T220 Silver - Uncut Edition

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is great stuff Pat. Even with the manual workflows of 1910 these aren’t small companies. Their size in 1889 had surely grown by this time as the advertising and printing businesses were in a boom. Does your book ever give an employee count for American Lithographic? My understanding has been they were the biggest of the east coast lithographers. Wondering how much bigger they are than these apparently semi-subsidiaries.

We’ve got several more names of people who are apparently key to day to day operations at these companies from these letters and the Hyland letter. I’ll see if I can find connections between them and American Lithographic as well. I think it is the business side that will lead us to water on the card stuff. I’m finding it pretty interesting in its own right anyways.

I also want to dig into the Porter suit, that Scot Reader makes brief reference to in Inside T206. This might give us a lot of information on the player contracts, which I’m hoping will identify more on the structure of the sets and how they worked, and also why certain cards in certain sets might be so difficult.

I haven't found anything in the book on an employee count but I do remember finding an article about work that ALC did for the government
I think it was for printing envelopes. I can't remember if it said anything about the employees but I do remember being impressed at the volume
they were printing. I'm trying to find it if I saved it but I did find this clip from Dec. 19 1905 on a copyright suit involving ATC and ALC.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I haven't found anything in the book on an employee count but I do remember finding an article about work that ALC did for the government
I think it was for printing envelopes. I can't remember if it said anything about the employees but I do remember being impressed at the volume
they were printing. I'm trying to find it if I saved it but I did find this clip from Dec. 19 1905 on a copyright suit involving ATC and ALC.

Interesting, it seems the ATC/ALC duo were getting in copyright trouble before the card sets even.

I haven't found much trying to just shortcut this and looking for Brett and American Lithography referenced together to find a smoking gun connection. I haven't found envelopes, but here is an order from the Department of Agriculture for 411,627 copies of a series of 8 illustrations and then 2 other illustrations in the same count. American and Brett Lithography are both listed as among the vendors for this order, on page 301 (https://www.google.com/books/edition...sec=frontcover).

The scale of business must have been huge, millions of cards in sets that aren't super common today were printed according the Lelands ledger, large orders like this seem abundant. And Fullgraff only got commission on orders of $30,000 or more, at least for a time, which was a very large sum amount of money in that period.

I think what we are learning is that American Lithography did not actually "gradually combine" the activities of all their subsidiaries as the book says. The reference in the next paragraph, that "The American Lithographic company produced all the products that had been made by its component companies, including cigar box labels, posters, trade cards, pamphlets and book illustrations" seem to be closer to what we are finding. They are not so much the actual printer as the producer and orchestration of a whole host of clandestine subsidiaries or very friendly partners, producing art and images and sourcing much of the actual printing work to these 'other companies', even splitting specific jobs between different sub-parts of their network. Perhaps it is better to think of ALC as the producer and one of many printers among their component companies, not so much the actual printer of all of it as is generally said within the hobby.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

Interesting, it seems the ATC/ALC duo were getting in copyright trouble before the card sets even.

I haven't found much trying to just shortcut this and looking for Brett and American Lithography referenced together to find a smoking gun connection. I haven't found envelopes, but here is an order from the Department of Agriculture for 411,627 copies of a series of 8 illustrations and then 2 other illustrations in the same count. American and Brett Lithography are both listed as among the vendors for this order, on page 301 (https://www.google.com/books/edition...sec=frontcover).

The scale of business must have been huge, millions of cards in sets that aren't super common today were printed according the Lelands ledger, large orders like this seem abundant. And Fullgraff only got commission on orders of $30,000 or more, at least for a time, which was a very large sum amount of money in that period.

I think what we are learning is that American Lithography did not actually "gradually combine" the activities of all their subsidiaries as the book says. The reference in the next paragraph, that "The American Lithographic company produced all the products that had been made by its component companies, including cigar box labels, posters, trade cards, pamphlets and book illustrations" seem to be closer to what we are finding. They are not so much the actual printer as the producer and orchestration of a whole host of clandestine subsidiaries or very friendly partners, producing art and images and sourcing much of the actual printing work to these 'other companies', even splitting specific jobs between different sub-parts of their network. Perhaps it is better to think of ALC as the producer and one of many printers among their component companies, not so much the actual printer of all of it as is generally said within the hobby.

