7/10 1910 American Caramel Co. Die-Cuts E125 1910 Luxello Cigars A's/Phillies Pins 1910 Nadja Philadelphia Athletics E104-I No "World's Champions" at top (Blank Back) 1910 Nadja Philadelphia Athletics E104-I No "World's Champions" at top (Nadja) 1910 Nadja Philadelphia Athletics E104-I World's Champions at top (Blank Back) 1910 Orange Borders 1910 PC796 Sepia Postcards PC796 1910 Standard Caramel Co. E93 1910-11 Sporting Life M116 1911 Cullivan's Fireside Philadelphia A's T208 1911 Diamond Gum Pins PE1 1911 Monarch Typewriter 1911 Pinkerton T5 503 1911 Rochester Baking Philadelphia A's D359 1911 Williams Baking Philadelphia A's D359 1913 Fatima Team Cards T200 Philadelphia American 1913 Fatima Team Premiums Philadelphia American 1914 Cracker Jack E145-I 6 1914 General Baking Co. D303 No Position 1914 General Baking Co. D303 Position 1914 People's Tobacco (Kotton, Mino, Virginia Extra) T216 1914 Polo Grounds Game WG4 1914 Texas Tommy Type I E224 1915 American Caramel Co. E106 1915 Cracker Jack E145-II 6 Edited to add: While I think Ted’s theory is interesting I don’t quite agree or at least am not sold.

Archive

02-10-2007, 10:31 AM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldLions and tigers and bears, Oh My! Sporting Life Cabinets and german stamps and pins... oh my. And counting Nadjas 3 times, plus all of those postcards. Might as well be like that guy on eBay who cuts the photos out of old guides, self grades them, and then has "private" auctions. Might as well count those, too. May well be 50 different Planks. I stand corrected. Thank you.

Archive

02-10-2007, 01:25 PM

Posted By: JohnFrank, While your post drips of sarcasm, it also shows your ability or lack there of to manage basic math. 1903 Breisch Williams Type I E107 1906 Fan Craze American League WG2 1908 American Caramel Co. E91 Set A 1909 Philadelphia Caramel E95 1909 Ramley T204 1909-10 W555 W555 1909-11 American Caramel Co. E90-1 1909-11 White Borders T206 1910 American Caramel Co. Die-Cuts E125 1910 Nadja Philadelphia Athletics E104-I 1910 Orange Borders 1910 Standard Caramel Co. E93 1910-11 Sporting Life M116 1911 Cullivan's Fireside Philadelphia A's T208 1911 Pinkerton T5 503 1911 Rochester Baking Philadelphia A's D359 1913 Fatima Team Cards T200 Philadelphia American 1913 Fatima Team Premiums Philadelphia American 1914 Cracker Jack E145-I 6 1914 General Baking Co. D303 1914 People's Tobacco (Kotton, Mino, Virginia Extra) T216 1914 Polo Grounds Game WG4 1914 Texas Tommy Type I E224 1915 American Caramel Co. E106 1915 Cracker Jack E145-II 6 Even if I remove the items with Plank you so easily singled out, that still leaves about 25 sets that would include Plank on a card. Or would you care to eliminate any others to help make your point?? As for the E104’s I don’t think he was stretching I seem to believe the set that includes this Plank card in debate, has a O’Hara, Demmitt, Elberfeld & Magie among others which are counted as different cards for their variations, or are they the same and shouldn’t be counted twice????? I posted the info only as reference not sure why you find the need to be so nasty? Its amazing most people who try and prove theory’s (archeologists, doctors, scholars etc.) generally work with and debate the current academic communities to prove their point. Not just imply that anyone who disagrees are simply idiots, therefore the new theory is correct. While the theory is neat and the research interesting, myself I’m having a hard time putting to much stock in detailed deep research from a guy who cant even use a standard catalog of cards to find what sets Plank is included on. Was that sarcastic and rude??? Just following a pattern set by yours truly….

Archive

02-10-2007, 02:03 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldAt least the sarcasm was sincere... T200 Fatima, the cards and the premium. Shouldn't count it as 2... Most people don't have one of each. I only have one of the two. E107, E90-1, E91, these are all realistically American Caramel. Lafean isn't going to complain about his own use. Ramly, not Ramley, was geographically separated from Philadelphia. So were the T208s. D359s and D303s. Kottons are miles away. Same for E224s. Others, like Cracker Jack, are remote in time and after what Ted is talking about. I perceive that you never did go back and read through the other thread. It seems to me that Lafean on his own, or with Plank, would only know to complain about or challenge matters they were aware of. Can't complain in fall of 1909 or spring of 1910 about stuff that is in Virginia or Texas of which they're unaware. Can't complain about stuff in 1914 when it is 1910. So I'd discount the game card pieces, the stuff that is distant geographically, and temporally... and that just doesn't leave much. But you count 'em as you like. Conlon probably took a few photographs of Eddie Plank, the prints would have that purple Conlon stamp on the back... count those, too. I do think that someone, most likely Lafean and Plank, stopped ATC's use of Plank. Either by not signing the permission documents when sought, or by some affirmative step on their part. Eventually, their protectiveness of the use of the likeness slackened, as is evidenced by Plank on later issues. Maybe folks later offered more money. Maybe folks asked for permission before using the likeness. Maybe they were fans of the people, instead of the wealthy few, and they disliked Buchanon and his vast tobacco holdings, cheering from the sidelines as Brandeis busted up the Trust. But I can't instantly believe something someone's found on the internet, or put faith in that broken plate stuff. Those printers must have broken plates in the first couple of series, I'm sure glad they settled down and were able to handle the 460 series plates without a single break or chip... At least you seem passionate about cards! Glad for that. Me thinks they're slabbed.

Archive

02-10-2007, 02:51 PM

Posted By: John“But you count 'em as you like. Conlon probably took a few photographs of Eddie Plank, the prints would have that purple Conlon stamp on the back... count those, too.” 1903 Breisch Williams Type I E107 1906 Fan Craze American League WG2 1908 American Caramel Co. E91 Set A 1909 Philadelphia Caramel E95 1909 Ramly T204 1909-10 W555 W555 1909-11 American Caramel Co. E90-1 1909-11 White Borders T206 1910 American Caramel Co. Die-Cuts E125 1910 Nadja Philadelphia Athletics E104-I 1910 Orange Borders 1910 Standard Caramel Co. E93 1910-11 Sporting Life M116 1911 Cullivan's Fireside Philadelphia A's T208 1911 Pinkerton T5 503 1911 Rochester Baking Philadelphia A's D359 1913 Fatima Team Cards T200 Philadelphia American 1914 Cracker Jack E145-I 6 1914 General Baking Co. D303 1914 People's Tobacco (Kotton, Mino, Virginia Extra) T216 1914 Polo Grounds Game WG4 1914 Texas Tommy Type I E224 1915 American Caramel Co. E106 1915 Cracker Jack E145-II 6 Well that’s still 24 knocking out the T200 Premiums not 19 or do you not consider any of the above cards? What else should we conveniently eliminate to make you correct? “That's 19 card sets. What other sets from his playing days have him on a card?” Frank, not here to debate your Theory just was correcting your announcement/question that Plank only appears on 19 cards. “At least you seem passionate about cards! Glad for that. Me thinks they're slabbed.” <a href="http://imageevent.com/piojohn3/collection" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://imageevent.com/piojohn3/collection</a> Wow some more wild speculation Frank keep it up perhaps someday you might actually get one right? Or do the few graded cards I have kick me out of the “Super Secret Club Of Experts and Real Card Collectors” Ahhh shucks I was really looking forward to the jacket too, well there’s always next year…..

