|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Some new and interesting notes from doing some research at the Philadelphia Library this past Sat.<br /><br />1st....I'll reprise my theory....it conjectures that the scarcity of the T206 Plank card can be explained<br />by the American Caramel Co. (ACC) forcing the American Tobacco Co. (ATC) to stop issuing their Plank<br /> card.....ACC having 1st acquired the exclusive rights to Plank and 1st to issue his BB card .<br /><br />Here are the series of events.....<br /><br />Eddie Plank went to Gettysburg (his hometown) College. The Director of this Coll. back then was David<br /> Franklin Lafean.<br /><br />Milton Hershey started the Lancaster Caramel Co. in 1896 and sold it to David F. Lafean in the early 1900's.<br /> Lafean then established the ACC in Philadelphia in 1905.<br /><br />During this period, Connie Mack's Phila. A's were winning pennants with a formidable team of players.<br />Most outstanding and the "hometown" favorite was Eddie Plank, a very deliberate southpaw pitcher.<br /><br />Lafean....being a sharp businessman, capitalized on this "A's fever" and enhanced the marketing of his <br />Candy product with BB card premiums; thus, the E90-1 cards were issued in series from 1908 - 1911.<br /><br />Lafean was also a shrewd politician (in his later life he became a US Congressman). Therefore, it's very likely<br />that Lafean legally enforced his exclusive rights to his "guy", Eddie Plank; causing ATC to remove their Plank<br /> from the market.<br /><br />Final proof of this theory will require actual documentation, which I will try to find, next time I am in Philly.<br />Until then, this circumstantial evidence that I have presented here, is quite plausible....and certainly very<br /> thought-provoking.<br /><br />Gentleman.... a very similar scenario occurred in 1954, when Sy Berger (of Topps)....an avid Ted Williams<br />fan....forced the Bowman Gum Co. to cease and desist from issuing their Ted Williams card (#66).<br /><br />I am very grateful to Frank Wakefield for all the research he presented in support of this theory in the<br /> initial Thread on this subject.<br /><br />OK....I am open to any and all questions regarding this subject....so, shoot away ?<br /><br />TED Z
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>In anticipation of the usual question....why was Plank singled out, and not the other 11 A's players in the E90-1 set ?<br /><br />Well, with the exception of Bender and Davis the following A's players were not portrayed in the 1st (or 150 series) of<br /> the T206 set. And, Heitmueller, "Shoeless Joe" Jackson and "Stuffy" McInnis were not at all in the T206 set.....<br /><br />HR Baker<br />Jack Barry<br />Chief Bender<br />Eddie Collins<br />Harry Davis<br />Jimmy Dygert<br />Heinie Heitmuller<br />Joe Jackson<br />Harry Krause<br />Stuffy McInnis<br />Eddie Plank<br />Ira Thomas<br /><br />The long time connection Plank had with Lafean, that goes back to 1900, I feel is the "key" here.<br /><br />TED Z
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Ted, you should go to the library more often!!<br /><br />That is great. Plank because he's college educated, he was intelligent enough to not sign away rights to different folks simultaneously... Plank was a star, gotta assert rights to him. And Lafean's connections with Plank, no doubt Plank was loyal to Mr. Lafean.<br /><br />Where were you when I used to write term papers....<br /><br /><br />Frank.
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p> Ted,you certainly put alot of thought into this but i wouldve started with trying to find out about compensation for being in the t206 set first.If he didnt get paid but they put out his card he couldve told them to pull the card and they wouldve had to. Plank is in so many sets from that era that its hard to believe he could have an exclusive contract. Hes in 23 sets produced from 1908-1911 but only 6 are E cards,thats alot of sets to explain. Youd also have to explain why theres only a few rarities in other sets like e90 and t207 where you couldnt explain it by a short print run on a group of players.<br /><br /> I think its just like Wagner,they had a compensation problem and maybe thats why you dont find some players in the set because their teammate told them not to sign,or they decided it on their own when they saw he wasnt in it. Babe Adams and Sam Leever who both shouldve been in the set being key members of the 1909 Pirates World Series teams arent in the set,theyre in the e90-2 set but then Leever appears in the t205 set and Adams doesnt but hes in some E sets. So why would they have an exclusive contract with him too being a Pittsburgh player<br /><br />
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>Actually, the absence of certain players like Adams and Leever in T206, and their inclusion in an American Caramel team set like E90-2 lends credence to Ted's theory. Why is Connie Mack not in T206 when they included McGraw?
