Are the "T213-1" (1910 COUPON) cards really T206's ? ....I think so....What say you ?

[tedzan]

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
.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

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.

[G1911]

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.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

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.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

1) You posted the two Contents/Index pages that survive in 209. There is not another page in the surviving journal. Note that they record nothing before page 52. I find it extremely unlikely this is complete, and the first 51 pages of a ledger were just blank.


2) If 3/4 of the journal, and some of the index at least, is missing how can we reasonably state Coupon and Polar Bear do not appear in the journal? This is going beyond the evidence.


3) I got the 1914 implication when you stated in 229 that " I found some more information why Polar Bear probably wouldn't be in the ATC Journal. It wasn't an ATC brand until 1914." I apologize if I misunderstood, but the inference seemed to be it wasn't an ATC brand (it factually was), and was thus not printed under the ATC/ALC parternship until it was. I already stated I think PB was printed at/near the end of the 350 run which you apparently do not agree with, so I'm not sure what your timeframe is if it is not this.


4) Yes, they are substituting a Hassan series for the Hassan T53's on two different dates, significantly apart. The pages attached in your post 234 give two different release dates for the Hassan T53 series. T53 release "Started Packing Mch. 29" and "Started Delivering March 29" according to letter 1. According to letter 2, T53's "Started Packing May 23, 1911" and "Started Delivery, May 29, 1911", producing two different release dates. Both cards in the journal are F30's. We may see different possible explanations and indications of what it can mean for other sets, but your claim that my claim they have two different release dates in the journal is an "inaccuracy" is plainly false. Are you alleging that the date a set "started packing" and "started delivery" in the journal is not a release date? Will this standard be applied to the T206 pages?


5) Yes, I strongly agree T36's were not a two day issue. That was the thesis. I said this in the part you bolded, and are claiming is an inaccurate statement (It's an opinion statement on an uncertain issue, not a claim to fact by the way) I made. Note that the sentence you bolded to claim is incorrect begins "I suspect...". A Posey letter states T77 is being replaced with T36 in Hassan 30 on March 27, 1911. T53 is then replaced in Hassan 30 with T36 on March 29, 1911, which is a 2 day gap. One of the Posey letters state they are being packaged and delivered March 27, in place of T218-3, with a Mecca 30 card pictured. The next letters states Mecca has exhausted the supply of T36 and is issuing T42 March 31st, a 4 day gap.


6) I 100% agree on the supremacy of primary sources, I do not see how you are inferring I am favoring secondary sources and catalogs over primary with your next statement. You already already know well that my argument is the conflict on the cards themselves, not a date in a catalog, which I have never once cited. Who is arguing that we should "stop looking" for new information? When have I ever done this, since you are replying to me? If we're going to do this, can we stick to evidentiary grounds in good faith? I disagree with you, I do not claim you are not seeking truth and are trying to shut down the search for new information. People can simply and politely disagree.

I find the cards themselves the best tell, as this journal is of unknown provenance, unknown custody, and unknown authenticity (and was apparently modified and had pages ripped out by at least one owner to sell for profit). A card can not have been packed and delivered before events in its back text happened. T218-1 and T218-2 (Or T220-2, if it is read that way, it is even more impossible) both appear to have impossible release dates given on pages 70 and 89 that do not mesh with the text on card backs that reference specific events after that date. T218-1 is given dates in January, and May (which someone seems to have notated with an update to be June 22), 1910. Card backs reference after January, that date is not possible but the others are. T218-2 could not be released June 16, 1910 (which is before one of the dates given for series 1 even, on page 85) because the backs run through at minimum July 4, 1910. If the reference to a Tolstoi series of this name means T220-2, that could not have been released in June, because it notes events through August of 1910. There are others that I think are a bit off that are not hard evidence, like T220-2 being a March, 1911 issue in a another Posey letter, that seems awfully late based on the card content. Most of the other card sets in the journal are not of a subject kept up-to-date with recent events and so do not provide much of a clue either way on the details of release. If authentic, and I am not even saying it is not authentic, I am saying I do not know and there is little evidence either way on the provenance and authenticity of this item and thus it should not be automatically assumed this source is Gospel, there appear to be some inaccuracies in it. I do not think the data here is paramount to what is stated on card backs. I do not see how it reasonably could be.


7) I have seen 0 evidence Polar Bear's were "printed at a different facility", they seem to clearly be from American Lithographic like the rest of the cards. If printed after the other 350 cards (I suspect they were), I do not see why we would think they were done by someone else and so perfectly copied the T206's. Or are we saying American Lithographic had another facility that they actively printed the white-border series at? If so, how could we possibly conclude which backs were printed at this second shop? 3/4 of the journal, at minimum, is missing. A ton of ATC/ALC sets are not in the surviving pages.

1) The contents pages are about a particular brand/timeframe it's possible the first 50 pages were general information but even if they
weren't with the order of the other t206's (and other issues) I'm pretty certain the Polar Bear or Coupon weren't on those pages.

2) In my opinion they would absolutely be on the first contents page all the other t206's (except maybe Broad Leaf I don't know for sure if there was
another issue printed before t206's with a Broad Leaf back) are in chronological order based on their t206 distribution.

3)The Tobacco company information is a mess to try and figure out from that time. The American Tobacco Company had full control of some products and
partial control of others and they were trying to hide some information because of the forced divide, The way I read the clip I posted they didn't gain full control of The Continental Tobacco Company until 1914.


4) The release date for the T53's is March 29 so if you bought a pack of 10 Hassan cigarettes that was packed before that date you would get an
Auto Driver or a Light house in that pack if you bought one after that date you would get a Cowboy or a Light House in that pack until May 23 when they
discontinued packing the Light House cards. I haven't checked all the packing dates on the Hassan inserts but if there wasn't something substituted right
after the Light House cards were discontinued then every pack would have a Cowboy in it. My point is they didn't stop and restart packing the Cowboy's
they were packed from March 29 until they were discontinued permanently. They just shared the packing with different cards over that period.

5) I think 4 covers this one.


6) The first part was a general statement and I respect if you disagree.

For the second part ATC was only packing the cards so they were dependent on what ALC was printing for them. In most cases it wasn't a one time supply
of a particular set ALC was printing them and supplying ATC with what they printed and cards within that set changed that's where were get some of the
rarities found in most sets. In other words series 1 t218 cards weren't all necessarily printed in one printing.
So lets say there were three phases of series one the third phase is where the cards that you question the dates on would have come from.

7) I'm not suggesting the Polar Bears weren't printed by ALC I'm suggesting they might have been printed at one of their other facility's like the one in PA.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...can+Lithograph

What are some of the ton of ATC/ALC sets from 1909-1911 that aren't in the journal?

[jggames]

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"

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

[/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.