Joe t
 

I addressed the scarcity of the T206 Plank in the old Net54 forum....thread titled:

" My T206 Plank theory....and, what's your guess ? "

Where I make a good case for the American Caramel Co. (ACC) forcing the American Lithographic Co. to stop issuing their T206 Plank.

ACC produced their E91 and E90 sets in 1908; therefore, having first rights to their hometown (Philadelphia A's) players and especially
the two "Eddie's" (Collins and Plank).

You can try the SEARCH function here to dig up this thread that dates back to early 2007.


TED Z

I believe Plank, Wagner, or any other card, for that matter, could have easily been pulled from production without having any effect to the other subjects who were also printed from that same sheet.

We know from the commonly seen miscut T206s that have part of a name at the top of the card that the overwhelmingly common sheet configuration was to have the same subject running repeatedly in a vertical column. So, as a simple example, a typical sheet may have looked something like this:

http://www.jimonym.com/S1.jpg

It’s kind of a Printing 101 question, but how did a sheet come to have, in this example, eight perfect copies of the same subject in a column? They certainly were not hand-drawn on the printing plate eight times. If that were the case, we’d see minute differences in the appearance of clouds and trees and facial features between examples of the same subject. The answer is that the image must have been drawn once on a separate small plate and then transferred to the printing plate multiple times. This was in fact very commonly done in commercial lithography 100 years ago. If anyone’s interested, I’ll try to dig out my litho books tonight and give a deeper description of the process.

If this was indeed the process used for producing T206 sheets, then plates could be reconfigured with ease. If Wagner (call him example B in the image above) complained about his likeness being used, American Litho could have simply scrapped the printing plate and made a new one with players A, C, D, E, F, and a replacement for Hans. Since the original artwork was on a separate smaller plate, any card could be added to a new production plate at any time. The process would be very quick and flexible, as it absolutely had to be if you’re printing millions of T206 cards.

Jamie

Ted - have you ever given any thought as to whether your "same sheet" theory is reversed... and that Wagner is short printed due to Plank being pulled, as opposed to Plank being short printed due to Wagner being pulled?

Let me explain. You theorize that that there may have been an ATC & caramel "war." Well, what if Plank had to be pulled by the ATC because of this "war" over A's players. Wagner and Plank were on the same sheet. As a direct result of Plank being pulled, Wagner also had to be pulled.

I too have never seen a SC150 Factory #25 card....

Was this card in SCP a few years back?

Here is a question, apologies if I missed earlier discussion on this point but if there was an uncut sheet with the (Gretzky) Wagner and Plank, why are there not other cards of them in pristine sheet cut form?

Since nobody seemed to notice my mention that Wagner explicitly stated that he did not want his picture included with cigarettes as the reason for his inclusion in the set, here is a copy of the Sporting News article from October 24, 1912 entitled, "Wagner a Wonder: One Player in the Game Who Is Not Mad About Money". Wagner explained his absence from the ATC set by writing that he, "did not care to have his picture in a package of cigarettes." Apparently he was offered more money than anybody else in the league, but he stuck to his convictions.

This information has been circulating in the hobby for years. Can we put the issue regarding Wagner to rest now?
JimB

http://explorepahistory.com/~expa/cm...b9s7-a_514.pdf

I've seen that article a few times...these convictions always made me scratch my head anyone else? :confused:

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...tem_3462_1.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn.../0048_1_lg.jpg

Perhaps he had a contract with another tobacco company at the time with the smokes above...what ever inspired his convictions we will most likely never know. I for one don't buy the it's for the good of the children story....clearly Wagner didn't mind those young kids enjoying a good cigar. :)

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ize/38642a.jpg

Maybe he only had an issue with the T206s because kids were widely collecting those; unlike your Reccius piece. I don't think he was opposed to cigarettes - just kids smoking them.

I guess he thought kids didn't smoke cigars?

The Reccius item was way before T206 just posted as another example.

However the cigars with the Wagner image and bands...is around the same time.

Seems odd don't buy it...seems like a nice spin. Times were simple then but not so that people didn't spin things to cover bigger issues. If you have an issue with kids smoking and your fear is kids will do what their idol does...why endorse smokes of any type???

