Why I think Cobb wasn't printed with a Brown Hindu back

[jlehma13]

Is there any evidence of money changing hands for permission to use players’ likenesses? I wonder if the off season letters were a last ditch effort to secure signatures they were unable to get in the clubhouses in ‘08. Simpler times for sure.

[wolf441]

Just thinking out loud, so I apologize if there are easy answers to these questions...

Why is the Bozeman Bulger letter on New York Highlanders letterhead? He didn't work for the team, did he?

When was the Bulger letter first discovered, was it known back at the time, or in the decades after, or did it not come to light until more recently?

Given the number of different subjects in the set, there should have been almost 400 of these letters either delivered in person at the ball park or through the mail. Is there a reasonable explanation as to why this is the only one that has been discovered to date? I am operating under the assumption that permission would have to have been granted (based on the 1908 law) for any likeness to be sold, with not only cigarettes, but also gum, candy, bread, etc. That would require many more signed letters of permission across major and minor league players, across many different sets and they would have to be held on file at multiple different firms (American Tobacco, American Lithography, as well as various candy manufacturers, etc.). If it was just American Tobacco (or American Lithography), I guess they could have all been destroyed/thrown away at the same time. How likely is it that all of these signed letters would suffer the same fate across many different companies?

Adding on, based on a quick Google search

The letter was owned at one time by Barry Halper. Weren't there some items that Halper owned that were later discovered to have been forgeries? Is it possible for the envelope and letterhead to be real, but the actual content of the letter to be a fake? By that I mean, the envelope and they letter down to "Dear Neil," as genuine.

Are there any examples of Bulger's signature that can be compared to the letter?

Again, I am just thinking out loud and do not have any ax to grind here, no need to fire arrows at me

[G1911]

Originally Posted by wolf441

Just thinking out loud, so I apologize if there are easy answers to these questions...

Why is the Bozeman Bulger letter on New York Highlanders letterhead? He didn't work for the team, did he?

When was the Bulger letter first discovered, was it known back at the time, or in the decades after, or did it not come to light until more recently?

Given the number of different subjects in the set, there should have been almost 400 of these letters either delivered in person at the ball park or through the mail. Is there a reasonable explanation as to why this is the only one that has been discovered to date? I am operating under the assumption that permission would have to have been granted (based on the 1908 law) for any likeness to be sold, with not only cigarettes, but also gum, candy, bread, etc. That would require many more signed letters of permission across major and minor league players, across many different sets and they would have to be held on file at multiple different firms (American Tobacco, American Lithography, as well as various candy manufacturers, etc.). If it was just American Tobacco (or American Lithography), I guess they could have all been destroyed/thrown away at the same time. How likely is it that all of these signed letters would suffer the same fate across many different companies?

Adding on, based on a quick Google search

The letter was owned at one time by Barry Halper. Weren't there some items that Halper owned that were later discovered to have been forgeries? Is it possible for the envelope and letterhead to be real, but the actual content of the letter to be a fake? By that I mean, the envelope and they letter down to "Dear Neil," as genuine.

Are there any examples of Bulger's signature that can be compared to the letter?

Again, I am just thinking out loud and do not have any ax to grind here, no need to fire arrows at me

The Ball letter became known more recently; there was no 'real hobby' to know of it until the 1940's at all.

Permission was to the lithographer and not ATC, so other sets they did could have used these likenesses. Presumably some of the smaller sets by other companies simply ignored the law and flew under the radar.

The letters appear to have been from the lithographic companies that produced the ATC set, on behalf of American Lithographic and Brett Lithographic. They were presumably then given to the ATC, as ATC was the defendant in the Porter case dealing with his letter and not one of the lithographic companies.

Most of them would disappear together because they were probably filed together. Over 99.9% of internal documentation on these cards has disappeared, there is no wealth of paperwork. We have 1 partial ledger, 1 possibly full ledger, these two contracts, a handful of uncut panels and strips from non-baseball sets and... I think that is it on all the ATC sets production, development and printing.

