NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 01-21-2019, 09:30 AM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default Are the 1910 COUPON (T213-1) cards really T206's ? ....I think so. ....What say you ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post
Ted, What's the transfer on your Rossman coupon? I think it might be an
EPDG transfer.
Pat

Here are larger front/back scans of the Rossman card. Rossman is an EPDG no-print; therefore, how can it have an EPDG transfer ?

The Rossman card was printed with very few backs. Most likely because he was traded by Detroit to the St. Louis Browns (August 20, 1909).
Plus, his Major League career ended Sept, 3, 1909.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 01-21-2019, 09:44 AM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Ted, It's a "storage" transfer not a factory transfer.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 01-21-2019, 11:28 AM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DixieBaseball View Post
Rob - Great pics, and scarcity list! Does anyone know of any ungraded Cobb Coupon cards in the Universe? I don't, except for the one that was in that completed set done many years ago, which I believe now has been broken up and sold in pieces if memory serves...

The Cobb count could be representative of the max amount of Coupon's per player and the Cobb possibly, has a few that have been double graded/crossed over, etc. - My assumption would be there are 8-15 Coupon Cobb's including all graded/raw examples. You have to figure there are more Cobb's than other common players, so when I think of the definition of rare, I would say 8-15 examples is right in the sweet spot. I figure the average number of Coupons for most players is around 4-8.... What event happened to make these so limited? Break up of ATC, stop production? (May-1911). Hurricane of 1915?? It appears Coupons and Red Suns have similar production with Red Suns having a few more examples... Both are rare. Red Suns stopped production of the intended 2nd series at 75 cards. Was this at/around the time Coupon's were just starting production? 1911 ??? So many questions, but I feel like the darts are all around the bulls eye and we just need more time and research to connect the dots... Ramble end.
Some of these subjects are extremely tough with other backs too.
Try and find some of these subjects with Tolstoi backs. Ted said he
searched for twelve years and never even saw a scan of Rossman with
a Tolstoi back.

Here are the combined pop reports on some of the Coupon type 1 subjects with
Tolstoi backs.

Cree - 2
Donovan - 2
Dubuc - 2
Dunn - 1
Engle - 3
Hoffman - 0
Hunter - 1
Killian - 3
Laporte - 1
Rossman - 0
Thomas - 0
Willett - 1
Wilson - 3

Dunn, Rossman and Thomas were only recently confirmed with Tolstoi
backs in the past year.

Last edited by Pat R; 01-21-2019 at 11:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 01-21-2019, 12:36 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default Are the 1910 COUPON (T213-1) cards really T206's ? ....I think so. ....What say you ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post
It looks like paper addition on the front but with the smaller scan it's hard to tell it could be paper loss but either way it looks like it was stuck to an EPDG
at some point.

Attachment 341678

Attachment 341679Attachment 341680

Pat

You have a better eye than I.

Nice catch on the EPDG transfer on my Rossman card.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 01-23-2019, 10:24 AM
DixieBaseball's Avatar
DixieBaseball DixieBaseball is offline
JeR@Me
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South
Posts: 1,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post
Some of these subjects are extremely tough with other backs too.
Try and find some of these subjects with Tolstoi backs. Ted said he
searched for twelve years and never even saw a scan of Rossman with
a Tolstoi back.

Here are the combined pop reports on some of the Coupon type 1 subjects with
Tolstoi backs.

Cree - 2
Donovan - 2
Dubuc - 2
Dunn - 1
Engle - 3
Hoffman - 0
Hunter - 1
Killian - 3
Laporte - 1
Rossman - 0
Thomas - 0
Willett - 1
Wilson - 3

Dunn, Rossman and Thomas were only recently confirmed with Tolstoi
backs in the past year.

Pat - That is very interesting. What do you make of such a ridiculously low pop for those players? Tolstoi is in that middle range of tough backs which shouldn't be too difficult to find, yet these are super rare. Have you been able to see if these players were possibly "late" into production for some baseball reason? i.e. traded, called up, etc. ?! Perhaps Tolstoi added them to production late !?
__________________
Collector of Nashville & Southern Memorabilia
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 01-23-2019, 03:20 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default Are the 1910 COUPON (T213-1) cards really T206's ? ....I think so. ....What say you ?

Jeremy

Here are 27 subjects in the 1910 COUPON set which were NOT printed with these following 350 series backs…..
CAROLINA BRIGHTS, EL PRINCIPE DE GALES, OLD MILL, POLAR BEAR. But were printed with the TOLSTOI back.

Do we have enough imagination to figure this strange incongruity, or is this a case where...."Only the Monster Knows !"

Byrne
Charles
Donovan (throwing)
Doolan (fielding)
Fletcher
Hoffman (St Louis AL)
Howell (portrait)
Huggins (portrait)
Huggins (hands at mouth)
Hunter
Killian (portrait)
Knabe
Lennox
Marquard (portrait)
McBride
McElveen
McIntyre (Detroit)
Mitchell (Cincinnati)
Mowery
Myers (bat)

Paskert
Rhoades (hands at chest)
Rossman
Schmidt (portrait)
Starr
Street (portrait)
Summers


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 01-24-2019, 09:36 AM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DixieBaseball View Post
Pat - That is very interesting. What do you make of such a ridiculously low pop for those players? Tolstoi is in that middle range of tough backs which shouldn't be too difficult to find, yet these are super rare. Have you been able to see if these players were possibly "late" into production for some baseball reason? i.e. traded, called up, etc. ?! Perhaps Tolstoi added them to production late !?
Jeremy, it's not just the players I listed that was just a sample most
of the 350 only subjects are difficult to find with a Tolstoi back here
are the combined pop reports of another group of confirmed Tolstoi's.

Anderson - 4
Bush - 0
Blackburne - 4
Cross - 4
Easterly - 1
Hoblitzel - 2
Kisinger - 1
McElveen - 3
Mowrey - 4
Oakes - 3
Ritter - 4
Smith, Heinie - 0
Zimmerman - 2

The didn't begin printing the Tolstoi backs until sometime during the 350
only series and I think it might have been towards the end of the 350
only printing as that would explain why most of them are scarce with
Tolstoi backs.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 01-24-2019, 06:39 PM
Rich Falvo Rich Falvo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: RI
Posts: 486
Default

Pat - one of the things that surprised me the most after trying to work on a Providence master set was how tough the Tolstoi backs are for that 350 group.
__________________
Looking for a T206 Jimmy Lavender Cycle back plus several American Beauty and Tolstoi backs for Providence players.