Archive

02-10-2007, 06:58 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisHey guys......I just have to intervene between this "war" of the "W's"..... Let us not lose our focus, my theory strictly revolves around the conjectured "contractual dispute" between the American Caramel's 1908 issue (E90-1) and the American Tobacco's 1909 issue (T206) of Eddie Plank. All prior and subsequent issues with Plank in them are not applicable to this theory. This card being 1st in the market....vs....I don't have a T206 Plank to display, perhaps someone will show one. <img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/edplanke90.jpg"> <img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/be90eddieplank.jpg"> TED Z

Archive

02-10-2007, 07:39 PM

Posted By: JohnTed, No war to be broken up, as I stated before interesting theory. I’m interested in your findings. I was just pointing out if one fancy’s him or her a card expert, one should not make comments like these. “Plank isn't in 23 sets. I don't think you can count 23 sets even if you count each of the different Conlon sets as a separate set, and you count Calahans and new stuff. You should count card distributors from his playing days, not individual sets.” “That's 19 card sets. What other sets from his playing days have him on a card?” When clearly anyone with a SCD could easily see how wrong he or she is. It ruins his or her credibility, which could be useful especially one with a new theory to prove. IMO As for the attempt to insinuate that I may be lacking collecting savvy by having graded cards, or assuming that I was some new off the block collector who’s participation in this discussion would be pointless due to my lack of knowledge in comparison to the above with the comment below… “At least you seem passionate about cards! Glad for that. Me thinks they're slabbed.” Me thinks he or she may have put their foot in their mouth…

Archive

02-10-2007, 08:41 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldThat still sounded like war to me... And I can manage my way through life without your credulity, without you deeming me credible. I don't recall proclaiming myself an expert to you, and you're welcome to ignore any opinions or "proven facts" that I might offer. When you clear your way past the postcards, pins, german stamps, issues remote in time and geography, or noncompeting issues, then not much is left from that exhaustive, long and glorious website list.... What is left are the associated caramel issues, E107 to E91 to E90-1 (seems to me E91 came before E90-1 chronologically, for lots of reasons best suited for another thread), and a flickering appearance in T206. I can accept the notion that you don't see that. Ted did. I can. A few others probably do. It isn't a big deal.

Archive

02-10-2007, 09:03 PM

Posted By: robert aFrank. Is this information below from something you read or is this your thoughts? "Breisch Williams signed some players in 1903 and 1904. American Caramel was formed in 1898, and consolidated other candy companies in Philadelphia, including Breisch Williams. AC just kept the brand out there. So it was American Caramel who signed those players. And that would have been long before the American Tobacco Trust came on the scene." Robert

Archive

02-10-2007, 09:14 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldJust when I'd made up my mind to quit responding to this thread... Scripophily folks are the guys who collect stock certificates. I have several, a Delong Gum Co. one, and American Caramel. Those collector guys research out the mergers and predecessor companies. That's where I got it. I have it saved somewhere... my recollection is that the Hershey guy had a caramel factory, sold it for cash to the new forming / merging American Caramel Co., then Hershey took the cash and built his chocolate factory which lead to the creation of his town, Hershey, PA. That's where I got that stuff... I'm a bit weary of the bickering, otherwise I'd look at the E107 cards to see if there are more Philadelphia players depicted than there are those of other cities, but how dare I even suggest such a thing without hard proven facts... Shoot, I'm not even sure I spelled that Scripophily word right... Frank

Archive

02-10-2007, 09:27 PM

Posted By: JohnIt’s not about bickering it’s about being man enough to admit you were wrong in your statements, and not dancing around the fact that you were incorrect in your statements. “Plank isn't in 23 sets. I don't think you can count 23 sets even if you count each of the different Conlon sets as a separate set, and you count Calahans and new stuff. You should count card distributors from his playing days, not individual sets.” “That's 19 card sets. What other sets from his playing days have him on a card?”

Archive

02-11-2007, 05:43 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisJust getting around to replying to your "Q"...... "Why is Connie Mack not in T206 when they included McGraw?" There were a lot of Managers, besides McGraw, in the T206 set. To name a few....Clarke, Dahlen, Duffy, Griffith, Jennings, Fielder Jones and several more. So, why not Connie Mack ? He is 1st pictured in the N172 and the 1888 E223 sets. Then he can be found in numerous candy sets....1914 E224 (Texas Tommy), E96, E98, E104, 1914 & 1915 Cracker Jack. Also, Sporting News (M101-2, 4 & 5) and Sporting Life (M116). The only Tobacco sets that I know of are the T200 (Fatima) and the T208 Fireside (A's players). And, I'm sure there are several more sets....1940 Play Ball comes to mind. But,why not the T206... maybe someone else can provide us a good answer to your question ? TED Z

Archive

02-11-2007, 06:23 PM

Posted By: robert aThanks for the information Frank. I thought that Breisch Williams became Williams Caramel (E103) which would've been operating during the same time as the American Caramel Co. Thanks to Ted for striking up a very interesting theory. Rob

Archive

02-11-2007, 06:51 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisMy research in the Philadelphia Library last w/e supports the comments Frank Wakefield stated (that you cited). Frank related the larger story (in my 1st thread on my Plank theory) regarding Milton Hershey, who originated the Lancaster Caramel Co in the 1890's, and sold it in the early 1900's. Hershey was more interested in developing the Chocolate part of his growing candy "empire" and he sold the Caramel part of it for one Million dollars. In 1902 there was a lot of BB excitement in Philadelphia as the A's won the American Lge. pennant....and, sore-loser John McGraw (Mgr. of AL last place Baltimore) laughed at this event and dubbed the A's "the White Elephant" team. Since then, the A's logo has a White Elephant depicted on it. Now, if you study the E107 set, issued in 1903-04, you'll find every A's player in it and including Ossee Schreckengost with his full name. I do not think Frank just imagined what he is saying regarding the E107 set's connection with American Caramel....credit him for some good ole research. TED Z

Brian-Chidester

02-16-2010, 01:13 PM

Sorry if I'm late to this thread, but I simply cannot understand how a card that appeared in both the 150 and the 350 series could be so rare? That remains the most pressing question for me.

