T216's are American Caramel "E90 reprints"....my insights & let's hear yours ?
 

The People's Tobacco Company issued 3 identical BB card set's during 1912-1916 era. The backs on these cards advertise their
three cigarette brands produced in New Orleans......KOTTON....MINO....VIRGINIA EXTRA.
Each set comprises of 74 different subjects with 30 additional variations (due to trades, position changes, etc.). I have always
found these sets quite interesting, here are two reasons why......

(1) The fronts of these cards are from the printer that produced the American Caramel (E90-1) set in 1908-1910.

(2) Each set includes no less than 4 cards of Honus Wagner....so, what happened to his anti-cigarette campaign ?

I think these mystery's may be explained by the ongoing legal action of the People's Tobacco Company vs. the American Tobacco
Company (ATC) during the years of 1912-1918. Check-out this link......

http://supreme.justia.com/us/246/79/case.html


My theory: This ongoing litigation prevented the People's Tobacco Co. from using American Litho (ALC) to produce the T216 sets.
The close relationship between ATC & ALC was the reason why the majority of the tobacco card sets in the 1909-1919 era were
produced by ALC. Conversely, it is most likely the reason why the T216's were printed elsewhere.

Now, why is Wagner depicted in these cigarette sets ? His stated objections to being associated with cigarettes in 1909 was with
the "big" ATC. I guess then, several years later, that the lesser People's Tobacco Co. was inconsequential to him ? Or perhaps, he
changed his mind, since he was a cigar smoker and chewed tobacco. It's anyone's guess.




<img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/e90wagner.jpg" alt="[linked image]">


This T216 pose of Honus Wagner identifies him as a Shortstop. The same pose, in all the T216 sets, also identifies him as a 2nd
baseman. The other two T216 Wagner cards are his Batting pose (same as E90 card). These cards are captoned with him as a
SS and 2B.

In 1915, Wagner played 131 games at SS, 12 games at 2B, and 10 games at 1B.


Your thoughts on this subject are greatly appreciated. Also, show or tell us of your T216 cards.



TED Z

I'll take a stab
 

The relationship between People's Tobacco and the ATC could have impacted the decision on what images to include in T216, but I'm not sure the litigation prevented the use of the T206 photos.

It appears the decision to go forward with T216 first began anywhere from late 1910 to early 1912. Others probably will have more info on this. Once the decision was made, it is reasonable to assume that Peoples would select what images to use. It is also reasonable to assume that once the decision was made, it was likely going to stick for all the years the cards would be issued; i.e., it would be unlikely that the cards issued in 1914-1916 would change images when it would be far cheaper to just change captions. Thus, if they decided to produce a set in 1911 and picked their lithos at that time, it would have preceded the lawsuit, and the lawsuit itself really would not have "prevented" anything.

It is possible Peoples wanted to use T206 images in 1911 and were denied by ATC. That could have been part of their beef with ATC. I have some problems with that though. By 1911, Roosevelt was pretty far along in going after monopolies, and ATC could not have been blind to what was likely coming its way. It would have been pretty brazen to give the govt more ammunition by denying use of the T206 images by others in the industry, even if there were arguable contractual rights to enforce. As for Amer Litho, they too should have been looking at the writing on the wall, and seeing that their friend/big customer was about to be blown apart. In addition, while the Clayton Act was still a couple of years away, there would have been rumblings about their involvement if they had any kind of tying agreement with ATC. I just don't know that either of these monoliths would have risked making the bigger picture worse by messing with a small local tobacco company in 1911, but hey, arrogance knows no bounds.

Maybe it's simply something as simple as Peoples wanting to include Honus Wagner and Eddie Plank, which apparently would not have been possible using T206 images.

T216's are American Caramel "E90 reprints"....my insights & let's hear yours ?
 