The page in Lelands shows there was an order filled for 40 million fish cards by Fullgraff and/or Brett in 10 weeks. If this is accurate how many t206 cards were printed over a 2+ year period. Scot Reader estimated 270 or 370 million in his insidet206 publication that could be a very conservative estimate if the fish numbers are true.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

The page in Lelands shows there was an order filled for 40 million fish cards by Fullgraff and/or Brett in 10 weeks. If this is accurate how many t206 cards were printed over a 2+ year period. Scot Reader estimated 270 or 370 million in his insidet206 publication that could be a very conservative estimate if the fish numbers are true.

The fish cards are T58, which are pretty common but certainly not the most common. T59 must have had a larger production run. T206 did. T205, T42 I think did. Other single or low-number of brand sets must have had 20,000,000 done if T58 is 40,000,000, like T29.

I checked Reader's book again, to make sure my memory of the calculation was right. He says 370,000,000, but honestly I think the methodology of this estimate is fundamentally wrong. It all starts on extrapolations from the Piedmont cigarette production run in 1910, and assuming that every pack had a T206 card. Then the rough percentage of t206's that are Piedmont are used to guesstimate what the total run is, and assumes the same rate of packing out for the months in 1909 and 1911 in which T206 was apparently issued.

The problem is that the starting point is the flawed one; it is factually wrong. This is acknowledged at the end that "on the other hand, actual circulation may have been considerably lower. It has been reported that in 1910 and 1911 bird and fish subjects were distributed in some Old Mill, Piedmont, Sovereign and Sweet Caporal packs instead of baseball subjects. This would likely have meaningfully reduced the number to T206 cards circulated".

Of course, "been reported" is saying it lightly - we know this beyond any reasonable doubt. Piedmont absolutely and undeniably issued other sets during this time, not every Piedmont pack had a baseball subject. This "would likely have meaningfully reduced..." again turns a long known fact into a conjecture, as if it is a possibility instead. The overstatement of Piedmont, based on a version of events that is not true, and on which every subsequent calculation is based, means the estimate is not reasonable.

T206 is more common than T58, personally I doubt there are 9 or 10 for every T58 but my opinion isn't data. T58's just aren't put up for sale as much because they're worth .40 instead of $25 for poor commons. I can sell my whole box of `1,500 T59's for, if I'm lucky, as much as a single T206 Mathewson super print. Thus eBay is littered with cards worth selling, and pickup threads are filled with baseball stars that cost more and thus get more positive attention and responses.

It's difficult to extrapolate because we see certain items far more often than others for reasons that have nothing to do with scarcity. Maybe it is about right, but if it is, it's not about right for the reasons that it was calculated from.

[Exhibitman]

That's a really interesting point. We do not know much about the production of any of the N, T or E cards. We know something about the marketing thanks to advertisements that have come to light from old publications in the digital age. It leaves it to intuition and experience. I once tried to construct a list of N-T-E boxing cards ranked from rarest to easiest. It was just impossible: is there any meaningful distinction between the E125 Jack Johnson (SGC pop 1, PSA pop 1), T226 Red Sun Johnson (SGC pop 3, PSA pop 1), N223 Kinney Hold to Light Sullivan (SGC pop 1, PSA pop 4), and N60 Jem Mace (SGC pop 1, PSA pop 0)? And there are so many other rarities from around the world that aren't even found in TPG pops or are barely there. I mean, find me one of these:

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

That's a really interesting point. We do not know much about the production of any of the N, T or E cards. We know something about the marketing thanks to advertisements that have come to light from old publications in the digital age. It leaves it to intuition and experience. I once tried to construct a list of N-T-E boxing cards ranked from rarest to easiest. It was just impossible: is there any meaningful distinction between the E125 Jack Johnson (SGC pop 1, PSA pop 1), T226 Red Sun Johnson (SGC pop 3, PSA pop 1), N223 Kinney Hold to Light Sullivan (SGC pop 1, PSA pop 4), and N60 Jem Mace (SGC pop 1, PSA pop 0)? And there are so many other rarities from around the world that aren't even found in TPG pops or are barely there. I mean, find me one of these:

If I've learned anything form research it's that intuition and experience are usually wrong (mine sure is). I don't think I've ever even seen an image of a N60 Jem Mace, I thought they were all actresses.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by G1911

If I've learned anything form research it's that intuition and experience are usually wrong (mine sure is). I don't think I've ever even seen an image of a N60 Jem Mace, I thought they were all actresses.

What I mean is that if you develop enough expertise (obsession) with a set or niche you can get a pretty good idea of how prevalent they are.

