Sweet Caporal boxes - possible t206?

[Moonshot Moose]

Hi guys! Is it likely the attached packs contained t206 cards? The stamp & factories seem to align.
Thanks!

[Leon]

Probably the right type but they need to have an overstamp date to positively date them, I believe. Good luck!

The stamps themselves might date them specifically also.....not sure, it's been too long
.

[rdwyer]

The one on the left has overprinting. What does is say? Both have the right info, but overprinting helps tie it down even more.

[toppcat]

May 29, 1911 was when the the ATC decision came down, those say "successor" so does the indicia mean successor to ATC or that ATC was the successor to a brand they acquired?

[Moonshot Moose]

Originally Posted by rdwyer

The one on the left has overprinting. What does is say? Both have the right info, but overprinting helps tie it down even more.

Only visible part.

[jingram058]

If these are correct type and not tampered with and truly contain t206 cards, they will be the first I have ever seen. Funny, isn't it? For all the t206 cards floating around today, basically no one ever finds a package to open. Not to say they don't exist...

[rdwyer]

Originally Posted by Moonshot Moose

Only visible part.

The overprinting date would be key. It would have to say 1910 or 1911 to be period.

[timber63401]

Originally Posted by jingram058

If these are correct type and not tampered with and truly contain t206 cards, they will be the first I have ever seen. Funny, isn't it? For all the t206 cards floating around today, basically no one ever finds a package to open. Not to say they don't exist...

Ive always though with the millions of t206s printed there should be more unopened packs discovered over the years.

[rdwyer]

Originally Posted by timber63401

Ive always though with the millions of t206s printed there should be more unopened packs discovered over the years.

There are unopened packs out there. Just don't believe GAI.

[Bridwell]

These could possibly have contained a T206, since the issue date is uncertain. They could have also contained non-sports cards. Probably 1909-1913 range I would guess. They are just empty boxes now, it seems. Good collectibles to display with a T206, IMO. Not super scarce, but a good find.

[Joe_G.]

I don't study 20th century packs to the extent others do but can share some facts.

- The Series of 1909 tax stamp was effective July 1st, 1910 and remained the stamp of record until late 1917.
- The successor language is correct for T206 era Sweet Caporal pack . . . Kinney branch of ATC introduced "Successor" language on Sweet Caporal and other brands while with ATC in mid 1890s. "Successor" is actually found on packs that even pre-date ATC . . . Kinney Tobacco Co. was successor to Kinney Brothers.
- Sweet Caporal remained with ATC after ATC was broken up while other brands were pushed out to Liggett & Myers (Piedmont for example), Lorillard, and R. J. Reynolds. For the brands that the ATC retained, such as Sweet Caporal, the ATC packs often post-date the May 29th, 1911 break-up.

Given these facts, both the Factory 30 (left pack) and Factory 42 (right pack) could have contained a T206 but likely both post-date T206 card production. You really need a legible cancel date on the tax stamp to place it to T206 production in confidence. But given they are 10 count packs, a tax stamp that overlaps T206 production, there is nothing ruling them out as packs that could have distributed T206.

Double check what you can read on the Factory 30 pack, the fourth line is where you will find the date, it starts with the month and I can clearly see "NO" for November (usually abbreviated "NOV"), can you read the day and year that follow on the slide? Give us a good photo of the slide flap, appears to have some of the tax stamp still present.

20th century pack collector might know further details that could more definitively rule them in or out as being T206 period correct. Small printing changes year-to-year, month-to-month, might offer valuable clues for those who take the time to study the packs in detail against others with legible tax stamp cancels.

[Moonshot Moose]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

I don't study 20th century packs to the extent others do but can share some facts.

- The Series of 1909 tax stamp was effective July 1st, 1910 and remained the stamp of record until late 1917.
- The successor language is correct for T206 era Sweet Caporal pack . . . Kinney branch of ATC introduced "Successor" language on Sweet Caporal and other brands while with ATC in mid 1890s. "Successor" is actually found on packs that even pre-date ATC . . . Kinney Tobacco Co. was successor to Kinney Brothers.
- Sweet Caporal remained with ATC after ATC was broken up while other brands were pushed out to Liggett & Myers (Piedmont for example), Lorillard, and R. J. Reynolds. For the brands that the ATC retained, such as Sweet Caporal, the ATC packs often post-date the May 29th, 1911 break-up.

Given these facts, both the Factory 30 (left pack) and Factory 42 (right pack) could have contained a T206 but likely both post-date T206 card production. You really need a legible cancel date on the tax stamp to place it to T206 production in confidence. But given they are 10 count packs, a tax stamp that overlaps T206 production, there is nothing ruling them out as packs that could have distributed T206.

Double check what you can read on the Factory 30 pack, the fourth line is where you will find the date, it starts with the month and I can clearly see "NO" for November (usually abbreviated "NOV"), can you read the day and year that follow on the slide? Give us a good photo of the slide flap, appears to have some of the tax stamp still present.

20th century pack collector might know further details that could more definitively rule them in or out as being T206 period correct. Small printing changes year-to-year, month-to-month, might offer valuable clues for those who take the time to study the packs in detail against others with legible tax stamp cancels.

Might be able to make something out on the Fact 30 NY stamp

[Moonshot Moose]

Any thoughts on the stamp?