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p> If Leever wasnt in the t205 maybe it would but they have all of the same cigarette companies as t206s and were made at the same time. Theyre also in the e90-2 set not e90-1, and the e90-2 is only 11 Pirates players,which includes Ham Hyatt who isnt in the t206s or t205s but is in the t207 set.<br /><br /> Cy Morgan was a teammate of Plank and a good pitcher himself yet isnt in the t206 but is in the t204 and e96 like Plank,not in the e90 set which includes Plank, but he is in the t207 set unlike Plank.How would that be explained using his theory above? It couldnt be<br /><br /> If you want to believe broken plate which could explain e90 cards like Mitchell and Sweeney just as easy as Wagner and Plank then i can live with that.If you want to believe that he wanted compensation and had his card pulled id believe that too but to think he had an exclusive contract way back then but somehow appeared in 17 other non-E sets during that time span is a little harder to believe. <br /><br /> Honestly if they were paying players,how much could they offer him to only help sell their 1 cent candies and what would be left to pay the other 200+ players that appear in those sets? To deny the tobacco card companies which obviously put out a ton more cards over the same time span,they would have to make a substancial offer to keep him out of years of sets instead of appearing in both sets. and just exactly why would 2 different entities be trying to keep a player out of one set,is there really a huge amount of people that went to the store and said do i want caramel because i have a 1 in 120 chance of getting Eddie Plank or do i want to satisfy my nicotine yearnings. No! If someone wanted cigarettes theyre going to buy them no matter who might be inside,but they might buy a different type of cigarette because of the card.This isnt topps vs Donruss here its Marlboro vs Hershey
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Compensation (or lack of it) for these BB players to be portrayed in BB card sets, in my opinion, is <br />a negligible factor....as it really did not amount to much. So, I cannot see this applying to Plank's<br /> T206 card situation.<br /><br />Now, Sam Leever is in the E90-1 set, so I am not sure what you are asking about him ? However,<br />he should have been in the T206 set.<br /><br />"Babe" Adams is not in the E90-1 set because his career did not get started until 1909....the E90-1<br /> set was already out in the market by then. Adams was really great in the 1909 World Series, as he<br /> won 3 games with a 1.33 ERA.<br /><br />I have to run now, and I'll get to your 2nd post later.<br /><br />TED Z
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Babe Adams was in the E96 set, another Philadelphia issue.
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p>I missed Leever in the e90 set when i skimmed thru the checklist,i was just looking for random players.<br /><br /> Anyway,lets assume your theory is right and they pulled the Plank card. Maybe the same exact thing happened with Magee being a star player on the NL Philly team,but they worked something out with the tobacco companies and they then reissued the Magee card,this time spelling his name right. Did you ever consider that when you were coming up with your Magie/Magee theory?
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I thought you would like the Lafean connection. David Franklin Lafean was quite a character<br /> in the greater Philadelphia scene at the turn of the last Century. What I find very interesting<br /> with him, is that he has roots in Lancaster and York and Philadelphia. All three of these cities<br />were the "home bases" of the the various E-card sets. And, as we know, most of the pictures<br /> on these various E-cards are identical from set to set (except E91).<br /><br />TED Z
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Too many "Q'S" from you.....OK, my reply to your post (2:14 AM) paragragh 3.....<br /><br />...."If you want to believe broken plate which could explain e90 cards like Mitchell and Sweeney just as<br />easy as Wagner and Plank then i can live with that.If you want to believe that he wanted compensation<br />and had his card pulled id believe that too but to think he had an exclusive contract way back then but<br />somehow appeared in 17 other non-E sets during that time span is a little harder to believe."<br /><br />JOHN.....You will never hear me use the excuse "broken plate".....it's the "panacea" for all unexplained<br />scarce BB cards; and, I've never bought it. Printing firms have multiple (or redundant) plates for every<br />image they print.<br /><br />Mike Mitchell and Bill Sweeney are very tough in the E90-1 set because they were in the short-printed<br />last Series (of 20-30 cards).<br /><br />My theory on Plank applies only to the rivalry between ACC & ATC on their very first issues. That is the<br />1st Series of the E90-1 set which included Eddie Plank and was probably issued in 1908 (or early 1909).<br />And, the 1st (150) and 2nd (350) Series of the T206 set which included Plank and was yanked....twice.<br /><br />All subsequent sets containing Plank are irrelevant to this argument.<br /><br />TED Z <br />
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>John...<br /><br />You've shot at Ted's idea with nonsense.<br /><br />Plank isn't in 23 sets. I don't think you can count 23 sets even if you count each of the different Conlon sets as a separate set, and you count Calahans and new stuff. You should count card distributors from his playing days, not individual sets.<br /><br />Please go look at the other thread.... Plank's in E107... Breisch Williams is a predecessor to American Caramel. Plank stays fairly loyal to American Caramel. E90-1s are next, and he is in them. Some of the other issues he's in are regional, such as T208. Not really a competitor of American Caramel, probably not distributed in in Philadelphia, under American Caramel's radar. Same for T204 Ramly. But the American Tobacco Trust products were distrubuted there, they would have been noticed. <br /><br />I really think Ted has tuned his radar in on what probably happened years ago. It is consistent with the letter that was auctioned that solicits a player, consistent with Wagner's disappearance, E107s predate E90-1s and Plank is there, for his hometown candy company and his old college president...<br /><br />Again, great detective work, Ted.
