REA Lot 319 (Piedmont Cigarette Pack) [Archive]

View Full Version : REA Lot 319 (Piedmont Cigarette Pack)

Archive

03-25-2008, 07:11 PM

Posted By: J HullJon Canfield had an excellent, thoughtful post in the REA Is Up thread which raised some questions about this lot. I thought rather than follow up in a thread that’s hopelessly offtrack, I’d start a new one. I agree that this Piedmont pack probably isn’t all it is purported to be. I’ve been researching tobacco/cigarette taxes and regulation, starting from 1879 (the year of an enormous tax and tariff act). I’ve currently researched to 1915. Over all those years, Congress dictated, through their revenue acts, the number of cigarettes that could be sold in a package. The 1879 act limits packages to either 10, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. According to my notes, this was the case until August of 1909, when a revenue law was passed that authorized packages to have 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. This was the law through at least 1915. Basically, the point is no package containing 12 cigarettes could have been manufactured or sold over the production years of T206s. So far as my research has shown. Tax stamps for 12-packs weren’t authorized or printed over those years. As Jon said, I'd like to see someone offer an opposing argument, but something doesn't seem right here. Jamie <a href="http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=10075" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=10075</a>

Archive

03-25-2008, 07:50 PM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldJamie, Glad to see someone else picked up on what I said and I think your references to the Revenue Acts brings even more credence to the belief this pack most likely is a "fantasy" piece used to drum up the value of what would be an ordinary common T-206. I've decided to repost my initial thoughts which I posted in the previous thread here. Hopefully Rob will see this post or have his attention drawn to it as I think we have strong evidence this pack isn't quite what it seems. My previous post: . . . I don't quite think Lot 319 (Piedmont Pack w/ card) is all it is purported to be. I may be wrong and would love to be convinced I am wrong, however the pack is purported to be recently opened with Herman Armbruster of St. Paul inside. When looking at the pack, however, I noted that the pack was a 12 count with L&M printing on the bottom and no "successor" language at all. My problems with the pack are as follows: 1.) ATC was split up in 1911. Piedmont packs could not possibly have been printed with L&M on the bottom until after the split. 2.) The first Piedmont packs to be printed stated L&M, successor to ATC - this pack does not have the successor language. 3.) It is a 12 count pack - I have only heard / seen cards being packaged in 10 count cig packs. 4.) I believe Armbruster is a 350 only series (but please correct me if I'm wrong). If this is the case, wouldn't the release of the card be more in tune with summer of 1909, winter 1910 - a full year before ATC was split into L&M? 5.) It's hard to see the tax stamp but it does not appear to be the correct series/year for the T206 issue. All of these facts, while not conclusive, lead me to believe that this pack couldn't have contained a card. With a minimum bid of $500, I can't help but wonder whether a card worth maybe $150-$200 has been placed in a pack to make it a more valuable piece. I would welcome any evidence proving me incorrect but as a collector of these packs, something is fishy here . . . Here is the description: “This is an original pack of Piedmont cigarettes (Factory 25, Dist. VA.) dating from the era of T206 tobacco cards! This was originally purchased by our consignor as an unopened pack. He wanted the thrill of opening an original T206 pack and actually was successful in doing this. We would not recommend anyone purchasing packs to try this! Not only could this be very expensive, but so many of the tobacco packs that are represented as being from the T206 era are, in fact, not T206 packs, are often not even from the correct era, and do not even include a card. Even if one found a pack that was believed to have a T206 card, so many different sets were issued in the 1910 era, one could easily be disappointed and wind up with a flag or a fish card, or a card from some other nonsport tobacco-card set. This is a real T206 pack, one that has been confirmed with 100% certainty. The pack has been opened and inside was discovered the T206 baseball tobacco card, as hoped and expected. Over the years we have seen many empty boxes, but do not recall seeing an unopened 1910-era Piedmont cigarette pack. The good news is that it was a baseball player inside the pack, and this pack shows us precisely how cards were packaged in Piedmont cigarette boxes, with the card well protected from the tobacco by a protective interior lining. The bad news is the pack did not contain a Cobb, Mathewson, Johnson, or Wagner, but a minor league player by the name of Herman Armbruster of St. Paul. Aside from the consignor peeking at the card, and our pulling it partially out to properly identify the player, this card has never been touched by human hands! It is miraculous to actually see a Nr/Mt card inside the pack exactly as issued in 1910. Even though the pack was already opened, it was still very exciting for us to reopen the pack and see the card inside. Occasionally empty boxes that once held T206s surface, but this is in a whole different league. The pack was originally purchased encapsulated and graded by GAI as an unopened pack in NM 7 condition, and the GAI holder (seal broken) accompanies. This would be a fascinating and exciting item for both a T206 or unopened-pack collector. Reserve $500. Estimate (open).”

Archive

03-26-2008, 01:09 AM

Posted By: 1880nonsportspost atc breakup - doesn't say american tobacco company. Just of interest Liggett and Myers also had their own brands prior to the merger and I believe some brands remained independent even thru that period. They first issued a card in their Sweet Moments brand in the 1800's and that may be a brand they retained. They also were among a few tobacco companies that continued to insert cards into their packs after the break-up. Coupon cigarettes contained a NS card as late as 1917 and brands like Lucky Strike inserted cards into their tins in the 1930's....... Wax wrap - I have 5/6 packs with this type of paper wrap including a great "dummy" pack from Piedmont. I haven't seen one with a definitive "stamped for sale" date as I like to call it before 1916 or 1917. 12 pack - as mentioned earlier it was an unusual configuration for which they needed to add a tax stamp series - as the number of smokes determined the tax paid by the manufacturer for their cigars and cigarettes. *********the final and best reason is that someone authenticated it <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>***********

Archive

03-26-2008, 02:33 AM

Posted By: fkwI cant comment on this Piedmont pack because I am far from an expert on packs, but a few years ago I owned a 1909 Obak pack (of 10 cigarettes) and it had a card inside (see photo). The card actually shows light stains that matchup with the packs flap and inside slider. Maybe if we can somehow see the actual T206 card inside the Piedmont pack we can look for evidence the card was in the pack for 98 years. 1909 Obak pack with stained card <img src=http://centuryoldcards.com/images/1909obakboxlewis.jpeg>

Archive

03-26-2008, 08:11 AM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldFrank - not sure if you recall but I purchased the card/pack from you. It was an upgrade from the Obak in my ollection and I still have it today.