N60 has a few boxers: Edward McGlinchy, James Mace (aka Jem Mace) and Joe Goss. Here is a Joe Goss that Lelands sold in 2019:



it is the only N60 boxer I have seen sold since 2011. I would have chased it up some (sold for $776.40) but I was over-committed chasing some other lots I wanted more.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

The fish cards are T58, which are pretty common but certainly not the most common. T59 must have had a larger production run. T206 did. T205, T42 I think did. Other single or low-number of brand sets must have had 20,000,000 done if T58 is 40,000,000, like T29.

I checked Reader's book again, to make sure my memory of the calculation was right. He says 370,000,000, but honestly I think the methodology of this estimate is fundamentally wrong. It all starts on extrapolations from the Piedmont cigarette production run in 1910, and assuming that every pack had a T206 card. Then the rough percentage of t206's that are Piedmont are used to guesstimate what the total run is, and assumes the same rate of packing out for the months in 1909 and 1911 in which T206 was apparently issued.

The problem is that the starting point is the flawed one; it is factually wrong. This is acknowledged at the end that "on the other hand, actual circulation may have been considerably lower. It has been reported that in 1910 and 1911 bird and fish subjects were distributed in some Old Mill, Piedmont, Sovereign and Sweet Caporal packs instead of baseball subjects. This would likely have meaningfully reduced the number to T206 cards circulated".

Of course, "been reported" is saying it lightly - we know this beyond any reasonable doubt. Piedmont absolutely and undeniably issued other sets during this time, not every Piedmont pack had a baseball subject. This "would likely have meaningfully reduced..." again turns a long known fact into a conjecture, as if it is a possibility instead. The overstatement of Piedmont, based on a version of events that is not true, and on which every subsequent calculation is based, means the estimate is not reasonable.

T206 is more common than T58, personally I doubt there are 9 or 10 for every T58 but my opinion isn't data. T58's just aren't put up for sale as much because they're worth .40 instead of $25 for poor commons. I can sell my whole box of `1,500 T59's for, if I'm lucky, as much as a single T206 Mathewson super print. Thus eBay is littered with cards worth selling, and pickup threads are filled with baseball stars that cost more and thus get more positive attention and responses.

It's difficult to extrapolate because we see certain items far more often than others for reasons that have nothing to do with scarcity. Maybe it is about right, but if it is, it's not about right for the reasons that it was calculated from.

I agree that it's hard to put a number on how many T206's were produced but I think it might be a more accurate to compare them with cards from the same timeframe that we can put some kind of production number on.

How do you know the fish cards in the Fullgraff book are T58's?

We do know from the ATC ledger that T206's were packed with T58's one each per pack as follows

Piedmont - began packing 1 fish (T58) and 1 ballplayer 4-18-10 Discontinued pack fish 8-24-10 continue packing 1 ballplayer.

Sovereign and Sweet Caporal share the same dates - began shipping 1 fish and 1 ballplayer 4-23-10 discontinue packing fish 8-29-10 continue packing 1 ballplayer.

Comparing the T206's to the T58's we know for sure that they started packing T206's in July 1909 in some brands and continued packing them in some brands until the summer/fall of 1911.

So the T206's were distributed for 6-7 times longer than the T58's in 5x more brands than the T58's and from what we do know shows that there was 1 t206 packed with every T58 that was distributed. There are also ads that show there were 2 T206's packed in some packs and also in Polar Bears.

Now if the 40 million fish cards are T58's we don't know for sure if that's all that were produced we just know that's what was produced by Brett lithograph at a particular time.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I agree that it's hard to put a number on how many T206's were produced but I think it might be a more accurate to compare them with cards from the same timeframe that we can put some kind of production number on.

How do you know the fish cards in the Fullgraff book are T58's?

We do know from the ATC ledger that T206's were packed with T58's one each per pack as follows

Piedmont - began packing 1 fish (T58) and 1 ballplayer 4-18-10 Discontinued pack fish 8-24-10 continue packing 1 ballplayer.

Sovereign and Sweet Caporal share the same dates - began shipping 1 fish and 1 ballplayer 4-23-10 discontinue packing fish 8-29-10 continue packing 1 ballplayer.

Comparing the T206's to the T58's we know for sure that they started packing T206's in July 1909 in some brands and continued packing them in some brands until the summer/fall of 1911.

So the T206's were distributed for 6-7 times longer than the T58's in 5x more brands than the T58's and from what we do know shows that there was 1 t206 packed with every T58 that was distributed. There are also ads that show there were 2 T206's packed in some packs and also in Polar Bears.