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Larry</b><p>According to a google search I recently did, Eddie Plank did not graduate from Gettysburg College but played for the college team, he actually attended the prep school at gettysburg until he was drafted by the A's....he may not have been as scholarly as believed...
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p> Frank,i got the 23 sets from that time period from Brett Domue's website of checklists of each pre-ww2 Hall of Famer. Are you trying to discredit Brett's(and others) years of hard work and research without actual knowledge,or do you know something everyone else doesnt? Can you go thru his extensive checklist and say with 100% certainty that he is wrong in so many instances? Please do before you criticize, because my post was based on the actual proven fact, while Ted's was based on speculation just like his Magie thread. If he doesnt want imput or thoughts on the subject why ask what we think? Sounds like you didnt go into this open-minded
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Eric Everett</b><p>Its work like this that CAN provide a paragraph in baseball card history books. Ted said he'll be looking for more proof the next time he goes to Philly. Well if/when he finds that proff his theory will be cemented in fact and we can all enjoy the knowledge. If not its still a plausible theory and...<future here><br /><br />-Eric
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Goodness gracious...<br /><br />proven facts (not to be considered with other types of facts), years of hard work, 100% certainty, and a WEBSITE... that seals it for me.<br /><br /><br />I've never heard of Brett Domue and am unaware of his website.<br /><br />If you look at a Beckett listing and ignore the cards from Conlon's, Fleer, and other post playing days, you get this:<br /><br />1914 CJ<br />1915 CJ<br />D303<br />E104<br />E106<br /><br />E107<br />E224<br />E90-1<br />E91<br />E93<br /><br />E95<br />M116<br />T204<br />T206<br />T208<br /><br />T216<br />W555<br />WG2<br />WG4<br /><br />That's 19 card sets. What other sets from his playing days have him on a card?<br /><br />And you're right that Ted merely looked in a library... nothing as factual as a website. <br /><br />So did you go look at the other thread and see the history of the sets? Don't you reckon that When American Caramel had Plank in what we now call E90-1, that they didn't mind Plank being in their own E91? And E107's candy company was a predecessor of E90-1s, so there's no harm or foul there...<br /><br />You believe what you want. And I do sincerely wish you well with your beliefs.
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Eddie Plank<br />Year Set ACC Description <br />1902 Sporting Life Cabinets W600 Street <br />1902 Sporting Life Cabinets W600 Uniform <br />1903 Breisch Williams Type I E107 <br />1906 Fan Craze American League WG2 <br />1906 Lincoln Publishing A's Postcards <br />1907-09 Novelty Cutlery Postcards <br />1908 American Caramel Co. E91 Set A <br />1908-09 Greenfield's Chocolates Postcards (Rose Co.) <br />1908-09 Rose Company Postcards <br />1909 American Caramel Co. E91 Set B <br />1909 Philadelphia Caramel E95 <br />1909 Ramley T204 <br />1909-10 German Baseball Stamps <br />1909-10 W555 W555 <br />1909-11 American Caramel Co. E90-1 <br />1909-11 White Borders T206 <br />1909-13 Sporting News Suppliments M101-2 4/7/10 <br />1910 American Caramel Co. Die-Cuts E125 <br />1910 Luxello Cigars A's/Phillies Pins <br />1910 Nadja Philadelphia Athletics E104-I No "World's Champions" at top (Blank Back) <br />1910 Nadja Philadelphia Athletics E104-I No "World's Champions" at top (Nadja) <br />1910 Nadja Philadelphia Athletics E104-I World's Champions at top (Blank Back) <br />1910 Orange Borders <br />1910 PC796 Sepia Postcards PC796 <br />1910 Standard Caramel Co. E93 <br />1910-11 Sporting Life M116 <br />1911 Cullivan's Fireside Philadelphia A's T208 <br />1911 Diamond Gum Pins PE1 <br />1911 Monarch Typewriter <br />1911 Pinkerton T5 503 <br />1911 Rochester Baking Philadelphia A's D359 <br />1911 Williams Baking Philadelphia A's D359 <br />1913 Fatima Team Cards T200 Philadelphia American <br />1913 Fatima Team Premiums Philadelphia American <br />1914 Cracker Jack E145-I 6 <br />1914 General Baking Co. D303 No Position <br />1914 General Baking Co. D303 Position <br />1914 People's Tobacco (Kotton, Mino, Virginia Extra) T216 <br />1914 Polo Grounds Game WG4 <br />1914 Texas Tommy Type I E224 <br />1915 American Caramel Co. E106 <br />1915 Cracker Jack E145-II 6 <br /><br />Edited to add:<br />While I think Ted’s theory is interesting I don’t quite agree or at least am not sold.<br /><br /><br />
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Lions and tigers and bears, Oh My!<br /><br />Sporting Life Cabinets and german stamps and pins... oh my.<br /><br />And counting Nadjas 3 times, plus all of those postcards.<br /><br />Might as well be like that guy on eBay who cuts the photos out of old guides, self grades them, and then has "private" auctions. Might as well count those, too. May well be 50 different Planks. I stand corrected. Thank you.