Archive

03-26-2008, 10:46 AM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldHenry - can you email me please. Thanks!

Archive

03-26-2008, 11:01 AM

Posted By: Addie_JossI don't get why anyone would pay 500 for a pack that they know already contains a non-star card.

Archive

03-26-2008, 11:13 AM

Posted By: Berniewhy wouldn't they show the card ?

Archive

03-26-2008, 11:33 AM

Posted By: Richard DwyerOnly boxes with 10 cigarettes were possible T206 boxes. Also the tax stamp doesn't have a date at all on it, if I remember right. Dewitt/Clinton stamps went all the way to 1956. Here's a tax stamp that would prove without doubt there was a T206 card inside. The overprinting shows Factory 30, 2nd District, NY and has date of 1911. Factory, district, state, and year are all correct. <img src="http://rdwyer.250free.com/Series1910.jpg">

Archive

03-26-2008, 11:54 AM

Posted By: DDRichard, Would a tax stamp like that prove there was a T206 inside, or a card from any set produced? If they did not produce any other cards at that time, I would agree. IF they did produce other cards at the time, is there any way to know from a sealed pack what is inside?

Archive

03-26-2008, 11:58 AM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldNo - unfortunately dating cigarette packs is not an exact science. If you can get to the right factory, state and district codes, with a proper revenue stamp with the proper overprint - you can get close. However, at the end of the day, you may open up your sweet caporal pack and find a NM-MT tuna from the fish series; not that Wagner you were banking on.

Archive

03-26-2008, 11:59 AM

Posted By: Dave KelleyI have no idea if these pictures will come through....but here goes...I purchased this pack in 2004 and opened it shortly thereafter...I always wondered why this forum seemed to think it was impossible for a pack like this to contain a card...BECAUSE upon opening it, THERE WAS A CARD!!!!! Maybe it is time to re-think what all the "experts" deem as the gospel truth. Most of you guy's have forgotten more than I will ever know about the history of unopened packs...I have purchased 8 unopened packs of various types, and opened them all (I know that makes some of you cringe). This was the ONLY time I ever opened a pack with a card...in fact I have thrown the cigarettes and tobacco away from all the packs that did not contain a card, so that the packs could never be re-sold under suspicious circumstances. I do not collect nor have I EVER purchased a T206 card from any source. There will be some people here who know that I have traditionally collected T210 cards (having sold 2 Stengels and more than 300 as a lot)...as well as various high end Shoeless JJ memorabilia. I love the thrill of opening "unopened" packs and as a collector that has well over $100,000 in various items...I would, in no way , EVER introduce material into the collecting world that I did not KNOW was 100% authentic!!!!!! <a href="http://s22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/nudan92/net54%20resized%20photos/?action=view¤t=1206555749.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/nudan92/net54%20resized%20photos/1206555749.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a> <img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/nudan92/net54%20resized%20photos/1206555769.jpg"> resized scans

Archive

03-26-2008, 12:11 PM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldDave, Thanks for posting those pictures. I spoke with Rob this morning and I was going to give you a call later this evening. Unfortunately, I have been busy at work and unable to call now and I also contacted some of my contacts in the cigarette world (who do not collect baseball related memorabilia) to get everything in order before speaking with you. Rob informed me that you are a very upstanding individual and very trustworthy. That all being said, here is some information of use: According to Springer's Handbook of North American Cinderella Stamps (4th edition): Series of 1910, tax rate $1.25 per M TA84 through TA90 issued stamps for 5; 8; 10; 15; 20; 50; 100 cigarettes The author added the following: "The editor will appreciate hearing of any cigarette varieties not listed in this catalogue." A stamp for 12 cigarettes first listed as Series of 1917. As you may or may not be aware, Springer's is a bible for revenue stamp collectors. There were 10+ editions published over many decades. So, your experience brings up an interesting question. I am almost 100% positive a 12 count cigarette pack was not manufactured before 1917. If that is the case, it begs the question as to how a T-206 got into yours. I am, in no way, questioning your integrity. As I stated above, Rob had nothing but praise for you. However, finding a card in that pack goes against what is currently known information for that time period and those revenue stamps. As a collector who likes to focus on cigarette packs and memorabilia, I find this situation of great interest. It seems to me there are a couple of possibilities: 1.) It may be that Springers is incorrect and the Series of 1910 also had 12 cigarette configurations (however this information has not yet been known). 2.) It may be that Piedmont had a huge stock of of cards left over and continued inserting them into packs beyond the 1909-11 date. 3.) It could be that someone tampered with your pack before it was purchased (as there were rumors of this being done). 4.) There could be other scenarios I have not yet thought of. Regardless, if there has been any misconception of me questioning your trustworthiness, etc - I can assure you I am not. Lastly, here is a scan from Springers: <a href="http://s82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/?action=view&current=SpringersHandbook.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/SpringersHandbook.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Archive

03-26-2008, 12:18 PM

Posted By: MattIs there any possibility that even though the T206s where made in 1909-11, they were distributed in packs in years after that?

Archive

03-26-2008, 03:13 PM

Posted By: Dave KelleyJon...Thank you for the kind words and sharing more information as to the background regarding your knowledge (belief). I can not argue with what has been cited in the publication shown, but I also can not know for certain that this is ALL of the facts. I KNOW FOR A FACT that this pack which was graded as unopened WAS in every way UNOPENED at the time of my removing it from the GAI enclosure (keep in mind that the paper encompassing the pack was (is) extremely fragile to the touch). Could someone have removed all packaging and inserted a card....NO WAY. Have there been people to do this with other NON graded items...ABSOLUTELY. In fact I have shared with this board on several occasions who to stay away from. Jon, your assistance in further research regarding this is welcome...and I will tell you what I told Rob....money was NOT my initial motive in offering this thru REA, but instead, I wanted someone else to share in the experience of finding a card as they did 90+ years ago. I told Rob he is welcome to give whatever money it brings to the charity of his choice...I was attempting to share a wonderful moment with other collectors, instead I seem to have opened a can of worms (no pun intended).

Archive

03-26-2008, 03:25 PM

Posted By: 1880nonsportsplease. I'm heading out to torture myself with Yoga and then a few hours of "spades" with the boys. I REALLY think this line of exploration is IMPORTANT. I don't think anyone is suggesting that YOU didn't actually pull a card from the pack. Jon - when I get home from cards I'll try an email...