Successful sales transactions with jamorton215, gorditadogg, myerburg311, TAFKADixie, jimq16415, Thromdog, CardPadre

Last edited by Rich Falvo; 01-24-2019 at 06:39 PM. Reason: clarity
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 05-24-2021, 09:27 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DixieBaseball View Post
Hey Pat - at some point in near future, I will certainly be looking into your ATC Journal info (thank you for providing-looks interesting), and this thread to review all the comments. Plausible either way I suppose, but certainly will check it out. I am to busy playing offense at the moment, to play defense --- Seriously though, I look forward to reviewing, discussing w/ you and Ted in near future. Just so frikkin busy, and I better get back to pressure washing the back deck as that is what I was suppose to be doing this morning... Meanwhile... let us be Free from Adulteration!
To keep from hi-jacking Teds other thread any further I moved this here where it's on topic. Until you get free time to look at the Journal which I think is the most important information there is in trying to date the time frame of the type 1's here's a rundown of some of the information in it.

The pages in it are from early 1909 through 1912 here's the two index pages I posted in the other thread

ATC Index Ledger page 1.jpg

ATC Index Ledger page 2.jpg

Some of the pages have examples of the cards pasted to them but the t206
pages were all removed and sold. Here's one of the pages I posted in the other
thread an American Beauty page with a Willetts pasted to it who as you know is in the t213-1 set.

ATC American Beauty Ledger page.jpg

I know your a Southern League collector so here's an Old Mill page from the journal.

In partial it reads Began packing nat'l players same as those in piedmonts
began packing Jan 8th 1910 Began shipping Jan 9th 1910

Began packing one nat'l + 1 so league pict 3/15/1910 shipping 3/17/1910
Discontinued 12/14/10

img421.jpg

If the type 1's were printed in 1910 they almost certainly should be in this journal.




Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Pat

If you do NOT see the stylistic similarity of the design of these 5 backs indicating that they were printed during the Summer 1910 timeline,
then you have no appreciation for the operation at American Lithographic's art department. These designs were simultaneously printed in
the Spring/Summer of 1910. The same was true with another stylistic back design during the 350-only Series (CAROLINA BRIGHTS).






Furthermore,
This information is derived from an ATC journal regarding the May 1911 DIVESTURE ACT, which broke up American Tobacco Company's
monopoly.

Liggett & Myers was given about 28 per cent of the cigarette market:

Piedmont
Fatima
American Beauty
Home Run
Imperiales
COUPON
King Bee
Fatima

P. Lorillard received 15 per cent of the nation's business:

Helmar
Egyptian Deities
Turkish Trophies
Murad
Mogul
and all straight Turkish brands

American Tobacco retained 37 per cent of the market:

Pall Mall
Sweet Caporal
Hassan
Mecca


Note that the COUPON brand is assigned to L & M.....proving to us that it was in the marketplace during 1910.
Newspaper clippings (circa 1909) exist which inform us this new ATC brand was being introduced.



THAT'S ALL FOLKS, CASE IS CLOSED !


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Since Ted seems to be reluctant to view the journal and points to the stylistic design similarity's as one of the reasons they were printed in 1910 all the brands are on the index pages except Coupon.

ATC Index Ledger page 1 - Copy.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 05-25-2021, 08:07 AM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post

If the type 1's were printed in 1910 they almost certainly should be in this journal.


Since Ted seems to be reluctant to view the journal and points to the stylistic design similarity's as one of the reasons they were printed in 1910 all the brands are on the index pages except Coupon.

Attachment 460104
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
.
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 05-25-2021, 09:12 AM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
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 View Post
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.

Last edited by Pat R; 05-25-2021 at 01:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 05-25-2021, 11:05 AM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?

Pat

The journal list you are referring to (labelled Index) has 30 brands on it.

It has NO DATE identifying it....and it does NOT include the POLAR BEAR brand. The POLAR BEAR brand was a MAJOR brand,
the likes of which was printed on the backs of 250 subjects in the T206 set.

The timeline of the first series of POLAR BEAR cards has been established as beginning circa Spring -Summer 1910. Therefore,
that journal list of 30 brands that you are touting were generated prior to the Spring of 1910. Then of course it would not have
any information regarding COUPON (or RED CROSS, or PIRATE, or TY COBB SMOKING TOBACCO).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 05-25-2021, 11:21 AM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Pat

The journal list you are referring to (labelled Index) has 30 brands on it.

It has NO DATE identifying it....and it does NOT include the POLAR BEAR brand. The POLAR BEAR brand was a MAJOR brand,
the likes of which was printed on the backs of 250 subjects in the T206 set.

The timeline of the first series of POLAR BEAR cards has been established as beginning circa Spring -Summer 1910. Therefore,
that journal list of 30 brands that you are touting were generated prior to the Spring of 1910. Then of course it would not have
any information regarding COUPON (or RED CROSS, or PIRATE, or TY COBB SMOKING TOBACCO).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.


My god Ted who's the one making a "fool" of himself take your blinders
off and read the whole journal not just the index page or read my posts that have some of them in it.


Here I've circled the dates on a couple of them but take the time and read
the whole journal it's been available on here for years.

ATC American Beauty Ledger page - Copy.jpg

ATC Cycle Ledger page - Copy.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 05-25-2021, 12:50 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?

Pat

I don't see any connections between those small "piecewise" journals and the large journal (listed with the 30 brands) labelled "INDEX", which
you touted as being "evidence" for your cause. Show me how they are connected ?
So, the dates on those are irrelevant to anything we are discussing with respect to when the 1910 "COUPON" cards were printed and issued.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 05-25-2021, 01:02 PM
jggames jggames is offline
Jason
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 230
Default

Just an observation from a fan of the Ledger pages. It seems to be a true index, as the page number on the American Beauty card page “95” corresponds to the American Beauty entry on the Index “95-119” but I also see a date of 1912 at the top of the second page.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 05-25-2021, 01:14 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jggames View Post
Just an observation from a fan of the Ledger pages. It seems to be a true index, as the page number on the American Beauty card page “95” corresponds to the American Beauty entry on the Index “95-119” but I also see a date of 1912 at the top of the second page.
This is correct James when you look at the whole journal the index page is more or less in chronological order and they added a page number to the index when they changed what was inserted in packs of that particular brand. It starts with entry's from 1909 and ends in 1912. This is why in my opinion if Coupon type 1's were distributed in 1910 they should be in this journal.

The page with 1912 on it is the second index page which would be when they created that index page.