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Frank,<br /><br />While your post drips of sarcasm, it also shows your ability or lack there of to manage basic math. <br /><br />1903 Breisch Williams Type I E107 <br />1906 Fan Craze American League WG2 <br />1908 American Caramel Co. E91 Set A <br />1909 Philadelphia Caramel E95 <br />1909 Ramley T204 <br />1909-10 W555 W555 <br />1909-11 American Caramel Co. E90-1 <br />1909-11 White Borders T206 <br />1910 American Caramel Co. Die-Cuts E125 <br />1910 Nadja Philadelphia Athletics E104-I <br />1910 Orange Borders <br />1910 Standard Caramel Co. E93 <br />1910-11 Sporting Life M116 <br />1911 Cullivan's Fireside Philadelphia A's T208 <br />1911 Pinkerton T5 503 <br />1911 Rochester Baking Philadelphia A's D359 <br />1913 Fatima Team Cards T200 Philadelphia American <br />1913 Fatima Team Premiums Philadelphia American <br />1914 Cracker Jack E145-I 6 <br />1914 General Baking Co. D303 <br />1914 People's Tobacco (Kotton, Mino, Virginia Extra) T216 <br />1914 Polo Grounds Game WG4 <br />1914 Texas Tommy Type I E224 <br />1915 American Caramel Co. E106 <br />1915 Cracker Jack E145-II 6<br /><br />Even if I remove the items with Plank you so easily singled out, that still leaves about 25 sets that would include Plank on a card. Or would you care to eliminate any others to help make your point?? <br /><br />As for the E104’s I don’t think he was stretching I seem to believe the set that includes this Plank card in debate, has a O’Hara, Demmitt, Elberfeld & Magie among others which are counted as different cards for their variations, or are they the same and shouldn’t be counted twice????? <br /><br />I posted the info only as reference not sure why you find the need to be so nasty? Its amazing most people who try and prove theory’s (archeologists, doctors, scholars etc.) generally work with and debate the current academic communities to prove their point. Not just imply that anyone who disagrees are simply idiots, therefore the new theory is correct. <br /><br />While the theory is neat and the research interesting, myself I’m having a hard time putting to much stock in detailed deep research from a guy who cant even use a standard catalog of cards to find what sets Plank is included on. Was that sarcastic and rude??? Just following a pattern set by yours truly….<br />
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>At least the sarcasm was sincere...<br /><br />T200 Fatima, the cards and the premium. Shouldn't count it as 2... Most people don't have one of each. I only have one of the two. E107, E90-1, E91, these are all realistically American Caramel. Lafean isn't going to complain about his own use.<br /><br />Ramly, not Ramley, was geographically separated from Philadelphia. So were the T208s. D359s and D303s. Kottons are miles away. Same for E224s. Others, like Cracker Jack, are remote in time and after what Ted is talking about. I perceive that you never did go back and read through the other thread.<br /><br />It seems to me that Lafean on his own, or with Plank, would only know to complain about or challenge matters they were aware of. Can't complain in fall of 1909 or spring of 1910 about stuff that is in Virginia or Texas of which they're unaware. Can't complain about stuff in 1914 when it is 1910. So I'd discount the game card pieces, the stuff that is distant geographically, and temporally... and that just doesn't leave much.<br /><br />But you count 'em as you like. Conlon probably took a few photographs of Eddie Plank, the prints would have that purple Conlon stamp on the back... count those, too.<br /><br />I do think that someone, most likely Lafean and Plank, stopped ATC's use of Plank. Either by not signing the permission documents when sought, or by some affirmative step on their part. Eventually, their protectiveness of the use of the likeness slackened, as is evidenced by Plank on later issues. Maybe folks later offered more money. Maybe folks asked for permission before using the likeness. Maybe they were fans of the people, instead of the wealthy few, and they disliked Buchanon and his vast tobacco holdings, cheering from the sidelines as Brandeis busted up the Trust. But I can't instantly believe something someone's found on the internet, or put faith in that broken plate stuff. Those printers must have broken plates in the first couple of series, I'm sure glad they settled down and were able to handle the 460 series plates without a single break or chip...<br /><br />At least you seem passionate about cards! Glad for that. Me thinks they're slabbed.<br /><br />