Sort of like having an issue with adult films and only staring in ones filmed in B&W but boycotting the color ones...

Even years later Wagner's convictions seem to be troubled at best..unless we are to assume he's enjoying beef jerky..mmmm

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...mall/4849l.jpg

They do have little fingers and hands...:)

I think we often see that in society - certain things are fine for adults and not for children. I don't think it's hypocritical to endorse a product for adults, but not want children to partake.

I don't think it was an issue of not doing what your idol does, but rather, not wanting them to buy cigarettes to get his T206 card.

Matt agree, but remember the times. Most kids could drink and smoke in those days no problems very few laws like today.

I have a good friend who owns one of Americas oldest printing houses. They have been around since 1885. One of my fav pics in his office is of the factory workers in which there are about 20 kids 10 of which have cigars and or cigarettes in their hands some of these kids can't be over 11yrs old. The shot is dated 1904...right here in PA.

Kids smoked it wasn't that uncommon so Wagners cigars they would have seen as well. And if you're a young boy in PA and you see a Wagner branded cigar....

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ize/02283r.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ize/03487r.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ize/03486r.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ize/03714r.jpg

In fact the newsboy who may have handed out the article above most likely was smoking....

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ize/03618r.jpg

I always felt the story that Wagner didn't want kids to use tobacco was just a piece of urban legend.

If it didn't have to do with money or his opposition to kids smoking is there another theory?

There are plenty of other theories; it is just than none have any evidence to support them. To me, a quote with Wagner's own explanation makes it a closed case.
JimB

Those photos are very interesting. Those kids all look like tough street kids. It reminds me of street kids in India and Nepal. You often see them smoking too, but you will never find middle class kids who attend school, etc. smoking. I can imagine a similar scenario here in the early part of the last century.

What I am saying is that I would not take those photos as evidence that smoking was widespread among kids. I find Wagner's own explanation of not wanting to contribute to the promotion of childhood smoking to be quite believable.
JimB

Jim agree was mostly lower class, but then again most folks who really followed baseball were more working class....

Funny if he had a problem with kids smoking he didn't have one with child labor or them making his cigars...:)

Pictures of those working class or lower class kids making cigars in early 20th cigar factorys in the US.

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ize/04513r.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ize/04506r.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ize/04517r.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ize/04514r.jpg

The Wagner legend may be true but there are just too many of the above examples for me. To me it seems more like a nice spin and article with a tad of fluff...not unlike the puff pieces we see today around our stars.

John- those are sensational photos. It was a sign of manhood for young kids to start smoking, but it was certainly more prevalent among the working class.

Even back then cigarettes were not only milder than cigars but also cheaper. Kids tended to lay off the stogies, as theydo today. Leaving that aside, it seems to me that there is a huge difference between Wagner putting his name on a cigar label and allowing his card to appear in a cigarette pack. A hundred years ago, only a very eccentric few would have collected cigar bands, so there is little danger that kids are going to buy boxes of cigars to build a collection of Wagner cigar bands or whatever. But those darn cigaratte cards comprise a set of 520 baseball stars. Believe me, collecting those darn cigarette cards can be addicting---and I believe old Honus when he says that he didn't want to contribute to that addiction and to the purchase of cigarettes that would have fed that addiction.

Yes, a 3rd option for Wagner's T206 "dis-card"....
 

Just as my theory on Plank (American Caramel Co. vs American Litho.), recall that the E91, E90-1 & E90-2 sets depicted Wagner
before T206 did. The founder of ACC, Daniel Lafean was a no-nonsense, enterprising guy who was also an avid BB fan. Do recall
that prior to purchasing ACC from Hershey in 1900, Lafean was the Director of Gettysburg College....Eddie Plank's alma mater.

Add to this mix, Lafean's close relationship with Connie Mack, it doesn't take much imagination to realize that ACC was not going
to give up their exclusive Rights to two of the major BB stars of that era....Plank and Wagner.
I'll add to this theory that the T206 1st series Eddie Collins (with bat) card was never issued due to ACC's control of the Rights
to their A's players.

