1908-09 BB card Wars....RAMLY vs American Caramel [Archive]

View Full Version : 1908-09 BB card Wars....RAMLY vs American Caramel

Archive

02-27-2009, 02:27 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisIt's no secret that BB card producers favored their hometown BB players in their sets...... American Caramel Co. (Philadelphia)....A's and Pittsburg ballplayers dominate in the E91 and E90 sets Ramly (Worcester, MA)....30+ Boston area ballplayers, managers, and players residing in Worcester are in the T204 set American Lithographic Co. (New York City)....over 100 New York Giants, Highlanders and Brooklyn subjects are in the T206 set. Before we get into the "nitty-gritty", here is the Timeline of these three Company's BB card sets to...... SET..................E91-A..........E90-1 (1st series)..............T204.....................T206 (150 Series)...... DATE issued........1908...............late 1908..................Spring 1909..................Summer 1909.........>> The absence of any player from both Boston teams and the Cincinnati team in the first 100 cards of the E90 set is not just a coincidence. Ramly had the exclusive rights to portray 35 subjects of these 3 teams. And, Ramly's portrayal of Walter Johnson may possibly be the reason that he was not in the E90 set. Further- more, the Ramly set portrays Burkett, Murname and Jimmy Collins....all of which were associated with teams in the Boston area. Including Frank Bancroft, a native of the Boston area, who briefly managed Cinci. Most puzzling is the absence of Boston's Cy Young. Perhaps, that Young (Boston AL) was already in the E90 set prevented Ramly from portraying him. Or, by the time Ramly was ready to issue their cards, Young had been traded to Cleveland (Feb 1909). Charlie Chech was involved in this trade and is portrayed as a Boston player. This tells us that the first release of the Ramly's must of been in the Spring of 1909. Also telling is....the total absence in the Ramly set of any players from Pittsburg team....no Honus Wagner ! Yes, this is a tobacco set. Yes, we all know Wagner's story. But then, why are all the Pirates missing in the Ramly set ? Perhaps, there is more than meets the eye with the age old Wagner "myth" ? The Ramly set has only one Phillies player, Bransfield (a Worcester native). It also has only one Chicago (AL) player, John Anderson (a Worcester native) Could it be that there was some sort of mutual agreement between American Caramel Co (ACC) and Ramly as to who would be portrayed in their sets ? These two sets were designed about the same time. In any event, it is not just a coincidence that the last (1910) series of the E90 set includes many of the Boston and Cincinnati players that were in the Ramly set. I would speculate that Ramly prevented ACC from portraying these guys in their earlier series of the E90 set. Just some thought-provoking ideas of what transpired back in the 1908-09 era, in what I call the "Candy- Tobacco wars" by the various BB card company's in order to portray BB players in their sets. We can extend this discussion to include the T206 set....with this set in the mix, the brain-storming can be mind-boggling ! Hey, guys and gals, this is exactly what occurred in 1949....Bowman vs Leaf, or in 1954....Topps vs Bowman over the Ted Williams card, and again in 1959....the bidding war between Fleer and Topps over the the rights to portray Ted Williams. What's your thinking on what happened 100 years ago ? TED Z

Archive

02-27-2009, 02:35 PM

Posted By: barrysloateAs always, great analysis. That's shocking that Pittsburgh and Philadelphia combined had only a single player in the Ramly set. There's no doubt it was intentional. How did that one Phillie even get in? On a slight aside, among the easiest players to find in the Old Judge set are New York Giants, and Goodwin and Co. was based in Manhattan.

