T206 question - cigarette popularity

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

Does the scarcity of T206 backs coincide with the popularity of that cigarette brand? For example, were Sweet Caporal and Piedmont the most popular cigarette brands at the time, and Drum/Uzit/Broadloaf etc off-brand names? Or was it just that some brands chose to advertise differently than others?

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Rob- there are way more qualified T206 folks to answer but my general understanding is the answer is "yes". The rarity of the backs had to do with the succcess (or failure)of the brand.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Rob - I believe Leon is correct in what he says although I would tend to disagree that the relative rarity of the back had to do with the "success or failure" of the brand as Leon's classifies it.

Rather, the rarity of the back has to do with the popularity and distribution area of the brand as opposed to the success of the brand. Sweet Caporal and Piedmont were both widely popularly and widely distributed. Hence, there are a great many more Piedmont and Sweet Caporal backs (even within individual series) than Drum or Broadleaf, which were less popular and were distributed to a smaller area. This isn't to say, however, that Broadleaf and Drum were unsuccessful cigarette brands. In fact, Liggett & Myers continued to manufacture many of the former American Tobacco Company "trust" cigarette brands that L&M was awarded following the 1911 dissolution of the ATC.

By 1918 American Beauty, Broadleaf, Carolina Brights, Coupon, Cycle, Drum, Obak, Old Judge, Old Mill, and Virginia Extra were still made by L&M.

Edited to add: For great reading, I would recommend that you visit Jim Shaw's "Burnt Offerings" website which provides a lot of the geonology of the various brands (both related and unrelated to baseball cards). Of particular note for this conversation, I would check out this page from his site: http://users.ap.net/~burntofferings/packsliggett_duke.html.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I think we are talking semantics here. The point I was making is that the less distributed (could be successful) brands were more scarce.....To me if something is distributed less than other brands it means there are less of them and therefore less successful. I think it could be argued either way....

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Leon - I agree with you - it is probably semantics although I just wanted to point out that Broadleaf, for example, is more scarce due to its smaller distribution region as opposed to it having failed as a brand per se.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Sherman

I believe Drum didnt fail, is still around today. I my hippie days at Umass Amherst everyone rolled up Drum instead of buying those "corporate butts"..aside from Natural Spirits

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff S.

I never put the modern Drum I see many people rolling in Brooklyn with that of the T206 brand. Has it actually survived all these years? Polar Bear was the only "loose" tobacco from the T206 set correct? I'm assuming then that Drum was sold as a pre-rolled cigarette back then.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Jeff - yes you are correct. Drum was both a rolled cigarette and a scrap puch and is not connected to the "Drum" available today. The product associated with the card distribution was Drum cigarettes and although the ATC did make the scrap (so the products are related), cards were packaged with the cigarette product. I believe Drum finally was discontinued in or around 1922.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Sherman

Oh I jus figured it was the same. Is there one brand that says "smoke or chew" HOW the heck oculd you smoke or chew the same stuff? eww