Archive

03-26-2008, 05:04 PM

Posted By: Richard DwyerI was wrong to suggest that the tax stamp had a strong possibility of having a T206 card in the box. According to Robert Forbes book, Sweet Caporal, Piedmont, & Sovereign all came from the same factory, district, & state in 1910. So that tax stamp could have either had a T206 or Fish Series, or maybe something else. I do have an Old Mill box with overprinting of Factory 25, 2nd. District VA with a date of June 12th. 1911. The only other cards issued by Old Mill were T16, T42, & T80 according to Robert Forbes book on American Tobacco Cards. T16 had NONE for factory. T42's were issued late 1910 and early 1911. T80's were only issued with Factory 30. With the June date, I would assume only a T206 could have been in this box. (Wish it was unopened!) And more specifically, a Portrait or Southern League card, since they distributed these only in 1911 with Old Mill. Let me know if you know something else I don't.

Archive

03-26-2008, 06:02 PM

Posted By: J HullWell, I started all this, so I feel like I should add that my motivation in starting was to raise the issue that if this pack did indeed have a T206 in it, and I believe Dave (Hi Dave) when he says it did, then it raises some, I think, important and interesting questions about how and when T206s were distributed. Because everyone, everyone, has always thought T206s were printed and distributed from 1909 to 1911. This package of cigarettes could not have been manufactured and released from the warehouse and given a tax stamp until at least 1917. Whatever the explanation is for that, it seems a significant piece of new knowledge about this very well-studied set of tobacco cards. Jamie

Archive

03-27-2008, 08:16 AM

Posted By: Jerry Spillman I was skeptical about this GAI 12 Piedmont cigarette pack having an insert card when it was purchased in 2004. I wrote to the buyer to verify that there was infact a card in the pack he purchased. He kindly obliged me by sending me the series of scans shown below on June 7, 2004. These scans that show a step by step sequence of opening the GAI slab then opening the pack. There was a 1909-1911 T206 card! A T206 in the wrong pack and with the wrong (non-dated) stamp for that period. Even the condition of the tax stamp alone was too perfect. Stamps that wrap around the ends of the cigarette packs always rip when they are opened. Strange - but there is was. How can this be possible? Could GAI have slabbed a carefully reworked pack? <img src="http://www.freewebs.com/trentct/gai.jpg">

Archive

03-27-2008, 08:31 AM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldJerry - thanks for posting the scans. I assume you are the original seller of the pack and this pack you posted is one in the same? Also, Dave, if you would be willing to speak with me over the phone, I'd like to call you. Again, I want your permission first before doing so. Thanks!

Archive

03-27-2008, 09:11 AM

Posted By: Dave KelleyJon...I would be very happy to speak with you. I believe Rob gave you my home number. Today, though, is the one day a week I set aside to come in the office, and finding quality time to speak with you between meetings might be fantasy rather than reality. I will be available at home most of the day tomorrow (Friday)...please let me know what time to expect your call and I will be waiting. I am on pacific time. Till then.......

Archive

03-27-2008, 09:12 AM

Posted By: scott hasselCould GAI have slabbed a carefully reworked pack? That is the question in a nut shell.

Archive

03-27-2008, 09:15 AM

Posted By: leonI DON'T KNOW IF IT COULD HAVE BEEN REWORKED BUT THEY HAVE SOME OF THE BEST AUTHENTICATORS IN THE WORLD....

Archive

03-27-2008, 09:30 AM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldDave, Tomorrow will be fine. I will be in the office all day except for a meeting I have to attend between 12:00 - 1:30pm EST. I'd be happy to give you a call at the number Rob gave me when you are available. Maybe we should shoot for 2pm EST which is 11am your time?

Archive

03-27-2008, 09:45 AM

Posted By: Dave KelleyJerry...thank you for posting the pictures I sent you...I actually forgot that I sent those to you. I do want to make something perfectly clear regarding those pictures though. The picture with the green background was taken at the exact moment I removed the card...but because I only took a couple of low quality pictures, I attempted within minutes to re-create the opening experience (for MY benefit) so the pictures of the pack on the wooden table were taken about 15 minutes AFTER the actual opening. In fact you can see that (like a dummy) I put the pack back in the GAI case upside down. I was obviously overly excited. On a different note, regarding the possibility of GAI grading a "reworked" pack...let me re-iterate that the outer brown paper packaging virtually fell apart in my hands upon opening it...it is extremely brittle...how could this have been "re-worked"????

Archive

03-27-2008, 09:46 AM

Posted By: Dave KelleyThat will be fine Jon...thank you

Archive

03-27-2008, 10:08 AM

Posted By: Richard Dwyer9 out of 10 opened packs usually have more than 1/2 of the tax stamp missing. I have never seen one that had the whole thing hanging like in this scan. (Like it had no glue at all on it). Usually the tax stamp is missing on the side of the box. (Only a piece remains on the top & bottom, but not on the side). I suspect the tax stamp was "re-worked" As for the inside contents, it not that hard to find an opened pack with the contents in the condition you found. Michael McDonald wrote an article on Cycleback website that shows how to date a cigarette pack. He specifically mentions only Series of 1909 or 1910 tax stamps were used in the years 1909-1916. <a href="http://cycleback.com/packdate.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cycleback.com/packdate.html</a>

Archive

03-27-2008, 11:07 AM

Posted By: Jerry Spillman Jon, I just observed that eBay transaction at the time. I was not the seller. As I mentioned above the buyer sent me those scans on June 7, 2004 as proof that was a card was in that pack. No accusations - I just went back a step to suggest a possible error its' authenticating source. Dave, the paper packaging could have be substituded from a different pack. I don't know I'm just looking for the most logical explanation.