I am a sceptic, but believe the Ball letter is genuine. I see no evidence for forgery, Halper wasn't a forger he got duped as a buyer on some game-used material. It lines up with other evidence that surfaced later; if it was a fraud from this time it likely would reference ATC more directly and not the lithographer, and a more compelling name than Neal Ball would be chosen for $$$.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by G1911

The Ball letter became known more recently; there was no 'real hobby' to know of it until the 1940's at all.

Permission was to the lithographer and not ATC, so other sets they did could have used these likenesses. Presumably some of the smaller sets by other companies simply ignored the law and flew under the radar.

The letters appear to have been from the lithographic companies that produced the ATC set, on behalf of American Lithographic and Brett Lithographic. They were presumably then given to the ATC, as ATC was the defendant in the Porter case dealing with his letter and not one of the lithographic companies.

Most of them would disappear together because they were probably filed together. Over 99.9% of internal documentation on these cards has disappeared, there is no wealth of paperwork. We have 1 partial ledger, 1 possibly full ledger, these two contracts, a handful of uncut panels and strips from non-baseball sets and... I think that is it on all the ATC sets production, development and printing.

I am a sceptic, but believe the Ball letter is genuine. I see no evidence for forgery, Halper wasn't a forger he got duped as a buyer on some game-used material. It lines up with other evidence that surfaced later; if it was a fraud from this time it likely would reference ATC more directly and not the lithographer, and a more compelling name than Neal Ball would be chosen for $$$.

Thanks for the reply and the information.

I agree that the smaller companies could have ignored the law. And if the letter was on behalf of the lithographers, it would make sense that there would be fewer of them needed than if they had to be obtained by each individual tobacco, candy, gum firm that included them with their products.

I thought about the fact that the letter was from an fairly average player, rather than one of the stars of the day. But, if you were trying to make a convincing forgery, wouldn't that be the type of player that you would choose? Also, the all of the facts around the 1912 article dealing with Honus Wagner's refusal to grant permission to use his image were well known by the 1980's. So the content of the letter is not sufficient proof that it is not a forgery. Is there an explanation as to why it is on New York Highlanders stationary?

I am not arguing that the letter is a forgery, I'm just trying to understand how this letter survived where no other copies have every been discovered.

If they had to get sign off from everyone in the set, you would think that in some cases, they would have had to send more than one letter if players did not respond to the first request. Why have no copies come to light when the personal effects of the players of the time were sold off by family members in the decades after the cards were issued?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by wolf441

Thanks for the reply and the information.

I agree that the smaller companies could have ignored the law. And if the letter was on behalf of the lithographers, it would make sense that there would be fewer of them needed than if they had to be obtained by each individual tobacco, candy, gum firm that included them with their products.

I thought about the fact that the letter was from an fairly average player, rather than one of the stars of the day. But, if you were trying to make a convincing forgery, wouldn't that be the type of player that you would choose? Also, the all of the facts around the 1912 article dealing with Honus Wagner's refusal to grant permission to use his image were well known by the 1980's. So the content of the letter is not sufficient proof that it is not a forgery. Is there an explanation as to why it is on New York Highlanders stationary?

I am not arguing that the letter is a forgery, I'm just trying to understand how this letter survived where no other copies have every been discovered.

If they had to get sign off from everyone in the set, you would think that in some cases, they would have had to send more than one letter if players did not respond to the first request. Why have no copies come to light when the personal effects of the players of the time were sold off by family members in the decades after the cards were issued?

By consistent with the later evidence I am not referring to Wagner at all. In that time the hobby was focused on the tobacco companies and not the printers, it is consistent with the information we have gleaned since from other sources. A forgery would likely be on behalf of the ATC, as it is only very recently we have begun to understand that the lithographers played a much more active role in these sets than just printing them for ATC.

I agree with Steve, this is hardly the first letter from a sports writer on team letterhead, kickbacks from the team were common and the press was usually in bed with the team ownership. It doesn’t seem out of place to me. Also makes sense the team would be supportive: it’s free advertising.

The survival rate isn’t a red flag, I think. How many printing stones and plates from the ATC sets have been found? How much other internal documentation? It’s almost none. I wouldn’t expect these letters, fairly insignificant at this time, to survive in greater quantity than other documentation has.