Archive

02-27-2009, 02:38 PM

Posted By: BillI have only 1 RAMLY , my favorite set next to the 1895 N300 Cut Plug. I was so happy to pickup this card up in low grade card. They are masterpieces as far as I'm concerned. <img src="http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e156/bikerider60/1887-1941/09huggins.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e156/bikerider60/1887-1941/1885buck.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

02-27-2009, 02:46 PM

Posted By: MattI mentioned it in the other thread, but it's relevant here as well, Lajoie and Crawford, two obvious missing players from the T205 issue are also missing from the T202 (side panels), T204 and T207 issues. <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/mwieder" rel="nofollow">My Trade/Sale Page</a>

Archive

02-27-2009, 03:14 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldCredible analysis, Ted. As for Bransfield, he's from Worcester, as Ted says... and he played with Boston for a bit in 1898. Maybe his 'hometown favorite' status helped get him on there. Maybe he asked. Maybe someone with Ramly specifically asked him... I can see that if there was to be a token player on there from Philly, Bransfield would be a good choice.

Archive

02-27-2009, 04:14 PM

Posted By: dennisramleys issued regionally only in ohio & mass.? amer. caramel issued regionally only in penn?. i am assuming that the t206 southern leaguers were issued nationally but heavy in the south with perhaps only piedmont backs issued on a national level? is there any evidence that t206s were issued by team regionally,ie. cases of cigs sent to chicago had mostly chicago players inserted into packs?

Archive

02-27-2009, 04:15 PM

Posted By: barry arnoldTed, You promised me yesterday that I should get ready for a new theory and you have certainly followed through on the promise. I think that you are gradually putting together a most difficult jigsaw puzzle. What makes this task even more fascinating,intimated by Barry S. in his post, is that things are becoming underscored that we had not even thought of---reminding me of the old adage: 'answers to questions which no one could ask.' I'm going to go take a look at my very few E91A,E90-1,and Ramly cards along with my 520+ 206s and incubate your theory a long while. great work. best, barry

Archive

02-27-2009, 06:07 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisDENNIS You asked...... " is there any evidence that t206s were issued by team regionally,ie. cases of cigs sent to chicago had mostly chicago players inserted into packs? " No....every large T206 find that I have acquired has a variety of the Subjects of the T206 set. Here are several examples...... 1....400+ different T206's from South Carolina 2....355 different T206's from Erie, Pennsylvania 3....262 different T206's from upstate New York 4....228 different T206's from Connecticut Picture this, these cards were printed in NYC, shipped to the various Tobacco Co.....where they were inserted in the packs. Another department was then responsible for shipping them out all over the USA. We are talking about millions of cigarette packs....I don't think that anyone selectively shipped them. TED Z

Archive

02-27-2009, 09:00 PM

Posted By: Bill CornellTed - Very plausible analysis, as usual. I do think that T204's were issued regionally - 20 years ago, many more of them would show up in N.E. than elsewhere. The Worcester/Boston connection seems obvious, given the player biographies we have now. My purely speculative guess is that the set was intended to have more than 121 players, which is a strange number: sheets of 11x11 (= 121) seems unlikely. This may account for why Philadelphia has only Bransfield and why Pittsburgh was also completely omitted. Washington was almost completely shut out from all E sets, with the exception of Schaefer. Perhaps it's because they stunk... Bill

Archive

02-28-2009, 08:56 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisI certainly defer to your expertise on the Ramly set. It is one of the few major sets that I have not completed. Anyhow, I do find it quite intriguing to compare its player/manager roster with its contemporary sets (E90 and T206). Also, given the ornate and aesthetically appealing qualities of the Ramly cards, I'd assume that these cards were considerably easier to produce than the T206's, since it was just a two-color printing process. Or, am I mistaken in thinking this ? I certainly agree that the distribution of the Ramly cards was regionally in the New England area. The T206's and the E90-1 cards were widely distributed, as "finds" of original collections of these cards have so indicated. Thanks, TED Z

Archive

02-28-2009, 09:32 AM

Posted By: Bob Lemkedespite the dearth of Pittsdburg players in T204, the Pirates are one of the six team composite premiums offered via the Ramly/TTT coupons.