Archive

03-27-2008, 11:50 AM

Posted By: leonFirst of all it's quite obvious the seller, Dave (hi Dave), is a very stand up guy. No doubt in my mind he pulled the card from the pack. With that being said I really doubt we will re-write history and the piles of information that we have on packs and cards. If that were the case there would be others that would have been found, imo, by now. As to the rice paper outer packing I have handled that type of paper many times. The ones I have handled crumbled very easily as they were very brittle. I know Dave said that the one he has/had crumbled but in the upper picture it looks like it was taken from around the pack in one piece? I do absolutely think that, with the amount of money we are talking here, someone could have done something deceitful. Kind of like altering of a card to go from a 7 to an 8.....Not like the idiots that think bringing a card from a 3-4 is going to be worthwhile for the doctors. It makes no sense. In this case it would make sense (fiscally) to be deceitful because of the potential money involved. Don't get me wrong....I despise the fraudulent issues in the hobby. I am not saying this is 100% what happened but the possibility does exist. To reiterate I don't think Dave would be a part of anything like this....but honest folks get deceived many times....regards

Archive

03-27-2008, 04:28 PM

Posted By: 1880nonsportsthey may have some of the best authenticators in the world for cards (opinion)....... but going in I imagine their experience with cigarette packs to be woefully limited - we don't know that their best authenticators examined the pack - dishonest people are clever. The result after opening this pack (slabs often mean the item will remain entombed and thus not re-examined) flies in the face of currently known information. I have been on a search for quite some time to SEE a pack opened that HAS a card in it. Over the years I have heard MANY stories. Most of them I have either dismissed as implausible (the 5 cards found in a 1955 cancelled Polar Bear pack and a host more) or I have taken note of but felt were inconclusive or of questionable veracity. I collect packs and products associated with the early card manufacturers - although I collect many other things too - and I am NOT an expert in packs. I DO have more than 100 packs "on the shelf" and have continually been trying to learn more by dogged research when time permits. James Shaw, Alan Hicks, our own Jon C., Joe Hudgins (sp?), and C. Cooper are just a few people I listen to and learn from about cards and packs - but they only have PIECES of the story and I am still searching.... I know little about the T206 series. I thought I read above where the card was NOT possible with this factory. Danger Will Robinson! Wax paper - not a good sign as presumeably post 1916. 12 cigarette configuration - unknown (to me) before early 1917. Liggett & Myers ONLY on the box. Unless this was a brand that they retained when merged with the ATC (I will look futher next day or 2 but retained brands for the merging companies tended to be for plug and chew tobaccos) - it was produced AFTER 1914. I AM interested in the glassine envelope that the card appears to reside in. Never seen that before. Not sure what to make of that. If someone put the card in after production - why would they have secured it in something like that (unknown entity) instead of just putting the card in without the envelope? As I wrote this I realized I hadn't addressed a spooky question. The pack is sealed. If it wasn't going to be opened there is no reason to put ANY card in there. Why someone would put a card into a pack that was "sealed" if they weren't expecting the pack to be opened? If they were expecting the pack to be opened where's the financial incentive to have the card in there? To sell other packs from a same source bolstered with the evidence that a card was found in a similar pack? So much more to think about - and I'm a slow thinker. Heading to play Pinoccle for the first time in 30 years in a few minutes. I hope we can keep this exploration going. VERY important. The idea that a card has been found in what I am pretty sure is a post 1916 pack seems to allow for the following possibilities: T206's were inserted after 1911 and as late as 1917 into Piedmont packs. The card was never in the pack. The card was put into the pack AFTER production. Still worry some about the factory series thing on the card. Could someone add more to that? It's a RARE thing for me when I can experience a GROUP effort to explore a fundamental issue relating to PACKAGING like this that can help clarify current thought. It happens here and on the NS sometimes - a tribute to the members. Sometimes it's the mitigation of prior thought that energizes my collecting. It wouldn't be as much fun for me if I couldn't try and learn new stuff.....

Archive

03-27-2008, 05:04 PM

Posted By: Richard Dwyer1880nonsports brought up something that hasn't been discussed yet on this pack. The glassine envelope. All my Piedmont packs dated 1909-1911 had Tin Foil, and not a glassine envelope. I was shocked to find out that many non sports cards could have been inserted into 1910-1911 T206 brand boxes. I'm currently making a list of all possibilities and will post that info when done.

Archive

03-27-2008, 05:22 PM

Posted By: 1880nonsportsthe same type of 12 pack with same everything when I return. I don't remember if it has the smokes and whatever inside. It will be like a dicovery for me and you to share <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> . I know there won't be a card in there unless i put it there.....

Archive

03-27-2008, 05:31 PM

Posted By: Steve MurrayHenry wonders: "If it wasn't going to be opened there is no reason to put ANY card in there. Why would someone put a card into a pack that was "sealed" if they weren't expecting the pack to be opened?" This is what has bothered me as well. Especialy a card that appears mint. Go to all of the trouble then have the pack slabbed? Doesn't make any sense. I'm liking the possibility that cards were inseted into packs well after 1909-1911.

Archive

03-27-2008, 06:25 PM

Posted By: Richard DwyerUsing info from Robert Forbes book "American Tobacco Cards", I came up with the following: T206 Boxes: American Beauty (No Frame) Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1909-1911 American Beauty (With Frame) Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1909-1911 American Beauty Factory 42, 4th. District NC 1909-1911 Broad Leaf Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1909-1911 Carolina Brights Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1909-1911 Cycle Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1909-1911 Drum Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1909-1911 El Principe De Gales Factory 17, 2nd. District VA 1909-1911 Hindu (Brown) Factory 649, 1st. District NY 1909-1911 Hindu (Red) Factory 649, 1st. District NY 1909-1911 Lenox (Black) Factory 30, 2nd. District NY 1909-1911 Lenox (Brown) Factory 30, 2nd. District NY 1909-1911 Old Mill (Black) Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1909-1911 Old Mill (Brown) Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1909-1911 Old Mill (Southern League) Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1909-1911 Old Mill (Overprint) Factory 649, 1st. District NY 1909-1911 Piedmont Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1909-1911 Piedmont Factory 42, 4th. District NC 1909-1911 Polar Bear Pouch Factory 6, 1st. District NY 1909-1911 Sovereign Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1909-1911 Sweet Caporal Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1909-1911 Sweet Caporal Factory 30, 2nd. District NY 1909-1911 Sweet Caporal Factory 42, 4th. District NC 1909-1911 Sweet Caporal Factory 649, 1st. District VA 1909-1911 Tolstoi Factory 30, 2nd. District NY 1909-1911 Ty Cobb (Questionable) Factory 33, 4th. District NC 1909-1911 Uzit Factory 30, 2nd. District NY 1909-1911 T42 (Bird Series): American Beauty Factory 42, 4th. District NC 1910-1911 Cycle Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1910-1911 Old Mill Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1910-1911 Piedmont Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1910-1911 Sovereign Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1910-1911 Sweet Caporal Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1910-1911 Sweet Caporal Factory 42, 4th. District NC 1910-1911 T58 (Fish Series): Piedmont Factory 42, 4th. District NC 1910-1911 Sovereign Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1910-1911 Sweet Caporal Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1910-1911 Sweet Caporal Factory 30, 2nd. District NY 1910 T79 (Military Series 1-100): Tolstoi Factory 30, 2nd. District NY 1910-1911 Lenox Factory 30, 2nd. District NY 1910-1911 T80 (Military Series 1-50): Lenox Factory 30, 2nd. District NY 1910-1911 Uzit Factory 30, 2nd. District NY 1910-1911 All of the T42, T58, T79, & T80 listed could have had a T206 card also.

