[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Pat R

It means exactly what I posted, they didn't officially or legally have outright ownership of the F. R. Penn company until 1911.

The American Tobacco Company—by stock ownership is the owner outright of the following defendant companies:

S. Anargyros [The S. Anargyros Company owns all the capital stock (10 shares) of the London Cigarette Co.]; F. F. Adams Tobacco Co.; Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Co.; Crescent Cigar & Tobacco Co.; Day and Night Tobacco Co.; Luhrman & Wilbern Tobacco Co.; Nall & Williams Tobacco Co.; Nashville Tobacco Works; R. A. Patterson Tobacco Co.; Monopol Tobacco Works; Spalding & Merrick.

The American Tobacco Co. also has the stock interest indicated in the following defendant corporations:

British-American Tobacco Co.—owns 1,200,000 shares of 1,500,000 shares of preferred stock, and 2,280,012 shares of 3,720,021 shares of common stock.

The Imperial Tobacco Co., etc.—owns 721,457 pounds sterling of 18,000,000 pounds sterling of stock.

The John Bollman Co.—of 2,000 shares of stock, owns 1,020 shares.

F. R. Penn Tobacco Co.—of 1,503 shares of stock, owns 1,002 shares (through Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Co.)

Now you're adding the term "outright". It seems you do not understand what a majority stock interest means when one is determining ownership and control. And Bob, thanks for asserting that people who disagree with Pat don't understand or don't know better. It's always nice to be schooled by a self-acclaimed expert. I simply had no idea there was a difference between a wholly-owned subsidiary and a majority-held stockholder . And of course the US Supreme Court should not have been concerned with companies that were not wholly-owned but were nonetheless controlled by the ATC-- what were they thinking?

The point was floated that the lithographer who created the Cobb depiction was free-lancing or able to sell to others. While I suppose that may be true, it remains that the lithographer used by the ATC in its tobacco brands likely agreed that ATC could use the Cobb depiction in other products it controlled. There is also no reason to think that Penn would have objected to the ATC using its controlling power to order production of the card, or that it was in any position to object. So to claim that the reason the Ty Cobb brand should be excluded from T206 because ATC did not wholly own the company that made the brand is, again, a fairly weak argument. In my humble, don't know any better, can't understand how this shit works opinion.

A better argument is that the card was not intended to be part of a set at all, but was instead a stand alone and possible promo card. Whereas the other cards were expressly intended and advertised as part of a series or assortment, no such claim was made here, and no other subjects are believed to have ever existed. It is somewhat difficult to grasp, again in my underdeveloped opinion, how this card could be considered part of a set, but since T206 itself is a creation of a collector/cataloger and is subject to interpretation, it seems there are alot of debatable points-----some stronger than others.