Last edited by Pat R; 05-25-2021 at 01:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 05-25-2021, 01:35 PM
jggames jggames is offline
Jason
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post
This is correct James when you look at the whole journal the index page is more or less in chronological order and they added a page number to the index when they changed what was inserted in packs of that particular brand. It starts with entry's from 1909 and ends in 1912. This is why in my opinion if Coupon type 1's were distributed in 1910 they should be in this journal.

The page with 1912 on it is the second index page which would be when they created that index page.
I guess what I didn’t explicitly say was that it also connects the pieces to that index page
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 05-25-2021, 01:36 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jggames View Post
Just an observation from a fan of the Ledger pages. It seems to be a true index, as the page number on the American Beauty card page “95” corresponds to the American Beauty entry on the Index “95-119” but I also see a date of 1912 at the top of the second page.
Jason

Perhaps you can get an answer from Pat.....because I have asked him to explain why the POLAR BEAR brand is missing from that list of 30 brands (supposedly
reflecting "entry's from 1909 and ends in 1912").

But, Pat avoids answering that simple question.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 05-25-2021, 01:43 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Jason

Perhaps you can get an answer from Pat.....because I have asked him to explain why the POLAR BEAR brand is missing from that list of 30 brands (supposedly
reflecting "entry's from 1909 and ends in 1912").

But, Pat avoids answering that simple question.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
I posted my opinion on that in post #211 I highlighted in red for you.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 05-25-2021, 02:30 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post
I posted my opinion on that in post #211 I highlighted in red for you.
"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."


Pat

Sorry, but I did not get what you were driving at with that, when I first read it. And, I still don't understand what you are
alluding to regarding similarity between 1910 COUPON cards and POLAR BEAR cards (other than they are both T206's).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 05-25-2021, 02:54 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
"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."


Pat

Sorry, but I did not get what you were driving at with that, when I first read it. And, I still don't understand what you are
alluding to regarding similarity between 1910 COUPON cards and POLAR BEAR cards (other than they are both T206's).


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
I thought I remembered you comparing them but I couldn't find where you
did so I was wrong about that.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 05-26-2021, 08:09 AM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post
This is correct James when you look at the whole journal the index page is more or less in chronological order and they added a page number to the index when they changed what was inserted in packs of that particular brand. It starts with entry's from 1909 and ends in 1912. This is why in my opinion if Coupon type 1's were distributed in 1910 they should be in this journal.

The page with 1912 on it is the second index page which would be when they created that index page.
Sometimes we get lucky and find definitive proof of something in writing like the packing and shipping dates in the journal but most of the time
you're just putting together bits and pieces to form an opinion.

Ryan just posted his multi - overstrike back southern leaguers in another thread.
T206 Mullaney, Brown Old Mill-Multi-Ghost - Back (1).jpg

The backs are from a test print scrap, we have no way of knowing when each
back was test printed but I think it's fair to assume it was close to the same time.


The three backs on Ryan's cards are Piedmont, Old Mill and EPDG, those three backs are in a group together on the index page along with Hindu.

img399 - Copy.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 05-27-2021, 12:53 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

The more meticulously I look through the journal the more things seem to come together. When I first found out about it on here I printed it out and
since then I have looked through it on several occasions when I was researching other things but over the past few day's I've been taking a much closer look at everything in it.

It's really a shame that many of the t206 pages and others like Red Sun were removed from the journal. Some of them have been sold in auction
so we have images of them but others like Sovereign, Broad Leaf and Drum as far as I know haven't.

Looking at the pages that are available explains some things and adds to a lot of what we do know.

I posted it earlier but here are a couple more things about it that I noticed.


Up until recently the southern leaguers were thought to have been printed in 1910 with the Old Mill backs but in 2018 I found this ad.
OLd Mill Ad.jpg

The August 14 1909 date in that ad coincides with the date on the ledger that says they first started packing and shipping the Old Mill southern leaguers 7/09.

The Old Mill ledger page could also explain why the "exclusive 12" subjects in the 460 only series are very tough with an old Mill back because the ledger page indicates they discontinued packing the Old Mills on 12/14/1910.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 05-27-2021, 01:40 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post
The more meticulously I look through the journal the more things seem to come together. When I first found out about it on here I printed it out and
since then I have looked through it on several occasions when I was researching other things but over the past few day's I've been taking a much closer look at everything in it.

It's really a shame that many of the t206 pages and others like Red Sun were removed from the journal. Some of them have been sold in auction
so we have images of them but others like Sovereign, Broad Leaf and Drum as far as I know haven't.

Looking at the pages that are available explains some things and adds to a lot of what we do know.

I posted it earlier but here are a couple more things about it that I noticed.


Up until recently the southern leaguers were thought to have been printed in 1910 with the Old Mill backs but in 2018 I found this ad.
Attachment 460586

The August 14 1909 date in that ad coincides with the date on the ledger that says they first started packing and shipping the Old Mill southern leaguers 7/09.

The Old Mill ledger page could also explain why the "exclusive 12" subjects in the 460 only series are very tough with an old Mill back because the ledger page indicates they discontinued packing the Old Mills on 12/14/1910.


Thank you Pat....for confirming what I posted in my thread regarding the Exclusive 12 cards in the 460-only Series back in 2013. The UZIT backs are almost impossible to find
with these 12 subjects, and the OLD MILL appears to 2nd in line in terms of scarcity.

Furthermore, I also noted then that the T80 cards are extremely difficult to find with OLD MILL backs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post

Indeed, these Exclusive 12 cards are difficult with CYCLE 460 backs, and EPDG backs.

My experience collecting back runs of these 12 subjects is that OLD MILL is very tough, and UZIT is virtually impossible.

After I completed my RED HINDU run of these 12 guys, I started the OLD MILL run approx. a year ago and so far I have only these 4 guys......








TED Z
.
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 05-27-2021, 01:56 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

No problem Ted as I said it certainly could explain the difficulty of the
"exclusive 12" subjects with an Old Mill back. But I do have to ask why
do you accept this information from the journal but you won't accept
the absence of the Coupons in it?
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 05-27-2021, 02:44 PM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?

Pat

As I have already said....that undated list of 30 brands (ATC) without POLAR BEAR data indicates to me that it reflects information prior to the introduction of the
POLAR BEAR tobacco cards (circa SPRING 1910).

We cannot ignore this timeline. I will get into this later today, as I have to leave right now.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 05-27-2021, 02:58 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Ted, I told you several times the dates are there, Polar bear isn't and I gave you my opinion why. I have more to post maybe I'll convince you yet.