Archive

03-27-2008, 06:35 PM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldI spoke with Rob at REA again today and I look forward to speaking with Dave tomorrow as well. (BTW it's refreshing to see Rob so attentive to every aspect of his auction - we have spoken for over an hour on this in the last two days and I appreciate how interested Rob is in the outcome when I think we can all agree that this is a relatively insignificant item (value wise) in an auction that contains a T-206 Wagner, the ale poster, the Ruths, etc.) One thing that remains constant is that I totally believe Dave that he found this card in the pack and I don't think any of us are questioning him regarding that fact. What I do find interesting, however, is the fact that T-206's may have been distributed well past the 1911 date. Just to share some of the further research I have done on this pack in the last day, I will give a brief summary now. I have spoken with Joe Parker and Jim Shaw regarding this pack. For those of you who do not know Jim or Joe, both are regarded as some of the most knowledgeable cigarette collectors and cigarette historians in this country. A simple Google search of their names will confirm this statement. Both do not collect baseball related ephemera so they do not participate in our hobby. Both viewed scans of the pack, etc, and both shared the same belief that this pack does not date from 1909-1911 and felt that it is unlikely this pack dates before 1917. (Well, considering that L&M appears on the bottom of this pack, it is easy to rule out 1909 and 1910 as L&M didn’t split off until 1911). Both Jim and Joe, however, also made no statements regarding a card being found inside. That is not their area of expertise. I solicited them solely to get their opinions on the dating of this pack. I also want to clarify that their opinions are based on currently known information. It is possible that 12 count cigarette packs prior to 1917 were made, and none had been seen prior to this. New discoveries are made all the time. However, the relevant revenue statutes did not permit 12 count configurations prior to 1917, so if such packages were made, they would have been “illegal”. (I will confirm this fact later.) So, with currently known information, I, personally, am left with the belief that this pack is not 1909-1911 and rather is 1917-1926. In my opinion, this brings up two possibilities: (1) T-206’s were packaged well after 1911. To support this theory, we have heard numbers thrown around by Ted, Scot and the other T-206 experts that millions of cards were produced so I guess it’s conceivable that Piedmont backed T-206 were so plentiful, they were packaged after the printing runs stopped just to get rid of the back stock. That being said, however, I can counter that theory by also pointing out while it is my belief that this pack could not have been made before 1917, I do not have any definitive proof that this pack was made in 1917 (assuming I’m correct that this pack couldn’t have been made before 1917.) What I am saying is that this pack, in my opinion, could have been made 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, etc, etc, etc. What is the likelihood that T-206’s were being packaged with packs 10 years after the distribution ended? My guess would be extremely unlikely. (2) This pack was tampered with. Now, I know Dave has stated that he feels the pack could not have been tampered with, in his opinion, since the wrapper was so brittle. That is a strong argument and I can’t discount it at all, however I can state with certainty I have seen other packs that were tampered with and they had intact wax wrappers. For example, I have seen a NM-MT GAI graded Sweet Caporal pack that had a complete tax stamp and wax wrapper with a card placed inside. Here was the kicker – the pack was from the Ask Dad campaign (which was post 1918 if memory serves me correctly), the card had the wrong factory and district number for the pack, and was a 150 back (and if memory serves me correctly, was rejected as being trimmed when offered up for grading). In other words – a pure fantasy piece! Also, some have mentioned if one was to tamper with a pack and create a fantasy piece, why place a mint T206 inside? Answer simply is, to drum up the value of otherwise insignificant pieces. Let’s assume the T-206 in its condition is worth $300-$500. The cigarette pack is worth about $50. When put together, we now have a $2000+ piece, which is what these bring on eBay. If you are a seller and know your pack can’t contain a card but you advertise it as being plausible, you can’t be sure whether the buyer will open the pack or keep it sealed. Dave is case in point that purchasers open these. He has opened numerous! I would be pretty scared if I sold a piece for $2000 or so, the buyer opened it, nothing was inside, and now I have a $2000 claim against me. I would hedge my bet and place a $300 card inside, just to play it safe. Anyway, these are just my thoughts. As I said above, I’m looking forward to speaking to Dave tomorrow and finding out more about the pack, explaining my side and my reasoning for questioning the pack, and provide support to back up my reasons so at the end of the day, he doesn’t feel I’m just throwing baseless claims out there without some knowledge behind what my beliefs are. For me, personally, this has been one of my favorite discussions I’ve ever had on this board in the 7 years or so now since I first started participating. As most know, the cigarette and tobacco related ephemera are my little niche in the hobby. I find it interesting to think that this pack and Dave’s experience could expand my knowledge in this area. Also, as evident from some of the other posters to this thread who are passionate in this area such as Henry, Jerry, Leon, Rich, Jamie, etc – this could expand their knowledge as well. As a final thought, the real problem here is GAI – hands down. What expert put 1909-1911 on this pack? Without question, that date is wrong. Even if we assume for the moment that this pack dates from 1911, it is completely, 100% IMPOSSIBLE for this pack to date from 1909 or 1910. The front of the box says L&M in big letters and that could not have possibly appeared before the ATCo was split after losing the anti-trust battle. If anything, GAI should have put 1911 only on the pack. Furthermore, while I and others have tried to back up our beliefs that this pack dates from 1917 or later with the evidence currently available (ie: Statutes at Large, Springer’s guide, contacting outside experts, Nichols' guide book [which I do not own but Joe Parker graciously looked up for me and found that it, like Springers, states that 12 counts first appeared in 1917], etc.) what in the world did GAI use to date this between 1909-1911? Perhaps there is a guide or evidence out there that I am unaware of and GAI has at their disposal, as highly unlikely as that is. I actually wonder if GAI’s graders have ever heard of Springer’s!

