Cycle cigarettes box
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>I just got this in today's mail. It has Central Tobacco Company there in red, at the bottom of the front panel. Anyone have any idea when this box would have been used? And how similar or different would it be to a circa 1910 box??<br /><br />Thanks. Frank W.<br /><br /><img src="http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j106/greatwake/Cyclebox.jpg">

Cycle cigarettes box
 

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Frank,<br /> This wrapper is very similiar to the 1909-11 10 pack Cycle. I can't pull up a picture at the moment, but I can say this looks like it came from the late teens early 20's. Be well Brian

Cycle cigarettes box
 

Posted By: <b>Art M.</b><p>Here is an image of an American Tobacco Company Cycle cigarettes box that I had from early 2000. Maybe the one you pictured is a foreign issue?<br />Still a nice pack!<br />Art<br /><br /><img src="http://members.aol.com/rebelsart2000/Cycle.jpg">

Cycle cigarettes box
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Mohler</b><p>Don't know anything about cigarette packs, but I am going to throw my hat in the ring and guess that it is a Mexican or Cuban tobacco pack. I think the 20 centavo tax stamp is the distinguishing difference. I bet Central Tobacco was a subsidiary of American Tobacco.

Cycle cigarettes box
 

Posted By: <b>Richard Dwyer</b><p>My Cycle box is from 1896 and is a slide & shell. If the tax stamp was 1909 or 1910, it would be period. It also contained 10 cigarettes. Art's box is later than 1911 because of the fact it has 20 cigarettes. Frank's box is also a 20 count box.

Cycle cigarettes box
 

Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>Actualy Richard, Art's box dates from 1893, not after 1911. Also, Frank, your box is approximately 1897 but as mentioned above, was manufactured for foreign distribution. <br /><br />Below is a proper 1911 Cycle pack:<br /><br /><a href="http://s82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/?action=view&current=cycle.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/cycle.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Cycle cigarettes box
 

Posted By: <b>Scott B.</b><p>I thought both Rich and Jon are very knowledgable in tobacco packs. How come we see such a big diff opinion this time? I guess all "known" info related to tobacco packs are not really set in stone.

Cycle cigarettes box
 

Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>Frank et al,<br /><br />I strongly recommend Jon Canfield's book on Cigarette Packs which answers questions such as these and many more. I'm hoping that some are still available for sale.<br />It has been the most critical and informative part of my recent collecting;<br />I now have 13 different T206 era packs, largely due to Jon's book and<br />helpful, generous tutelage.<br /><br />best,<br />Barry

Cycle cigarettes box
 

Posted By: <b>Troy Kirk</b><p>It looks like this box is from the General Tobacco Company, not Central. According to the World Index, General Tobacco was located in Chile. There were some card sets issued by the General Tobacco Company in Chile from about 1900-1915, but no baseball cards.

Cycle cigarettes box
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>You guys are great!!! Yes, that looks like General Tobacco, not Central. And the stamp is definitely Spanish language, "centavos" and "caja" give that away. Chile sounds believable to me. The style and printing of the box makes me think that they were all made one place, then that red printing was added for the particular nation of destination.<br /><br />Thank you all!!

Cycle cigarettes box
 

Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>Scott B - I am 100% certain about my 1893 dating of the tax stamp. 20 count boxes have been available since March 1, 1879. <br /><br />After I saw your post, I went back to my Springer's guide to make sure I was correct in my dating. Below is a scan from Springer's 4th edition clearly showing the 1893 tax stamp and to compare against that from Art's box. Also note that boxes were available in both 10 and 20 counts. If you look at the top of Art's tax stamp (I know, the scan is tiny), I believe the little bubble says "New Series" which would date the tax stamp to 1893. (If I had a close up scan of the tax stamp, I could date the pack for sure). Now, I note that Art's box does have overprinting which, I believe, could date his box to as late as 1901 or thereabouts.<br /><br />Edited to add: An easy way to tell 20 cigarette tax stamps is to look at the stamp, itself. In 1910-1917, this stamp would have bore large lettering on the top that read "SERIES of 1910." In 1917, this lettering changed to "CLASS A." Regardless, my initial point still holds true - 20 count cigarette packs were available and taxed in 1879 and the tax stamp from Art's box debuted in 1893. I'm not sure were the post-1911 came from but the fact that the box is a 20-cigarette box really plays no role in the dating of the pack.<br /><br /><a href="http://s82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/?action=view¤t=1893.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/1893.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a><br />

