T220 Silver - Uncut Edition
 

Let’s talk about the Silver sheets, as there seems to be no point in holding off discussion anymore and the secret is clearly out. So these started appearing a few weeks ago on eBay listed as ‘early reprints’. Suspicious, as I have never seen a fake of a T220-1 Silver border, good or bad. The White borders have some Dover reprints, but I’ve never seen any attempt to reproduce the silvers at all. Doesn’t mean it’s legit though, I wasn’t sure at first. The first listed was for $19.50 minimum bid and it didd not even sell. I saw it on the relisting, offered the seller $100 (I figured that was a fair risk, considering what I did and did not know at the time) if he would list it at a BIN. He declined, I won it for like $20. Once I had it in hand, it was obviously real.

They are missing the silver final layer, and are blank backed. The tan underlayer of ink, that rests below the silver, is present. If you look closely you can see this on final production cards, the silver is usually not applied truly perfect and and part of this is visible on one of the four edges. There are numerous tiny recurring print defects on final production cards, that line up with one of the 8 slots present on these sheets. For example, some copies of the Driscoll/Glover card have what appears to be a stain in the upper right corner. It’s not, it’s a recurring print defect, on 1 of the 8 slots on the sheet and recurring in final production cards. Under microscope and magnifying glass examination, everything matches up right to a proper c. 1910 American Lithographic product. The panel of Ben Jordan includes a September, 1910 (which lines up pretty much exactly right to when I would have guessed production was beginning) acceptance mark. The Donovan sheet, of course, cannot possibly be an early reprint as there is no evidence anyone in the hobby knew this card existed until 2005. I thought it should exist as the 25th card, and not Jack Goodman, because of the image’s background type (more here: https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=260805), but when it first appeared, it had a completely different background from the white border version of the Donovan Today card. Thus, even if someone produced a fake by giving a silver border to the white border Donovan card, it couldn’t possibly be like this and match the proper silver border Donovan. I can provide close up’s and pictorial evidence better than the auction photos later, though Net54 likes to neuter image quality. I'm on vacation right now so they aren't in front of me, but I will post further pics this week. Because of the 80kb file size limit, shoot me a DM if there's something you'd like to see in full, higher quality

I won the next several listings for between $10 and $89. One bidder ran a few of them up just a little bit; an odd sum to bid. Too much to pay for a fake, far too little for something real. Presumably they were in the same boat I was initially, unsure if authentic and taking a little risk. I thought the Donovan sheet would give it away, as it obviously can’t be what it was described as. I got that one for $90. The next batch of 5 another member here noticed and ran the price up between $150-$400. That was the end of it for me. I bid a little under $2,000 on them by the end, the last 2 my bids got topped on Beecher and Moore. I thought my bids had a good chance of holding even if these got publicly outed, but pricing stuff like this is always a total crapshoot. I had hoped to keep the sheet together, partially for research purposes to piece a sheet together and partly to frame that recreated sheet on my wall for display. If one of you guys here was the winner, I’d love to know so that we may share information on them and see if we can put together the panels in sheet order to further public knowledge of the issue. After Beecher and Moore closed, the seller yanked the listings for Carney, McCoy and Dempsey.

Hopefully the others appear and we can at least get images of all together. The layout will be interesting, and have clues to other American Tobacco/American Lithography sets in the larger formats (I suspect T218-3, at least, mirrors the look of this sheet with the block format printing of a subject). It may also give some clues to the short printing. Either the final layout was changed or Donovan was not intended originally to be a short print (which I suspect is so); he was likely pulled early on as, even if the layout was changed to put a single Donovan on a sheet, he would not be nearly so difficult as he is. I know of only 3 proven copies with a photo (POP reports would suggest 4 extant; I know where 3 reside), it does not exist in 1/8 the supply, or 1/16 or even 1/32 of the other cards. If there is a James Corbett panel, its presence and layout position, or lack thereof, may suggest something as well.

There is a lone Jack McAuliffe card like this, blank backed and without the layer of silver metal, known to the hobby.

There were also some E229 panels listed that I won. This set was not thought to be a product of American Lithographic (at least not by myself), but now I suspect it actually was. American Lithography is known to have had most of these athletes under contract in 1910, and the sheets were found “in a house” presumably near his New York location. These E229 sheets stopped coming up for sale early as more T220-1’s were listed, it’s not near a full sheet that has appeared. We don’t really have a track and field forum anywhere and they aren’t non-sports, so I hope it may be forgiven to include them in this discussion here anyways. I asked the seller about where he got these, and he said "In a box in a house clean out". The New York location of the seller would make me suspect a family of an American Lithographic employee, but who knows for sure. I see these are not the first panels to appear. There is no picture but the Met has a listing for one in the Burdick Collection (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/720963), mislisted as being from the 1920's.

I’d love to hear from the rest of you about these, if one of you was the winner of the final 2 sales, you have noticed something else about these, a better theory on the SP’ing from it, or anything else it may suggest. Also seems a good time for a general review of what we do and do not know about this issue. Pretty cool find the seller has accidentally made for the research side of the hobby here. Happy to have won half the set before it got away from me, these are my favorite issue as I've written about probably too many times here. Once in a lifetime chance.

I’m off to get my scissors and cut up this Donovan sheet, think I could get a PSA 9 on some of them.

That's amazing.

I assume you're joking about the scissors.

Very interesting. Prices on this really oddball stuff are always fun to watch. Thanks for sharing.

Greg is there other known Beecher examples missing the L like the one on the sheet?

Jackpot!

LOL, same.


Would love to see some pics of the backs.

For the record, I am joking about cutting them up. I hate grading and would never ruin them for a potential grade. These would probably get A's anyways, due to the pre-production nature.

The Beecher in the 7th slot was evidently corrected before final production. No Beecher's are known like this.

The backs are all completely blank, except for this acceptance mark on the Ben Jordan, which is the upper right corner of the sheet.

Here are seller's images of the ones I own and have in hand.

And here are the cards that went to another bidder, #3 to figure it out, for $1,907 and $2,083 to top my bids:

And the 3 the seller canceled once he figured out or was told what he had:

And here are the 6 e229 panels that were listed. All 6 are also in my physical possession. Note that 3 and 5 are the same.

Another note I should have made - it's not evident in photos, but in hand all of these are amazingly bright and bold in color. T220 and E229 usually look good color wise, but these are much bolder than pretty much any I have ever seen. Which makes sense for a pre-production sheet presumably ran with full ink and then stored in a box for decades.

Holy crap, Greg - this post was the first I heard of this. Insane! Can you share one of the eBay listings? I tried to search and couldn’t find - curious if they were listed poorly, which is why no one saw them?

Congrats - glad they ended up with someone like yourself! This far beats the mail day you got from me!

Congrats Greg it's nice that most of them went to someone who will keep them together and intact.

I was pretty confident my mail day from you was the highlight of my year, Scott! The Jackson cabinet is still on my desk on display.

They weren't listed great, which was definitely why I got a bargain. They were labelled as 'early reprints' in the auction titles. On the other hand, they were listed in the Tobacco Cards section, with "Mecca" in the auction title. I was pretty confident others would notice; some must have seen and assumed they were indeed reprints.