Archive

03-27-2008, 07:01 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisI don't claim to be an expert on early 20th Century Cigarette Packs, but I have two Piedmont packs. My scan shows an American Tobacco Co. (circa 1909-10) pack....Factory 25, VA. The 2nd pack is the same as the one in question here....a Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. (circa 1911) pack....Factory 42, NC. And, I say this because the American Tobacco Co. (ATC) was split-up in 1911. Now, the T206 card of Armbruster (St Paul) is a Piedmont 350 Factory 25, VA; which, would match with the ATC pack I have shown here. If a T206 card was inserted in this L & M Tobacco Co. pack that is in this Auction lot, it would've been a 460 Series card. And, Armbruster was only issued in the 350 Series. So, there is a gross inconsistency in what is being advertised here. This particular T206 card was in no way pulled from this Piedmont L & M pack. They would not insert a Factory 25 (VA) backed card in a Fac- tory 42 (NC) T-pack. It would violate a Federal Tobacco Law. TED Z <img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/apiedmont.jpg">

Archive

03-27-2008, 07:22 PM

Posted By: peter ullmanwow Ted...is this the smoking gun?

Archive

03-27-2008, 07:24 PM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldTed - thanks for confirming that. I actually questioned that in my initial post (from the previous thread and again at the top of this thread). I questioned: "4.) I believe Armbruster is a 350 only series (but please correct me if I'm wrong). If this is the case, wouldn't the release of the card be more in tune with summer of 1909, winter 1910 - a full year before ATC was split into L&M?" Edited to add: However, if one possible theory is that some many cards were produced that the distribution of the T-206's outlasted the initial dates of 1909-1911, it is conceivable to assume that extra 150, 350 and 460s were produced meaning that 350's could be packaged during a time when 460's would have been simply to get rid of the extra stock?

Archive

03-27-2008, 07:29 PM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldActually, the more I continue to ponder whether the T-206 distribution may have outlasted 1909-1911, the more I begin to feel that is not the case. Again, as the experts here have pointed out for years now, the ATC was so careful to get everything correct - team changes, misspellings, etc. Would a company that cared so much to make these changes continue to issue cards years after the distribution run should have ended? I can understand not correcting team changes after the distribution ended since that would essentially be continuing production and the theory is that back stock was being distributed to get rid of it. However, I would think a company that took so much care to keep the set current would just destroy remaining stock before distributing "old and outdated" cards. Just some more food for thought.

Archive

03-27-2008, 07:43 PM

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis1st....I am disappointed that there isn't a scan of the (long) side of this L & M pack, so we can verify it's Factory ID. I thought all L & M (Piedmont) packs were post ATC divestiture; and therefore, have the Factory 42, North Carolina label on them (Fac. 42 was in Durham, NC). Yes, Armbruster is a 350-only series card and was issued in the Spring of 1910. To your other question....in 1911 insert cards in many of these packs were Military figures. The T206's were gone by the Spring of 1911. TED Z

Archive

03-27-2008, 11:31 PM

Posted By: Anonymousmy similar box lists factory 25....

Archive

03-27-2008, 11:44 PM

Posted By: Anonymous<img src="http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/mosesmr/ppack1.jpg"> <img src="http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w155/mosesmr/ppack2.jpg">

Archive

03-28-2008, 01:21 AM

Posted By: Jeff S.From past examples, I seem to remember T206's being issued inside the foil wrapper - acting as a stiffener resting against the cigarettes. In the photos provided by Jerry Spillman and Dave Kelly, the card is on the outside of the foil. I realize one was shot minutes afterwards, so it may have been placed on top - just an observation. (Tobacco stains?) Second, although nearly half a century later, Topps was known to issue cards past their intended year of issue. I've heard of 1952 cards issued in '53 packs - I believe. There's also been a rash of Topps Christmas rack packs on the market in recent years that appear to have been issued at the same time based on packaging similarities, yet feature cards from 1952 up through the early 1960's (although each pack contains cards from only one year of issue). Dave Hornish would know more about this. In any case, perhaps it is a possibility that there was an abundance of T206's manufactured and released past the known dates of issue. I assume the multi-color lithographic process wasn't the cheapest. On a side note - if one were to purchase a pack of smokes in 1911, was there any indication as to what series of cards your pack contained? If my son collected fish, and I ended up with a Ty Cobb, you can imagine the disappointment. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

03-28-2008, 07:33 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisYour's Piedmont (L & M) pack is the first one that I am aware of that is a Factory 25. As I said, I am not the T-pack "expert".....Jon Canfield indeed is our Net54 expert. Anyhow, this I do know..... My 10-cigarette, Piedmont pack (shown in above scan) issued in 1910, has a high probability that it contained a T206 card. The package size is 1 9/16 wide x 2 13/16 long. A perfect fit for a T206 card (1 1/2 x 2 5/8). It is a "Factory 25, 2nd Dist. Virginia". The Stamp on it is....Act of Aug. 5, 1909. Now, regarding the Piedmont (L & M) pack in this auction. It is a 12-cigarette pack (assuming the stamp on it is it's original), which if measured, my guess would be 1 11/16 wide x 2 13/16 long. It was more than likely is- sued in 1911 (or after) and if there was a premium in it, there is a high probability that it was a card from one of the Military series issued then These cards measure 1 5/8 x 2 3/4 and are a perfect fit for a 12-cigarette pack (such as this one). I'm not aware of the (narrower) T206 cards being inserted in 12-cigarette packs. TED Z

Archive

03-29-2008, 05:13 PM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldJust an update: As promised, I spoke with Dave on Friday for quite some time - I believe we spent over an hour on the phone together talking about the pack and collecting in general. I can say, unequivocally, that Dave is a stand up guy and I have absolutely no doubt that his experience in opening the pack is anything but truthful. If one good thing came out of this debate, it’s that Dave and I got to speak and educate each other a little bit more. Granted, the world of cigarette packages is not for us all, and I wouldn’t even venture a guess as to how many on here have an interest in them. However, for those that do enjoy these packages, we all know what an incorrect science it is dating these. Even when all elements match (Factory, District, State, Configuration, Tax Stamp, Overprint, etc), we are still sometimes left with a question as to whether a card that may still lie inside would be sport or non-sport. While there are still some unknowns associated with this pack; whether 12 pack configurations were distributed prior to 1917; whether the T-206 distribution went on after 1911; whether the pack was tampered with, etc – I believe Dave and I did agree on two simple things: #1) He opened this pack and found a card inside, and #2) available information does tell us that this pack originates from 1917 or beyond. I’ve also been in frequent contact with Rob at REA and I again want to reiterate how much time and care Rob has taken in ensuring that every nuance of the auction is correct. That being said, I believe that Rob will be updating the description of the pack and at least present what information this board has discussed and brought to light. In the end, I guess the same holds true for pre-war cigarette packs as it does for cards. . . don’t buy the slab, buy what’s inside.