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>“But you count 'em as you like. Conlon probably took a few photographs of Eddie Plank, the prints would have that purple Conlon stamp on the back... count those, too.”<br /><br />1903 Breisch Williams Type I E107 <br />1906 Fan Craze American League WG2 <br />1908 American Caramel Co. E91 Set A <br />1909 Philadelphia Caramel E95 <br />1909 Ramly T204 <br />1909-10 W555 W555 <br />1909-11 American Caramel Co. E90-1 <br />1909-11 White Borders T206 <br />1910 American Caramel Co. Die-Cuts E125 <br />1910 Nadja Philadelphia Athletics E104-I <br />1910 Orange Borders <br />1910 Standard Caramel Co. E93 <br />1910-11 Sporting Life M116 <br />1911 Cullivan's Fireside Philadelphia A's T208 <br />1911 Pinkerton T5 503 <br />1911 Rochester Baking Philadelphia A's D359 <br />1913 Fatima Team Cards T200 Philadelphia American <br />1914 Cracker Jack E145-I 6 <br />1914 General Baking Co. D303 <br />1914 People's Tobacco (Kotton, Mino, Virginia Extra) T216 <br />1914 Polo Grounds Game WG4 <br />1914 Texas Tommy Type I E224 <br />1915 American Caramel Co. E106 <br />1915 Cracker Jack E145-II 6<br /><br />Well that’s still 24 knocking out the T200 Premiums not 19 or do you not consider any of the above cards? What else should we conveniently eliminate to make you correct?<br /><br />“That's 19 card sets. What other sets from his playing days have him on a card?”<br /><br />Frank, not here to debate your Theory just was correcting your announcement/question that Plank only appears on 19 cards. <br /><br />“At least you seem passionate about cards! Glad for that. Me thinks they're slabbed.”<br /><br /><a href="http://imageevent.com/piojohn3/collection" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://imageevent.com/piojohn3/collection</a><br /><br />Wow some more wild speculation Frank keep it up perhaps someday you might actually get one right? Or do the few graded cards I have kick me out of the “Super Secret Club Of Experts and Real Card Collectors”<br /><br />Ahhh shucks I was really looking forward to the jacket too, well there’s always next year…..<br />
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Hey guys......I just have to intervene between this "war" of the "W's".....<br /><br />Let us not lose our focus, my theory strictly revolves around the conjectured "contractual dispute" between<br /> the American Caramel's 1908 issue (E90-1) and the American Tobacco's 1909 issue (T206) of Eddie Plank.<br /><br />All prior and subsequent issues with Plank in them are not applicable to this theory. <br /><br />This card being 1st in the market....vs....I don't have a T206 Plank to display, perhaps someone will show one.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/edplanke90.jpg"><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/be90eddieplank.jpg"><br /><br />TED Z
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />No war to be broken up, as I stated before interesting theory. I’m interested in your findings.<br /><br />I was just pointing out if one fancy’s him or her a card expert, one should not make comments like these. <br /><br />“Plank isn't in 23 sets. I don't think you can count 23 sets even if you count each of the different Conlon sets as a separate set, and you count Calahans and new stuff. You should count card distributors from his playing days, not individual sets.”<br /><br />“That's 19 card sets. What other sets from his playing days have him on a card?”<br /><br />When clearly anyone with a SCD could easily see how wrong he or she is. It ruins his or her credibility, which could be useful especially one with a new theory to prove. IMO<br /><br />As for the attempt to insinuate that I may be lacking collecting savvy by having graded cards, or assuming that I was some new off the block collector who’s participation in this discussion would be pointless due to my lack of knowledge in comparison to the above with the comment below…<br /><br />“At least you seem passionate about cards! Glad for that. Me thinks they're slabbed.”<br /><br />Me thinks he or she may have put their foot in their mouth…<br />
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>That still sounded like war to me...<br /><br />And I can manage my way through life without your credulity, without you deeming me credible. I don't recall proclaiming myself an expert to you, and you're welcome to ignore any opinions or "proven facts" that I might offer.<br /><br />When you clear your way past the postcards, pins, german stamps, issues remote in time and geography, or noncompeting issues, then not much is left from that exhaustive, long and glorious website list.... What is left are the associated caramel issues, E107 to E91 to E90-1 (seems to me E91 came before E90-1 chronologically, for lots of reasons best suited for another thread), and a flickering appearance in T206. I can accept the notion that you don't see that. Ted did. I can. A few others probably do. It isn't a big deal.