I didn't think I had as good of a bargain as I've evidently got; I really thought I was likely to continue winning even as other bidders got in. The $2K bids felt like paying a lot for a favorite set, but I bid based on value to me instead of market (who knows what market is). The Donovan is presumably worth multiples of the others.

Here's the Jackson as an example, sold listing for "Mecca reprints" will produce them all.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/12488838824...8AAOSwhldhNshZ

I am hoping we can produce a full sheet and it's layout from this, but as they divide into multiple hands it will be tougher; I think there are more the seller has that are now going somewhere else for property listed sale than we have seen. When I get back home I will take the last 5 I got and try to sort all 13 together as best as possible as a starter; some of them definitely connect (Edwards/McGovern horizontally, Jackson/Lavigne vertically, Jordan is the upper right corner). If a full sheet had all the cards, which I think is the most likely layout, we are missing panels that might appear of:
Choynski
Coburn
James Corbett
Young Erne
Jack McAuliffe
Tommy Ryan
Randall/Belasco fight

I'll !@#$ my pants if a Jack Goodman appears.

Damn!

Wow! Those are awesome Greg, congrats!

Nice find, Greg, congrats. I like the e229 Track and Field panels. It's wild that Burdick had one and it's at the MET. The best my brother and I could do before the internet was a 1964 Topps Koufax.

Well put Dave! I love it when stuff like this shows up. Thanks for sharing your find with the board. I imagine these were all pre-production samples. They must have been in some printers files all these years to survive in such nice condition.

Did you ask the seller if he was the one that cut them into panels?
It's odd that some of the boxers only have the right side border of a sheet and
some of the track and field athletes only have the left side. border of a sheet.

I too have noticed the left/right side split; it’s possible these were on the same pre-production sheet and this is all a single sheet. I have to try and piece them together when I get back from my trip, but wouldn’t totally rule this possibility out yet. I think there are more panels that have not been seen yet in both sets. There’s so little uncut material from the ATC/American Lithographic partnership that I wouldn’t be shocked to learn multiple sets could appear on a single sheet. The smaller size cards do not appear to have been printed in this block format, with a card repeating horizontally as well instead of in vertical strips. I think this format was likely used on other larger size cards; Adam’s miscut of Summers (boxing pose) in T218-3 would suggest it likely used this format too. I’m not aware of anyone thinking E229 was an American Lithographic product before, but the checklist fits with them.

The seller did not seem eager to discuss the cards with me, I got two perfunctory replies totaling 11 words to my inquiries before I stopped inquiring further. My reading implied the seller, an antique dealer, found them or had them consigned by someone in this condition already, presumably local to the New York area. I think more intel will come out when the remainder appear for sale, presumably at an auction house.

Major credit to the seller for integrity. By the time he shipped the last 5 of them to me the Beecher and Moore had ended and he surely knew he was losing several $K by not reneging on the auction and simply not shipping them to me. With so many threads about shady dealings, this gentleman did the exact opposite of what seems to be so common in the hobby these days.

Alas I won none of them; Greg is lucky I did not spot the first load or he'd have paid at least 5x what he spent.

I contacted the seller and he told me that someone from a major AH contacted him and told him they could be worth $5,000 each. I think that is wildly optimistic for anything except maybe the Donovan and Jim Corbett SSPs. An 8-card proof of each would exceed the known pop of finished cards. For the others, frankly, the $2K each that they were going for on eBay was a very strong price. That's the problem with these cards: thin interest. Extraordinary rarity but thin market. I used to own three of the four known uncut N310 Mayo strips. Cost me $2K to get them and I barely got my investment out after years of trying. Anything like this is a crap-shoot. I mean, we think they're unbelievably cool and valuable but does anyone else? It's a conundrum, especially when two or three dedicated bidders go to war, because you are not likely to get what you think these very rare and very obscure items are worth if you are out of the equation as a buyer. Now, if you're spending sub-$100 per item, you really can't lose much but once you get into the $1500-$2000 range, well, that's a pretty nice other card you're foregoing.

I can’t see the commons going that high, that seems an incredibly optimistic assessment. If anyone thinks they’re worth $5,000, please give me a call and your shipping address.

I don’t think there’s much of a maybe on the Donovan and, if it exists, the James J. Corbett. I’d be shocked if 8 Donovan’s, 2/3 of the pop, went for less than $5K on the open market properly listed. Though I hope I’m wrong, I’d love to get the Corbett too if it’s in the find and I could justify doing that sum; only 250% of a common panel.

Here's the thing, though. They are not finished cards. No matter who they show or how unique, they are not part of the set and therefore of limited utility to a card collector. A premium item to be sure but not the world-killers one might think. $5,000 for a boxing card or card-like item is rarified territory, probably no more than a few dozen cards would draw that price. The actual cards of Donovan and Corbett might not top $5k at auction; I could see them pooping out around half of that. I've had this same issue with original art and proofs from other sets: they just don't sell for what they "should".

I think the seller made a mistake terminating the eBay auctions. I doubt they will net more consigning to an AH. I am certainly not a buyer at those price levels and you are not either, I suspect. That doesn't leave a whole heck of a lot of lunatics willing to spend like drunken sailors on these items.

I don't normally compete at the higher tiers of the hobby; when it becomes about money it's not much fun. I have no idea what they 'should' go for. But I'm absolutely a buyer at those levels; the Beecher and Moore went to ~$2,000 because that was my and another bidders bid (who knows how high they were willing to go though; we were both over $2,200 on Dempsey when it got yanked and that was my placeholder). I'd happily pay $5K for the Corbett. The last Corbett went for like $1,750 before the juice and before the hobby explosion off memory. 8 pre-production examples for $5K would be a significant bargain in my eyes.

I'd be awfully shocked if the gentleman who bid at minimum $2,083 on Beecher would value the Corbett under $5,000. Corbett and Donovan, from their transactions I am aware of, are like ~100x a common cards price. Obviously that shrinks greatly in this price tier, form and situation, but I would be absolutely shocked if they netted less than 2.5x a common card in pre-production form.

As the $2K price was achieved with, the bidding suggests, only 3 people aware of what they actually were, I don't know if his decision was good or bad. It would seem unlikely he will lose a lot by yanking them. The only way he really loses is if it turns out only myself and the other bidder value them like this, and he consigns to an auction house that 1) the other bidder or myself does not see or 2) he picks one I have ethical qualms with and refuse to do business with for any item, which constitutes a lot of them. Otherwise, I don't see how he can lose, he'll likely have both of us competing again, but this time we won't be the only ones in the loop as they will be listed properly. On the other hand, I'm not sure there's much room to go up much more for the seller to recoup the increased fees charged by an auction house. We would need at least a third bidder to add a not insignificant percentage to our bids to make it much more profitable for the seller at the end of the day.

I really hope I am wrong and these aren't worth much and the other bidder disappears and decides he messed up, so that I can get them cheap and justify keeping them all to my grave. I'd rather get them all to display on my wall in a recreated sheet than have some expensive cardboard. I highly doubt I'm going to get any more than the 13 I have at this point after the Beecher and Moore results, though.