Theoldprofessor

02-16-2010, 07:41 PM

Ted:

I know your research is first-rate. But the Lafean of whom you've been speaking was, apparently, Daniel Franklin Lafean, not David. From the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1771-Present:

"LAFEAN, Daniel Franklin, a Representative from Pennsylvania; born in York, York County, Pa., on February 7, 1861; attended the public schools; engaged in candy manufacturing and in banking in York; a director of the Gettysburg College and trustee of the Gettysburg Seminary, Gettysburg, Pa.; elected as a Republican to the Fifty-eighth and to the four succeeding Congresses (March 4, 1903-March 3, 1913); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1912 to the Sixty-third Congress; elected to the Sixty-fourth Congress (March 4, 1915-March 3, 1917); was not a candidate for renomination in 1916; appointed commissioner of banking of the State of Pennsylvania in 1917; again engaged in manufacturing pursuits; died in Philadelphia, Pa., April 18, 1922; interment in Prospect Hill Cemetery, York, Pa."

I'm unclear as to exactly what role Daniel Lafean was to have played in your theory. He was a director of the College, which sounds a bit like a trustee, and could have had either a little power, or a lot of it. As a congressman, of course, he had about as much power as he could have wanted. I'm ready to believe that he and Milton Hershey were tight, but how that brings Eddie out of T206 isn't real certain, at least to me, at all.

Of course, I graduated from Gettysburg College ('64), which makes my participation problematic anyway.

Danny Smith

02-16-2010, 08:13 PM

Bob - Good to see another Gettysburg alum on the boards. I graduated in '99.

Danny

Ted:

I know your research is first-rate. But the Lafean of whom you've been speaking was, apparently, Daniel Franklin Lafean, not David. From the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1771-Present:

"LAFEAN, Daniel Franklin, a Representative from Pennsylvania; born in York, York County, Pa., on February 7, 1861; attended the public schools; engaged in candy manufacturing and in banking in York; a director of the Gettysburg College and trustee of the Gettysburg Seminary, Gettysburg, Pa.; elected as a Republican to the Fifty-eighth and to the four succeeding Congresses (March 4, 1903-March 3, 1913); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1912 to the Sixty-third Congress; elected to the Sixty-fourth Congress (March 4, 1915-March 3, 1917); was not a candidate for renomination in 1916; appointed commissioner of banking of the State of Pennsylvania in 1917; again engaged in manufacturing pursuits; died in Philadelphia, Pa., April 18, 1922; interment in Prospect Hill Cemetery, York, Pa."

I'm unclear as to exactly what role Daniel Lafean was to have played in your theory. He was a director of the College, which sounds a bit like a trustee, and could have had either a little power, or a lot of it. As a congressman, of course, he had about as much power as he could have wanted. I'm ready to believe that he and Milton Hershey were tight, but how that brings Eddie out of T206 isn't real certain, at least to me, at all.

Of course, I graduated from Gettysburg College ('64), which makes my participation problematic anyway.

tedzan

02-16-2010, 09:30 PM

1st....thank you for correcting me regarding Lafean's first name, it is indeed Daniel.

2nd....for those not familiar with my T206 Plank theory that I posted 3 years ago, I will reiterate it here.

I'll reprise my theory..it conjectures that the scarcity of the T206 Plank card can be explained by the American
Caramel Co. (ACC) forcing the American Tobacco Co. (ATC) to stop issuing their Plank card.....ACC having first
acquired the exclusive rights to Plank by virtue of the fact that ACC first portrayed him in their BB card sets.

Here are the series of events.....

Eddie Plank went to Gettysburg (his hometown) College. The Director of this College back then was Daniel
Franklin Lafean.

Milton Hershey started the Lancaster Caramel Co. in 1896 and sold it to Lafean in the early 1900's. Lafean then
established the ACC in Philadelphia in 1905.

During this period, Connie Mack's Philadelphia A's were winning pennants with a formidable team of players. Over
20,000 A's fans filled the stands on Opening Day in April 1909 at the new Shibe Park. Most outstanding, and the
"hometown" favorite was Eddie Plank. A very deliberate and very effective southpaw pitcher.

Connie Mack and Lafean were very close friends. Lafean being a sharp businessman, capitalized on this "A's fever",
by enhancing the marketing of his Candy product with BB card premiums. First, the E91 series issued in 1908, then
followed up by the E90-1 cards (1st series issued in late 1908).

Lafean was also a shrewd politician (in his later life he became a US Congressman). Therefore, it is very likely that
Lafean enforced his exclusive rights to his "guy", Eddie Plank, forcing ATC to remove their Plank from the market.
Furthermore, you will find it very interesting that the T206 set's 1st series (150 Subjects) is devoid of A's players
(except for Bender). Is this merely a coincidence ? I don't think so.

An alternate scenario here....is that Connie Mack's favorite guy was Eddie Plank, and perhaps Mack told Lafean to
force ATC to "yank" Plank from their T206 set.

Final proof of this theory requires actual documentation, which I'll try to find, next time I'm in the Philadelphia Library.
Till then, this circumstantial evidence that I've presented, is quite plausible; and, certainly very thought-provoking.

Gentleman......a very similar scenario occurred in 1954, when Sy Berger of Topps (an avid Ted Williams fan) forced
the Bowman Gum Co. to cease and desist from issuing their Ted Williams card (#66).

I am very grateful to Frank Wakefield for all the research he presented in support of this theory in my first Thread
on this subject.

OK....I am open to any and all questions regarding this subject....so, shoot away ?

TED Z

caramelcard

02-16-2010, 09:41 PM

Hi Ted,

Why do think the American Caramel Co. didn't mind that Plank was used in:

E95 Philadelphia Caramel
E93 Standard Caramel
E98 Anonymous
E104 Nadja
T204 Ramly

etc. etc. ;)

Rob

FrankWakefield

02-16-2010, 10:26 PM

As for the Ramly cards, they came out of Massachusetts. They were distributed regionally, as best as I can gather. They don't depict many of the Pirates, Phillies, or White Sox. Their distribution in the Philadelphia area may have been minimal to non-existent. A fellow can't really complain about something unless he knows the something is happening.

caramelcard

02-16-2010, 10:53 PM

Philadelphia Caramel was definitely in the same region and even in the same "racket."

If this fellow was going to control the rights to Plank's image used on premiums, you think he would first try to control it in the same town with other candy companies.

However, maybe ACC had a deal of some sort with Phil. Caramel and Standard Caramel (Lancaster, PA) and Lafean was more concerned with a tobacco premium which would reach a larger amount of consumers?

Anyways, I hope the conversation keeps going.

Rob

Kenny Cole

02-16-2010, 10:53 PM

Sporting Life was issued circa 1910-11. At a minimum, it was circulated in the same area as were the caramel issues of the time,including Philadelphia.