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>Frank.<br /><br />Is this information below from something you read or is this your thoughts?<br /><br /><br />"Breisch Williams signed some players in 1903 and 1904. American Caramel was formed in 1898, and consolidated other candy companies in Philadelphia, including Breisch Williams. AC just kept the brand out there. So it was American Caramel who signed those players. And that would have been long before the American Tobacco Trust came on the scene."<br /><br />Robert<br /><br />
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Just when I'd made up my mind to quit responding to this thread...<br /><br /><br />Scripophily folks are the guys who collect stock certificates. I have several, a Delong Gum Co. one, and American Caramel. Those collector guys research out the mergers and predecessor companies. That's where I got it. I have it saved somewhere... my recollection is that the Hershey guy had a caramel factory, sold it for cash to the new forming / merging American Caramel Co., then Hershey took the cash and built his chocolate factory which lead to the creation of his town, Hershey, PA. That's where I got that stuff...<br /><br />I'm a bit weary of the bickering, otherwise I'd look at the E107 cards to see if there are more Philadelphia players depicted than there are those of other cities, but how dare I even suggest such a thing without hard proven facts... Shoot, I'm not even sure I spelled that Scripophily word right...<br /><br />Frank
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>It’s not about bickering it’s about being man enough to admit you were wrong in your statements, and not dancing around the fact that you were incorrect in your statements.<br /><br />“Plank isn't in 23 sets. I don't think you can count 23 sets even if you count each of the different Conlon sets as a separate set, and you count Calahans and new stuff. You should count card distributors from his playing days, not individual sets.”<br /><br />“That's 19 card sets. What other sets from his playing days have him on a card?”<br />
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Just getting around to replying to your "Q"......<br />"Why is Connie Mack not in T206 when they included McGraw?"<br /><br />There were a lot of Managers, besides McGraw, in the T206 set. To name a few....Clarke, Dahlen,<br /> Duffy, Griffith, Jennings, Fielder Jones and several more. So, why not Connie Mack ?<br /><br />He is 1st pictured in the N172 and the 1888 E223 sets. Then he can be found in numerous candy<br /> sets....1914 E224 (Texas Tommy), E96, E98, E104, 1914 & 1915 Cracker Jack.<br /><br />Also, Sporting News (M101-2, 4 & 5) and Sporting Life (M116).<br /><br />The only Tobacco sets that I know of are the T200 (Fatima) and the T208 Fireside (A's players).<br /><br />And, I'm sure there are several more sets....1940 Play Ball comes to mind. But,why not the T206...<br />maybe someone else can provide us a good answer to your question ?<br /><br />TED Z <br /><br />
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>Thanks for the information Frank.<br /><br />I thought that Breisch Williams became Williams Caramel (E103) which would've been operating during the same time as the American Caramel Co.<br /><br />Thanks to Ted for striking up a very interesting theory.<br /><br />Rob
|
My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>My research in the Philadelphia Library last w/e supports the comments Frank Wakefield stated (that you<br /> cited). Frank related the larger story (in my 1st thread on my Plank theory) regarding Milton Hershey, who<br /> originated the Lancaster Caramel Co in the 1890's, and sold it in the early 1900's. Hershey was more<br /> interested in developing the Chocolate part of his growing candy "empire" and he sold the Caramel part of<br /> it for one Million dollars.<br /><br />In 1902 there was a lot of BB excitement in Philadelphia as the A's won the American Lge. pennant....and,<br /> sore-loser John McGraw (Mgr. of AL last place Baltimore) laughed at this event and dubbed the A's "the<br /> White Elephant" team.<br />Since then, the A's logo has a White Elephant depicted on it.<br /><br />Now, if you study the E107 set, issued in 1903-04, you'll find every A's player in it and including Ossee<br /> Schreckengost with his full name.<br /><br />I do not think Frank just imagined what he is saying regarding the E107 set's connection with American<br /> Caramel....credit him for some good ole research.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />
|
Sorry if I'm late to this thread, but I simply cannot understand how a card that appeared in both the 150 and the 350 series could be so rare? That remains the most pressing question for me.
|
Lafean
Ted:
I know your research is first-rate. But the Lafean of whom you've been speaking was, apparently, Daniel Franklin Lafean, not David. From the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1771-Present: "LAFEAN, Daniel Franklin, a Representative from Pennsylvania; born in York, York County, Pa., on February 7, 1861; attended the public schools; engaged in candy manufacturing and in banking in York; a director of the Gettysburg College and trustee of the Gettysburg Seminary, Gettysburg, Pa.; elected as a Republican to the Fifty-eighth and to the four succeeding Congresses (March 4, 1903-March 3, 1913); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1912 to the Sixty-third Congress; elected to the Sixty-fourth Congress (March 4, 1915-March 3, 1917); was not a candidate for renomination in 1916; appointed commissioner of banking of the State of Pennsylvania in 1917; again engaged in manufacturing pursuits; died in Philadelphia, Pa., April 18, 1922; interment in Prospect Hill Cemetery, York, Pa." I'm unclear as to exactly what role Daniel Lafean was to have played in your theory. He was a director of the College, which sounds a bit like a trustee, and could have had either a little power, or a lot of it. As a congressman, of course, he had about as much power as he could have wanted. I'm ready to believe that he and Milton Hershey were tight, but how that brings Eddie out of T206 isn't real certain, at least to me, at all. Of course, I graduated from Gettysburg College ('64), which makes my participation problematic anyway. |
Bob - Good to see another Gettysburg alum on the boards. I graduated in '99.
Danny Quote:
|
Bob Manning
1st....thank you for correcting me regarding Lafean's first name, it is indeed Daniel.