Is it fair to assume the sheet was at minimum 34-36 inches wide?

We have:

3 bottom panels

3 top panels (one is clearly a corner).

3 panels x 4 cards x 2.5 inches = 30 inches, without the white margins.

Assuming all T220-1's are one sheet, which is not for sure yet, it would have to be about 34-36 inches at minimum.


For scorekeeping, we also have:
4 right panels (counting Jordan again, since he is obviously the top right corner)

0 left panels

9 panels that do not show clear evidence of being an edge, but as they are handcut (albeit pretty cleanly) some may have had the white frame cut off and thus cannot just be assumed to be interior panels.



A 5x5 layout of panels would be 16 edge panels, 9 interior panels, counting in my head. A different layout would probably be a sheet that either 1) didn't have all 25 cards or be 2) be very large.


I'm back home from vacation on Saturday to try and piece more together of the 13 I have access too to see what connects. Jackson and Lavigne vertically connect, Edwards and McGovern do horizontally.

Thanks Greg. There is some information from that timeframe on possible sheet sizes used.

Full Obak sheet 31 x 23 1/2

18 card strip E91A approximately 27 inches

T206 plate scratches indicate a 34-36 inch sheet

I'm not up to speed on the plate scratches. I've seen the Obak and AC setups. I don't think they are the same printer, but I don't think that printer is known. I may be a little behind more recent discoveries though.

If we come up with a sheet about this wide, it would gives us 3 panels in a row, making it unlikely these are all from one sheet.

Before this find, my suspicion was multiple size sheets were used, and layouts were different for small format and large format cards. Large format cards seem to repeat top to bottom, and also horizontally. Small format cards don't seem to have been printed in blocks, but with a card repeating only vertically.

It's interesting we have only one corner piece and no left panels. I suspect either the sheet is huge, some of the interior-looking panels are trimmed to cut the white border, and/or The E229's fit into the same, large sheet.

I hope what we may learn from this is helpful to other sets in the ATC/AL partnership. I have some uncut T25 strips as well showing different cards adjacent to each other in a large format, different from T220-1 and T218-3.

Yeah I was just pointing out the ability and possibility of them being printed on a large sheet.

I've seen some mention that the Obaks were printed by Schmidt Lithograph and it was mentioned in post #9 in this older thread that they used some similar lithograph presses as American Lithograph.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...773#post842773


There's also some information on the sizes of some of the presses used by ALC in this thread

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=125899

I'm not sure how the press sizes a decade prior will relate to the sheets, and produces quite a range of possibilities there.

Is there a source or evidence for Schmidt printing T212? the post here says they "used similar presses", and Obak is mentioned only once in passing without relation to Schmidt using my fancy command F. I presume the printer of T212 was the printer of T224/T229 based on the stylistic resemblances.


I can add T29 to the list of probably block-subject printed sets from miscuts. T25 is not in block format, T29, T218-3 are, most don't have cards cut so bad we can tell, or uncut material. 25 subjects on a sheet makes a lot of sense. If it was this way, I've seen no evidence of double printing to compensate for the Donovan and Corbett getting yanked from their sheet(s) very, very early on.


On a related printing note, does anyone know what happened to the second ledger that surfaced? Lelands sold it for $8k a couple years ago, it had information on T220 among other sets, but only a small sampling was shown in the listing (https://auction.lelands.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=976570). There may be some clues in here if its owner is willing to divulge. Much of the evidence that would help piece things together appears to be silo'd; there seems much more out there and extant than is talked about openly.

I have no idea who printed the Obacks I just said it was mentioned that Schmidt did.


Good luck with your panels.

It is also possible that the proof sheet alignment was not replicated in the production sheet. I've only seen a few proof sheets before from other makers, but they were smaller than the production sheets; my guess is to make them easier to pass around the office for comment and approval.

I don't think the other ATC cards hold a candle to the ones made by the Obak/Pet/Kopec printer. Look at the depth and quality of image on these:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...k%20miscut.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...9%20Attell.jpg

That's a lot more lithographic layers than the typical ATC product. The best of the other cards still have a more stylized, less layered quality:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...0bat%20off.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ohnson%201.jpg

As for T218 sheet alignment, I offer one humble piece of data:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...s%20miscut.jpg

As far as I am aware, this is the only "full sheet" of an ATC/AL partnership set known (not mine). It's a pre-production 'pass around' of T62, I believe, due to the tiny size that would have been completely impractical for actual production run.

I suspect the layout will tell us if this is similar, or what the probable full production run would have been. If it's one or two sheets, it's very likely the final layout as redoing the layout on a full-size sheet would seem to serve zero purpose. If it's just a couple cards together and this is many sheets, then it probably is a 'pass around'.

The Summers card is why I think T218-3 will follow this similar block printing format. I have a T29 Hippopotamus card suggesting it too was done in block format. But, my strips of T25's would show not all large-size cards in the partnership were done this way. Horizontal miscuts on the large size cards are almost non-existant. I have 3 or 4 vertical T220-2 white borders showing the same card on top of itself. Never seen a T220-1 Silver miscut either direction.

I love the West Coast T cards. It's a shame they never did a set in the larger physical format, the detail in the faces, the bold backgrounds. I've slowly begun T224/T229 the last couple months, up to a whopping 5 cards.

I'm not sure who did the 1912 Capital [sic] Candy and Cracker set but the lithography strikes me as very similar to the West Coast cards:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...0composite.jpg

I wish I could find more (I only have the Sheppard) but they are just rare as hens' teeth. And yeah, that's Jim Thorpe.

I also found another issue that has striking depth of imagery, from prewar Germany:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...stulla%201.jpghttps://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...stulla%202.jpg

There's a full sheet of S81 silks I believe that's an ATC/AL product.

Thank you, I should have said “cards”.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen the Capital cards before. Those are awesome, Adam.

Your link doesn't work maybe this one will

https://auction.lelands.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=97657


This book indicates that the Old Masters Litho Corporation printed some of the T220's and T225's.

Thank you for correcting the link. Yes, I have the description of the auction and it's handful of images. Covers N's, T's, and possibly beyond the 1912 general end date. Gives exact dates for T225 printing, has an ad for T223 in it as well, but many of the pages aren't shown. It also seems to indicate Brett Lithography Co. printed cards as well. I presume these are both subsidiaries of American Lithography that bought out most of the NY area lithographers, but information online appears scant. I'm hoping it will turn up again in the hobby with an owner willing to share its information, as there is surely much more than in the listing.

Brett Litho?? That's what the stamp on your sheet says!

Nice catch Adam it states in the scrapbook that the Brett plant burned around
March 30 1910 maybe Fullgraff was doing some printing for them?

I found an interesting newspaper article on Brett Lithograph I will clip and post it.

