Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
1) You posted the two Contents/Index pages that survive in 209. There is not another page in the surviving journal. Note that they record nothing before page 52. I find it extremely unlikely this is complete, and the first 51 pages of a ledger were just blank.
2) If 3/4 of the journal, and some of the index at least, is missing how can we reasonably state Coupon and Polar Bear do not appear in the journal? This is going beyond the evidence.
3) I got the 1914 implication when you stated in 229 that " I found some more information why Polar Bear probably wouldn't be in the ATC Journal. It wasn't an ATC brand until 1914." I apologize if I misunderstood, but the inference seemed to be it wasn't an ATC brand (it factually was), and was thus not printed under the ATC/ALC parternship until it was. I already stated I think PB was printed at/near the end of the 350 run which you apparently do not agree with, so I'm not sure what your timeframe is if it is not this.
4) Yes, they are substituting a Hassan series for the Hassan T53's on two different dates, significantly apart. The pages attached in your post 234 give two different release dates for the Hassan T53 series. T53 release "Started Packing Mch. 29" and "Started Delivering March 29" according to letter 1. According to letter 2, T53's "Started Packing May 23, 1911" and "Started Delivery, May 29, 1911", producing two different release dates. Both cards in the journal are F30's. We may see different possible explanations and indications of what it can mean for other sets, but your claim that my claim they have two different release dates in the journal is an "inaccuracy" is plainly false. Are you alleging that the date a set "started packing" and "started delivery" in the journal is not a release date? Will this standard be applied to the T206 pages?
5) Yes, I strongly agree T36's were not a two day issue. That was the thesis. I said this in the part you bolded, and are claiming is an inaccurate statement (It's an opinion statement on an uncertain issue, not a claim to fact by the way) I made. Note that the sentence you bolded to claim is incorrect begins "I suspect...". A Posey letter states T77 is being replaced with T36 in Hassan 30 on March 27, 1911. T53 is then replaced in Hassan 30 with T36 on March 29, 1911, which is a 2 day gap. One of the Posey letters state they are being packaged and delivered March 27, in place of T218-3, with a Mecca 30 card pictured. The next letters states Mecca has exhausted the supply of T36 and is issuing T42 March 31st, a 4 day gap.
6) I 100% agree on the supremacy of primary sources, I do not see how you are inferring I am favoring secondary sources and catalogs over primary with your next statement. You already already know well that my argument is the conflict on the cards themselves, not a date in a catalog, which I have never once cited. Who is arguing that we should "stop looking" for new information? When have I ever done this, since you are replying to me? If we're going to do this, can we stick to evidentiary grounds in good faith? I disagree with you, I do not claim you are not seeking truth and are trying to shut down the search for new information. People can simply and politely disagree.
I find the cards themselves the best tell, as this journal is of unknown provenance, unknown custody, and unknown authenticity (and was apparently modified and had pages ripped out by at least one owner to sell for profit). A card can not have been packed and delivered before events in its back text happened. T218-1 and T218-2 (Or T220-2, if it is read that way, it is even more impossible) both appear to have impossible release dates given on pages 70 and 89 that do not mesh with the text on card backs that reference specific events after that date. T218-1 is given dates in January, and May (which someone seems to have notated with an update to be June 22), 1910. Card backs reference after January, that date is not possible but the others are. T218-2 could not be released June 16, 1910 (which is before one of the dates given for series 1 even, on page 85) because the backs run through at minimum July 4, 1910. If the reference to a Tolstoi series of this name means T220-2, that could not have been released in June, because it notes events through August of 1910. There are others that I think are a bit off that are not hard evidence, like T220-2 being a March, 1911 issue in a another Posey letter, that seems awfully late based on the card content. Most of the other card sets in the journal are not of a subject kept up-to-date with recent events and so do not provide much of a clue either way on the details of release. If authentic, and I am not even saying it is not authentic, I am saying I do not know and there is little evidence either way on the provenance and authenticity of this item and thus it should not be automatically assumed this source is Gospel, there appear to be some inaccuracies in it. I do not think the data here is paramount to what is stated on card backs. I do not see how it reasonably could be.
7) I have seen 0 evidence Polar Bear's were "printed at a different facility", they seem to clearly be from American Lithographic like the rest of the cards. If printed after the other 350 cards (I suspect they were), I do not see why we would think they were done by someone else and so perfectly copied the T206's. Or are we saying American Lithographic had another facility that they actively printed the white-border series at? If so, how could we possibly conclude which backs were printed at this second shop? 3/4 of the journal, at minimum, is missing. A ton of ATC/ALC sets are not in the surviving pages.
|
1) The contents pages are about a particular brand/timeframe it's possible the first 50 pages were general information but even if they
weren't with the order of the other t206's (and other issues) I'm pretty certain the Polar Bear or Coupon weren't on those pages.
2) In my opinion they would absolutely be on the first contents page all the other t206's (except maybe Broad Leaf I don't know for sure if there was
another issue printed before t206's with a Broad Leaf back) are in chronological order based on their t206 distribution.
3)The Tobacco company information is a mess to try and figure out from that time. The American Tobacco Company had full control of some products and
partial control of others and they were trying to hide some information because of the forced divide, The way I read the clip I posted they didn't gain full control of The Continental Tobacco Company until 1914.
4) The release date for the T53's is March 29 so if you bought a pack of 10 Hassan cigarettes that was packed before that date you would get an
Auto Driver or a Light house in that pack if you bought one after that date you would get a Cowboy or a Light House in that pack until May 23 when they
discontinued packing the Light House cards. I haven't checked all the packing dates on the Hassan inserts but if there wasn't something substituted right
after the Light House cards were discontinued then every pack would have a Cowboy in it. My point is they didn't stop and restart packing the Cowboy's
they were packed from March 29 until they were discontinued permanently. They just shared the packing with different cards over that period.
5) I think 4 covers this one.
6) The first part was a general statement and I respect if you disagree.
For the second part ATC was only packing the cards so they were dependent on what ALC was printing for them. In most cases it wasn't a one time supply
of a particular set ALC was printing them and supplying ATC with what they printed and cards within that set changed that's where were get some of the
rarities found in most sets. In other words series 1 t218 cards weren't all necessarily printed in one printing.
So lets say there were three phases of series one the third phase is where the cards that you question the dates on would have come from.
7) I'm not suggesting the Polar Bears weren't printed by ALC I'm suggesting they might have been printed at one of their other facility's like the one in PA.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...can+Lithograph
What are some of the ton of ATC/ALC sets from 1909-1911 that aren't in the journal?