Brian
 

My best answer for now to your......
" Hi Ted... I've read all of these before. So you're saying that ATC and ALC discontinued Plank in the 150 series
because of a threatened lawsuit, but then started up production of Plank again for the 350 series? "

1st....These entities did not threaten lawsuits back then, they simply filed a "cease and desist" order.

2nd....Yes, ALC was free to portray the A's that they were prevented from doing in the 150 series. So, when ALC
printed an additional 10 players from the A's team (as I noted above), they slipped in Eddie Plank. After all, they
still had Plank's plate image from their 1st series, so they thought they would give it the "good old college try" once
more. But note, that they selectively chose the NY market. I guess their thinking was, that they would be able to
get away with it. Eddie Plank was one of the most popular pitchers of that era.

In any event, ALC was forced to discontinue their 350 series Plank. Assuming 100% surviveability, then approx. 50
cards of this Plank were out in the market by then.


TED Z

But this is all just your hypothesis, right? No cease and desist order has been found?

Is there any other theory besides the ACC cease and desist theory that would account for a card being so rare that was issued in the Piedmont 150, as well as the Sweet Caporal 150 and 350?

Hi Ted,

The E96 set didn't include Plank because it was clearly and intentionally marked as the second part of and a continuation of E95.

Rob

Rob A......
 

You are absolutely correct. I just reviewed Erik's book and realized that the E96 had additional players. I should have known
this since I have several E96's, including Connie Mack.

You already know this, but for those here that don't, Erik Varon's book on "the Story of The Philadelphia Caramel Company" is
an excellent book.


TED Z

Brian
 

Your......
"But this is all just your hypothesis, right? No cease and desist order has been found?"

A Philadelphia lawyer friend of mine told me some time ago, that "cease and desist orders" from the early 20th Century era
are virtually impossible to find. In many instances, such trivial orders (as this Plank contention was) were simply enforced
by spoken word and a handshake.

And yes, this Plank theory of mine is the result of my imagination upon my extensive research on my two favorite early 20th
Century BB card sets....E90-1 and T206. I have collected multiples of these two sets since 1981.

Obviously it's based on circumstantial evidence, But, this was no idle speculation on my part. I'm open to anyone's better (or
more plausible) story explaning why the T206 Plank is as rare as the Wagner ?


TED Z

Ted... I would never think that your position on this matter is speculative beyond careful consideration. I hope I didn't come off that way. I'm a newbie on this board, so bear with me if I come across as a bit harsh. Working on tone is important for everyone to feel respected.

Fear not, I respect your research enormously.

This might be a remedial question, but are there any other cards in the T206 set that were ONLY issued in the Piedmont 150 and the Sweet Caporal 150 and 350?

I mean, rare not by Wagner/Plank/Magie standards. But, were there to be another card that was only printed in those three series, how rare would such a card be?

Brian
 

Don't mind me guy....I love discussing T206 and E90-1 cards, and I welcome any and all questions on this subject.


Plank is the only subject to be found with those backs. The other rare T206's that were printed with less than 6 different backs are

Lundgren (Cubs)....PIEDMONT 150 & 350, and EPDG

Elberfeld (portrait-Washington)....PIEDMONT 350, SWEET CAP 350 (fac 30), and OLD MILL

Dahlen (Brooklyn)....PIEDMONT 350, SOVEREIGN 350, SWEET CAP 350 (fac 30), and OLD MILL


TED Z

Thanks, Ted. I've heard that those three are rare, but I know they are not rare by the same standards that the Plank would be considered rare. So, yes, it has to be rare for some other reason. Frustrating.

Your theories and research are commendable, good sir.

Shoeless
 

Strange shoeless joe Jackson didn't come up in this thread...

Seems like a similar reason why Jackson wasnt in the (much larger) t206 set but in the e90-1 set...

Re......E90 Joe Jackson ?
 

Scott

It took me quite a while, but I put together a complete 120-card E90-1. In the process, I always wondered why Joe Jackson was never
depicted as a MAJOR LEAGUER in any of the T-sets (T201, T202, T205, T206, T213, T214 & T215) that American Lithographic produced.

However, I can see why American Caramel included him in their 1st series of the E90 set. Shoeless Joe was a Minor League phenom, who
Connie Mack gave a try with his Philadelphia A's in August 1908.

The American Caramel Co. was based in Philly and its owner, Daniel Lafean, was close friends with Connie Mack.

Furthermore, if you consider the T216 cards....which were printed by the same printer who did the E90 cards....Joe Jackson is not in any
of the three T216 sets. So, this mystery continues.


Scott......I'm curious, do you have any thoughts on why Joe Jackson isn't in any of the major T-sets ?


TED Z

Begin the LaFean
 

Ted:

A few small corrections to your story.