April 1902 newspaper article on Brett Lithograph Company
Sorry about the different sizes but I had to clip it in several parts

Attachment 484483
Attachment 484484
Attachment 484485
Attachment 484486
Attachment 484487

Some more info on Alphonse Brett

https://digital.librarycompany.org/i...gitool%3A78923

It's a good thing you smart gents are here, because I was looking for a "Brett Little" as an employee of ALC or ATC like a dumbass, though it seems obvious now...

Until a year ago, my suspicion had been that American Lithographic did pretty much all the 1909-1912 American Tobacco cards, which I think was the normal opinion. I thought they had a more active role than is generally imagined, as it seems they were the ones securing athletes rights (inferred from the Ball letter), and not ATC, seeming like more than the role of a printer contracted to do a job. The ATC ledger doesn't have anything on indentifying the printer unless my memory is awry. This ledger from Lelands last year would suggest whoever Old Masters is and Brett Lithographic worked in partnership to produce some of the sets, at least.

The "prize fighters" referenced printed at Brett until they "burnt out" and then started at Old Masters must be T225-1, not T220 (the dates are before T220-1 or T220-2 is possible, because Gans date of death appears in the cards. Thus they can't have been done before mid-August, 1910 at the earliest). I thought t225 (and T28, T96) were not done by ATC/AL, and the Oxford/Surbrug/Khedieval brands weren't part of the ATC umbrella. Am I wrong there?

So there's multiple printers working in partnership (the 'burnt out' pass-off reference would seem to tell us this) to print ATC sets, even within the same set. My first thought is that this is because American Lithography dominated the New York printing business at this time. I have not succeeded in finding reference to Old Masters or Brett Litho as subsidiaries though; Pat's linked article even includes the transaction history of Brett without reference to them ever being an American Lithography subsidiary. This wasn't entirely uncommon then though; with the Monopoly laws being fairly fresh and enforced there were plenty of somewhat secret subsidiaries in a host of areas. If Old Masters and Brett Litho were not subsidiaries, they could be sub-contractors OR the entire picture is much more complicated and Lithograph companies were competing for orders and business from American Tobacco, and the long-standing view of the ATC/AL partnership is just wrong.

Starting with the E229's, as there are only 6 panels and it's easier. Actually, I should probably not call them E229. This could be the bread version (D353, I think), I believe there's no way to tell which series a card goes too if there is a blank back like these have. I'd love to know if there is, if we have a collector more knowledgeable of them, I don't know this set very well. Panel numbers are following the random order I put them in in post 11.

Panel 2 (Gilbert/Gilbert) is apparently the bottom left corner.

I believe Panel 3 (Gilbert/Flanagan) goes above it, the cut is a close match and the alignment mark seems to have it's bottom present on panel 2. 95% sure.

Fitting next to panel 3's right is panel 5 (Gilbert/Flanagan again). The edge is not as neatly cut as many of them are and it fits together perfectly, positive this connects.

The other 3 panels do not connect to any of this grouping. Panel 1 (Eller/Erickson) may fit right above panel 4 (Erickson/Irons), but the top and bottom edges are pretty cleanly cut and without all the panels here it's hard to be sure this one is 100% correct.

Panel 6 (Flanagan/Eller) does not fit with any of the other panels.

Using the edge pieces, because again, they are easier ;). I can fit 3 along the top edge. I'm using the cut, little marks in the borders, and little creases or abrasions some have to match a fit, as well as the wear marks in the white edges.

Frayne > Burke > Jordan fit together, with Jordan obviously being the top right corner.

Of the right edge panels, I only have one, Gans. Moore went to the other buyer, the seller yanked Dempsey. Gans does not fit beneath the Jordan.

There are no left edge panels.

On the bottom row, I can solidly put Edwards and McGovern together. there is brown on the tape on the back connecting them, but ignoring this the creasing and wear and cut fit perfectly. I am 99% sure we can put carney to the left of Edwards. My Edwards panel has a crease going off the edge below his knee. This lines up with a crease on the carney, and the damage in the white also lines up. I do not have Carney in hand (another pulled auction), but pretty sure he fits in right here based on the scans and damage locations.

So that's a significant stretch of the top and bottom rows. It seems to me to strongly suggest these were not pass around sheets like the T62 shown earlier. It must be a fairly large sheet or two. I'm hoping I can now piece internal panels together and with border panels, and then compare what I produce with the e229's and check if they fit together.

Getting somewhere.

1) Edwards is obviously a bottom panel, with the big white margin.

2) On top of Edwards is 100% Donovan of ToDay. There is a light crease on back that fits perfectly between the two, and the cut matches.

3) On top of Donovan is Lavigne. Lavigne has a tiny brown mark on back that fits with a very hard to see mark on the Donovan, and the cut again matches.

4) On top of Lavigne is Jackson. Lavigne has a rip, and an old brown tape on the back to cover it up. The tip of the tape stretches onto the Jackson panel. The cut also lines up perfect.

5) On top of Jackson is Frayne, I think. the cuts fit perfect; there's a slight dip on the second Jackson card at top row that aligns with an extension on the Frayne as well in that spot.

6) I’m pretty sure this puts together a complete column, but again the caveat that without them all in hand to ensure each fit is the best fit, I can't be 100% certain.

7) Now, Goldman fits next to Donovan and above McGovern. He fits well with Donovan on the cut. He is 100% above McGovern, there is a crease that aligns and several subtle shifts in color in the tan that lines up perfectly with Terrible Terry. This leaves three unplaced panels I have in hand: Corbett, Wilson, Driscoll.

8) None of these 3 panels fit beneath Burke. The Jordan column has an unknown bottom corner card, and Gans/Dempsey/Moore beneath Jordan, in some unknown order. It's not Gans right beneath Jordan. I believe Moore must be beneath Jordan, even without it in hand. There is a crease in the bottom right of Jordan that lines up perfect with a crease in the Moore panel.

9) Beneath Moore, goes my Gans sheet. Gans has several creases in the top of the first card running upwards. This matches some creases on the bottom of the Moore panel, 1st card second row.

10) This means Dempsey logically must be beneath Gans, if my column of 5 is correct. no creases to prove it, but the cuts visually match. The top left of the Dempsey swoops up a bit, matching a dip in the cut of the Gans. I wouldn't call that proof enough, but it logically has to be here anyways, so I am satisfied this placement is very likely. This means Dempsey is also to the right of Goldman. I see no tell tale evidence for or against this in the edges of the two panels.

11) Now I have to break from what is placed. Beecher goes above Wilson, though Beecher is one I do not own. Wilson has a large swoop up in his top border, starting at card 1 and arching into card 2. Beecher matches at the bottom, with that swoop resulting in his name being pretty close to the edge. It follows the arch perfectly.

12) So there's 2 more. Beecher/Wilson don't seem to fit in the gap between Burke and Goldman, nor does it seem to slow right above Carney. That rip in Lavigne should also be visible on the card adjacent to him, 2 above Carney. It's not on any surviving cards. That the rip was strengthened with tape before the sheet was cut (or at least, before Jackson was cut off from Lavigne) strongly suggests to me that this is the case. The card to Lavigne's left should also have some of this tape, as it sharply cut off.

13) I think Corbett fits to Jackson's left; it's a close cut, but no matching marks to aid me. I would not peg this one at positive, but probable.