Archive

03-29-2008, 05:19 PM

Posted By: RhysI was always under the impression that a large majority of the T206 cards that were produced were thrown out for scrap paper drives in WW1 (an the other huge percentage was for similar drives during WW2). With the US rumered to be entering the war by as early as 1917 and actually entering it by 1918, wouldn't it seem weird that would be having scrap paper drives during these years but continue to be producing or at least inserting paper items into their products as premiums? I was not alive during that time obviously but it seems a bit counter intuitive to insert a paper product into a package during a period where the country is banding together to save and recycle paper on a massive scale. You see almost no premiums of any type or paper products being produced that were not absolutely necessary for production from about late 1917- early 1919 in the advertising world (baseball and non-baseball included) and the War was a big factor. This may or may not be the case here but it might be something to ponder in your theories. Rhys Yeakley

Archive

03-29-2008, 05:33 PM

Posted By: 1880nonsportsto explore this. I just need a day or two before I look back at this and try and make more sense of it. Before I forget - unless an issue of "value" is verboten - if it is in fact what it porprts to be - we now have a card and a pack. That sort of makes them only worth about what they are worth seperately - which isn't much. Now if this pack isn't found to be a true match - the value isn't much less than the prior scenario as the pack is still a pack and the card still a card. If it's now PROVEN that such an association were possible - the value was in opening new avenues of exploration in a public forum - as a good deal of the 1910 era hobby segment revolves around the idea that 1909-1911 was when the cards were put in the packs - not before and not after..... Jon to repeat myself - it isn't the significance of the pack to the limited # of pack collectors - it's the information it could contain. As for collecting unopened packs - it's about the sizzle and not the steak - once you open it - all you hear is silence.....

Archive

03-29-2008, 05:53 PM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldGreat points!

Archive

03-29-2008, 08:41 PM

Posted By: Richard DwyerUpon further investigation, I found out that T79's were too big to fix in a T206 box. If you have a "Series of 1909" tax stamp with the right factory number, district & state, you have an authenticated T206 box. It's when you have a "Series of 1910" tax stamp (With August 5th. 1909 at the bottom), is where you have problems authenticating. Not only were T206's distributed in the following boxes, non sports cards were also distributed in these boxes for the years 1910-1911: T42 (Bird Series): American Beauty Factory 42, 4th. District NC 1910-1911 Cycle Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1910-1911 Old Mill Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1910-1911 Piedmont Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1910-1911 Sovereign Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1910-1911 Sweet Caporal Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1910-1911 Sweet Caporal Factory 42, 4th. District NC 1910-1911 T58 (Fish Series): Piedmont Factory 42, 4th. District NC 1910-1911 Sovereign Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1910-1911 Sweet Caporal Factory 25, 2nd. District VA 1910-1911 Sweet Caporal Factory 30, 2nd. District NY 1910 T80 (Military Series 1-50): Lenox Factory 30, 2nd. District NY 1910-1911 Uzit Factory 30, 2nd. District NY 1910-1911 Doesn't matter if you had overprinting with a 1910 or 1911 date, you still can't authenticate what was in these boxes. I also noticed all my boxes have "Series of 1910". Maybe Jon can add to or verify my findings.

Archive

03-29-2008, 09:28 PM

Posted By: Jerry Spillman Henry is right. The worth of this slabbed product is worth the sum of the two items separately - which isn't that much. But we don't know, at least I don't know, how much Dave actually paid for that GAI product. Bidders rely on the expertise of GAI and it is likely that he was bid up and paid a much greater amount than the worth of sum value of these two items. There is that gambling fever that keeps the bidding going because there may be a HOFer in that pack. The bidders never had a chance for that to happen in this case because a common player card was inserted in this impossible card/pack/stamp union that was autenticated and slabbing by GAI.

Archive

03-29-2008, 11:49 PM

Posted By: 1880nonsportsAct 1909 no series 1910 allows for only that year although could have an actual production date any time AFTER that. Tax stamps could be purchased IN ADVANCE. Overprint still needed to help define the flashpoint (within days of actual sale) - cards were not inserted on January first.... Think production/distribution for T206's first began just before baseball season that year (would make sense). The T206 collectors or people that collect the related newspaper and print advertising should be able to add something here. As we have learned - there were many series thought to be issued in that exact time period. Next comes the problem with series of 1910 in that it was used until 1917. Most OLD tobacco packs I have found are from the 1910 era were issued between 1917 and 1922 - new/old country store stock tends to be overly represented by that same period. Perhaps this too is related to the war years.......

Archive

03-30-2008, 08:02 AM

Posted By: AnonymousThe card Factory/no. and the pack Factory/no. do match-up. From the original auction description: "This is an original pack of Piedmont cigarettes (Factory 25, Dist. VA.) dating from the era of T206 tobacco cards!" And the T206 Armbruster also indicates Fact. 25 VA. So, the possibility remains that this card was lying around at the factory for many years after production, and even during production (because it is a 350 series card), and inserted in the pack at the factory in (or post) 1917. Whether that is what actually happened, is another story. But there is no factory mismatch that would, in my opinion, have made this card/pack combo impossible. Would a scammer have known enough to insert a card with the same Factory as the pack? (Of course, the odds are not bad that this would have been done correctly by chance.) And if so, wouldn't the scammer have known to insert a 460 series card, since that is the latest series in the T206 run? To me, this adds to the possibility that some leftover 350 series cards got inserted at a later date. Again, it's only a possibility. And yes, the Topps "Christmas rack packs" mentioned above with 1950s cards were originally packaged and distributed after the years of issue (exactly when they first appeared in stores, I can't recall). A bunch of these unopened rack packs were sold on eBay a couple of years ago, but the cards inside were not mint. My understanding was that these Christmas rack packs were not packaged and sold by Topps, but by a third party that purchased lesser quality Topps overstock. So, I'm not sure we can point to those rack packs as being an example of the manufacturer distributing cards later, since Topps didn't do the distribution. But certainly 1952 cards appearing in 1953 packs would be consistent with what we (might) be seeing here with the T206 Armbruster.