M116 Planks aren't that hard to find. For that reason, I don't think it is possible that the American Caramel Co. was unaware of that issue. I suppose it is possible that the thinking was that an M116 Plank wasn't a threat because it wasn't issued with candy, but I am sceptical of that idea because that would run counter to the theory that the American Caramel Company stopped the production of his tobacco cards to preserve its monopoly on his image.

Sporting Life probably wasn't issued until 1910 to the best of my knowledege. However, neither were Plank 350 backs. I'm not seeing that American Caramel would shut down all of the tobacco productions in 1909 and 1910, but do nothing to shut down the magazine issues if the thought was to have some sort of monopoly on Plank. I'm not shooting at anyone, but I see this as a fly in the ointment insofar as the proffered theory goes.

Kenny Cole

Theoldprofessor

02-17-2010, 02:21 AM

Ted:

From one of your earlier posts:

"The Director of this College back then was Daniel Franklin Lafean."

Lafean wasn't "The Director" of Gettysburg. He was a Director, one of many who apparently had some official connection to the college, though not as important as Trustees, of which the college had many. The President of the college during that period was one Harvey Washington McKnight. As far as I can tell, he was an evengelical Christian whose interests did not go much beyond college and pulpit.

Of interest in another way. Plank may never have pitched against Matty, but he and Chief Bender faced each other several times. Go to

http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:LowLevelEntityToSaveG ifMSIE_GETTYSBURG&Type=text/html&Locale=english-skin-custom&Path=GTY/1901/05/15&ChunkNum=-1&ID=Ar00500

to get a box score of one such game.

By the way, "Bender" really is Albert ("Chief") Bender, and not his brother James. Albert was a regularly enrolled student at the Carlisle School in 1901, James was not.

Evidence ... ? From

http://home.epix.net/~landis/bender.html

"Here's the info for Bender from Nat'l Archives' student file #1327, folder 5453, taken from a database compiled by Genevieve Bell:
Charles A. Bender
Address: White Earth Agency
Attended Carlisle 7/5/1896 - 5/14/02
Father: Albert Bender (German), Mother: living, fullblood Chippewa.
height at arrival: 5'3"
Weight: 101 lbs.
Graduated class of 1902. Captain of baseball team 1901-02.

His brother, James Bender attended Carlisle 9/5/1896-3/8/1900. He was expelled in 1900; cause unknown. His file is #1327, student folder 377."

I suspect you're on to something with the dispute between American Caramel and American Tobacco, but, as you're probably sick of hearing by now, there must be more to it than that.

Bob

tedzan

02-17-2010, 06:35 AM

Rob

Correct me if this is wrong....American Caramel (E91 and E90-1) sets were the first major COLOR issues of BB cards in the 20th
Century. The 1st series of both these sets were issued in 1908.

Remember, the key to understanding my Plank theory applies to the year "1909". American Litho. issued the T206 1st series (150
series) during the Summer of 1909.

The other BB card sets issued in 1909 are NADJA (E92), Dockman, and E98 (Anonymous). Neither of these 3 sets include Plank.
Plank is included in the following 1910-11 sets......

NADJA (E104-1)
Philadelphia Caramel
Standard Caramel (E93)
T208 Cullivan's Fireside

RAMLY presents an interesting situation. When you compare RAMLY with the E90-1 set and the T206 set (again, emphasis on 1909)
the two latter issues are virtually void of Boston (AL) players in their 1st series issued in 1908 and 1909, respectively.

By 1910, T206's (350 series) included numerous A's players that were not in their 1909 issue. Also, by 1910, the last series of the
E90-1 set included Boston players that were not included in their earlier series.

I do not think that this is mere coincidence. It is evident that there was contention between these three BB card companies as to
which one in 1909 was going to portray certain BB players in their sets.

TED Z

FrankWakefield

02-17-2010, 06:59 AM

T208s are regional, too. New York.

And there wouldn't be a total void of Plank images on stuff. The image would have to appear on something before someone might complain about it.

As for the Sporting Life stuff is a step toward news coverage in their publication. I don't think there was an effort of total control on Plank images, no one was concerned about his photo appearing in a newspaper. Sporting Life didn't mail their little cards out until after the white border tobacco cards hit the scene, and they didn't come with candy or tobacco; they weren't selling a product.

Anyone ever consider that these cards may have been some of the first cards that were actually 'bought', instead of coming with a product??

George

02-17-2010, 07:18 AM

Here is the protagonist in this fascinating discussion.

Brian-Chidester

02-17-2010, 07:57 AM

Again, I still can't understand how Plank could have been printed in the 150 and 350 series and still be that rare. Neither "Magie" or Wagner make it to the 350 series.

Even if American Caramel tries to stop ATC in 1909, Plank still makes it into the next series.

tedzan

02-17-2010, 08:39 AM

Brian

The T206 Plank was printed with 3 backs when the 150 series was 1st issued in the Summer of 1909.

This version is commonly found with SWEET CAPORAL 150, Factory 25 and 30 backs; and, an extremely rare PIEDMONT 150 back.
The 350 series version is only found with SWEET CAPORAL 350, Factory 30. This Factory was located in the NYC area.

Now, I noted that......"By 1910, T206's (350 series) included numerous A's players that were not in their 1909 issue."

Portrayed in the 350 series are Barry, Bender, Collins and 10 other A's. So, I'm speculating that American Litho. tried to "sneak" Plank
in this 2nd series by inserting him only in the SWEET CAP cigarette packs in the NYC market. But, whoever (American Caramel or per-
haps Ramly) held the exclusive rights to portray Plank had to (again) force American Litho to discontinue their T206 Plank.

TED Z

toppcat

02-17-2010, 08:40 AM

Brian-Chidester

02-17-2010, 08:48 AM

tedzan

02-17-2010, 09:04 AM

Please read this entire thread. Furthermore, also check-out my 1st thread on my Plank theory, that I posted in 2006........
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=84132&highlight=plank+theory

Then, I will gladly try to answer any questions that you (or anyone else) have. Back then, I and many Net54er's, discussed
the merits and/or questions regarding this subject.

To your latest question......simply because American Litho. was immediately forced to discontinue their 150 series Plank. It
appears about 50 cards got out in the market before this occurred.

I have to go out now, and remove some more snow from my 240 foot driveway.

TED Z

caramelcard

02-17-2010, 09:08 AM

Ted,

Here is a partial quote from Erik Varon's "Sweet Recollections..." book:

"...the Philadelphia Caramel Company issued a "25 Ball Player" card set in the summer of 1909. "

Not 1910.

Rob

Brian-Chidester

02-17-2010, 09:15 AM

tedzan

02-17-2010, 09:28 AM

I find it interesting that the Philadelphia Caramel Co. issued their 25-card set (E95) with Plank. But, followed this
set with their 30-card set (E96) that did NOT include Plank.