I still cannot prove this theory of mine; however, this circumstantial evidence is very convincing. Furthermore, It is inferred that
it was Connie Mack's suggestion to Lafean to include BB card premiums with his candy products in early 1908.

To summarize my case here....Wagner was for kids consuming Caramels....he is in virtually in every Candy set from 1903-16 :)


T-Rex TED

In many senses, these photos support the idea that Wagner would be concerned about kids smoking. It was happening.
JimB

Maybe another thread topic
 

So the question I have as a t205 collector, is do you think the t206 set would be as popular today if Wagner and Plank weren't short prints and were readily available, like a Cobb or a Young are today?

And the one that really gets me drooling is what would the t205 set be like WITH a Wagner and a Plank? I bet more people would collect the gold ones then.

Photos
 

By the way, those photos are just awesome to see. So crisp and clear.

Only working class kids smoked....I don't think so ?
 

Not so, guys..you may consider this anecdotal; but, one of the more famous T-card collectors in the hobby,
Richard Russell (a well-known Senator from Georgia), smoked at age 13 (in 1910) when he started collecting
T206's and T210's.
For those of you who do not know of him, his 500-card T206 collection is on display at the Univ. of Georgia.
His set is the only one known to include the Joe Doyle error card and the Ty Cobb back card. Also, on display
are several 100's of T210's (I don't know if his T210's include Joe Jax or Stengel).

Russell's biography tells us that he grew up in an upper class environment (his father was a Judge and they
owned a farm). It continues when Russell was enrolled in a private Military school at age 14, cigarette smo-
king was the norm there among his fellow students.


TED Z

Barry you were around in 1909 were you smoking yet? :)

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...size/1304r.jpg

If so how many packs did it take to put together your first set or did the cards not come in your choice brand? :rolleyes:

Ted,
Not that one exception disproves anything, but how do you know that Sen. Russell smoked when he was 13?
JimB

Jim b
 

I have Senator Russell's biography. His early smoking habits are covered in the chapter on his formative years.
He was an avid baseball fan and acquired his vast collection directly from Piedmont cigarette packs and Old Mill
packs in 1910-11.

In recent years I bought quite a few of his duplicates that his great-grand daughter was selling.

TED Z

The three PIEDMONT Plank's are all "proof" cards
 

Scot Reader and I were discussing this Piedmont Plank earlier today. Scot noticed that the top border has
a proof mark. We went back and looked at the other two (full-color) PIEDMONT Plank's. Sure enough they,
too, have hints of a proof mark on their top border.....typical of T206's printed by American Litho. in 1909.

So, with this limited sampling of 3 cards, we have concluded that the PIEDMONT Plank's were most likely
never issued.
Furthermore, these proof marks contradict any myth that these PIEDMONT Plank's (or Wagner's) were re-
printed in the 1950's (or otherwise).

We welcome any thoughts you have regarding this observation ?


SCOT READER and TED Z

Thanks Ted. I did not know he had a biography.
Best,
JimB

Advertising sheet
 

Isn't there a five card "strip" with a Wagner and a Plank among the subjects?
Do the cards on this strip have Piedmont backs?

Perhaps the famous Wagner and Plank were cut from such a strip, which may have been produced to advertise or promote the set prior to its introduction.
Even the book "The Card" did not accurately describe the "sheet" from which the Wagner was originally cut.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Wagner write a xhexk to the guy who was charged with getting him to sign the contract toappear on the cards.The check was for $5-$15.I don't remember exactly the amount.He sent the guy a check for the amount he would have gotten if Wagner would have signed the contract.I believe the guy framed the check and never cashed it.I also seem to remember the check being auction but I can't seem to find the catalog it was.If I am wrong about this please correct me.I will try to find the story of the check in the meantime.
Mike

Ted,

While what you say about the cards being proofs seems plausible, can you blow up the images to show the proof lines?