I am a big fan of skepticism, separating fact from probability from personal opinions. We cannot say beyond any doubt the letter is genuine, but it is more reasonable to think it real than to think it a clever forgery, as there is no evidence for the later.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by G1911

By consistent with the later evidence I am not referring to Wagner at all. In that time the hobby was focused on the tobacco companies and not the printers, it is consistent with the information we have gleaned since from other sources. A forgery would likely be on behalf of the ATC, as it is only very recently we have begun to understand that the lithographers played a much more active role in these sets than just printing them for ATC.

I agree with Steve, this is hardly the first letter from a sports writer on team letterhead, kickbacks from the team were common and the press was usually in bed with the team ownership. It doesn’t seem out of place to me. Also makes sense the team would be supportive: it’s free advertising.

The survival rate isn’t a red flag, I think. How many printing stones and plates from the ATC sets have been found? How much other internal documentation? It’s almost none. I wouldn’t expect these letters, fairly insignificant at this time, to survive in greater quantity than other documentation has.

I am a big fan of skepticism, separating fact from probability from personal opinions. We cannot say beyond any doubt the letter is genuine, but it is more reasonable to think it real than to think it a clever forgery, as there is no evidence for the later.

Thanks, that certainly makes sense. I'm usually not a conspiracy theory type of guy at all.

It would be cool if we knew where the Ball letter came from when it was originally put up for auction. Was there any mention as to who sold/consigned it when it originally surfaced and how it came to be in their possession?

[Pat R]

I not saying they could not have but if it was forged they would have either done some research or had knowledge of the change in the use of images law but still it seems like an odd thing to put in this letter if it was forged.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by G1911

How many printing stones and plates from the ATC sets have been found?

I think there are non- card stones out there from ALC.

I've only seen one stone with a card, and that was for one of the Canadian hockey sets. And at that, it was a master that transfers would have been printed from rather than a production stone.

The production stones would have been resurfaced once they wore enough. And large ones did exist. But all the more reason to resurface as they were very heavy and expensive.

I have a scan saved of one card that I need to find and put up that I believe shows the P350 stone was done on one of the scratched P150 stones. As it has a faint remnant of a scratch.

Having just found out about the Aluminum plate rotary press being used on something besides tin, I'm not sure about what would have been done with the aluminum plates. The description makes it seem as if they were fairly thick, and if so they may have been resurfaced too.
The ones I'm familiar with were very thin and coated and were just saved to be recycled. The smaller ones from the 12" press made great dustpans.

[steve B]

The Ball letter could possibly have been faked, removing ink and retyping with am old typewriter etc.

The points against that are many.
At the time Halper would have gotten it, it would have been a cool but not important item from a non- star player. The nuisance of faking a worn letter to a player from a non- player would make no economic sense. The item they would have had to clean to create it would probably have been worth more.
Get an actual letter to Ball on NY stationery
Clean off existing content
Find an old typewriter or two... It looks like the main letter was a form letter and the name added.
Add different content.

So much work so little return.... Well into the 1990's, I could regularly find letters from somewhat notable people for under $5. Probably still can, it's just a little less common.

Bulger was a sportswriter, and if I recall correctly, at the time sportswriters covering baseball were very close to the team. Perhaps even paid by the team at times. Sort of a PR function where the paper employed them to cover other things during the off season. So the letterhead doesn't surprise me at all.

[steve B]

So few survived because of the way they're made.
The permission slip is part of the original letter.
Like Hyland, most were probably returned complete and filed in Either ALC or Bretts offices.

As for ones not dealt with, how much of your junk mail do you keep?
All the letters from credit card companies offering a card, or from places asking for donations... I collect stamps, so I save more than most and the amount I send to recycling is not all that trivial.

[steve B]

Lots more great info has come out on the T220 thread.

Like Brett Litho and ALC being close enough that Brett probably printed some T206s.
And that Brett was using a type of press I hadn't heard about as one used on paper stock, One that was MUCH faster than the Hoe company flatbed presses ALC was (Mostly?) using.

There was also a thing that gave us the probable size of the physical sheet for actress silks and most likely the baseball ones as well.
AND the way they describe the stock required would seem to indicate a press that was not sheet fed, but rather printed from rolls of material. (Web fed)

The clear but usually minor art differences within the series not only are very likely to support Pats idea here, but also would be the result of slight differences between printers. Very much like most sets from the early 1990's, where we see slight differences on so many cards and often differences that affect entire sets.