There is no doubt that there was fierce competition between the American Caramel Co. (based in Philadelphia)
and the smaller Philadelphia Caramel Co. (based in nearby Camden, NJ).

As far as the actual dating goes, I have found that certain E-card sets are off a year in the ACC dating. I can
prove this by certain players in these sets whose trades in the 1909 and 1910 period are reflected in their cards.
Germany Schaeffer is the first one that comes to my mind.

My contention that the E90-1 set was really issued in 1908 is based on my research of certain player's trades.
However, as you know, the ACC dates the E90-1 set's 1st series as 1909.

TED Z

tedzan

02-17-2010, 09:49 AM

My best answer for now to your......
" Hi Ted... I've read all of these before. So you're saying that ATC and ALC discontinued Plank in the 150 series
because of a threatened lawsuit, but then started up production of Plank again for the 350 series? "

1st....These entities did not threaten lawsuits back then, they simply filed a "cease and desist" order.

2nd....Yes, ALC was free to portray the A's that they were prevented from doing in the 150 series. So, when ALC
printed an additional 10 players from the A's team (as I noted above), they slipped in Eddie Plank. After all, they
still had Plank's plate image from their 1st series, so they thought they would give it the "good old college try" once
more. But note, that they selectively chose the NY market. I guess their thinking was, that they would be able to
get away with it. Eddie Plank was one of the most popular pitchers of that era.

In any event, ALC was forced to discontinue their 350 series Plank. Assuming 100% surviveability, then approx. 50
cards of this Plank were out in the market by then.

TED Z

Brian-Chidester

02-17-2010, 10:46 AM

But this is all just your hypothesis, right? No cease and desist order has been found?

Is there any other theory besides the ACC cease and desist theory that would account for a card being so rare that was issued in the Piedmont 150, as well as the Sweet Caporal 150 and 350?

caramelcard

02-17-2010, 10:53 AM

Hi Ted,

The E96 set didn't include Plank because it was clearly and intentionally marked as the second part of and a continuation of E95.

Rob

tedzan

02-17-2010, 01:06 PM

You are absolutely correct. I just reviewed Erik's book and realized that the E96 had additional players. I should have known
this since I have several E96's, including Connie Mack.

You already know this, but for those here that don't, Erik Varon's book on "the Story of The Philadelphia Caramel Company" is
an excellent book.

TED Z

tedzan

02-17-2010, 01:38 PM

Your......
"But this is all just your hypothesis, right? No cease and desist order has been found?"

A Philadelphia lawyer friend of mine told me some time ago, that "cease and desist orders" from the early 20th Century era
are virtually impossible to find. In many instances, such trivial orders (as this Plank contention was) were simply enforced
by spoken word and a handshake.

And yes, this Plank theory of mine is the result of my imagination upon my extensive research on my two favorite early 20th
Century BB card sets....E90-1 and T206. I have collected multiples of these two sets since 1981.

Obviously it's based on circumstantial evidence, But, this was no idle speculation on my part. I'm open to anyone's better (or
more plausible) story explaning why the T206 Plank is as rare as the Wagner ?

TED Z

Brian-Chidester

02-17-2010, 02:02 PM

Ted... I would never think that your position on this matter is speculative beyond careful consideration. I hope I didn't come off that way. I'm a newbie on this board, so bear with me if I come across as a bit harsh. Working on tone is important for everyone to feel respected.

Fear not, I respect your research enormously.

Brian-Chidester

02-17-2010, 02:04 PM

This might be a remedial question, but are there any other cards in the T206 set that were ONLY issued in the Piedmont 150 and the Sweet Caporal 150 and 350?

I mean, rare not by Wagner/Plank/Magie standards. But, were there to be another card that was only printed in those three series, how rare would such a card be?

tedzan

02-17-2010, 03:13 PM

Don't mind me guy....I love discussing T206 and E90-1 cards, and I welcome any and all questions on this subject.

Plank is the only subject to be found with those backs. The other rare T206's that were printed with less than 6 different backs are

Lundgren (Cubs)....PIEDMONT 150 & 350, and EPDG

Elberfeld (portrait-Washington)....PIEDMONT 350, SWEET CAP 350 (fac 30), and OLD MILL

Dahlen (Brooklyn)....PIEDMONT 350, SOVEREIGN 350, SWEET CAP 350 (fac 30), and OLD MILL

TED Z

Brian-Chidester

02-17-2010, 03:41 PM

Thanks, Ted. I've heard that those three are rare, but I know they are not rare by the same standards that the Plank would be considered rare. So, yes, it has to be rare for some other reason. Frustrating.

Your theories and research are commendable, good sir.

ScottFandango

01-17-2012, 06:12 AM

Strange shoeless joe Jackson didn't come up in this thread...

Seems like a similar reason why Jackson wasnt in the (much larger) t206 set but in the e90-1 set...

tedzan

01-17-2012, 12:46 PM

Scott

It took me quite a while, but I put together a complete 120-card E90-1. In the process, I always wondered why Joe Jackson was never
depicted as a MAJOR LEAGUER in any of the T-sets (T201, T202, T205, T206, T213, T214 & T215) that American Lithographic produced.

However, I can see why American Caramel included him in their 1st series of the E90 set. Shoeless Joe was a Minor League phenom, who
Connie Mack gave a try with his Philadelphia A's in August 1908.

The American Caramel Co. was based in Philly and its owner, Daniel Lafean, was close friends with Connie Mack.

Furthermore, if you consider the T216 cards....which were printed by the same printer who did the E90 cards....Joe Jackson is not in any
of the three T216 sets. So, this mystery continues.

Scott......I'm curious, do you have any thoughts on why Joe Jackson isn't in any of the major T-sets ?

TED Z

Theoldprofessor

01-17-2012, 09:09 PM

Ted:

A few small corrections to your story.

1. As far as I can tell, there never was a David Frank LaFean, not at Gettysburg College and certainly not in the US House of Representatives. There was a Daniel Frank LaFean who meets those standards, sort of.

2. Daniel LaFean was certainly not "The Director ... of Gettysburg College," for the simple reason that no such position existed at the college, not then, and not since. He was a Director at Gettysburg, which just means that he served on the Board of Trustees, with lots of other men. Gettysburg's President at the turn of the century was Harvey Washington McKnight.

By the way, thay apparently thought so highly of Mr. LaFean that they put him in the college catalog in 1899-1900 ...

“D. F. LAFEAX York” and again in 1900-1901:

“DANIEL F. LAFE.\N, York.”

Well, there are trustees and there are Trustees! (They finally got him right in 1902, just before he was elected to the US House of representatives.)

Does any of this change any of your claims about LaFean and Plank? Probably not. But it does suggest that people might worry a bit more over your scholarship.

And for the record, I'm an alum of Gettysburg College.

bbcard1

01-18-2012, 06:54 AM

Both Plank and Wagner were from the same area...any chance they allied to get a few bucks from the issuer.