Cycle cigarettes box
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I have 2 similar to Frank's packs except one stamp is orange...and I have one like Art's picture above. It has a 1901 tax stamp and the overprint can't be read....it says "20 for 5 cents" on the side.....regards<br /><br />edited typo

Cycle cigarettes box
 

Posted By: <b>Richard Dwyer</b><p>I'm still learning about packs each time a different one shows up. I never knew 20 counts existed before 1911. Jon has always been my source for info when I don't know.

Cycle cigarettes box
 

Posted By: <b>1880nonsports</b><p>but I never said succinct <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> - when the tobacco companies came up with packaging for tobacco products - the weight or number of cigars or cigarettes determined the tax to be paid. It was paid when the stamp was BOUGHT and stamps purchased at earlier dates could be put on packages at later dates @ the original cost paid (you know the government - the tax due NEVER went down so I imagine the companies purchased them like futures). I actually have seen a pack with a 1910 stamp affixed to a package sold in 1955 but I digress. Whenever a different count/ configuration came about they would issue a new stamp for that amount. The newly issued stamp would therefore give an origination date. The "Newly Issued" 1893 stamp with "20" in the corners clearly shows the date at which 20 count packages went into circulation. When available - the CANCELLATION date of the stamp is the BEST indicator as to when a pack actually went to market.<br />As an aside - Cycle cigarettes were among the company's most popular brands - due mostly to their inexpensive cost to the consumer. I am surprised at what appears to be a lower population of the slide and shells for the brand when compared to their counterparts. Perhaps it is a reflection of our somewhat miopic or ego-centric view as card collectors - where populations in our reach are skewed because we are not "tobacco pack" collectors. It just seems strange that with perhaps one of the most produced and widely distributed packs by the only real major manufacturer/distributor - the ATC - that more aren't known. I can say that the larger Cycle packs are more frequently encountered than the 10 pack which held our precious pieces or cardboard - these smaller slides had a much shorter lifespan in general and the window of actual card distribution was quite small - and the larger packs were more popular in general than their counterparts - becoming the standard utilzed today........

Cycle cigarettes box
 

Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>Henry - correct me if I'm wrong but to add to your information, I believe the Manufacturer's notice that first began appearing on cigarette packs in December of 1869 was a direct result of small "mom and pop" cigarette packs actually recollecting the used boxes and reusing them to avoid paying the tax again...

Cycle cigarettes box
 

Posted By: <b>1880nonsports</b><p>by many to cheat the government. Repacking was problematic for the manufacturer and the government. To circumvent paying taxes on tobacco - cigars and perhaps cigarettes (I wasn't aware<br />it was being done with cigarettes but no reson to believe it wasn't done - especially that early on) - smaller manufacturer's would re-use packaging. That's why at least in part cigar boxes and cigarette packs were required after a time to be sealed with the dated tax stamp reflecting the amount of smokes or the weight - as well as requiring factory information be included. There were apparently stiff penalties for non-complience. Just as an aside - in the 1800's and earlier repacking was done to substitute inferior goods in place of more expensive quality manufacturer's products. The pickle barrell, the biscuit tin, tobacco products of all kinds, one's favorite libation were all at risk - because often the product was unsealed and sold in bulk to be distributed by the store owner. The problem persists today with many promotions or the like carrying "not for individual sale" or "promotional item" warnings. I have a small collection of single cigarettes from the 1800's - interestingly all have the brand name on the paper like a watermark (the Old Judge cigarette is actually EMBOSSED!) - an expense that must have been neccesary to protect the manufacturer......