1. As far as I can tell, there never was a David Frank LaFean, not at Gettysburg College and certainly not in the US House of Representatives. There was a Daniel Frank LaFean who meets those standards, sort of.

2. Daniel LaFean was certainly not "The Director ... of Gettysburg College," for the simple reason that no such position existed at the college, not then, and not since. He was a Director at Gettysburg, which just means that he served on the Board of Trustees, with lots of other men. Gettysburg's President at the turn of the century was Harvey Washington McKnight.

By the way, thay apparently thought so highly of Mr. LaFean that they put him in the college catalog in 1899-1900 ...

“D. F. LAFEAX York” and again in 1900-1901:

“DANIEL F. LAFE.\N, York.”

Well, there are trustees and there are Trustees! (They finally got him right in 1902, just before he was elected to the US House of representatives.)

Does any of this change any of your claims about LaFean and Plank? Probably not. But it does suggest that people might worry a bit more over your scholarship.

And for the record, I'm an alum of Gettysburg College.

Both Plank and Wagner were from the same area...any chance they allied to get a few bucks from the issuer.

Ted, John, etc. I'm seeing several Plank theories in this thread (and the old thread), well-thought-out and defended by many of you. I plan to do a synopsis and add it to a 'Plank' page, mentioning some of you - it would list each theory with points for and against. If any of you do NOT want your name included, just PM me. In any event, I will contact each of you prior to publishing it on my site, at which point you can say "No", or offer 'enhancements' or suggested changes.

Also, I need a good clear, 300 dpi scan of a Plank card with a light background (like the rest of the cards on the 1st page of my site). I would prefer to use the image of a board-member's card, so send one if you would like me to use yours - no problem using several. Thanks.

Don't know if this has been brought up, but Babe Adams, teammate of Wagner's in Pittsburgh won over 100 games between 1909 and 1915 and won 3 games in the '09 World Series and does not appear on any T-cards, but appears on several E-cards... Don't know if that means anything, but...

Cheers,

Jim

jalex,

I was just looking through my B18 blanket collection and then read your post. What I find strange is that neither Wagner nor Plank are in this set but Babe Adams is.

Now, since no Philadelphia player is included in the B18's then I can understand why Plank is not included. Also, if Wagner didn't want to be in the T206 set then I can understand why he wouldn't want to be included in B18 (but is included in Fatima?).

But then why is Babe Adams in B18?

Just wondering/curious.

David

David - is it possible that that the Athletics' ownership was negotiating the various caramel/tobacco deals as a team, and was making a few special exceptions?

Bob Manning
 

POST #32


Bob

With all due respect, we've been here before in post #32 in this thread.

Anyhow, the connection that initially started my wild imagination down this path was the close relationship between Connie Mack and Daniel Lafean (while Lafean
owned the American Caramel Co. which was based in Philadelphia).

And, it's my understanding that Mr. Mack suggested to Daniel Lafean (circa 1907) to include BB card premiums with his Caramel product in order to enhance sales.

Anyhow, it's been 3 years since I posted this theory; and, I haven't had any luck in discovering any new evidence to support my contention that the T206 Plank
was yanked due to a conflict with the American Caramel Co.

But, I have discovered that Plank was very much anti-tobacco in any form. And so was his Manager, Connie Mack. Plank was a low-keyed guy and most likely did
not receive the fanfare that Wagner got for having their cards pulled from circulation. Plank's complaint was most likely handled by a "cease & desist" order issued
to ATC.

Best regards,

TED Z

verry interesting thread !

In 5+ years
 

In the 5 1/2 years since I first presented this theory of mine regarding the T206 Plank card, I have had no luck in digging up any more evidence that would in any
way support any contention between the American Caramel Co. and the American Tobacco Co. (ATC)....as I have hypothesized here.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=84132


HOWEVER, my research on this subject proves that Connie Mack and Eddie Plank were very anti-tobacco guys. Therefore, I would suggest that this may have
been a big factor that explains the T206 Plank mystery. I can imagine that Plank issued a "cease and desist" order to ATC to stop them from portraying his image
on their tobacco cards.

Note, that Connie Mack is not pictured on T-cards. Of course, the T208 Fireside set is an exception. This might be explained by the fact that the same printer
that produced the 1910 NADJA (E104-1) A's set also printed the 1911 Cullivan's Fireside A's set.


TED Z

As Ted said Plank was noted in many period articles and by his fellow teammates as living a clean life. He never drank or used tobacco of any kind. I believe like Ted that this is the most plausible explanation for his not giving his permission to be in the T206 set.

Here's an article from 1911 about Plank.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-b...2520PM.bmp.jpg

eddie plank don t appear in any other tobacco card set ?