I'm still waiting to hear from Jeremy since he's the one that completed a set or near set of the type 1 southern Leaguers.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 05-27-2021, 03:22 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Pat

As I have already said....that undated list of 30 brands (ATC) without POLAR BEAR data indicates to me that it reflects information prior to the introduction of the
POLAR BEAR tobacco cards (circa SPRING 1910).

We cannot ignore this timeline. I will get into this later today, as I have to leave right now.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Here's the Carolina Brights page that was removed from the album and was sold in an auction. The part of the page that had the packing and shipping dates was removed.
ATC Carolina Brights Ledger page 2.jpg


But another Carolina Brights page with cards I'm not familiar with was still in the journal
ATC Carolina Brights Ledger page 1.jpg

Someone crossed it out but on the side it says began packing Ball pictures
Piedmont back backs in Carolina Brights 12/8(or18) 1909 it goes on to say
began packing 2 ball pictures with C.B. backs

ATC Carolina Brights Ledger page 1 - Copy.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 06-03-2021, 11:51 AM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Pat

As I have already said....that undated list of 30 brands (ATC) without POLAR BEAR data indicates to me that it reflects information prior to the introduction of the
POLAR BEAR tobacco cards (circa SPRING 1910).


We cannot ignore this timeline. I will get into this later today, as I have to leave right now.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Ted, I found some more information why Polar Bear probably wouldn't be in the ATC Journal.

It wasn't an ATC brand until 1914
img482.jpg

I also said like Coupon I think it's possible that the Polar Bears weren't printed with the other t206's.

Now I'm not saying this is proof but the Owner of Polar Bear Tobacco Eddie
Wilbern was a Baseball fan who even talked about buying the Brooklyn Dodgers.
img481.jpg

So he could have decided to use the past success of the cigarette inserts to promote his product and also could have been the reason for team changes on Demmitt and O'Hara.

He was known to promote his products in interesting ways.

img483.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 06-04-2021, 07:18 AM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Some more evidence that Polar Bear could have been printed separately and even after t206's is a recently discovered original 150+
find of t206's and around 30 t205's with the 120+ t206's "almost Exclusively" Polar bear.

It seems odd that if they were printed with the t206's that there weren't other brands of t206's in it but there were other brands of t205's which were printed after
the t206's.

https://blog.justcollect.com/blog/pe...ard-collection

Last edited by Pat R; 06-04-2021 at 07:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 06-04-2021, 10:02 AM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default

Hey guys,

History of Polar Bear.....and Factory No. 6, 1st District, Middletown, Ohio

Paul Sorg and John Auer began producing cut plug tobacco in Middletown, Ohio, in the late 1870’s. In 1898, Continental Tobacco Company (one of the main
holding companies under the American Tobacco Company umbrella) purchased the Middletown plant. In early 1899, Luhrman & Wilburn Tobacco Company
of Cincinnati (one of the largest scrap tobacco manufacturers) was purchased by Continental. Continental then moved the Luhrman & Wilburn operations to
the Middletown factory. Upon the break-up of ATC in 1911, the plant ownership changed to the P. Lorillard Company, which operated it until 1951.

Note: the owners of the American Tobacco Company and the American Lithographic Company (ALC) , J. B. Duke and J. P. Knapp, respectively were very close
business partners during the years of production of Tobacco cards. The POLAR BEAR cards of the T206 set were printed by ALC during 1910 - 1911.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________________________

The cards of Demmitt & O'Hara provide us an insight into the timeline when the POLAR BEAR (PB) cards were printed. The New York versions of Demmitt & O'Hara
are 350-only Series subjects, which were printed prior to the PB press runs.

Circa Summer 1910 timeline is confirmed by the Demmitt & O'Hara St Louis variations....since both of which were printed ONLY with PB backs.

Demmitt & O'Hara were traded during the off-season in 1909. They both started the 1910 season with their respective St Louis teams. Early May of 1910, both of
them were re-assigned to the Eastern League. Demmitt to Montreal and O'Hara to Toronto.

This narrow window of their play with their St Louis teams in May 1910 absolutely confirms the timeline of these Demmitt and O'Hara cards to the Summer of 1910.





Imperial Tobacco (C46)....Eastern (International) League cards




TED Z

T206 Reference
.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 06-04-2021, 01:48 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Hey guys,

History of Polar Bear.....and Factory No. 6, 1st District, Middletown, Ohio

Paul Sorg and John Auer began producing cut plug tobacco in Middletown, Ohio, in the late 1870’s. In 1898, Continental Tobacco Company (one of the main
holding companies under the American Tobacco Company umbrella) purchased the Middletown plant. In early 1899, Luhrman & Wilburn Tobacco Company
of Cincinnati (one of the largest scrap tobacco manufacturers) was purchased by Continental. Continental then moved the Luhrman & Wilburn operations to
the Middletown factory. Upon the break-up of ATC in 1911, the plant ownership changed to the P. Lorillard Company, which operated it until 1951.

Note: the owners of the American Tobacco Company and the American Lithographic Company (ALC) , J. B. Duke and J. P. Knapp, respectively were very close
business partners during the years of production of Tobacco cards. The POLAR BEAR cards of the T206 set were printed by ALC during 1910 - 1911.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________________________

The cards of Demmitt & O'Hara provide us an insight into the timeline when the POLAR BEAR (PB) cards were printed. The New York versions of Demmitt & O'Hara
are 350-only Series subjects, which were printed prior to the PB press runs.

Circa Summer 1910 timeline is confirmed by the Demmitt & O'Hara St Louis variations....since both of which were printed ONLY with PB backs.

Demmitt & O'Hara were traded during the off-season in 1909. They both started the 1910 season with their respective St Louis teams. Early May of 1910, both of
them were re-assigned to the Eastern League. Demmitt to Montreal and O'Hara to Toronto.

This narrow window of their play with their St Louis teams in May 1910 absolutely confirms the timeline of these Demmitt and O'Hara cards to the Summer of 1910.





Imperial Tobacco (C46)....Eastern (International) League cards




TED Z

T206 Reference
.
You can address me Ted I think I've shown I willing to discuss our opinions and I think I always provide my reasons whether they're right or wrong.

Where do we have proof of the distribution dates on the Polar Bears? Demmit and O'hara isn't proof.
We have proof through ads and the ATC journal on the distribution of most if not all of the other t206 brands.

The Polar Bear brand was organized by Wilbern
img481 - Copy.jpg

and it's obvious he was a baseball fan and spent money promoting baseball
so why isn't it possible he was involved with re-using the t206 images in the
Polar Bear Brand?
img490.jpg

When You compare Polar Bear to the other t206 brands you have

1 Demmitt and O'hara

2 the only t206 brand inserted directly with the tobacco in a pouch

3 A different back printing process than all the other backs (the lack of ink
makes up the advertising while with all the other backs the advertising is printed in ink)

4 Print flaws that are found on all other brands aren't found on Polar Bears
but the Dopner error/flaw is only found on Polar Bear.

