Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan
Hey Pat
Where do you come-off saying I am " RELUCTANT" to respond to this journal you posted. I already reviewed it in the other thread you posted it in.....and,
THERE'S NOTHING THERE THAT DISPELS THAT THE 1910 COUPON CARDS WERE PRINTED AND ISSUED IN 1910 ! That list is IRRELEVANT ! !
Where is a DATE on it ? Where are the other American Tobacco Co. (ATC) brands on that list ? For example....POLAR BEAR....RED CROSS (T215)...."PIRATE"...."TY COBB"
The fact that POLAR BEAR is missing on this journal list certainly indicates that this journal list would have been dated PRIOR TO THE SUMMER of 1910.
Anyhow, this list that you are "raving about" tells us NOTHING about when the "COUPON" cards were printed (or issued). ! Absolutely, nothing ! !
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________
Furthermore,
 .  
 .  . 
Hey guys,
Those QUOTES surrounding these three Brand names are very significant. These QUOTES indicate that these are new ATC brands which had not yet received
an officially Registered TRADEMARK. Most people do not understand the importance of this, for it does INDEED set a timeline when these cards were printed
and issued.
Regarding the COUPON brand, it would be Circa Spring - Summer 1910.
TED Z
T206 Reference
. |
The dates are on the pages with instructions on what to put in the packs and cartons. you need to
look at the whole journal.
The journal dates are from 1909-1912 with the latest packing date of 8/12
on the Nebo brand. It is my understanding that the dates on the T215's are
approximate too and maybe the journal helps narrow the time frame down for them.
As for the Polar Bears first off that's a pouch scrap tobacco I don't know all of
the Tobacco brands on the index pages are any of the other brands pouch scrap Tobacco that had
cards inserted in them?
also several years ago when I was researching the print flaws I said the Polar
Bears didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the t206 brands.
You point out the similarity's in the Polar Bears to the Coupon perhaps the reason is they weren't printed and distributed with the other t206 brands.
Here's what I posted in 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R
Print flaws are important in the research of the printing process and they can also help spot fakes. I have been doing some limited research on a group of
T206 print flaws and I want to share what I think could/might be important
(to some people). These print flaws show that the front plates were shared
with some backs but likely not all backs within the same print groups and series, and the backs
seem to be grouped together, for instance the "murr'y flaw is found on four
different backs Lenox, Old Mill, Tolstoi, and SC 350-460 fact 30 and I have
found a couple of other flaws that are shared by Tolstoi's and Lenox.
Now the most interesting back in this research is Polar Bear, I have yet to
find any of these flaws on a PB back or a flaw on a PB (Dopner as far as I know
is only found on PB backs) has not been found on any other back.
I have stated before (and this is just my opinion) that I think the T206
printing was spread out among the several printing facility's that the American
Lithograph co. owned at the time. It just seems to make sense that a pretty
large project spread out over a fairly long period would have been done at
more than one place.
To me it is the best explanation for several things such as....
Sheet layout changes within the same series and some subjects that are more
difficult in common backs could be explained by slightly different layouts
at different facility's.
Why Demmitt and O'Hara ST Louis and the Dopner flaw are only found on PB backs and unless I'm wrong no printing flaw found on a different back is found
on a PB back. This could be explained if the Polar bears were printed by
themselves at one of the facility's and at the time they were making the
plates for that facility Demmitt and O'Hara were with ST Louis.
Now of course I know this is all speculation but I think it could be a good discussion.
|