14) I am pretty confident that Driscoll is to Corbett's left, which puts us at least 5 panels across now, if so. The cut here fits very, very well. I'm pretty sure here, but lacking identifying marks.

15) Wilson fits well next to Gans. He does NOT fit well above Golddman or next to Lavigne though, which would also have to be true if he was next to Gans. This would put Beecher below Burke, but the crease in Beecher doesn’t seem to fit with Burke. That corner crease could have come post-cutting of course, but so far my lesson has been that damage occurred before the sheet was cut. I don’t have Beecher in hand to test the fit.

16) Beecher/Wilson might go here, or somewhere else on the left side of the sheet. I don’t know.

17) I suspect the Driscoll Glover represents the left edge and that the white margin on the left was trimmed off before sheet cutting, or there is a 6th row that would have to make some repeat panels at this point. Beecher's crease doesn't line up with him, hard to tell. That would mean Wilson to Donovan's left and above Carney. He's not quite a perfect fit with Donovan, but close. I don't have Carney to do close comparison work with.

18) So that’s 15 panels placed together, with 2 more placed together apart from the rest (Beecher/Wilson) and McCoy unplaceable because I don’t have him in hand and the image doesn’t give enough clues. The presumed other panels now must surely have existed to fill the slots.

19) 5 panels in a column makes sense from a checklist perspective. 5x5 makes a lot of sense for a 25 card series; as this was clearly intended to be. Cards measure ~2.5' x 3 5/16. 10 cards in a column, 5 unique, would be a hair over 31 inches tall without the white margins. 5 panels wide, 20 cards in a row, would produce 50 inches. It seems this sheet is 5 panels wide, or more. Pretty clearly 5 tall, I think.

20) I am now positive this was not a pass round prototype sheet like the T62. it is clearly not quite final production though, several changes were made. Beecher was corrected as noted earlier. I suspect the uneven borders on Jordan (especially) and Carney were too. I would suspect the silver layer was applied over some of the white margins; otherwise any card from the top row centered down would be found without silver at its top edge. This is not the case, so it must have been more liberally applied.

21) This seems to kill my old theories about Donovan being on an edge with James J. Corbett filling the columns above/below him, and his yanking leading to Corbett’s yanking for production ease.

22) Though not quite final production, I think it more likely than not that this is what a final production layout would be. It’s not a pass around, and re-doing it would be seemingly pointless. No sheet layout (even 2 or 3 sheets with only one total slot for each of them doesn’t account for it) can adequately account for Donovan and Corbett’s SP’ing, they deductively had to have been pulled.

23) If they were pulled, which seems the only reasonable explanation, something else probably went in the slot. Or, they manually removed and separated the cards in this slot to avoid DP’ing a card and redoing the sheet. 23 cards doesn’t come out even almost no matter what you do.

24) I cannot fit any of the E229 panels with the T220-1 panels.

25) In my photo I have used standard cards to represent sheets I do not have in hand, I don’t own enough Dempsey’s to do it quite right. Wilson/Beecher aren’t placeable with the rest yet, and so are off by themselves; they aren’t necessarily over somewhere below Driscoll, I just don’t have enough space on my table. Net54 hates quality pics and caps me at like 80kb, so this may look like crap after it slaughters the quality but I hope the idea comes through:

That's a large sheet 34-36 inches x 50-52 inches ?

This is along the lines of what I have suggested as a possibility for a few years now about the t206's. It would be the answer to many question about the T206's if there were several facility's and/or firms involved in printing the t206's over the 2+ years they were distributed.

If they were pulled for some reason it could explain why there are some, but only a handful, in the wild. Like the 1948 Leaf Graziano, which was pulled but definitely had some go to market in packs.

That's how my math is coming out on the sheet size, Pat. And it assumes that that the left edge was just cut off and that Driscoll represents the furthest left row, otherwise it is even wider. Driscoll's left edge is definitely handcut. It's certainly a deductive leap to assign it as the left edge. I thought there was a significant chance this was more than one sheet, but I'm much more strongly believing it is indeed a 5x5 array at this point as the likeliest size. I would have thought there were less than 200 cards a sheet before this find.


I'm not surprised if they were split between factories. This reference here may be something out of the norm, a set switching location because of a literal fire burning out a plant might have produced uncommon behavior for a time, if it is not metaphor for a facility being overworked and unable to meet quota. it would seem to suggest some very close business relationship between Old Masters and Brett Litho at the least. I would not be surprised at all if T206, the biggest set and possibly the one produced over the longest time, was at multiple locations. This would certainly seem to increase the likelihood that this was the case. I am surprised that this possibly was not an ATC/AL partnership at all, and they were just one of several contracted printers. The Ball Letter would suggest T206 was done by one company, at any number of locations, but one company. But I can find nothing that these other firms were part of American Lithographic. Makes some sense that they could have had quiet subsidiaries in the political context of 1910. This possibility throws a curveball if true. I can find almost nothing on "Old Masters" at all - or Fulgraff.


I've been buying T220-1 pretty heavily for a long time. I don't believe there is a double printing situation going on with what I've seen over the years, where Donovan and Corbett were pulled and another panel substituted in their place and thus being roughly twice as common. The known Donovan's and Corbett's seem like issued cards. It makes sense to me it's just like the Graziano, cards pulled and not supposed to be issued, but of course if it's a manual removal process before shipment to factory 649 it's going to be imperfect. Such a manual process doesn't seem out of place in 1910. What still makes absolutely no sense to me is why? Perhaps with the Porter lawsuit, they were more careful about getting signed contracts in place and Donovan and Corbett hadn't yet signed, but did before the T220-2 issue. there are reasonable explanations for why they might be pulled. I can think of none for why Donovan had like 1/3 of the card art redone, the background beyond the stands is completely different between the two parts of the T220 issue. If a plate broke, you wouldn't redo the painting it was based on and then redo a plate. If the painting was somehow lost or damaged and you had to redo the image, there would be differences, perhaps subtle but clearly different, in the other 2/3 of the art. I can still think of no reasonable expiation at all for this element. Usually we have an abundance of ideas and a lack of evidence, but here I've got no idea even.

I haven't been able to find much on Fullgraff either Greg but there is an older thread on here involving a contract for consent to use baseball players pictures on a tobacco card issue put out by him for the T.F. Moore company.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ight=Fullgraff

Found something more, Pat.

Source is this site (may want to turn monitor brightness down before clicking), Hyland's contract is last item on the page: http://w.ringmemorabilia.com/Recent%20Adds.htm

Interesting stuff here. Unlike the Ball Letter, this says nothing about him appearing on a cigarette card specifically, just general use of a photograph. No compensation is offered. Letterhead gives us a couple more names to look into.

The September 1909 date is pretty far in advance of his cards appearing. Hyland is in T225-1 and T218-1. The boxing set print dates in the Old masters general must be for T225-1. T218-1 was done after February 7, 1910 but probably before July 4, 1910. Both sets were right about the same time. I believe T220 was not really intended as a separate set, but was thought of as part of T218 (note its matching but odd series name). Presumably his rights here were used for both sets. His T218 was cloned in C52, but was one of the 12 fighters cut from T219.