Runscott

01-18-2012, 10:56 AM

Ted, John, etc. I'm seeing several Plank theories in this thread (and the old thread), well-thought-out and defended by many of you. I plan to do a synopsis and add it to a 'Plank' page, mentioning some of you - it would list each theory with points for and against. If any of you do NOT want your name included, just PM me. In any event, I will contact each of you prior to publishing it on my site, at which point you can say "No", or offer 'enhancements' or suggested changes.

Also, I need a good clear, 300 dpi scan of a Plank card with a light background (like the rest of the cards on the 1st page of my site). I would prefer to use the image of a board-member's card, so send one if you would like me to use yours - no problem using several. Thanks.

jalex

01-18-2012, 11:06 AM

ctownboy

01-18-2012, 12:21 PM

jalex,

I was just looking through my B18 blanket collection and then read your post. What I find strange is that neither Wagner nor Plank are in this set but Babe Adams is.

Now, since no Philadelphia player is included in the B18's then I can understand why Plank is not included. Also, if Wagner didn't want to be in the T206 set then I can understand why he wouldn't want to be included in B18 (but is included in Fatima?).

But then why is Babe Adams in B18?

Just wondering/curious.

David

Runscott

01-18-2012, 01:35 PM

tedzan

01-18-2012, 01:50 PM

POST #32

Ted:

I know your research is first-rate. But the Lafean of whom you've been speaking was, apparently, Daniel Franklin Lafean, not David. From the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1771-Present:

"LAFEAN, Daniel Franklin, a Representative from Pennsylvania; born in York, York County, Pa., on February 7, 1861; attended the public schools; engaged in candy manufacturing and in banking in York; a director of the Gettysburg College and trustee of the Gettysburg Seminary, Gettysburg, Pa.; elected as a Republican to the Fifty-eighth and to the four succeeding Congresses (March 4, 1903-March 3, 1913); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1912 to the Sixty-third Congress; elected to the Sixty-fourth Congress (March 4, 1915-March 3, 1917); was not a candidate for renomination in 1916; appointed commissioner of banking of the State of Pennsylvania in 1917; again engaged in manufacturing pursuits; died in Philadelphia, Pa., April 18, 1922; interment in Prospect Hill Cemetery, York, Pa."

I'm unclear as to exactly what role Daniel Lafean was to have played in your theory. He was a director of the College, which sounds a bit like a trustee, and could have had either a little power, or a lot of it. As a congressman, of course, he had about as much power as he could have wanted. I'm ready to believe that he and Milton Hershey were tight, but how that brings Eddie out of T206 isn't real certain, at least to me, at all.

Of course, I graduated from Gettysburg College ('64), which makes my participation problematic anyway.

Bob

With all due respect, we've been here before in post #32 in this thread.

Anyhow, the connection that initially started my wild imagination down this path was the close relationship between Connie Mack and Daniel Lafean (while Lafean
owned the American Caramel Co. which was based in Philadelphia).

And, it's my understanding that Mr. Mack suggested to Daniel Lafean (circa 1907) to include BB card premiums with his Caramel product in order to enhance sales.

Anyhow, it's been 3 years since I posted this theory; and, I haven't had any luck in discovering any new evidence to support my contention that the T206 Plank
was yanked due to a conflict with the American Caramel Co.

But, I have discovered that Plank was very much anti-tobacco in any form. And so was his Manager, Connie Mack. Plank was a low-keyed guy and most likely did
not receive the fanfare that Wagner got for having their cards pulled from circulation. Plank's complaint was most likely handled by a "cease & desist" order issued
to ATC.

Best regards,

TED Z

g_vezina_c55

05-18-2012, 07:48 AM

verry interesting thread !

tedzan

05-18-2012, 09:32 AM

In the 5 1/2 years since I first presented this theory of mine regarding the T206 Plank card, I have had no luck in digging up any more evidence that would in any
way support any contention between the American Caramel Co. and the American Tobacco Co. (ATC)....as I have hypothesized here.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=84132

HOWEVER, my research on this subject proves that Connie Mack and Eddie Plank were very anti-tobacco guys. Therefore, I would suggest that this may have
been a big factor that explains the T206 Plank mystery. I can imagine that Plank issued a "cease and desist" order to ATC to stop them from portraying his image
on their tobacco cards.

Note, that Connie Mack is not pictured on T-cards. Of course, the T208 Fireside set is an exception. This might be explained by the fact that the same printer
that produced the 1910 NADJA (E104-1) A's set also printed the 1911 Cullivan's Fireside A's set.

TED Z

Abravefan11

05-18-2012, 10:22 AM

As Ted said Plank was noted in many period articles and by his fellow teammates as living a clean life. He never drank or used tobacco of any kind. I believe like Ted that this is the most plausible explanation for his not giving his permission to be in the T206 set.

Here's an article from 1911 about Plank.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bzq2U1RC6hE/T7Z0P2ZZ0NI/AAAAAAAAGIg/aYDq-OnzKfU/s912/Plank.pdf%2520-%2520Adobe%2520Acrobat%25205182012%2520120852%2520 PM.bmp.jpg

g_vezina_c55

05-18-2012, 11:46 AM

In the 5 1/2 years since I first presented this theory of mine regarding the T206 Plank card, I have had no luck in digging up any more evidence that would in any
way support any contention between the American Caramel Co. and American Tobacco Co. (ATC)....as I have hypothesized here.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=84132

HOWEVER, my research on this subject proves that Connie Mack and Eddie Plank were very anti-tobacco guys. Therefore, I would suggest that this may have
been a big factor that explains the T206 Plank mystery. I can imagine that Plank issued a "cease and desist" order to ATC to stop them from portraying his image
on their tobacco cards.

Note, that Connie Mack is not pictured on T-cards. Of course, the T218 Fireside set is an exception. This might be explained by the fact that the same printer
that produced the 1910 NADJA (E104-1) A's set also printed the 1911 Cullivan's Fireside A's set.

TED Z

eddie plank don t appear in any other tobacco card set ?

tedzan

05-18-2012, 11:51 AM

Besides the T208 (Fireside) set, Plank is also in the T204 Ramly set.

Let's see if anyone else here will chime in with another T-card set that he is in.

TED Z

Abravefan11

05-18-2012, 11:54 AM

He's also in the T5 Pinkerton and T216 Kotton, Mino and Virginia Extra sets.

pitchernut

05-18-2012, 12:05 PM

T200 but not on the T222... team obligations on the T200?

g_vezina_c55

05-18-2012, 12:10 PM

it is a lot of tobacco set for a guy who are anti tobacco....

markf31

05-18-2012, 12:38 PM

Has anyone done any research into the 2 prominent baseball photgraphers of the day, Carl Horner and Charles Conlon. Perhaps we're looking at this from the wrong side. Perhaps the photographers themselves were involved? Everyone discusses compensation for using the players likeness to the player, but what about compensation to the specific photographer for using their photograph?