Now if the 40 million fish cards are T58's we don't know for sure if that's all that were produced we just know that's what was produced by Brett lithograph at a particular time.

I think we can say they are T58 because there is no other fish series of tobacco cards from the 1909-1912 period, and while this ledger includes N cards very precise dates are given on this page that rule them out. It can really only be T58. Some of the other sets in this page are difficult to identify (“Actresses, Athletes of America, Indian”), but this one is straight-forward.

I think the issue with comparing T206 to unpopular non-sports sets is that our sources for T206 populations (‘I see X more than Y, dealers have more of X than Y, pop reports, etc. are so heavily and clearly biased in favor of baseball subjects that no meaningful guess can be made beyond the most broad of terms in obvious cases (such as “T206 is more common than T220”). There may well be more T59’s and T206’s, it’s just that nobody besides a handful of us cares.

The ledger has some packs getting two cards, and the period ads show this as well. This doesn’t appear to be so for the entire production; if there is any evidence that every T42 was paired with a T206 I’d love to stand corrected. That this is true for both series of t58 in their entirety is a deductive jump. It is a mighty leap away from the evidence to state that there is a Piedmont T206 for every 10 Piedmont cigarettes.

I do not think we can reasonably say it is true that T206 was issued non-stop or almost non-stop during its production run from earliest date to last date, which all estimates seem to take for granted. We do not know this.

I know we disagree on the ATC ledger, but it includes some dates that seem to contradict internal and external evidence. Some series with a single issuer have multiple issue dates given in it, and multiple “stopped packing” dates. Much of it is missing, and it means we don’t know which sets all have these multiple dates and which don’t. The ledger dates are highly questionable, and even if the contradictions between issue dates and card text are ignored, they indicate cards were issued in a stop-start pattern, not sets for many months or even years continuously without break.

Frankly I hope you are correct, sir, about the ledger, and my skepticism is misplaced. That there is some logical way we can arrive at a statement that resolves the contradictions and without having much of the data originally present on start/stop dates and checks out as true. I remain skeptical, but I’m always skeptical. I guess, to extend the theme, this is my general disagreement with much of what is said to be so in the hobby - it tends to rely on a series of stacking deductions and/or conclusions credited to authorities and then referred to and repeated as fact, whereupon further deductions are then stacked on top, too far away from the actual evidence itself to be anything more than an educated guess at best.

The 5X more brands for T206 doesn’t seem a strong argument to me - the brand gap is mostly from very uncommon backs. Half of them have almost 0 impact on our total for T206, whatever that unknown and unlikely to be known figure is. Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign of course are not 1/5 of T206 cards. If we want to go by total possible back types, T59 dwarfs T206 and must have had many billions if we use this logic.

I concur entirely that the 40,000,000 may not be representative of that sets entire run. I would think it quite possible it is not the entire production run, that multiple facilities for larger sets may well have been how it was done. We haven’t anything to prove this was done; but the bizarre structure of these firms and their collaboration on even small non-card orders for cigarette makers would suggest it may well be true. It does not appear to be the cards printed at Brett though; it notes in this section that Brett “burned out” (still not sure if this is literal or a comment on inability to meet the massive order in time) on March 30, 1910. The figures are for February 23 to May 16, 1910, according to the text. This seems to be the production at Old Masters Litho. Corporation, not Brett (they are presumably, from Fullgraff’s contract, the court records etc. very closely related or two subsidiaries of the same parent) - I haven’t yet got around to digging into Old Masters yet.

T206 may have had 200,000,000. Or 370,000,000. Or 500,000,000. I think no guess given can be close enough to the evidence to be reasonably accurate in any meaningful way. I would very much like to be wrong; attempting to understand the ‘true scarcity’ has given way to ‘relative scarcity’, and even that is a wildly imprecise thing of which we can still say little with any reasonable degree of practical certainty, to Adam's point.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think we can say they are T58 because there is no other fish series of tobacco cards from the 1909-1912 period, and while this ledger includes N cards very precise dates are given on this page that rule them out. It can really only be T58. Some of the other sets in this page are difficult to identify (“Actresses, Athletes of America, Indian”), but this one is straight-forward.

I think the issue with comparing T206 to unpopular non-sports sets is that our sources for T206 populations (‘I see X more than Y, dealers have more of X than Y, pop reports, etc. are so heavily and clearly biased in favor of baseball subjects that no meaningful guess can be made beyond the most broad of terms in obvious cases (such as “T206 is more common than T220”). There may well be more T59’s and T206’s, it’s just that nobody besides a handful of us cares.