Proofs would be the only logical explanation.Had they been reprinted in the 50's wouldn't there be more 50-75 total copies of each.If they were reprinted with the original plates than they should be way more plentiful.The reprint issue just doesn't make sense at all to me.
Mike

Hi Ted,
I don't think anyone thinks that Wagner and Plank were inserted into Piedmont packs... But I doubt they were proofs either.... My guess is that they were printed on several sheets with Piedmont backs before they were told not to include them, but that's only a guess.
Hope you are well. Brian :D

Corey
 

One card is on page 4 and the other is on page 5 of this thread. Click onto the REA auction....lot #890 for the Piedmont Plank.
The proof mark is most noticeable in the REA picture. The other two require the use of a magnifier.


TED Z

Richard,
There is no Plank on the five card strip. It has Wagner, Young, M. Brown, and a couple of commons.
JimB

BrianW
 

How many Wagner's exist with Piedmont backs ?

Best regards,

TED Z

Hi Ted,
That depends on how many uncut sheets or "printer's samples" made it out the back door... :)

Be well Brian

PS So far we only have 2 Piedmont Wagner's and 3 Plank's, but more may show up....

BrianW
 

Why do you doubt that the Piedmont Plank's are proofs ?

All 3 Plank's we have accounted for in this thread have the identical proof mark on the top border as does this repro
example of the Eddie Collins' proof.

Here's a "twist"......perhaps Collins, Plank and Wagner were all on the same sheet. And, when American Caramel Co.
prevented American Litho. from issuing Collins and Plank....Wagner was discarded in the process. I find it more than
just coincidental that the same number of Piedmont Plank's equals the same number of Piedmont Wagner's.



<img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/atbateddiecollins.jpg" alt="[linked image]">


TED Z

Hi Ted,
Perhaps we are splitting hairs, but I don't consider any cards with ad's on the back as proofs... I have always thought that Wagner and Plank were probably on the same sheet, but I have never had the evidence to prove it.
As far as the printer's mark goes... I have several examples of T205's and T206's with the same marks on more than one side. I will try to post a few when I have time, but anyone who owns an Irv Young will see these marks on 3-4 sides.... Be well Brian[IMG]http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q...Scan0008-9.jpg[/IMG]

Piedmont Plank
 

Were there other cards pulled with these, or was it only Wagner and Plank?

irv
 

Brian W. (tarheel bud),
i have gazed at my 2 irv young's (one from my favorite Lionel Carter Collection) thousands of times and have never noticed the marks before.
i quickly went to look at them with the help of a wee bit of a magnifier
(due to 58 years) and saw them with great glee.
many,many thanks.
once again, i sit humbly at your feet.

best,

barry

BrianW
 

Thanks for the info on Young. My Piedmont Young has the mark.

But, my Sovereign Young does not.

Great stuff, guy.


TED Z

Reisshead
 

Great question


My theory is that, initially the T206 cards were printed on small sheets (possibly comprising of only 12 cards).
If American Litho. discarded these (1st press run) sheets with Plank and Wagner printed on them, then other
Subjects were discarded, also.

My guess is that some of the tougher cards in the 150 series were included, such as........

Burch (batting)
M. Brown (Cubs)
Cobb (green portrait)
Donlin (fielding)
L. Doyle (throwing)
Evers (bat-blue sky)
Lundgren (Cubs)
Mullin (horizontal)
Pelty (horizontal)
Reulbach (glove)
Schulte (Cubs)


TED Z

There are two confirmed (the Gretzky and the one Mastro auctioned about 8 years ago). There are rumors of a third. There was an auction for one listed in TTS many years ago without a photo. Nobody knows what happened to it. Leon might have some information on that one.
JimB

BrianW
 

Ole buddy....while I agree with you....not all "proofs" are back-less. As you know, most of these proofs
from the 350/460 Series have Sweet Cap 460 Factory 30 backs.


<img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/abwjohnsonproof.jpg" alt="[linked image]">


Best regards,

TED Z

Wow that Johnson proof is awesome.Do you own that card.
Mike

Hi Ted,
As you know.... The Johnson was part of a group of about 30 cards which didn't make it all the way through the printing process. Most of these "printer's scraps" only received the first 2-3 colors of the process, thus they appear as black and yellow with a touch of brown.
I don't consider any of these proofs, only printer's scrap....

Be well Brian :)

BrianW
 

Got it guy....I now know the difference between "proofs" and "scraps".

See, you can teach an old dinosaur new tricks....:)

Be good,

TED Z