Here are two links to the Honus Wagner T206 likeness, one from what appears to be Carl Horner and another from Charles Conlon.

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2005/699.html

http://www.mearsonlineauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=27407&searchby=0&searchvalue=None&page=0&sortby=0&displayby=2&lotsperpage=100&category=69&seo=1990s-Honus-Wagner-Pittsburgh-Pirates-Charles-Conlon-Poster-Print---20%22-x-24%22-349%2F975

wonkaticket

05-18-2012, 12:48 PM

Post #21....that's where he (Plank) be found...

For me and this is just my idea of on the Plank card. I really don’t think it has anything to do with letters from lawyers, pulling cards or any drama. I really think the Plank card is a victim of bad production timing and planning that led to the card being printed in smaller numbers.

I think he was added at the tail end of 1909’s production then got carried over into 1910’s production for a brief time and was moved off the sheet to make room for other cards. I only think this because we have way less 150’s than 350’s of Plank that I’m aware of.

Of course I have no proof or documents to back this up just my thoughts is all which is as valid as anyone’s else’s thoughts on this card 100+ years later.

Cheers,

P.S. Tim, nice gallery on Plank BTW, FYI I think #53 is the same card as #14a I’m 99% sure. Could be wrong but both have the same spot and that card has seen 3 holders that I know of.

T206Collector

05-18-2012, 01:43 PM

I really don’t think it has anything to do with letters from lawyers, pulling cards or any drama. I really think the Plank card is a victim of bad production timing and planning that led to the card being printed in smaller numbers.

+1

Abravefan11

05-18-2012, 01:49 PM

P.S. Tim, nice gallery on Plank BTW, FYI I think #53 is the same card as #14a I’m 99% sure. Could be wrong but both have the same spot and that card has seen 3 holders that I know of.

John - I don't believe #14 and #53 are the same card. #53 is missing distinguishing marks that 14a and 14b both have. Auctions for card 14a and 14b have taken place prior to and after the auction for #53 without these marks changing. Hopefully an better scan of card #53 will become available that shows these differences more clearly.

tedzan

05-18-2012, 02:04 PM

For me and this is just my idea of on the Plank card. I really don’t think it has anything to do with letters from lawyers, pulling cards or any drama. I really think the Plank card is a victim of bad production timing and planning that led to the card being printed in smaller numbers.

No letters from lawyers, no drama....back in those early 20th Century days, such disputes were simply resolved with a "handshake" or perhaps a "cease & desist" order.

I think he was added at the tail end of 1909’s production then got carried over into 1910’s production for a brief time and was moved off the sheet to make room for other cards. I only think this because we have way less 150’s than 350’s of Plank that I’m aware of.

This sounds like a plausible scenario; however, can you explain why the majority of Sweet Cap 150 Plank's are Factory #30 cards.....and, of course the Sweet Cap 350
Plank's were only inserted in Factory #30 cigarette packs ?

The dearth of Factory #25 cards makes me quite suspicious. Of course this also applies to the Piedmont brand (Factory #25). So, why am I "suspicious" of Factory #30
dominance....Well, cigarette packs from Factory #25 were distributed down South and to Pennsylvania.

Cigarette packs from Factory #30 were distributed to New York and New England.

Hmmmm, it seems to me that ATC was playing "cryptic" distribution games with their Plank cards.....until they were told to stop.

TED Z

wonkaticket

05-18-2012, 02:32 PM

Tim, agree tough to tell from that cell phone on the carpet pic. You would think the guy who can afford a Plank could get a better camera :)

Just seems to have the same dots that the Mastro card had that sold raw twice....also seems to have the same collar spot once agin hard to tell for sure. Can’t imagine there are too many altered planks with that eye appeal and the same dot floating around guess that’s why I think it’s the same card etc.

I do know that card was put in a PSA holder by the winner and then switched to SGC later in life.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=13038

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=68374

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/net54shared/websize/14b.jpg

All good just thought I would let you know..

Cheers,

John

Abravefan11

05-18-2012, 03:05 PM

I don't have time to do a Photoshop comparison right now but I see the similarities you're pointing out but there are other things I don't see.

- The corners on #53 seem to be softer to me than those on #14.
- I see a distinct dark spot on the lower right hand border that is visible on #14 before and after #53 sold. Maybe the holder is blocking it, but it seems like it should be there #53 but I don't see it.
- There's a spot on the lower right hand corner border of #53 that isn't on any of the #14 images.
-There are spots on all #14 examples in the upper right hand corner border in the same place, and a spot on the upper right hand corner in a slightly different place on #53.

These differences would prevent me from saying at this time they are the same card and I would prefer to err on the side of them being different than the same. If a better scan becomes available and it's shown to be the same card it's an easy fix and I'll be glad to do it.

atx840

05-18-2012, 03:09 PM

Skew adjusted.

http://i.imgur.com/yiItu.jpg

When comparing Planks, I have found that the "A" being an ink layer mostly on its own is usually slightly offset on most examples, when lining these up they are identical.

http://i.imgur.com/oO0qI.jpg

g_vezina_c55

05-18-2012, 10:11 PM

If we comparé the wagner and the plank,

Anyone can post à list where plank appear in the pre war era?
And do same thing with wagner?
Thx

hpkatz26

12-16-2020, 03:22 PM

Why not contact the Plank family member(s) that still live in Gettysburg to see if they know anything about one of the most famous baseball cards featuring their relative? Just a thought. Howard

tedzan

12-16-2020, 04:30 PM

Why not contact the Plank family member(s) that still live in Gettysburg to see if they know anything about one of the most famous baseball cards featuring their relative? Just a thought. Howard

Howard

This thread regarding my original Plank Theory is 14 years old. Since then, I have revised my theory based on more research regarding Plank.

Furthermore, this response of Connie Mack to a Philadelphia sports writer in 1910 clues us in....... " The secret of Plank's pitching is no secret
at all. It is a good strong arm, a powerful constitution to back it, and neither drinks, smokes, chews tobacco, nor swears...... " **

Eddie Plank was certainly an anti-tobacco guy. Most likely, he informed the American Tobacco Co. that he did not want his image portrayed on
Tobacco cards. Being the low-keyed guy that he was, he did not hype it up like Wagner did. Therefore, American Litho. stopped issuing Plank.

**..... Connie Mack, by Norman Macht

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/T206EddiePlankSC150x30.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/T206PlankSC150x30xb.jpg

TED Z

T206 Reference ( http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

benjulmag

12-16-2020, 10:59 PM

Howard

This thread regarding my original Plank Theory is 14 years old. Since then, I have revised my theory based on more research regarding Plank.

