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!