Archive

02-28-2009, 10:16 AM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldI'm not finding the idea of an 11 x 11 card press run very believable. A printer doesn't want 11 of something on there. It makes for an extra, unnecessary cut. As a teenager I worked for a newspaper. They had a huge paper cutter. The blade was easily 3'. Had a large metal table area that was gridded off, a wheel in front that would move a bar at the back of the platform for moving your paper into alignment, a wheel at the top that would lower an arm of metal down onto the work to hold it in place, and a huge blade... Something twelve wide you'd cut into 2 bunches of 6 wide, then 4 bunches of 3 wide, then 2 more cuts. A total of 4 cuts. Something 11 wide you'd cut into 5s and 6s; then 3s, 3s, 3s, and 2s; and you start getting to an unmanageable stack. 11 wide doesn't seem likely to me. Some double prints are out there.... now that seems likely. More so than 11 wide.

Archive

02-28-2009, 11:14 AM

Posted By: Dave HornishTopps used 11 card rows for years, if I may digress slightly. Wasn't there a really good article on these about 2 years ago? I'll try to dig it out but am pressed for time right now. I seem to recall it discussed the TTT backs as well.

Archive

03-01-2009, 07:59 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisHey guys, BB cards sheets were configured as a function of the printer's press track width. Here are some of the printing press track widths that I'm familiar with...... Track...........BB card Co. width 19-inch.......American Lithograph Co....possible sheet array = 12 cards across x ? rows 16-inch.......Goudey (1933-38).......24-card sheets (6 across x 4 rows) 17-inch.......Leaf (1949)................49-card sheet (7 cards across x 7 rows) 38-inch.......Bowman (1948-52)......72-card sheets (18 cards across x 4 rows) 43-inch.......Bowman (1953-55)......64-card sheets (16 cards across x 4 rows) 28.5-inch....Topps (1952-56).........100-card sheets (10 cards across x 10 rows) 28.5-inch....Topps (1957-90's).......132 (or 110) card sheets (11 cards across x 12, or 10 rows) So, with the RAMLY cards having a 2-inch width....,it is any one's guess how the 121 cards were configured on their printed sheets. Perhaps, some one on this forum has a picture or an actual sheet of Ramly cards ? TED Z

Archive

03-02-2009, 06:36 AM

Posted By: Peter Thomas Ted, I dont think that there are Ramly sheets out there. There was a sheet that was cut into cards and graded by SGC ( to their regret) about 12 years ago. Bill Mastro thinks ( but not sure) that it was one sheet of 121 cards. The graded SGC cards were sold in a Mastro auction about 12 years ago and resulted in a lot of very high grades (Johnson 96). I think it more likely that it was two sheets of 66 cards with a double print of 1 row of 11 cards on one sheet , making a total of 121 cards. It could also have been a sheet of 66 cards (11 x 6) and a sheet of 55 cards (11 x 5). Bill recalls seeing a sheet that was not complete, but he felt was more than 66 cards. I feel that there are two pieces of information that make it likely that the sheets had no more than 66 cards. The first is that the square border cards and blank back cards (Anderson, Bancroft, Bransfield, Burkett, Dineen & Moran) total 6 cards not 11 and second that the TTT backs are not found on all cards about 52 - 54 confirmed. 55 possible with 5 rows of 11 ( maybe a double print row of 11 on a sheet of 66) or 60 possible with a double print column of 6 on a sheet of 66

Archive

03-02-2009, 10:38 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisThanks for some great info on the RAMLY"s. What a real shame....about that sheet being cut up. I guess some people have no respect for the significance of such a artifact of BB card history. Furthermore, it bothers me that this lot of graded SGC cards received very high grades..... Am I wrong in my thinking, that all of them deserved no more than an AUTHENTIC grade ? What I'm getting at is, that the cards from a chopped up sheet of 90-year old cards is no different than any "trimmed" card....some thing is very contradictory here ? ? Anyway Peter, I like your 66-card theory, it makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks again, TED Z