[BobC]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

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.

I am not self-acclaimed, I've been working in and advising businesses for 40-50 years now as a practicing CPA in the public sector, and also in private industry as a Controller/CFO of multiple businesses as well. What qualifications do you have to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about?

Your implication that a person/party owning a majority of a company automatically gives them full control over that partially-owned company and that that it is the exact same full and complete control that can be exercised over a wholly-owned subsidiary, which is what the companies owning all the different brands recognized as being included in the T206 set apparently are. I did not do independent research myself, and am relying on the research of those others posting as to who was wholly owned, and who was not. But given the sources that other person quoted/showed, their research seems and looks pretty sound. And I don't disagree that owning more than 50% of a controlling interest in a company gives the "parent/holding" company an overall control of the subsidiary business in question. But not being a 100% wholly-owned subsidiary does mean that there are also minority or non-controlling shareholder interests, and there are laws in place to protect those non-controlling interests and also give them some voice in say in how the company is being operated. And that would include making decisions such as including Ty Cobb w/Ty Cobb backed cards in the T206 set.

The fact that the ATC didn't take full control and ownership of the F.R. Penn Tobacco Co. would tend to indicate that they likely left the management and employees of the company in place, at least initially, instead of summarily firing everyone immediately and putting them under the full ownership and control of ATC personnel, and calling all the shots with no input from others. Also, as noted in Pat's post, the ATC did not take direct control of the F. R. Penn Tobacco Co., either. They apparently bought another company, Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Co., and indirectly acquired their majority interest in Penn through that acquisition that took place in 1903 or 1904? I've seen both years referenced. So that is actually another potential layer between the ownership and control of Penn by the ATC, and potentially makes it a little more complicated for them to fully take over and control Penn outright. And either way, that acquisition date precedes both the date when the anti-trust suit was initially filed against the ATC (1907), and also when the T206 cards first came out (1909).

Additionally, let's look at the other companies only partially owned by the ATC at that time. Per Pat's post, the first two, British-American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco, both seemed to be British companies, so it makes perfect sense that neither of them would likely be included in a T206 set issue as I'm guessing they were only selling to an English market at the time. Make sense? And then, The John Bollman Co. was actually based out of San Francisco, CA, and I believe was responsible for the Obak card sets. So, since this was apparently a West coast company distributing a West coast brand(s), it also makes perfect sense that the ATC wouldn't bother including them in the T206 set either, since that set was primarily directed at Eastern and more middle-of-the-U.S. cities and people. That just leaves the F.R. Penn Tobacco Co. as the only Eastern based tobacco company and brand(s) (based out of NC I believe), and also fully controlled as you seem to claim by the ATC, that didn't seem to have at least one of their brands included as part of the main and original T206 set first issued starting in 1909. So, since the other ATC wholly owned companies that were also Eastern based got included in the T206 set from pretty much the start, why not any Penn Tobacco Company brand(s) as well then? It certainly couldn't have been from too many other brands overlapping each other, could it? Seems that of all the other brands that did get included in the T206 set that there was definitely some overlapping sales and distribution areas. And even if that was a possible consideration, why again was it just the one and only Eastern-owned company/brand that ATC did not 100% own that seems to have been completely excluded from the T206 set from its start?

Is it possible then that Pat's theory about a Penn Tobacco brand not being included in the T206 set from the start was at least partially because they weren't wholly owned by the ATC, is actually right and the most logical argument after all? And let me reinforce that with some added thinking and logic. Again, the anti-trust suit against the ATC was initially filed in 1907 I believe, two years before the release of the T206 set. Now attorneys for the ATC are looking at the fairly new back then Sherman Anti-Trust Act that I believe was originally passed in 1890. I may be off a year or so, so forgive me. Anyway, for the attorneys it wouldn't necessarily be a case with dozens of prior cases and test law and decisions to look over and research to better figure out how to defend the ATC. For the first 10 years or so after its enactment, as I understand it, very few cases were even brought under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and even then, the most successful was being prosecuted against trade unions, which some may argue was not the original intended target of the Act to begin with. So, it wasn't really until the 1900's under Teddy Roosevelt's time in office (1901-09), that more significant anti-trust cases started to get filed and brought against big conglomerate companies, like the ATC's case in 1907. So, if I'm an attorney for the ATC, looking to defend them against this anti-trust law, I can easily see them pulling out the stops to make it look like the ATC wasn't taking over and controlling everyone in the tobacco business. Now making that argument for a company you already wholly own 100% of is a pretty useless and stupid/lame argument, wouldn't you agree? But what about the companies you don't own 100% of? Were I one of the ATC's attorneys back then, I could easily see trying to advise and convince the ATC to not look like they completely controlled companies they only owned a part of. If nothing else, to make it look like they didn't completely control them all, when they, as you were pointing out, more or less actually did. So maybe as another added layer or trick in trying to show and convince a court and others, you do things like "not include a partially-owned company in the same T206 set you just launched for all your other wholly-owned companies and include them in your overall marketing campaign" to better assert and make it look like you, the ATC, actually did not have full control in decision making over such partially owned companies after all. Now, sharing/using the same Cobb images for Penn Tobacco's Ty Cobb backed cards as in the T206 set, does show some shared interests and overlap of control and influence, but certainly nowhere near the extent that would be considered if you had included Penn Tobacco in the same full blown marketing campaign which was the T206 set. Plus, no one seems to know if they ever did actually distribute the Ty Cobb w/Ty Cobb backed cards in an actual tobacco product, or if it was maybe just a test or some other special issue of sorts, never intended for full production and public distribution after all. At least not till maybe after the anti-trust case was hopefully settled in the ATC's favor? Do we even have definitive proof of exactly when these Ty Cobb backed cards were actually made, and then supposedly distributed? And if not, isn't it possible they weren't even produced till 1910 or even 1911, and then scrapped as the anti-trust case was found against the ATC? I'm not saying that is the absolute final answer and correct reason why the Ty Cobb w/Ty Cobb backed cards were maybe not ever released as part of the original T206 set starting in 1909. Nor that that therefore is the sole/main reason we should never have considered them as part of the T206 set. Some of your arguments and reasoning make some sense as well, but also only as theories and maybe educated guesses. Truth is, we'll likely never find out and know the complete, true and reals reason behind the Ty Cobb w/Ty Cobb backed cards, and if they were ever intended to be released as part of what became known and accepted as the T206 set or not. But to get after Pat with basically just a meh, "weak sauce" argument doesn't quite fly with me either.

And couple all that with the original info/comments I added about the F-50 sets and how those not being distributed by the same owners also seems to preclude them from ever being considered as just one set with different backs (like the T206 set is), which you just ignored and never even bothered to address. But the meh, "weak sauce" argument to put down Pat's theory/idea, without some more logical and factual points and reasoning from you to back it up, is to me maybe even more of a "weak sauce" argument than Pat's ever was.

And regardless of who's reasoning may be right or wrong, which we'll never actually know, I am of the opinion that the Ty Cobb w/Ty Cobb backed cards should NOT be included as part of the T206 set. Just my personal opinion that you can agree or disagree with, but to which there is no definitive right or wrong answer. Have a great day.