Archive

03-31-2008, 09:15 PM

Posted By: Jerry Spillman There are so many Hall of Fame player cards in the T206 set that taking a chance by bidding high at auction for a legitimate pack that would have a mint condition card possibly of Johnson, Young, Cobb, Mathewson, or other superstars is a reasonable gamble. Especially when depending on the fact that the pack was professionally authenticated by GAI. However Dave never had a chance because the card/pack/stamp combo is bogus and a common player card was placed in the pack. The "winner" actually paid approximately ten times what that pack/card is worth. Adding to Jon's earlier post - GAI Labeled Sweet Caporal Cigarette Packs - Tax Stamp 1910 - Grading 15 packs that were in the 7-26-2004 Lot 1134 Mastro Auction – they sold for $13,015.00. Mastro Auctions had added the packs could be between 1910 and 1919 and that baseball cards inserts were possible. The GAI label should have read: Sweet Caporal Cigarette Pack - 1916 with a T35 (Ask Dad) insert card. The Sportscard Guaranty Corporation pays retribution for any costly mistakes they make. They are a professional grading/authentication service company. Can you imagine someone paying big dollars for this GAI Authentic Product pictured below and the unhappy surprise when it is opened? It was sold on 9-28-2004. <img src="http://www.freewebs.com/trentct/rich-gai.jpg">

Archive

03-31-2008, 09:33 PM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldJerry - Thanks for posting that pack and that is absolutely amazing. For those that care, this pack has absolutely no chance of having an N43 unless AG packaged these cards into RSC boxes 23 years+ after the distribution ended. I think Jerry said it best how this is a clear example of authentication by those who do not know or understand cigarette packs. In fact, GAI should not have even needed to look at a tax stamp to correctly date this box. I’ll give the board a little test to show what a simple mistake this is and how easily anyone who has even the tiniest bit of knowledge of cigarette packs could have dated this box correctly… Pictured below are two additional RSC cigarette boxes that seem to be very similar to the one Jerry posted above, however each has one huge difference. One of the boxes below would have contained an N43. The other box would have been produced between 1890 and 1911. The one Jerry pictured above was made after 1911. Can anyone tell the difference? I bet this isn’t difficult for even the untrained eye. <a href="http://s82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/?action=view¤t=AllenGinter-RichmondEarlyBook.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/AllenGinter-RichmondEarlyBook.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a> <a href="http://s82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/?action=view¤t=AllenGinter-RichmondCutEarly.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/AllenGinter-RichmondCutEarly.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Archive

04-02-2008, 03:30 PM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldWell I received a couple emails asking me which is which. The easy way to date these is to look at the bottom right corner. The one Jerry posted says "Ligget and Myers". Despite the GAI label that says is is from the 1887-1889 range, it is actually post 1911, when the ATC split and L&M was reborn. The first one I pictured is correct. Note how it only says Allen and Ginter without any successor. The second one I pictured is from the 1890's. It says American Tobacco Company. The ATC was formed after A&G and Goodwin (among smaller companies) joined in 1890.

Archive

04-02-2008, 03:51 PM

Posted By: Paul SWasn't sure whether to post this here or in the April Recent Pickups thread. Am thinking of going back to buy a pack of menthols to see if I can score the green background portrait. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> <a href="http://s190.photobucket.com/albums/z26/pspec/Other/?action=view&current=Marlboro_Cobb.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z26/pspec/Other/Marlboro_Cobb.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Pat R

05-02-2022, 04:59 AM

There aren't many threads on here about what packs could have t-cards in them so I wanted to add and correct some things in this thread for future research.

The only thing that I can't find information on that would definitely prove that the pack in question couldn't have originally contained a T206 card is the claim that a 12 count pack was illegal during the time period that T206's were distributed. In my opinion all the other reasons in this thread can be explained.

First there's the false claim that T206's were only inserted in 10 count packs.

https://photos.imageevent.com/patrickr/bstforsale/img789.jpg

another incorrect assumption by some is that the date the act of August 5 1909 law went into effect it didn't actually take effect until July 1 1910.

https://photos.imageevent.com/patrickr/bstforsale/002.jpg

https://photos.imageevent.com/patrickr/bstforsale/001.png

As far as the pack having Liggett & Myers on it when you read about the ATC dissolution the American Tobacco Company fought it for years in court and anything that made them seem like less of a monopoly at the time was to their benefit as far as I know putting or leaving Liggett & Myers on the pack wouldn't have been illegal. Another member posted something similar regarding this.
I also have a theory on how the L&M could exist on the sides of the box prior to 1911...

If you read this page http://www.jimsburntofferings.com/packscarolinabrights.html

You'll see that Duke wanted to keep the ownership of a union made cigarette being sold in the south so he may have put and kept the name L&M on the box instead of the ATC to avoid outrage.

Yet I still don't think the box listed above was from the T206 era since it bears the name "L&M successor". That still makes me believe that it was produced after the Trust was dissolved.

Thoughts?

UPDATE: I think I found my answer on the side of one of the T91 cards which were produced by Carolina Brights in 1907... if you look at the pack on the side it says Well-Whitehead Tobacco Co. then underneath, instead of L&M it says Wilson N.C. USA.

That fits inline with the theory above that they left he name Well-Whitehead on the boxes and never printed the ATC name... so it's safe to say that the Carolina Brights boxes with Wilson N.C. USA printed on the side of the boxes with a 1910-11 tax stamp could have contained a T206 card.

See the picture

mjacobb

06-08-2022, 08:47 PM

Hello…I just recently joined this site so please forgive my lack of protocol. I have two Sweet Caporal packs that I have owned for many years. I had GAI grade when they first stated doing that and Terry Knouse look at them at one of the Shriners shows. My question is if their are any T206 packs with 15 count. This pack has the 1910 tax stamp and Factory 30 2nd district NY but with 15 not 10 cigarettes. Thanks in advance.

joshleon

06-09-2022, 08:31 AM

jbsports33

06-09-2022, 11:18 AM

This looks like a pack from the teens or 1920s - Canada issue maybe looking at the front - would need to see all sides of pack

Jimmy

mjacobb

06-09-2022, 07:41 PM

Thank you for the info…I do have another picture that shows the 1910 part of the tax stamp. According to Jon Canfield’s site this stamp was used between 1910 to 1916. What leads who to believe it to be a Canada issue having a US tax stamp? Thanks again.