I think anybody that does research especially on the older cards knows that although it's helpful dating a distribution on the teams players played for at the time isn't always accurate.


For decades most people including you thought the Southern Leaguer printing started in late 1909-early 1910 with the Old Mill backs until I found the ad that showed they were distributed in the summer of 1909 with Old Mill backs and the ATC journal shows the same thing.


So what's your explanation for Polar Bear and Coupons absence in the journal now that you've seen that the dates are there for all the other tobacco products and the t206's coincide with newspaper and sporting life ads that were promoting them.

Last edited by Pat R; 06-04-2021 at 02:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 06-04-2021, 04:58 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

If we assume authenticity and accuracy (there are some conflicts with data on the card backs in non-baseball sets compared to what the journal states), over 3/4 of the ATC journal is missing, based on the page numbering that goes to at least 380 in the surviving pages. Personally, I don't see how was can say a set is not in there, and that its lack of inclusion is evidence it is from a separate run as a result. We do not know the table of contents pages (which appear to have been amended as pages were added) are all present. We would need the entirety of the book to say this with any degree of certainty.

Second, Polar Bear absolutely was an ATC brand in the T206 distribution period, Continental was a subsidiary of the ATC they used to manage multiple smaller brands. That does not mean PB's were printed at the same time as other backs, but this does not seem to hold weight as a reason to support a claim it is a separate release.

If PB's were from years years later, like in 1914 as was alluded, like T214, T213-2 etc., the selection and team captions are very, very odd. I can't see why Demmitt (he wasn't in the majors in 1911, 1912, or 1913) and O'Hara (never played a game in the majors after 1910) would be updated for late 1909 (Demmitt was swapped Dec. 16, 1909, not sure on O'Hara) trades and the numerous other players who changed teams or left the league were re-printed without any updates years later. That seems even odder to me. I've always thought PB was just printed at the end of the production run that included O'Hara and Demmitt. The PB cards also do not betray the low-quality print that the ALC 'reprint' issues had, like T213-2, T213-3, T223. This does not rule it out, of course.

I'm not seeing much evidence to support the notion, certainly not a preponderance that the general understanding in the hobby is wrong or has less evidence than this claim. I don't have enough money into T206 to have a dog in the fight, I'm open to the notion if the evidence supports it. I'm just not seeing that evidence. I'd be happy to be proven wrong and learn something new, PB's are the coolest looking back in my book and I go out of my way to add them over other backs.


EDIT: After looking at my copy of the .pdf'd ledger again, it is obvious the table of contents with brands is not complete and at least 1 full page of it is missing. This makes the claim that PB is NOT in the ledger even more difficult to sustain.

Last edited by G1911; 06-04-2021 at 05:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 06-05-2021, 04:28 AM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
If we assume authenticity and accuracy (there are some conflicts with data on the card backs in non-baseball sets compared to what the journal states), over 3/4 of the ATC journal is missing, based on the page numbering that goes to at least 380 in the surviving pages. Personally, I don't see how was can say a set is not in there, and that its lack of inclusion is evidence it is from a separate run as a result. We do not know the table of contents pages (which appear to have been amended as pages were added) are all present. We would need the entirety of the book to say this with any degree of certainty.

Second, Polar Bear absolutely was an ATC brand in the T206 distribution period, Continental was a subsidiary of the ATC they used to manage multiple smaller brands. That does not mean PB's were printed at the same time as other backs, but this does not seem to hold weight as a reason to support a claim it is a separate release.

If PB's were from years years later, like in 1914 as was alluded, like T214, T213-2 etc., the selection and team captions are very, very odd. I can't see why Demmitt (he wasn't in the majors in 1911, 1912, or 1913) and O'Hara (never played a game in the majors after 1910) would be updated for late 1909 (Demmitt was swapped Dec. 16, 1909, not sure on O'Hara) trades and the numerous other players who changed teams or left the league were re-printed without any updates years later. That seems even odder to me. I've always thought PB was just printed at the end of the production run that included O'Hara and Demmitt. The PB cards also do not betray the low-quality print that the ALC 'reprint' issues had, like T213-2, T213-3, T223. This does not rule it out, of course.

I'm not seeing much evidence to support the notion, certainly not a preponderance that the general understanding in the hobby is wrong or has less evidence than this claim. I don't have enough money into T206 to have a dog in the fight, I'm open to the notion if the evidence supports it. I'm just not seeing that evidence. I'd be happy to be proven wrong and learn something new, PB's are the coolest looking back in my book and I go out of my way to add them over other backs.


EDIT: After looking at my copy of the .pdf'd ledger again, it is obvious the table of contents with brands is not complete and at least 1 full page of it is missing. This makes the claim that PB is NOT in the ledger even more difficult to sustain.
Greg, yes there are a lot of pages missing in the journal but there's still a lot of information in the pages that are there. I don't see where you're getting that there is a table of contents page missing. As I said in our previous discussion you have to look over all of the pages thoroughly and take in account the information from other pages.. I haven't found any inaccuracies on the dates in the journal but I do see where there is some inaccuracy in how you're reading what's in it.

In the other thread you made a couple of inaccurate points about the journal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
I don't believe this is correct (or fully correct). There are some oddities in the ledger book, and some pages that indicate multiple print runs/issue runs for the same set. For example, T53 is stated in one of the Posey letters in it to have starting packing and delivery on March 29, 1911. The very next letter in the book says this single-series single-brand issue started packing and delivery on May 23, 1911.

T218's 3rd series is stated to have been issued in February, 1911 on one page in the ledger itself, and one of the Posey letters states May 25th.

Many of the pages are also missing, they are numbered to at least 380. Including the Posey letters not counted in the page count, there are 65 pages still together plus the remnants of the T206 pages someone ripped out of the collection to sell at some point, removing a lot of context.

I suspect T36 is one of the issues that had multiple issue (and print?) runs, and so was not issued for only March 27 and 28, 1911.


The two T53 dates you point out are when they were discontinuing two different products and substituting T53's in their place.

On this one they are discontinuing the Auto drivers and substituting the cowboy's.
img491.jpg

and on this one they're discontinuing the Lighthouse's and substituting the cowboy's.
img492.jpg

and as I pointed out in the other thread March 27 and 28 wasn't the only dates they distributed the T36's that was just the days they started packing and shipping them.

also from our previous discussion I don't see any proof of "impossible" dates in the journal.