So much to think about!

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by steve B

So few survived because of the way they're made.
The permission slip is part of the original letter.
Like Hyland, most were probably returned complete and filed in Either ALC or Bretts offices.

As for ones not dealt with, how much of your junk mail do you keep?
All the letters from credit card companies offering a card, or from places asking for donations... I collect stamps, so I save more than most and the amount I send to recycling is not all that trivial.

Very good points, Steve.

I suppose I am probably giving to much attention to the material based on what we know 100+ years later, but you are right, 99.999% of stuff like this probably wound up in the trash or fireplace.

[tedzan]

Interesting discussion going on here. However, I have a different take on this subject.




Looking at the bigger picture regarding the brown HINDU press run(s). American Lithographic Co. (ALC) printed 136 different subjects with the HINDU back.
Thirty four Southern Leaguers and 102 Major Leaguers.
Exactly how and when ALC printed them, we will probably never know. However, we do have insight into 34 of the HINDU cards, which were simultaneously
printed with the SWEET CAPORAL 150 Factory #649 Overprint press run. Based on several transactions of the players in this group of 34, we can determine
approx. the date when this group of cards were printed with the HINDU back.

There are 155 different subjects comprising the 150 Series of the T206 set. Twelve subjects in the 150-only series, and 143 subjects in the 150/350 series.
We know that ALC printed PIEDMONT 150 backs first in the 150 Series. Then followed with SWEET CAPORAL backs. HINDU backs were printed on 102 Major
Leaguers.
Here are 4 examples in the group of 34 (which I noted above there are more) that indicate approx. how early some of the HINDU press runs were......

Tom Jones..........traded to Detroit in Aug 1909
Jim Pastorius......released by Brooklyn in Aug 1909
Tubby Spencer....retired July 1909
Doc Powers........passed away April 1909

Therefore, my point is that most likely the Green Cobb and the Bat On Cobb were in later press runs of the 150 Series, so were simply left out of the limited
HINDU press runs.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Interesting discussion going on here. However, I have a different take on this subject.




Looking at the bigger picture regarding the brown HINDU press run(s). American Lithographic Co. (ALC) printed 136 different subjects with the HINDU back.
Thirty four Southern Leaguers and 102 Major Leaguers.
Exactly how and when ALC printed them, we will probably never know. However, we do have insight into 34 of the HINDU cards, which were simultaneously
printed with the SWEET CAPORAL 150 Factory #649 Overprint press run. Based on several transactions of the players in this group of 34, we can determine
approx. the date when this group of cards were printed with the HINDU back.

There are 155 different subjects comprising the 150 Series of the T206 set. Twelve subjects in the 150-only series, and 143 subjects in the 150/350 series.
We know that ALC printed PIEDMONT 150 backs first in the 150 Series. Then followed with SWEET CAPORAL backs. HINDU backs were printed on 102 Major
Leaguers.
Here are 4 examples in the group of 34 (which I noted above there are more) that indicate approx. how early some of the HINDU press runs were......

Tom Jones..........traded to Detroit in Aug 1909
Jim Pastorius......released by Brooklyn in Aug 1909
Tubby Spencer....retired July 1909
Doc Powers........passed away April 1909

Therefore, my point is that most likely the Green Cobb and the Bat On Cobb were in later press runs of the 150 Series, so were simply left out of the limited
HINDU press runs.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Your take isn't that far off what I'm proposing Ted except I don't believe that they would have printed two poses of Fielder Jones and left both Cobb poses off the Hindu's if the ability to include Cobb was there. The ads show that they intended to print 150 Hindu subjects and we do have a general idea when the printing of most backs started from ads and the journal pages.


Your reference to the 34 subjects printed with the Hindu and SC649 backs is exactly what I'm proposing a sheet or sheets that was printed together in the same stage would have been probably with Piedmont 150 - Sweet Caporal 150/649 and Hindu.

I think there were 156 subjects that were printed with 150 back.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Your reference to the 34 subjects printed with the Hindu and SC649 backs is exactly what I'm proposing a sheet or sheets that was printed together in the same stage probably with Piedmont 150 - Sweet Caporal 150/649 and Hindu.