2nd....for those not familiar with my T206 Plank theory that I posted 3 years ago, I will reiterate it here. I'll reprise my theory..it conjectures that the scarcity of the T206 Plank card can be explained by the American Caramel Co. (ACC) forcing the American Tobacco Co. (ATC) to stop issuing their Plank card.....ACC having first acquired the exclusive rights to Plank by virtue of the fact that ACC first portrayed him in their BB card sets. Here are the series of events..... Eddie Plank went to Gettysburg (his hometown) College. The Director of this College back then was Daniel Franklin Lafean. Milton Hershey started the Lancaster Caramel Co. in 1896 and sold it to Lafean in the early 1900's. Lafean then established the ACC in Philadelphia in 1905. During this period, Connie Mack's Philadelphia A's were winning pennants with a formidable team of players. Over 20,000 A's fans filled the stands on Opening Day in April 1909 at the new Shibe Park. Most outstanding, and the "hometown" favorite was Eddie Plank. A very deliberate and very effective southpaw pitcher. Connie Mack and Lafean were very close friends. Lafean being a sharp businessman, capitalized on this "A's fever", by enhancing the marketing of his Candy product with BB card premiums. First, the E91 series issued in 1908, then followed up by the E90-1 cards (1st series issued in late 1908). Lafean was also a shrewd politician (in his later life he became a US Congressman). Therefore, it is very likely that Lafean enforced his exclusive rights to his "guy", Eddie Plank, forcing ATC to remove their Plank from the market. Furthermore, you will find it very interesting that the T206 set's 1st series (150 Subjects) is devoid of A's players (except for Bender). Is this merely a coincidence ? I don't think so. An alternate scenario here....is that Connie Mack's favorite guy was Eddie Plank, and perhaps Mack told Lafean to force ATC to "yank" Plank from their T206 set. Final proof of this theory requires actual documentation, which I'll try to find, next time I'm in the Philadelphia Library. Till then, this circumstantial evidence that I've presented, is quite plausible; and, certainly very thought-provoking. Gentleman......a very similar scenario occurred in 1954, when Sy Berger of Topps (an avid Ted Williams fan) forced the Bowman Gum Co. to cease and desist from issuing their Ted Williams card (#66). I am very grateful to Frank Wakefield for all the research he presented in support of this theory in my first Thread on this subject. OK....I am open to any and all questions regarding this subject....so, shoot away ? TED Z |
Hi Ted,
Why do think the American Caramel Co. didn't mind that Plank was used in: E95 Philadelphia Caramel E93 Standard Caramel E98 Anonymous E104 Nadja T204 Ramly etc. etc. ;) Rob |
As for the Ramly cards, they came out of Massachusetts. They were distributed regionally, as best as I can gather. They don't depict many of the Pirates, Phillies, or White Sox. Their distribution in the Philadelphia area may have been minimal to non-existent. A fellow can't really complain about something unless he knows the something is happening.
|
Philadelphia Caramel was definitely in the same region and even in the same "racket."
If this fellow was going to control the rights to Plank's image used on premiums, you think he would first try to control it in the same town with other candy companies. However, maybe ACC had a deal of some sort with Phil. Caramel and Standard Caramel (Lancaster, PA) and Lafean was more concerned with a tobacco premium which would reach a larger amount of consumers? Anyways, I hope the conversation keeps going. Rob |
M116
Sporting Life was issued circa 1910-11. At a minimum, it was circulated in the same area as were the caramel issues of the time,including Philadelphia.
M116 Planks aren't that hard to find. For that reason, I don't think it is possible that the American Caramel Co. was unaware of that issue. I suppose it is possible that the thinking was that an M116 Plank wasn't a threat because it wasn't issued with candy, but I am sceptical of that idea because that would run counter to the theory that the American Caramel Company stopped the production of his tobacco cards to preserve its monopoly on his image. Sporting Life probably wasn't issued until 1910 to the best of my knowledege. However, neither were Plank 350 backs. I'm not seeing that American Caramel would shut down all of the tobacco productions in 1909 and 1910, but do nothing to shut down the magazine issues if the thought was to have some sort of monopoly on Plank. I'm not shooting at anyone, but I see this as a fly in the ointment insofar as the proffered theory goes. Kenny Cole |
Director
Ted:
From one of your earlier posts: "The Director of this College back then was Daniel Franklin Lafean." Lafean wasn't "The Director" of Gettysburg. He was a Director, one of many who apparently had some official connection to the college, though not as important as Trustees, of which the college had many. The President of the college during that period was one Harvey Washington McKnight. As far as I can tell, he was an evengelical Christian whose interests did not go much beyond college and pulpit. Of interest in another way. Plank may never have pitched against Matty, but he and Chief Bender faced each other several times. Go to http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Rep...=-1&ID=Ar00500 to get a box score of one such game. By the way, "Bender" really is Albert ("Chief") Bender, and not his brother James. Albert was a regularly enrolled student at the Carlisle School in 1901, James was not. Evidence ... ? From http://home.epix.net/~landis/bender.html "Here's the info for Bender from Nat'l Archives' student file #1327, folder 5453, taken from a database compiled by Genevieve Bell: Charles A. Bender Address: White Earth Agency Attended Carlisle 7/5/1896 - 5/14/02 Father: Albert Bender (German), Mother: living, fullblood Chippewa. height at arrival: 5'3" Weight: 101 lbs. Graduated class of 1902. Captain of baseball team 1901-02. His brother, James Bender attended Carlisle 9/5/1896-3/8/1900. He was expelled in 1900; cause unknown. His file is #1327, student folder 377." I suspect you're on to something with the dispute between American Caramel and American Tobacco, but, as you're probably sick of hearing by now, there must be more to it than that. Bob |