This letter bears Fulgraff's signature, but on Brett Lithographic letterhead, not Old Masters. Fulgraff's ledger includes information from long after this (like T223), and also from decades before, so him switching jobs between the two in this period doesn't seem to fit. They are probably the same company, or subsidiaries of the same parent. I think this would suggest the likeliest scenario is the less-shocking one, that it was indeed an ATC/American Lithographic partnership and these are quiet subsidiaries; cards printed at multiple locations but not by multiple independent businesses.

Not to make everything about T206, but this also strikes me as increasing the probability for why Wagner's card was pulled. Unlike the Ball Letter, this letter doesn't mention or imply tobacco whatsoever. If Wagner had signed a release like Hyland's instead of like Ball's, it would explain more realistically how they started production on his card and then Wagner asked them to stop once he found out what his image was actually being used for.

Fulgraff appears to have had quite a central role in several decades of tobacco premiums. I've never encountered his name before the Lelands Ledger. I will keep digging. There may be something in the library and archival systems, a lot of businesses and businessmen's papers simply disappear, but a lot from this time period actually ended up in storage or basements at some library, archive, or university. New York is littered with them, may be another avenue.

Anyone here happen to have a NY Times description? I don't really feel like paying them just to search a couple articles. https://www.nytimes.com/1887/12/07/a...-must-pay.html

There seems to have been two Frank Fullgraff's in New York at this time, Frank T. and Frank G. Frank G. is our man.

I found information on him Greg he was quite the athlete it seems. I'll clip and post some of it.

Interesting. T218 features many members of the New York Athletic Club among its cards, who he says he is a member of in his letter to Hyland. Many of the boxers in it are in T225, which is in his ledger under the Old Masters business name, T220 (which bears a Brett stamp on the proof sheet) and T9 Turkey Red. T9 is of course improperly catalogued and it and T3 should really be the same. The Lelands auction says "An interesting note in the book where Frank Fullgraff credits himself with naming the Turkey Red Cigarettes along with several proofs for the Turkey Reds packaging". So this would seem to connect Fullgraff to the T218 cards and to the T3/T9, making him probably part of the Baseball issues as well (presumably the same releases for T3 and t206 were used instead of a different one with each set, as neither the Ball or Hyland letters seem to restrict use to a single card). I can't wait to see what you have found

It strikes me as extremely odd that an employee of Old Masters, Brett, or American Lithographic (or some combination of the 3, which might really be 1 company) would be naming a prominent cigarette brand for American Tobacco. Perhaps he was working for both, the connection between the cigarette monopoly and the printers? It seems to me this gentleman might be the architect of the T card program in general, after he evidently was one of the people who worked on the N cards in the late 1880's, the first major trading card issues. Apparently, he then tries again in the 1920's under the T.F. Moore company name but it goes nowhere.

He was definitely a long time member of the New York Athletic Club and a baseball player.

July 25 1906
Attachment 484594

Nov. 20 1928
Attachment 484595

Jan. 12 1932
Attachment 484596

Nov. 19 1928 this has Frank C but I think it's a typo and should b G
Attachment 484597

Great stuff, he seems to have accomplished a lot. Another hobby of mine happens to be firearms, I have a number of books and documentation on 19th century shooting sports. I will see if I can find anything further in my library on this rifle championship he won.

Some of the gents in the main board may have material on the Grammercy team. It’s really seeming to me like Fullgraff is a major part of the T card history in general, and not just to a couple sets.

Your panels have uncovered some fascinating information (at least to me).

Here is some more info on Brett Lithograph from my copy of the color explosion book on 19th century Lithograph. A lot of the info was in the link I posted earlier but some of it is new.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ale/img992.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ale/img993.jpg[/IMG]



I think that Fullgraff might have worked for Brett Lithograph is a possibility to consider.

You aren't alone, this stuff is fascinating. Fullgraff must have worked for Brett to be speaking for them in contracts and using their letter head, but he also worked for whoever Old Masters is at this time. I don't have much in the wya of books or documents on Lithographers, but I will keep digging and see if I can find anything to tie these firms to American Lithographic or disprove a connection.

I found a June 1904 copy of the New York Athletic Club's Journal (https://books.google.com/books?id=yz...20club&f=false, page 34). He was apparently into boating as well. Harry Hillman, a T218 subject, is in the issue as well.

The Larchmont Yacht Club and the Columbia Yacht Club, both of which he was a member of in 1904 according to this, are found in the 4th series of T59 flags.

It seems many of these T cards, among popular subjects and figures of the day, featured his friends and associations.

These NYAL journals are probably a good source on some of his activities. I believe the NYAL still exists and may have something in their records on Mr. Fullgraff.

According to this edition, Fullgraff joined the club as a full resident member in 1896, membership #1499 on page 71: https://www.google.com/books/edition...sec=frontcover

His previous Athletic endeavors may have been under a different organization.

Google Books is amazing. From an 1898 book titled "Club Men of New York
Their Occupations, and Business and Home Addresses: Sketches of Each of the Organizations: College Alumni Associations", we get an occupation and address.

"Fullgraff, Frank G., clerk with J. Bien & Co., 140 Sixth Av. - Lty, NYAth, HorseSHY. 266 W 23"

NYAth is the New York Athletic Club, one of 3 organizations he was a member of. LTY could be Larchmont Yacht.

J. Bien & Co. = the lithographic company of Julius Bien (1826-1909), who was centered in New York? I don't know lithography well, perhaps J. Bien & Co., means something more to you Pat than I'm searching.


https://www.google.com/books/edition...J?hl=en&gbpv=0

And, here is the gold. From the "Biographical Directory of the State of New York", published in 1900, we have the attached paragraph on page 150. Fullgraff's athletic memberships are again listed, and is listed as a Salesman connected to American Lithographic. His house address matches the previous link. He was born in 1851 (I think this means he is probably the man in a database here, who died in 1943 in Manhattan: https://www.ancientfaces.com/person/...1943/110083839)


https://www.google.com/books/edition...sec=frontcover

A salesman for American Lithographic, detailing production for Old Masters, and working for Brett securing contracts, with at least the last 2 being at the same exact time. I am now pretty positive these companies were indeed shadow subsidiaries of American Lithographic, multiple locations but not really multiple independent businesses printing the T cards. It makes sense for 1910.

Nice find on the American Lithograph connection Greg.

Here's the info in the book I have on Bien they were at that address from 1892-1915 when the company was sold. Interesting connection with Audubon and all the bird images considering the different bird series tobacco issues and the ones in Fullgraff's book.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ale/img998.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ale/img999.jpg[/IMG]

This book you have is gorgeous. Perhaps another connection to the cards.

I found a lawsuit from Fulgraff suing Brett Lithography in 1919 over $2,657.69 of unpaid work. It's a few hundred pages of information, but it includes some letters between Brett, Fullgraff, American Lithographic and R.J. Reynolds among others in the early 1910's. I haven't read the whole case yet, but the business relationships seem closely intertwined.