Furthermore, this response of Connie Mack to a Philadelphia sports writer in 1910 clues us in....... " The secret of Plank's pitching is no secret
at all. It is a good strong arm, a powerful constitution to back it, and neither drinks, smokes, chews tobacco, nor swears...... " **

Eddie Plank was certainly an anti-tobacco guy. Most likely, he informed the American Tobacco Co. that he did not want his image portrayed on
Tobacco cards. Being the low-keyed guy that he was, he did not hype it up like Wagner did. Therefore, American Litho. stopped issuing Plank.

**..... Connie Mack, by Norman Macht

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/T206EddiePlankSC150x30.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/T206PlankSC150x30xb.jpg

TED Z

T206 Reference ( http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

Sometimes the explanations that are simplest and right under our noses are easiest to overlook. What Ted is saying here sure makes a lot of sense to me. And it offers a rational explanation why the Plank card appears in both the 150 and 350 series.

Ted, any thoughts if what you are saying is correct might account for the color tones of the 150 series Planks being more vibrant than the 350 series?

I do not profess to be a T206 expert so do not know if such difference in color vibrancy is typical with other T206 subjects or is limited to the Plank. Is it? If so, one would think it has something to do with the discontinuance of the card.

sb1

12-17-2020, 05:10 AM

Every 150 series card has better color and a somewhat sharper look due to the stones being new. As they moved into the 350 series they wore down a bit, also the 350 series had a much larger print run and they probably didn't ink them as often as the 150 series.

Rhotchkiss

12-17-2020, 06:49 AM

Very few Plank tobacco cards exist. I believe t206, t204, and t216 are the only T cards that Plank is on. Wagner is similarly rare, but worse as he has no t204. Anytime you can get plank (or wagner) on a tobacco card, grab it!

Pat R

12-17-2020, 02:19 PM

It was sportswriters that were paid to get the permission of the ballplayers for the tobacco company's to use their pictures. I think his refusal is the best explanation ,for the rarity of Planks t206 card and lack of inclusion in most tobacco cards but I haven't been able to find anything that mentions it from that time period but I have found proof that Wagner refused to let them use his image.

from an Oct. 28 1912 newspaper

431544

431545

from an Dec. 24 1912 newspaper

431546

hcv123

12-17-2020, 04:32 PM

tedzan

12-17-2020, 06:44 PM

Sometimes the explanations that are simplest and right under our noses are easiest to overlook. What Ted is saying here sure makes a lot of sense to me. And it offers a rational explanation why the Plank card appears in both the 150 and 350 series.

Ted, any thoughts if what you are saying is correct might account for the color tones of the 150 series Planks being more vibrant than the 350 series?

I do not profess to be a T206 expert so do not know if such difference in color vibrancy is typical with other T206 subjects or is limited to the Plank. Is it? If so, one would think it has something to do with the discontinuance of the card.

Hi Corey....it's been quite a while since we have last spoken....great hearing from you.

My experience looking over 1000's of T206's these past 40 years is that PIEDMONT 150, SOVEREIGN 150 and SWEET CAPORAL 150 T206's are generally richer in color (especially blue)
than their T206 counterparts with SWEET CAPORAL 350 (Factory #30) backs

For example......

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/tedzan77/CrandallPiedmont150.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/tedzan77/CrandallSweetCap350.jpg

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/tedzan77/CrandallPiedmont150b.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/tedzan77/CrandallSweetCap350b.jpg

Regarding ink colors, what has mystified me more so is why the 150 Series ** cards are lacking the rich dark BLUE color seen on numerous subjects in the 350 Series
and 460 Series subjects....such as:

150 Series................................... 350 Series.................................. 460 Series
https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/BarryWaddellT206.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/AB460xMurray50x.jpg

**....Note Waddell (portrait) is the only 150 Series subject printed with dark blue ink.

TED Z

T206 Reference ( http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

Pat R

12-17-2020, 08:37 PM

Hi Corey....it's been quite a while since we have last spoken....great hearing from you.

My experience looking over 1000's of T206's these past 40 years is that PIEDMONT 150, SOVEREIGN 150 and SWEET CAPORAL 150 T206's are generally richer in color (especially blue)
than their T206 counterparts with SWEET CAPORAL 350 (Factory #30) backs

For example......

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/tedzan77/CrandallPiedmont150.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/tedzan77/CrandallSweetCap350.jpg

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/tedzan77/CrandallPiedmont150b.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/tedzan77/CrandallSweetCap350b.jpg

Regarding ink colors, what has mystified me more so is why the 150 Series ** cards are lacking the rich dark BLUE color seen on numerous subjects in the 350 Series
and 460 Series subjects....such as:

150 Series................................... 350 Series.................................. 460 Series
https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/BarryWaddellT206.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/AB460xMurray50x.jpg

**....Note Waddell (portrait) is the only 150 Series subject printed with dark blue ink.

TED Z

T206 Reference ( http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

Ted I don't know if some of it has to do with your scanner but the Crandall
Piedmont 150 you posted is an unusually darker blue.

Not to long ago I had 15 Crandall no caps including two with the same
exact plate scratch as yours (the one I have left is the last one one the right)
the blue does vary even in the same backs but yours is the darkest blue I've
seen.

Here are the eight I still have seven are piedmont 150's. Luke has a good description of the difference between some
of the 150 and 350 series when he describes the 350's as having a washed out look compared to the 150's.

431596

same plate scratch as yours
431597

tedzan

12-18-2020, 10:10 AM

Ted I don't know if some of it has to do with your scanner but the Crandall
Piedmont 150 you posted is an unusually darker blue.

Pat

Here are my PIEDMONT 150 Crandall and my Plank on the same scan. This scan is "un-enhanced".

Without enhancement of this scan, my scanner shows SGC cards darker than they actually are.

And, since the Crandall was scanned along with the SGC card it comes out slightly lighter than it actually is.

And yes....the blue background of this Crandall card is unusually darker blue than most.

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/tedzan77/websize/CrandallXPlank.jpg

TED Z

T206 Reference ( http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

slantycouch

12-18-2020, 10:29 AM

Hey Ted,

Can you please expand upon this?

Regarding ink colors, what has mystified me more so is why the 150 Series ** cards are lacking the rich dark BLUE color seen on numerous subjects in the 350 Series and 460 Series subjects...

Is your comment that it's odd they didn't layer colors to create a darker background on some, and did on others? Or am I misunderstanding your comment? Love this attention to detail and just want to understand your thought process.

These are both HA scans:
https://i.ibb.co/hC8YcgM/colors2.png

tedzan

12-18-2020, 12:14 PM

slantycouch

Expanding on my comment in my prior post.....
there are 155 different subjects in the 150 Series, and the Waddell (portrait) is the only solid dark blue card in it.

There are 269 different subjects in the initial 350 Series of which 27 subjects are printed with solid dark blue ink.

And, the 460 Series includes 2 subjects printed with solid dark blue ink.

I'm not sure I have answered your question. If not, try me again.

My all-time favorite T206 is indeed a dark blue card.......

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/ChaseRedHINDUx50.jpg

TED Z

T206 Reference ( http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.