Caramelcard
Rob
Correct me if this is wrong....American Caramel (E91 and E90-1) sets were the first major COLOR issues of BB cards in the 20th Century. The 1st series of both these sets were issued in 1908. Remember, the key to understanding my Plank theory applies to the year "1909". American Litho. issued the T206 1st series (150 series) during the Summer of 1909. The other BB card sets issued in 1909 are NADJA (E92), Dockman, and E98 (Anonymous). Neither of these 3 sets include Plank. Plank is included in the following 1910-11 sets...... NADJA (E104-1) Philadelphia Caramel Standard Caramel (E93) T208 Cullivan's Fireside RAMLY presents an interesting situation. When you compare RAMLY with the E90-1 set and the T206 set (again, emphasis on 1909) the two latter issues are virtually void of Boston (AL) players in their 1st series issued in 1908 and 1909, respectively. By 1910, T206's (350 series) included numerous A's players that were not in their 1909 issue. Also, by 1910, the last series of the E90-1 set included Boston players that were not included in their earlier series. I do not think that this is mere coincidence. It is evident that there was contention between these three BB card companies as to which one in 1909 was going to portray certain BB players in their sets. TED Z |
T208s are regional, too. New York.
And there wouldn't be a total void of Plank images on stuff. The image would have to appear on something before someone might complain about it. As for the Sporting Life stuff is a step toward news coverage in their publication. I don't think there was an effort of total control on Plank images, no one was concerned about his photo appearing in a newspaper. Sporting Life didn't mail their little cards out until after the white border tobacco cards hit the scene, and they didn't come with candy or tobacco; they weren't selling a product. Anyone ever consider that these cards may have been some of the first cards that were actually 'bought', instead of coming with a product?? |
The Mystery Man
1 Attachment(s)
Here is the protagonist in this fascinating discussion.
|
Again, I still can't understand how Plank could have been printed in the 150 and 350 series and still be that rare. Neither "Magie" or Wagner make it to the 350 series.
Even if American Caramel tries to stop ATC in 1909, Plank still makes it into the next series. |
My T206 Plank theory
Brian
The T206 Plank was printed with 3 backs when the 150 series was 1st issued in the Summer of 1909. This version is commonly found with SWEET CAPORAL 150, Factory 25 and 30 backs; and, an extremely rare PIEDMONT 150 back. The 350 series version is only found with SWEET CAPORAL 350, Factory 30. This Factory was located in the NYC area. Now, I noted that......"By 1910, T206's (350 series) included numerous A's players that were not in their 1909 issue." Portrayed in the 350 series are Barry, Bender, Collins and 10 other A's. So, I'm speculating that American Litho. tried to "sneak" Plank in this 2nd series by inserting him only in the SWEET CAP cigarette packs in the NYC market. But, whoever (American Caramel or per- haps Ramly) held the exclusive rights to portray Plank had to (again) force American Litho to discontinue their T206 Plank. TED Z |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Brian
Please read this entire thread. Furthermore, also check-out my 1st thread on my Plank theory, that I posted in 2006........
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...t=plank+theory Then, I will gladly try to answer any questions that you (or anyone else) have. Back then, I and many Net54er's, discussed the merits and/or questions regarding this subject. To your latest question......simply because American Litho. was immediately forced to discontinue their 150 series Plank. It appears about 50 cards got out in the market before this occurred. I have to go out now, and remove some more snow from my 240 foot driveway. TED Z |
Ted,
Here is a partial quote from Erik Varon's "Sweet Recollections..." book: "...the Philadelphia Caramel Company issued a "25 Ball Player" card set in the summer of 1909. " Not 1910. Rob |
Quote:
|
Rob A
I find it interesting that the Philadelphia Caramel Co. issued their 25-card set (E95) with Plank. But, followed this
set with their 30-card set (E96) that did NOT include Plank. There is no doubt that there was fierce competition between the American Caramel Co. (based in Philadelphia) and the smaller Philadelphia Caramel Co. (based in nearby Camden, NJ). As far as the actual dating goes, I have found that certain E-card sets are off a year in the ACC dating. I can prove this by certain players in these sets whose trades in the 1909 and 1910 period are reflected in their cards. Germany Schaeffer is the first one that comes to my mind. My contention that the E90-1 set was really issued in 1908 is based on my research of certain player's trades. However, as you know, the ACC dates the E90-1 set's 1st series as 1909. TED Z |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:10 PM. |