I think that if the Polar Bears and Coupons were printed in the same timeframe as the t206's it would be quite a coincidence that they are the only two missing from this journal however I was never suggesting they were printed in 1914 as you state I was suggesting they may have been printed shortly after the T206's or at a different facility than the t206's.

Each individual person put's a different weight on information they find in their research but for me written information from the time of occurrence like this journal is at the top for me. The information in the card catalogs with some things are a best guess based on the information known at the time but that doesn't mean we have to stop looking or accepting new information when it becomes available.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 06-05-2021, 11:14 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post
Greg, yes there are a lot of pages missing in the journal but there's still a lot of information in the pages that are there. I don't see where you're getting that there is a table of contents page missing. As I said in our previous discussion you have to look over all of the pages thoroughly and take in account the information from other pages.. I haven't found any inaccuracies on the dates in the journal but I do see where there is some inaccuracy in how you're reading what's in it.

In the other thread you made a couple of inaccurate points about the journal.
[/B]

The two T53 dates you point out are when they were discontinuing two different products and substituting T53's in their place.

On this one they are discontinuing the Auto drivers and substituting the cowboy's.
Attachment 462203

and on this one they're discontinuing the Lighthouse's and substituting the cowboy's.
Attachment 462204

and as I pointed out in the other thread March 27 and 28 wasn't the only dates they distributed the T36's that was just the days they started packing and shipping them.

also from our previous discussion I don't see any proof of "impossible" dates in the journal.

I think that if the Polar Bears and Coupons were printed in the same timeframe as the t206's it would be quite a coincidence that they are the only two missing from this journal however I was never suggesting they were printed in 1914 as you state I was suggesting they may have been printed shortly after the T206's or at a different facility than the t206's.

Each individual person put's a different weight on information they find in their research but for me written information from the time of occurrence like this journal is at the top for me. The information in the card catalogs with some things are a best guess based on the information known at the time but that doesn't mean we have to stop looking or accepting new information when it becomes available.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 06-05-2021, 04:25 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
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?

Last edited by Pat R; 06-06-2021 at 05:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 06-06-2021, 09:15 AM
jggames jggames is offline
Jason
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 230
Default

It seems reasonable to believe that Index is a full representation of the ledger's contents, if only just for practical purposes...they used it regularly and needed to get to pages quickly. A hidden "Coupon" or Polar Bear page just seems unlikely given all of the other brands' representation.

If that's the case then figuring out where these two brands were printed becomes the fun historical hunt. I hadn't seen this posted yet, so I thought I'd share. Everyone knows Knapp and ATC printed everything, here is a direct connection to the Coupon's W.R. Irby New Orleans branch, which I hadn't seen before. "The Knapp Co Lith NY"

Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 06-06-2021, 09:19 AM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jggames View Post
It seems reasonable to believe that Index is a full representation of the ledger's contents, if only just for practical purposes...they used it regularly and needed to get to pages quickly. A hidden "Coupon" or Polar Bear page just seems unlikely given all of the other brands' representation.

If that's the case then figuring out where these two brands were printed becomes the fun historical hunt. I hadn't seen this posted yet, so I thought I'd share. Everyone knows Knapp and ATC printed everything, here is a direct connection to the Coupon's W.R. Irby New Orleans branch, which I hadn't seen before. "The Knapp Co Lith NY"

That is cool Jason thanks for posting that.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 06-06-2021, 10:25 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post
[/B]


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?

1) Nobody can possible know what is in pages 1-51, or if it ended at 380. None of us possibly can.

2) Same

3) That does not answer when the allegation is that Polar Bear was printed. We have walked back the 1914 not ATC claims, and so it isn't 1914. But it also isn't T206 time because it is not in the surviving elements of the ledger and wasn't done at the time they were. So when is it? Somewhere between 1911-1913?

4) They can't "start delivering" a Hassan 30 card in May if that Hassan 30 card was already being delivered in March and there was a continuous release and they have been doing so since March. Perhaps their verbiage is just imprecise and it was a continuous release (clearly alongside other sets). We do not know, the evidence is simply not here to be certain. We are all guessing on what is present.

5) The difference with T36 is we have claims of end dates, but I'm not sure it matters much.

6) There is zero evidence to indicate sets were not released as series, but in timed smaller waves instead. This is simply the assumption that best fits treating the ledger as gospel-source to explain everything. The only SP card in T218-1 is Handy, who was pulled between the Mecca and Hassan runs. Johnson (Green) was added late (He did not replace Handy) and is a super print. 3 cards had amendments made during the print run creating variations. None of this suggests wave release. Nothing in T206 suggests a handful of subjects were issued at a time, and then the next wave added and so on either. There is no actual evidence of waves being added late, much less a preponderance. There is no evidence Phil McGovern was a late addition whatsoever.

7) T68, T99, T219, some C issues they printed in this time frame like C52, T220-1 to name some examples from the top of my head I care about. Many later issues are not in what survives like T207, T227. Again though, we factually do not know what was in this complete ledger if its authenticity is assumed. Maybe T68 was included, I don't know, nobody does.



A gospel source methodology, in which all other evidence is seen through the lens of needing to conform with the gospel-source, even if those explanations appear to contradict other facts and probabilities or are much less likely than simpler explanations, is an inherently flawed methodology. I agree with some of the claims coming from what is in the ledger (quite a few, actually), but some of the claims being made do not stand up to a reasonable evidentiary standard (I would use a preponderance standard, personally). That Polar Bear is not present in the 1/4 (at absolute most, we do not and cannot possibly know how long it actually was originally) of this work whose surviving contents pages are clearly not complete does not mean it was not produced as T206. One cannot claim to know what was and was not in this work when most of it is gone, and the table of contents is plainly missing at least one page. Disagreeing with someones interpretations of an incomplete book with unknown provenance and authenticity is not tantamount to favoring secondary and tertiary sources over primary. And so on and so forth. Is there a single shred of evidence to support a claim that since PB is not T206 (a rather fluid, after-the-fact construct) outside of this series of stacking assumptions based on presence in the ledger remnants? None has been produced.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 06-07-2021, 06:33 AM
jggames jggames is offline
Jason
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
That Polar Bear is not present in the 1/4 (at absolute most, we do not and cannot possibly know how long it actually was originally) of this work whose surviving contents pages are clearly not complete does not mean it was not produced as T206.
Is there a single shred of evidence to support a claim that since PB is not T206 (a rather fluid, after-the-fact construct) outside of this series of stacking assumptions based on presence in the ledger remnants? None has been produced.
I missed the claim that PB shouldn’t be considered T206 because they weren’t in the ledger. Or that the ledger had anything to do with the “T206” definition at all.