Included is a 1914 letter from Brett to American Tobacco certifying that Fullgraff has worked for them for five years, done good work, and they are okay with him working as a salesman for American Tobacco (who he already worked for years before, as we know from the earlier link) because their business has shifted interest and it would be a disservice to Fullgraff's 'customers'. It is an odd letter considering what else we know of Fullgraff's business life, reads kind of like a formality being handled with a deal already worked out. This case begins at page 608 in the downloaded .pdf here: https://books.googleusercontent.com/...fr4lkgzLdUshSA

this letter is plaintiff exhibit 31.


Page 5 of the case, page 618 of the .pdf, has Fullgraff switching to commission only basis for lithography orders to Brett in March, 1910, at apparently a 10% rate (10).

In plaintiff Exhibit 3, in a 1911 letter from Brett Lithograff by Fulgraff to R.J. Reynolds, he says "I have been doing business with the American tobacco company for twenty-five years and have gotten out several new brands, one of which is the Turkey Red, and I have printed millions of cigarette and show cards for them"

Plaintiff exhibit 9 has Brett paying Fulgraff $3 per thousand silk cards printed as commission in July, 1911.

He's sending artwork he's apparently made to R.J. Reynolds in several of these, for some kind of promotional work it seems. In Plaintiff exhibit 15 is a letter in which he sends Reynolds images from the "Forbes Lithography company", while signing off as an employee of Brett and apparently speaking for them. Exhibit 17 specifics they are pictures of Indian heads

Fullgraff just gets more interesting. He's a designer of some kind for Brett. He's doing similar work for Old Masters. He's a salesman for Brett and Forbes Lithography. He's worked for American Lithography in the past, and seeks more work for them in the 1910's, although he already seems to be involved with them. He's not only doing art design and print jobs for American Tobacco, he's naming and creating cigarette brands for them, which seems bizarre for a business partner at another company, a lithography company at that, to do. And he's worked with hem for 25 years, long preceding his apparent employment at Brett beginning in 1909. After the ATC breakup he's trying to interest R.J. Reynolds in lithographic advertising or possibly even cards again.

The defendants first exhibit has 21x17 lithographic orders for images of several people, including John L. Sullivan, just to route back to boxing here.

Fullgraff seems to do everything, and to know everyone in the lithography and tobacco industries, working for many of them, apparently often simultaneously. The conflicts of interest in his business life seem to be numerous, but they all write favorably of him in the court admitted correspondence and repeated references are made to his character and virtuous conduct. What's here only hints at what all he was really doing, the focus is on his sales job at Brett for the unpaid money, but this doesn't seem to be his only job or his only employer. He's a very interesting guy, even outside of my card interest.

I have not finished the full, lengthy read yet, but there's a lot in here on the players of the cigarette card world, even if they aren't really in here directly very much as the focus is on Silks and some other non-card contracts Brett didn't pay up for.

Page 1020 in the .pdf, 420 in the case file, a letter from R.j. Reynolds to Brett:

"Dear sirs,

We have requested the American Lithographic Co. to deliver to you ten sketches, one of John L. Sullivan, one of Admiral Bob Evans, one of Mark Twain, one of Sir Walter Raleigh, and six desig nated as A, B, C, D, E, and F.
Please quote us best price at which you can re produce these designs, as per specifications herein outlined, making us quotations for lithographic re production, as well as reproduction by the offset press method."

Again, it appears American Lithographic and Brett Lithographic are different companies - but only on paper. It makes no sense that American Lithographic would design images, and then send them, apparently for nothing, to Brett so that they could print them up for a customer and get paid instead. American lithographic was a large business who bought up competitors and was trying to get as much of the market as possible, not a routing charity. It seems to me another veiled wink, that they are separate companies to avoid government regulation but their business dealings indicate they really aren't fully separate firms. I don't want to get tunnel vision and locked into a theory, but every reference to the two I can find seems to follow this pattern

Pages 422 and 423 of the internal numbering of the case file have his original contract with Brett that was later amended to be commission only. He took a 5% commission on orders over $30,000, and a salary of $3,000 a year. He made quite a lot of money for the time. He agreed to:

"Fourth. The party of the second part [Mr. Fullgraff] has agreed and hereby agrees to accept the compensation aforesaid during the term aforesaid, and to engage in no other business and to do no other work for any person other than the party of the first part [Brett]."

Sure doesn't seem like this was really stuck too at all. Old Masters seems to have had him on the payroll at the same time, and American Lithographic apparently were paying him or had a bizarrely close relationship still. American Tobacco, who he was working with for 20 years by the time Brett put him on payroll, presumably wasn't hiring Brett Lithography to name, design, and create entire cigarette brands for them (why would anyone hire a lithography business to do this? Design the packaging, maybe, but the rest of it could not have been normal), so he almost certainly was getting something from them too.

" Mr. A. Kline, Cigarette Dept. American Tobacco Company,
#111-5th Avenue, New York City.

February 9, 1911.
Dear Sir,

We have carefully figured the cost of an edition of Actress Cards printed on satin size 1 3/4 x3. The scheme, as we understand it, is to use the same drawings as we used for the series of Actress Cards
made for the Fatima Cigarettes, except that the
back grounds shall be entirely eliminated. The
name of brand of cigarettes for which the satin
cards are to be used is to be printed across the top
edge of the satin, and the factory number on the
bottom edge of the satin. The designs to be in all
other respects the same as we made before. The
cost of those cards printed on satin furnished by
you and delivered collated in sets of twenty-five, in
an addition of one million and a half will be $2.00
per M. If we furnished the satin our price would
be $5.00 per M cards. W e are estimating on satin
of the quality of the satin we are enclosing here With.
Should you furnish the satin we would require twelve thousand yards of 24 inch goods.
We regret that the proofs are not finished as We hoped, so that they could be submitted to you today. We found it necessary to make changes in the back grounds of some of the cards so that you would get a correct impression of the way that they would look when finished, and this delayed the proving somewhat. You will have them, however, in a day or two."

These are the earliest silks referenced, and the only 'card' set of them, I think. The S version of T27? I don't know the Silks. Not sure what the price per "M" is, it clearly isn't per million.

Following up with more here,

"R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
Winston -Salem , N. C.

Gentlemen :
We beg to acknowledge receipt of your favor of
the 21st inst., and also acknowledge receipt of ten
sketches from the American Lithograph Company. We have taken a careful record of these sketches which will enable us to make you prices, and have today forwarded the sketches to the Forbes Lithograph Company, Boston, Mass., by express prepaid, and will send you a bill for the express charges in a day or two. We will within the next two or three days submit you our prices for reproducing the designs in accordance with your specifications.
Thanking you for an opportunity of figuring on this work for you, we remain,

Yours truly,
Brett Lithographic Company"

So... Fullgraff solicits R.J. Reynolds to print up some advertising pieces. Reynolds accepts after some queries. The images are then provided by American Lithographic to Brett Lithographic. Brett Lithographic then sends the pictures to Forbes Lithographic in Boston to do pre-production and full cost estimate on the items.