I think there were 156 subjects that were printed with 150 back.

Pat

You say "34-card" sheet....and I say "36-card" sheet. I shall repeat.

American Lithograph's small size printing presses had 19-inch track widths, which were sufficiently wide to print 12 cards across the sheet....hence, 36, 48, 72, 96 card sheets.
Therefore, such a sheet with 34 different subjects will have 2 double-prints included to fill-out that sheet. In the SWEET CAP 150 #649 case, my guess is that Johnson & Matty
were double-printed. Just like when TOPPS Hi# sheet (97 different subjects) had Mantle, Robinson, and Thomson double-printed to fill out their 100-card sheet.

In the Southern League case, it's anyone's guess which two players were double-printed. As a teenager, I worked in a Print Shop and I'm very familiar with printing practices.


Come-on Pat, you're nit-picking again..... "I think there were 156 subjects that were printed with 150 back "

I stated.... [B]"There are 155 different subjects"....that does not include the MAGIE error card.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Pat

You say "34-card" sheet....and I say "36-card" sheet. I shall repeat.

American Lithograph's small size printing presses had 19-inch track widths, which were sufficiently wide to print 12 cards across the sheet....hence, 36, 48, 72, 96 card sheets.
Therefore, such a sheet with 34 different subjects will have 2 double-prints included to fill-out that sheet. In the SWEET CAP 150 #649 case, my guess is that Johnson & Matty
were double-printed. Just like when TOPPS Hi# sheet (97 different subjects) had Mantle, Robinson, and Thomson double-printed to fill out their 100-card sheet.

In the Southern League case, it's anyone's guess which two players were double-printed. As a teenager, I worked in a Print Shop and I'm very familiar with printing practices.


Come-on Pat, you're nit-picking again..... "I think there were 156 subjects that were printed with 150 back "

I stated.... [B]"There are 155 different subjects"....that does not include the MAGIE error card.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

They do seem to have printed cards on much, much larger sheets for at least some sets in the ATC 1909-1912 project. Is our proof all T206's were done on 19 inch sheets really definitive?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Pat

You say "34-card" sheet....and I say "36-card" sheet. I shall repeat.

American Lithograph's small size printing presses had 19-inch track widths, which were sufficiently wide to print 12 cards across the sheet....hence, 36, 48, 72, 96 card sheets.
Therefore, such a sheet with 34 different subjects will have 2 double-prints included to fill-out that sheet. In the SWEET CAP 150 #649 case, my guess is that Johnson & Matty
were double-printed. Just like when TOPPS Hi# sheet (97 different subjects) had Mantle, Robinson, and Thomson double-printed to fill out their 100-card sheet.

In the Southern League case, it's anyone's guess which two players were double-printed. As a teenager, I worked in a Print Shop and I'm very familiar with printing practices.


Come-on Pat, you're nit-picking again..... "I think there were 156 subjects that were printed with 150 back "

I stated.... [B]"There are 155 different subjects"....that does not include the MAGIE error card.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

You continue to state this despite substantial visual proof that not all (if any)T206 sheets were printed using a 19 inch press.

I've posted this before, one of the plate scratch sheets has three scratches on it one is a continuous scratch that goes all the way across the sheet and the other two scratches are partial scratches. All three scratches connect to the same subject.

Here's what that sheet looks like on paper
[IMG][/IMG]


All of the subjects on this sheet are Hindu/SC150/649 subjects

Here's what the front of that sheet looks like
0 Sheet 1B.jpg

On this sheet Goode is next to Sheckard here's the actual scans of those two cards with their scratches
[IMG][/IMG]

Here's a Miscut SC150/30 Sheckard that shows Goode was definitely next to him on a sheet.
[IMG][/IMG]

There are several other plate scratch sheets that show a press larger than 19 inches was used in the T206 printing.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jlehma13

Is there any evidence of money changing hands for permission to use players’ likenesses? I wonder if the off season letters were a last ditch effort to secure signatures they were unable to get in the clubhouses in ‘08. Simpler times for sure.

No evidence of payment, the letters imply to me there was none.