Todd

Regarding your......
"It is possible Peoples wanted to use T206 images in 1911 and were denied by ATC. That could have been part of their beef with ATC.
I have some problems with that though. By 1911, Roosevelt was pretty far along in going after monopolies, and ATC could not have
been blind to what was likely coming its way. It would have been pretty brazen to give the govt more ammunition by denying use of
the T206 images by others in the industry, even if there were arguable contractual rights to enforce. As for Amer Litho, they too should
have been looking at the writing on the wall, and seeing that their friend/big customer was about to be blown apart. In addition, while
the Clayton Act was still a couple of years away, there would have been rumblings about their involvement if they had any kind of tying
agreement with ATC. I just don't know that either of these monoliths would have risked making the bigger picture worse by messing with
a small local tobacco company in 1911, but hey, arrogance knows no bounds."


I appreciate your comments. However, having read much regarding James B. Duke (ATC) and Joseph P. Knapp (American Litho. founder),
I would not put it past them to refuse to produce BB cards for the People's Tobacco Company (due to the pending litigation).

BB cards were a trivial aspect in the larger picture of divesting ATC; therefore, this would have made no impact on the "government".

Also, consider this: American Litho. continued producing T-cards long after the ATC divesture in 1911. These BB card sets were issued from
1912-1919: T202 (Mecca), T213 (type 2 & 3 Coupon), T214 (Victory), T215 [Red Cross (type 2) & Pirate]. Furthermore, there are numerous
other Sports and Non-Sports sets, whose backs advertise ATC tobacco products. American Litho. was a huge force in the printing industry
well into the 1930's.


TED Z

There are 5 different back in T216.

Kotton "NEVER GO OUT" (thin paper stock)
Kotton "TOBACCO" (thick glossy stock)
Kotton "CIGARETTES" (thick glossy stock)

Mino (thick glossy stock)
VE (thin paper stock)

The 2 "paper stock" sets are easily the toughest IMO
Which sets came first? which last? The sets are listed as 1911-16 but I would think the Federal League caption cards would make it easy to figure out when these (5?) sets were really made.

PS I also think these T216 sets are more related to D303, D303 Mothers, F-Unc. Tango Eggs, and E106.............. more than E90-1

OK
 

Ted, as I stated, the decision by Peoples to proceed with a card set would have been made before litigation, so I don't understand how you can say ATC thwarted Peoples from using T206 "due to the pending litigation". It wasn't pending when the cards were first printed, or at least when it was decided they would be printed. After that it didn't matter--Peoples was not going to change design mid-stream anyway.

Yes I know that American Litho continued printing cards long after divestiture. I don't see the relevance. My point was that the law that soon became the Clayton Act was being strongly considered in the 1911 era. That Act, also part of the anti-trust law in this country, did not focus just on monopolies within an industry but more directly on relationships between giants in different industries who had cozy relationships and tying agreements to do each other's bidding for their mutual interests. As you noted, Amer Litho continued to provide images to other tobacco companies after divestiture, which means they were not tied to ATC and they were acting above board. Why in 1911 would they risk an investigation into their practices by agreeing with ATC to screw a little tobacco company in LA, given the growing beatdown of anti-competitive practices in the courts? Even if cards are a pittance of the monopoly charges, why be tainted in that controversy at all--where's the upside?

Not sure the image usage decisions were based on any spat. Photographs are taken freelance and licensed to the manufacturers--no one at the time had a crew going to ballparks and shooting players. Many of the iconic T206 images show up in other sets from other mfgs. to whom the photographers licensed their works, e.g., the Plank that is in T206 and M116, the Tinker portrait with 'batwing' hair in T206 and M116 and E145, T206 and M116 Wagner, T206 and E254 Evers, and so on. If the company wanted to use the same photos, all it had to do was license the photos from the photographers and have its own art made. The more likely reason for use of the caramel art in the LA sets is that Peoples' was offered a deal for use of camera-ready artwork so they could produce a set on the cheap by skipping the production of new art.