How many lithographic companies does it take to print a picture of John L. Sullivan? At least 3.

This again seems to suggest American Lithographic was regularly working through "other companies" to do print jobs.

I know we have multiple John L. collectors here. I'd love to see it if anyone knows of an R.J. Reynolds advertisement of Sullivan from the 1910's.

Superb research and information Greg.

Here's a page on Forbes and another page that lists the number of employees that Forbes and some of the other lithograph company's had in 1889.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ale/img001.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ale/img003.jpg[/IMG]

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.

Here's some stuff on the Porter suit.

I only know of this because of Inside T206, which references it in a footnote but doesn't give much else. It says this is the only known time a T card subject actually sued over the use of their image.

Harry Porter was a subject in the first series of T218, one of the many Irish American Athletic Club members to appear. His card had to have been printed after February 7, 1910, judged by the back text on series 1 cards. Several dates of issue in 1910 are given in the ATC ledger, that are plausible. His card does not appear to have been pulled from production, he's a common card that seems as readily available as any other card to me.


I found a record of the case in an old government compilation of cases before the NY court that year: https://books.googleusercontent.com/...kJTWw6Kvg6qxwc.

Pages 871-873 of the book cover the Porter case. Porter claimed he did not give his permission for advertising and sued for damages. The text is largely about procedural nuance, and is a decision for November 1910 on an ATC appeal. The case seems to have moved fairly quickly, as this is only a few months after the card could have been issued. American Tobacco claims that Porter did indeed sign a release, on July 5, 1909. The court rules against ATC's procedural motion. There should be a prior and later court event on this case, I think. The exacts of this are probably more clear to our lawyers here than to myself.

The case (Porter v. American Tobacco Co.,125 N. Y. S. 710 (fol.71).) is referenced as precedent in several later decisions in the 1930's. All later references in the ensuing decades seem to be to this motion that Porter won, though this part of the suit does not address the larger issue on which the legal use of his image hinges - did Porter on or about July 5, 1909 give his written consent to American Tobacco, or not?

While interesting and a part of T218 history, I'm striking out on getting anything that tells us much, beyond what we can reasonably infer from the Ball and Hyland letters, of the larger context thus far.

Circling back to the original subject, which is frankly less interesting than this investigation into the ATC/AL partnership, I started digging into Mike Donovan as well, for some reason his card may be so oddly difficult.

Donovan was a fascinating guy on his own, about 1910 he was in his 60's and still prominent in sporting circles. He was a personal friend of Theodore Roosevelt and appeared routinely in the press as an expert on sport, fitness, health in old age, and all-around manliness. He was at that time, as his T220 notes, the boxing director of the New York Athletic Club, the prominent sportsmen organization that Fullgraff was also an active and dedicated member of, and still active in sparring.

Donovan appears to have been anti-tobacco. In a 1918 book compiling issues of a journal titled "Good Health", is a section featuring anti-tobacco statements from authorities on grounds "physical, mental, and moral". this includes a statement from Mr. Donovan (page 533, https://books.googleusercontent.com/...Arjon4_xydvp):


"Mike Donovan, formerly athletic director of the New York Athletic Club:

'Anybody who smokes can never hope to succeed in any line of endeavor, as smoking weakens the heart and lungs and ruins the stomach and affects the entire nervous system.

Physicians who have had much to do with alcoholic inebriates realize that there is a direct relationship between alcohol addiction and tobacco abuse. The first effect of tobacco smoking is stimulating, with a rise of blood pressure; and if the smoking be continued, the nerve cells are depressed. The depression is cumulative in the system of the smoker, and after a varying interval (of days, weeks or months) it creates an instinctive demand for the antidote to tobacco poisoning - and that is alcohol. The intemperate use of tobacco thus explains 75 per cent of all drink-habit cases. The alcoholic thirst is engendered and inflamed by smoke.

The real danger in smoking consists largely in the habit of inhalation whereby the volatilized poisons are brought into immediate contact with at least 1,000 square feet of vascular air-sac walls in the lungs, and are thus promptly and fully absorbed to be diffused into the blood and carried on their disastrous errand to the several organs of the body.

The world of today needs men, not those whose minds and will power have been weakened or destroyed by the desire and craving for alcohol and tobacco, but instead men with initiative and vigor, whose mentality is untainted by ruinous habits.

Every young man should aspire to take advantage of the opportunity which at some time during his life beckons him, and he should be ready with the freshness of youth and not enveloped in the fumes of an offensive and injurious cigarette.'"


There is hardly room for equivocation in this statement, 8 years after the T220 set was issued. If Donovan was passionately against smoking, it makes sense he would not want his image used to sell them. It also makes sense he would sign a general release for a club friend, that like Hyland's may not have mentioned tobacco at all. And it makes sense that this club friend may have persuaded him to reconsider and allow the use of his image, reinstating him in t220-2 white borders. And it makes sense that, as the boxing instructor at the club of which the architect of the card set was an active and dedicated member and apparently made friends everywhere he went, it is Donovan alone who gets two cards in that second issue.

Still does not explain the bizarre background change between the two issues of T220 to his card's artwork, but perhaps this has something to do with why he is so difficult.

On a completely unrelated note, this journal is fascinating as an insight into the leading health theories of a century ago on a whole host of issues. Perhaps I am simply easily entertained and sidetracked.

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]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ale/img004.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ale/img005.jpg[/IMG]

Next up, the Frazier's. The Hyland letterhead lists Charles Frazier as treasurer, Charles W. Frazier as secretary of Brett Lithography.

volume 10 of American Biography: A New Cyclopedia published in 1922 (https://books.googleusercontent.com/...E067eDmxqjuXhl)

Charles William Frazier (1873-?) is the son of the former (1839-1921). The father was President of the East River Savings Bank, "and treasurer and director of Brett Lithographic Company" among other business interests, apparently a significant figure in New York banking for many decades.

"Charles Frazier" is referenced as the president of Brett lithography in 1917 (Printers Ink 100) and in 1919 (National Lithographer 26, 1919). In 1917 he is also elected President of The National Association of Employing Lithographers, with William Forbes as Vice President (Marketing Communications 100). Forbes name comes up a lot in trade organizations alongside the Fraziers.

Frazier the father is apparently also knowledgeable about lithography itself and is more than a money man for the banks. The Printing Art 23, from 1914 features an article on a lecture he gave about the technical aspects of Lithography and offset printing.

Several other trade journals and books tell us that Charles W. is the president of Brett Lithography by 1924. He is a co-founder of a trade organization, the Lithographic Technical Foundation, alongside the President of Forbes and other lithography companies and is not surprisingly chosen as treasurer. Also a member of the finance committee alongside William S. Forbes and executive committee (Page 42 of December 20, 1924 edition of The American Printer, found here: https://books.googleusercontent.com/...eG53vaurwKu7hQ)


I'm not succeeding on finding more from 1910 on Frazier's in relation to lithography and not banking. They are 2 of the 3 names on the official company letterhead, so obviously they played a significant role at the firm. It all suggests Brett Lithography was heavily controlled by the established banking powers in the city.

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.

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.