Besides the T208 (Fireside) set, Plank is also in the T204 Ramly set.

Let's see if anyone else here will chime in with another T-card set that he is in.


TED Z

He's also in the T5 Pinkerton and T216 Kotton, Mino and Virginia Extra sets.

T200 but not on the T222... team obligations on the T200?

it is a lot of tobacco set for a guy who are anti tobacco....

Has anyone done any research into the 2 prominent baseball photgraphers of the day, Carl Horner and Charles Conlon. Perhaps we're looking at this from the wrong side. Perhaps the photographers themselves were involved? Everyone discusses compensation for using the players likeness to the player, but what about compensation to the specific photographer for using their photograph?

Here are two links to the Honus Wagner T206 likeness, one from what appears to be Carl Horner and another from Charles Conlon.


http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/.../2005/699.html

http://www.mearsonlineauctions.com/L...4%22-349%2F975

Post #21....that's where he (Plank) be found...

For me and this is just my idea of on the Plank card. I really don’t think it has anything to do with letters from lawyers, pulling cards or any drama. I really think the Plank card is a victim of bad production timing and planning that led to the card being printed in smaller numbers.

I think he was added at the tail end of 1909’s production then got carried over into 1910’s production for a brief time and was moved off the sheet to make room for other cards. I only think this because we have way less 150’s than 350’s of Plank that I’m aware of.

Of course I have no proof or documents to back this up just my thoughts is all which is as valid as anyone’s else’s thoughts on this card 100+ years later.

Cheers,

P.S. Tim, nice gallery on Plank BTW, FYI I think #53 is the same card as #14a I’m 99% sure. Could be wrong but both have the same spot and that card has seen 3 holders that I know of.

+1

John - I don't believe #14 and #53 are the same card. #53 is missing distinguishing marks that 14a and 14b both have. Auctions for card 14a and 14b have taken place prior to and after the auction for #53 without these marks changing. Hopefully an better scan of card #53 will become available that shows these differences more clearly.

Hey John
 

No letters from lawyers, no drama....back in those early 20th Century days, such disputes were simply resolved with a "handshake" or perhaps a "cease & desist" order.


This sounds like a plausible scenario; however, can you explain why the majority of Sweet Cap 150 Plank's are Factory #30 cards.....and, of course the Sweet Cap 350
Plank's were only inserted in Factory #30 cigarette packs ?

The dearth of Factory #25 cards makes me quite suspicious. Of course this also applies to the Piedmont brand (Factory #25). So, why am I "suspicious" of Factory #30
dominance....Well, cigarette packs from Factory #25 were distributed down South and to Pennsylvania.

Cigarette packs from Factory #30 were distributed to New York and New England.

Hmmmm, it seems to me that ATC was playing "cryptic" distribution games with their Plank cards.....until they were told to stop.


TED Z

Tim, agree tough to tell from that cell phone on the carpet pic. You would think the guy who can afford a Plank could get a better camera :)

Just seems to have the same dots that the Mastro card had that sold raw twice....also seems to have the same collar spot once agin hard to tell for sure. Can’t imagine there are too many altered planks with that eye appeal and the same dot floating around guess that’s why I think it’s the same card etc.

I do know that card was put in a PSA holder by the winner and then switched to SGC later in life.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...px?lotid=13038

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...px?lotid=68374

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ebsize/14b.jpg

All good just thought I would let you know..

Cheers,

John

I don't have time to do a Photoshop comparison right now but I see the similarities you're pointing out but there are other things I don't see.

- The corners on #53 seem to be softer to me than those on #14.
- I see a distinct dark spot on the lower right hand border that is visible on #14 before and after #53 sold. Maybe the holder is blocking it, but it seems like it should be there #53 but I don't see it.
- There's a spot on the lower right hand corner border of #53 that isn't on any of the #14 images.
-There are spots on all #14 examples in the upper right hand corner border in the same place, and a spot on the upper right hand corner in a slightly different place on #53.

These differences would prevent me from saying at this time they are the same card and I would prefer to err on the side of them being different than the same. If a better scan becomes available and it's shown to be the same card it's an easy fix and I'll be glad to do it.

Skew adjusted.

http://i.imgur.com/yiItu.jpg

When comparing Planks, I have found that the "A" being an ink layer mostly on its own is usually slightly offset on most examples, when lining these up they are identical.

http://i.imgur.com/oO0qI.jpg

If we comparé the wagner and the plank,


Anyone can post à list where plank appear in the pre war era?
And do same thing with wagner?
Thx

Plank theories
 

Why not contact the Plank family member(s) that still live in Gettysburg to see if they know anything about one of the most famous baseball cards featuring their relative? Just a thought. Howard

Eddie Plank
 

Howard

This thread regarding my original Plank Theory is 14 years old. Since then, I have revised my theory based on more research regarding Plank.