I certainly think it’s a T206 along with “Coupon” Type-1 - they just may not have been packed at the Ledger’s place of distribution.
Reply With Quote
  #241  
Old 06-07-2021, 11:10 AM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
1) Nobody can possible know what is in pages 1-51, or if it ended at 380. None of us possibly can.

2) Same

3) That does not answer when the allegation is that Polar Bear was printed. We have walked back the 1914 not ATC claims, and so it isn't 1914. But it also isn't T206 time because it is not in the surviving elements of the ledger and wasn't done at the time they were. So when is it? Somewhere between 1911-1913?

4) They can't "start delivering" a Hassan 30 card in May if that Hassan 30 card was already being delivered in March and there was a continuous release and they have been doing so since March. Perhaps their verbiage is just imprecise and it was a continuous release (clearly alongside other sets). We do not know, the evidence is simply not here to be certain. We are all guessing on what is present.

5) The difference with T36 is we have claims of end dates, but I'm not sure it matters much.

6) There is zero evidence to indicate sets were not released as series, but in timed smaller waves instead. This is simply the assumption that best fits treating the ledger as gospel-source to explain everything. The only SP card in T218-1 is Handy, who was pulled between the Mecca and Hassan runs. Johnson (Green) was added late (He did not replace Handy) and is a super print. 3 cards had amendments made during the print run creating variations. None of this suggests wave release. Nothing in T206 suggests a handful of subjects were issued at a time, and then the next wave added and so on either. There is no actual evidence of waves being added late, much less a preponderance. There is no evidence Phil McGovern was a late addition whatsoever.

7) T68, T99, T219, some C issues they printed in this time frame like C52, T220-1 to name some examples from the top of my head I care about. Many later issues are not in what survives like T207, T227. Again though, we factually do not know what was in this complete ledger if its authenticity is assumed. Maybe T68 was included, I don't know, nobody does.



A gospel source methodology, in which all other evidence is seen through the lens of needing to conform with the gospel-source, even if those explanations appear to contradict other facts and probabilities or are much less likely than simpler explanations, is an inherently flawed methodology. I agree with some of the claims coming from what is in the ledger (quite a few, actually), but some of the claims being made do not stand up to a reasonable evidentiary standard (I would use a preponderance standard, personally). That Polar Bear is not present in the 1/4 (at absolute most, we do not and cannot possibly know how long it actually was originally) of this work whose surviving contents pages are clearly not complete does not mean it was not produced as T206. One cannot claim to know what was and was not in this work when most of it is gone, and the table of contents is plainly missing at least one page. Disagreeing with someones interpretations of an incomplete book with unknown provenance and authenticity is not tantamount to favoring secondary and tertiary sources over primary. And so on and so forth. Is there a single shred of evidence to support a claim that since PB is not T206 (a rather fluid, after-the-fact construct) outside of this series of stacking assumptions based on presence in the ledger remnants? None has been produced.

Greg, I never said everything in the journal is gospel. Admittedly I'm not good at putting what I'm trying to say in writing.

The majority of the information in the ledger pages isn't about the printing of the cards it's about particular types of cards inserted in a particular product and when you look at different pages in some cases you can see where a particular product for a particular brands supply was exhausted but at some point more were printed and it was available again similar to when a grocery store runs out of a certain product. That doesn't necessarily mean that product was discontinued they just temporarily ran out of stock.

I can tell you that with the T68's you brought up some of them at some point were printed right around the end of the T206 Tolstoi printing.

We know this because some scrap cards of the t206 460 only series Tolstoi's/Piedmont's have been found that were cut from a sheet that was used as a test print and they have T68 subjects on them.

0 img393.jpg
0 img378 - Copy - Copy.jpg

0 Tannehill%20Test%20Print%20Scrap%20Back - Copy.jpg

Ford b - Copy.jpg

Last edited by Pat R; 06-07-2021 at 11:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 06-08-2021, 01:05 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post
Greg, I never said everything in the journal is gospel. Admittedly I'm not good at putting what I'm trying to say in writing.

The majority of the information in the ledger pages isn't about the printing of the cards it's about particular types of cards inserted in a particular product and when you look at different pages in some cases you can see where a particular product for a particular brands supply was exhausted but at some point more were printed and it was available again similar to when a grocery store runs out of a certain product. That doesn't necessarily mean that product was discontinued they just temporarily ran out of stock.

I can tell you that with the T68's you brought up some of them at some point were printed right around the end of the T206 Tolstoi printing.

We know this because some scrap cards of the t206 460 only series Tolstoi's/Piedmont's have been found that were cut from a sheet that was used as a test print and they have T68 subjects on them.

Attachment 462761
Attachment 462760

Attachment 462762

Attachment 462763
I understand your argument, and you may well be correct in this point, but the ledger does not seem to say that. We don't have T53 being discontinued and coming back, we have it stated to begin twice. T36 which is discontinued, we don't have a later re-release of in the surviving pages. It may be the way you think, it may not. I don't know if sets were one shots, went out of stock and brought back, could go either way. I suspect some were issued multiple times in fairly close succession, but that is mere conjecture off fragmentary evidence. None of us know. An inaccuracy is not a difference of opinion on slim evidence, it's a false claim to fact.

These exact cards are one of the reasons I used T68. I think you are making my point here. T68 series 2 was printed very close in time with T206 series 3 (and presumably distributed, it does not make sense that they ordered sets and then just sat on them for long periods of time or years, especially when they seem to run out of sets within 48 hours sometimes). It's first series was printed before (I do not have direct evidence of this, but it seems difficult to argue that series 2 came before series 1), probably similar timeframe as the first or second series of T206, but as a non-sport subject it's cards are less directly telling. And yet, it is not in the ledger, it's brands, ATC cigarettes, not in the surviving contents pages. This doesn't mean it isn't from the same period, issued in the same way, from the same company and place as the sets and parts of sets that are. This is my entire point; lack of presence in the surviving elements of the ledger (Less than a quarter of it, at best) does not mean it is from a different time or distribution. This is true for T68, it is true for Polar Bear, it is true for Coupon.