The ledger has some packs getting two cards, and the period ads show this as well. This doesn’t appear to be so for the entire production; if there is any evidence that every T42 was paired with a T206 I’d love to stand corrected. That this is true for both series of t58 in their entirety is a deductive jump. It is a mighty leap away from the evidence to state that there is a Piedmont T206 for every 10 Piedmont cigarettes.

I do not think we can reasonably say it is true that T206 was issued non-stop or almost non-stop during its production run from earliest date to last date, which all estimates seem to take for granted. We do not know this.

I know we disagree on the ATC ledger, but it includes some dates that seem to contradict internal and external evidence. Some series with a single issuer have multiple issue dates given in it, and multiple “stopped packing” dates. Much of it is missing, and it means we don’t know which sets all have these multiple dates and which don’t. The ledger dates are highly questionable, and even if the contradictions between issue dates and card text are ignored, they indicate cards were issued in a stop-start pattern, not sets for many months or even years continuously without break.

Frankly I hope you are correct, sir, about the ledger, and my skepticism is misplaced. That there is some logical way we can arrive at a statement that resolves the contradictions and without having much of the data originally present on start/stop dates and checks out as true. I remain skeptical, but I’m always skeptical. I guess, to extend the theme, this is my general disagreement with much of what is said to be so in the hobby - it tends to rely on a series of stacking deductions and/or conclusions credited to authorities and then referred to and repeated as fact, whereupon further deductions are then stacked on top, too far away from the actual evidence itself to be anything more than an educated guess at best.

The 5X more brands for T206 doesn’t seem a strong argument to me - the brand gap is mostly from very uncommon backs. Half of them have almost 0 impact on our total for T206, whatever that unknown and unlikely to be known figure is. Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign of course are not 1/5 of T206 cards. If we want to go by total possible back types, T59 dwarfs T206 and must have had many billions if we use this logic.

I concur entirely that the 40,000,000 may not be representative of that sets entire run. I would think it quite possible it is not the entire production run, that multiple facilities for larger sets may well have been how it was done. We haven’t anything to prove this was done; but the bizarre structure of these firms and their collaboration on even small non-card orders for cigarette makers would suggest it may well be true. It does not appear to be the cards printed at Brett though; it notes in this section that Brett “burned out” (still not sure if this is literal or a comment on inability to meet the massive order in time) on March 30, 1910. The figures are for February 23 to May 16, 1910, according to the text. This seems to be the production at Old Masters Litho. Corporation, not Brett (they are presumably, from Fullgraff’s contract, the court records etc. very closely related or two subsidiaries of the same parent) - I haven’t yet got around to digging into Old Masters yet.

T206 may have had 200,000,000. Or 370,000,000. Or 500,000,000. I think no guess given can be close enough to the evidence to be reasonably accurate in any meaningful way. I would very much like to be wrong; attempting to understand the ‘true scarcity’ has given way to ‘relative scarcity’, and even that is a wildly imprecise thing of which we can still say little with any reasonable degree of practical certainty, to Adam's point.

Ok makes sense on the fish cards for some reason I thought there was another set from that time period.

I think Hindu and Polar Bear were the only products that Advertised two ball player cards.

I don't have any ironclad proof that the T206's were issued non stop but I'm pretty confident that they were.
ads for Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign ran in sporting life from July-September 1909
ads for Hindu ran in papers from August-September 1909
ads for Piedmont ran in papers from February-August 1910
Old mill ads ran in papers in August 1909 and March - September 1910
the ATC journal shows packing and shipping dates from 1909-1911


No problem with different opinions on the ATC ledger I think many of the tobacco card printings changed midstream and unless there is a specific
card pasted next to a date that's wrong I don't find a problem with the printings on a couple of backs not matching dates unless it's off by an unexplainable amount of time.

In statement about the 5x more T206 brands I wasn't implying that it would multiply the T206 production by 5 over the T58's.


I thought the court documents indicated that Fullgraff was working for Brett Lithography during the time period of the dates in the Fullgraff book? I haven't been able to find anything on an Old Masters Lithography Company. I did find that it was a frequently used term in the business though.

You have probably mentioned this before but if the panels you have are from one sheet and the write ups on the backs of the T220 cards are correct they must have done the write ups after August 10 1910 and before September 27 1910.