Furthermore, this response of Connie Mack to a Philadelphia sports writer in 1910 clues us in....... " The secret of Plank's pitching is no secret
at all. It is a good strong arm, a powerful constitution to back it, and neither drinks, smokes, chews tobacco, nor swears...... " **

Eddie Plank was certainly an anti-tobacco guy. Most likely, he informed the American Tobacco Co. that he did not want his image portrayed on
Tobacco cards. Being the low-keyed guy that he was, he did not hype it up like Wagner did. Therefore, American Litho. stopped issuing Plank.

**..... Connie Mack, by Norman Macht


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...nkSC150x30.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...SC150x30xb.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Sometimes the explanations that are simplest and right under our noses are easiest to overlook. What Ted is saying here sure makes a lot of sense to me. And it offers a rational explanation why the Plank card appears in both the 150 and 350 series.

Ted, any thoughts if what you are saying is correct might account for the color tones of the 150 series Planks being more vibrant than the 350 series?

I do not profess to be a T206 expert so do not know if such difference in color vibrancy is typical with other T206 subjects or is limited to the Plank. Is it? If so, one would think it has something to do with the discontinuance of the card.

Every 150 series card has better color and a somewhat sharper look due to the stones being new. As they moved into the 350 series they wore down a bit, also the 350 series had a much larger print run and they probably didn't ink them as often as the 150 series.

Very few Plank tobacco cards exist. I believe t206, t204, and t216 are the only T cards that Plank is on. Wagner is similarly rare, but worse as he has no t204. Anytime you can get plank (or wagner) on a tobacco card, grab it!

It was sportswriters that were paid to get the permission of the ballplayers for the tobacco company's to use their pictures. I think his refusal is the best explanation ,for the rarity of Planks t206 card and lack of inclusion in most tobacco cards but I haven't been able to find anything that mentions it from that time period but I have found proof that Wagner refused to let them use his image.

from an Oct. 28 1912 newspaper

Attachment 431544

Attachment 431545


from an Dec. 24 1912 newspaper

Attachment 431546

Wow pat!
 

Thanks for sharing those. I don't believe I've ever seen or heard of them before.

Hi Corey....it's been quite a while since we have last spoken....great hearing from you.

My experience looking over 1000's of T206's these past 40 years is that PIEDMONT 150, SOVEREIGN 150 and SWEET CAPORAL 150 T206's are generally richer in color (especially blue)
than their T206 counterparts with SWEET CAPORAL 350 (Factory #30) backs

For example......

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...iedmont150.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...weetCap350.jpg

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...edmont150b.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...eetCap350b.jpg



Regarding ink colors, what has mystified me more so is why the 150 Series ** cards are lacking the rich dark BLUE color seen on numerous subjects in the 350 Series
and 460 Series subjects....such as:


150 Series................................... 350 Series.................................. 460 Series
https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...addellT206.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...xMurray50x.jpg

**....Note Waddell (portrait) is the only 150 Series subject printed with dark blue ink.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Ted I don't know if some of it has to do with your scanner but the Crandall
Piedmont 150 you posted is an unusually darker blue.

Not to long ago I had 15 Crandall no caps including two with the same
exact plate scratch as yours (the one I have left is the last one one the right)
the blue does vary even in the same backs but yours is the darkest blue I've
seen.

Here are the eight I still have seven are piedmont 150's. Luke has a good description of the difference between some
of the 150 and 350 series when he describes the 350's as having a washed out look compared to the 150's.

Attachment 431596

same plate scratch as yours
Attachment 431597

Pat

Here are my PIEDMONT 150 Crandall and my Plank on the same scan. This scan is "un-enhanced".

Without enhancement of this scan, my scanner shows SGC cards darker than they actually are.

And, since the Crandall was scanned along with the SGC card it comes out slightly lighter than it actually is.

And yes....the blue background of this Crandall card is unusually darker blue than most.


https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...dallXPlank.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Hey Ted,

Can you please expand upon this?

Is your comment that it's odd they didn't layer colors to create a darker background on some, and did on others? Or am I misunderstanding your comment? Love this attention to detail and just want to understand your thought process.

These are both HA scans:
https://i.ibb.co/hC8YcgM/colors2.png

slantycouch

Expanding on my comment in my prior post.....
there are 155 different subjects in the 150 Series, and the Waddell (portrait) is the only solid dark blue card in it.

There are 269 different subjects in the initial 350 Series of which 27 subjects are printed with solid dark blue ink.

And, the 460 Series includes 2 subjects printed with solid dark blue ink.

I'm not sure I have answered your question. If not, try me again.

My all-time favorite T206 is indeed a dark blue card.......

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...edHINDUx50.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference
.