I'm still unclear when it is being alleged PB was printed and distributed now, removing the not-atc-until-1914, if we disagree it was printed and distributed at the end of the 350 run (accounting for the updates to Demmitt and O'Hara but no other cards), when is the allegation that it was released? Post 209 suggests not 1910. But it's before 1914. Obviously we can't say an exact date, but are we alleging mid-late 1911 after the 460 series? 1912? 1913? I've still seen 0 evidence that it was printed or distributed at a different time from what the cards seem to suggest in the captions. I'd love to see it if it exists.
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 06-08-2021, 01:19 AM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jggames View Post
I missed the claim that PB shouldn’t be considered T206 because they weren’t in the ledger. Or that the ledger had anything to do with the “T206” definition at all.

I certainly think it’s a T206 along with “Coupon” Type-1 - they just may not have been packed at the Ledger’s place of distribution.
The thread is about if Coupon should be classified as T206. We have an argument in post 209 that Polar Bear and Coupon "almost certainly should be in this journal" if they were produced in 1910. The Journal dates covering 1909-1912 are highlighted in posts 209 and 211, suggesting that the cards are form a different time, though we have withdrawn from the 'it can't be from 1909 to 1912 because it wasn't ATC until 1914' that was originally part of it and the earlier replies. In bold red, it is said that "they weren't printed and distributed with the other t206 brands." If they were not printed and distributed, both in time and geographically, with the rest of T206, how should they possibly be classified T206? As the thread is quite specifically and explicitly about what should and should not be classified as T206, I struggle to see any relevance to the subject if this is not the argument. If I misunderstood Mr. Pat_R's argument, he's had several replies to correct this directly stated counterargument.

As to your second point, the Ledger does not appear to belong to a place of distribution whatsoever. It includes many brands from many different factories, not a single distribution center/factory. If we must assign it to a geographical place, the inclusion of the Posey letters would indicate it came from a corporate office at 111 Fifth Ave. in NYC.
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 06-08-2021, 04:48 AM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
The thread is about if Coupon should be classified as T206. We have an argument in post 209 that Polar Bear and Coupon "almost certainly should be in this journal" if they were produced in 1910. The Journal dates covering 1909-1912 are highlighted in posts 209 and 211, suggesting that the cards are form a different time, though we have withdrawn from the 'it can't be from 1909 to 1912 because it wasn't ATC until 1914' that was originally part of it and the earlier replies. In bold red, it is said that "they weren't printed and distributed with the other t206 brands." If they were not printed and distributed, both in time and geographically, with the rest of T206, how should they possibly be classified T206? As the thread is quite specifically and explicitly about what should and should not be classified as T206, I struggle to see any relevance to the subject if this is not the argument. If I misunderstood Mr. Pat_R's argument, he's had several replies to correct this directly stated counterargument.

As to your second point, the Ledger does not appear to belong to a place of distribution whatsoever. It includes many brands from many different factories, not a single distribution center/factory. If we must assign it to a geographical place, the inclusion of the Posey letters would indicate it came from a corporate office at 111 Fifth Ave. in NYC.
Greg, the reason for several replies is because Ted asked me why the Polar Bears weren't in the ledger in post #210, 212, and 218 and I gave a couple of reasons why I thought they might not be in the ledger.

Last edited by Pat R; 06-08-2021 at 05:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 06-08-2021, 07:30 PM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
The thread is about if Coupon should be classified as T206. We have an argument in post 209 that Polar Bear and Coupon "almost certainly should be in this journal" if they were produced in 1910. The Journal dates covering 1909-1912 are highlighted in posts 209 and 211, suggesting that the cards are form a different time, though we have withdrawn from the 'it can't be from 1909 to 1912 because it wasn't ATC until 1914' that was originally part of it and the earlier replies. In bold red, it is said that "they weren't printed and distributed with the other t206 brands." If they were not printed and distributed, both in time and geographically, with the rest of T206, how should they possibly be classified T206? As the thread is quite specifically and explicitly about what should and should not be classified as T206, I struggle to see any relevance to the subject if this is not the argument. If I misunderstood Mr. Pat_R's argument, he's had several replies to correct this directly stated counterargument.

As to your second point, the Ledger does not appear to belong to a place of distribution whatsoever. It includes many brands from many different factories, not a single distribution center/factory. If we must assign it to a geographical place, the inclusion of the Posey letters would indicate it came from a corporate office at 111 Fifth Ave. in NYC.


The Letters are from the Kinney Brothers packing plant to Posey at 111 Fifth Ave. The original Kinney Brothers building was at West 22nd St. NYC but it was gutted by a fire in 1892 I
don't know if they rebuilt it or relocated. At the time of the fire they were processing 18,000,000 cigarettes a week.

Last edited by Pat R; 06-08-2021 at 07:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 06-09-2021, 07:03 AM
Pat R's Avatar
Pat R Pat R is offline
P@trick R.omolo
member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Pat

As I have already said....that undated list of 30 brands (ATC) without POLAR BEAR data indicates to me that it reflects information prior to the introduction of the
POLAR BEAR tobacco cards (circa SPRING 1910).

We cannot ignore this timeline. I will get into this later today, as I have to leave right now.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.
While continuing to research the journal I think two of the reasons I posted are why the Polar Bears are not in this journal. That it was a different product
processed at a different facility.

I'm pretty sure this journal was from the Kinney Brothers processing facility. The Posey letters in the journal are the original letters and the carbon copy's
would have been sent to the fifth Ave. facility informing them what was being packed in the products.

Polar Bear falls under the plug tobacco product and I still stand behind my opinion I posted before that it was at most only partially under the control of the
American Tobacco company at that time Polar Bear t206's were printed.

img500.jpg

img482.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 06-28-2021, 06:48 PM
jggames jggames is offline
Jason
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 230
Default

Just picked this up from ebay. It’s cool to see the T206 brands, and nothing really turns on this 1912 booklet, but it would be cool to find the 1909-1911, simply to see what the cigarette packs may have said on the front (if it’s not already known).



Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 06-29-2021, 03:30 AM
gabrinus's Avatar
gabrinus gabrinus is offline
Jerry Tate
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 900
Default Cool

That's cool Jason...Jerry
Reply With Quote
Reply




Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interesting trivia about 1910 COUPON (T213-1) cards...show us some of these rare gems tedzan Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 112 05-31-2021 06:33 AM
FYI....1910 COUPON checklist (T213-1) tedzan Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 21 09-03-2014 09:22 PM
FS: 1910 T213-1 Type 1 Coupon usernamealreadytaken Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T 0 07-20-2012 03:16 PM
F/S....1910 COUPON (T213-1) cards tedzan Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T 2 12-21-2011 01:58 PM
T213-1 (1910 Type 1 Coupon) usernamealreadytaken Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T 0 11-02-2011 08:18 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:56 PM.


ebay GSB