T206, or not....let's have a continuing conversation....Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco card

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Problem with that, Ted, is that the PC may post-date the ATC's acquisition of the plant.

The more intriguing question is the one raised by the other posts that show the Ty Cobb brand was Penn, not ATC: how did Penn get access to this ATC lithograph of Cobb? Did they cut a deal with the printer? If there was a hidden ATC ownership, did the ATC lend the art to Penn as a silent partner?

Adam

My P/C of the Reidsville Plant (Factory #33) has no date on the back of it. However, the fact that the picture of this Plant doesn't have the LUCKY STRIKE logo
indicates that this PC was available prior to 1915.

James Buchanan Duke (ATC founder) bought the F. R. Penn Co. in 1911. Duke made Penn a Manager in one of ATC's divisions.

Duke and Joseph P. Knapp (American Lithographic Co. founder) were close business partners, which suggests to me that more than likely is why the Red Cobb
was printed (1910) as a promotional piece for the Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco brand.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[nolemmings]

The American Tobacco Company started its connection with F.R. Penn Co. in 1903, and the Supreme Court's opinion in the Antitrust litigation states that the ATC owned 2/3 of the common stock in Penn (1,002 out of 1,500 shares). That seems like more than enough influence by ATC to promote the Ty Cobb tobacco brand and cards, despite ATC's argument that its acquisition of Penn "was made not with the purpose of destroying competition or acquiring a monopoly, but merely as an investment in the tobacco business."

EDITED to add: the Anti-trust litigation was filed in 1907 and orally argued in January 1910, although the decision was not handed down until May 1911.

[G1911]

Like Steve said, the ATC does not appear to have owned the lithographs or the player rights. The contracts seem to be directly with the lithographers (Hylands makes no mention of tobacco at all), who are not all Knapp's American Lithographic, at least not directly (presumably they are shadow subsidiaries, designed to avoid anti trust law). The lithographic companies seem to be running product design and marketing for the ATC, they aren't just contracted printers.

Presumably there must have been an exclusivity contract for some period of time, otherwise we would probably have cards with all kinds of backs cashing in on the fad. This is deductive as no contract has surfaced. If the Cobb/Cobb card is from 1910, it would be the only copy of a T card made for the ATC sets made for a different or semi-independent firm between 1909-1912. At least, I cannot think of another example. Can anyone else? I would suspect they were tied to the ATC before public merger, like the lithographers, as more likely.

This postcard does not seem to pre-date 1915 in its origin. It looks like a much later postcard styling. Here is a copy with a 1951 mailing date: https://www.ebay.com/itm/14479874516...a369%7Ciid%3A1. The others on eBay don't have mailing dates on the back. This postcard is in not evidence the ATC was manufacturing Ty Cobb brand in 1910. It is evidence that they owned factory 33 decades later, which we already know.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by G1911

This postcard does not seem to pre-date 1915 in its origin. It looks like a much later postcard styling. Here is a copy with a 1951 mailing date: .......

The Postmark date on that Ebay example you are referring to means NOTHING !

Back in the 1940's and 1950's, us old-timers would frequently mail vintage Post Cards to one another.

The picture on that example (and my P/C) show the old Factory #33 Water Towers. Subsequent Water
Towers (> 1916) were modernized and display the Lucky Strike cigarette logo on them.

Look, I'm a vintage Post Card collector, and the style of printing and the texture of the cardboard on this P/C is an early 20th Century vintage product.






TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by tedzan

The Postmark date on that Ebay example you are referring to means NOTHING !

Back in the 1940's and 1950's, us old-timers would frequently mail vintage Post Cards to one another.

The picture on that example (and my P/C) show the old Factory #33 Water Towers. Subsequent Water
Towers (> 1916) were modernized and display the Lucky Strike cigarette logo on them.

Look, I'm a vintage Post Card collector, and the style of printing and the texture of the cardboard on this P/C is an early 20th Century vintage product.






TED Z

T206 Reference
.

As a knowledgeable vintage postcard collector, I am sure you are well aware that these textured linen postcards are mostly all from the 1920's to the 1950's. There are numerous articles on their dating you can find online easily.

The original photo on which the art is based may, of course, long predate the issue, as happened often. This is a common postcard with many online at any given moment. I would love to see any evidence that it predates the linen postcard era and is from the time you claim.

A date stamp is indicative of the times a postcard was actually used, subsequent to production. The only one I can find is from decades after your claim, and fits into the linen postcard period. Again, I would love to see one with pre-1916 postal marks.

Further, even if it is from before 1916, which does not appear to be the case, it is not evidence the ATC was handling the Ty Cobb brand in 1910, as you claimed it was evidence of. It would need to be from 1910 or earlier for it to be evidence that the ATC was controlling Penn before the 1911 purchase. Do you have any evidence at all that this is from 1910 or earlier?

I suspect the Cobb card is from 1910-1911, that the ATC was probably controlling Penn before the purchase, and that the Cobb card was printed by one of the lithographers in their orbit during this period. But this postcard is not evidence of that whatsoever.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

The American Tobacco Company started its connection with F.R. Penn Co. in 1903, and the Supreme Court's opinion in the Antitrust litigation states that the ATC owned 2/3 of the common stock in Penn (1,002 out of 1,500 shares). That seems like more than enough influence by ATC to promote the Ty Cobb tobacco brand and cards, despite ATC's argument that its acquisition of Penn "was made not with the purpose of destroying competition or acquiring a monopoly, but merely as an investment in the tobacco business."

EDITED to add: the Anti-trust litigation was filed in 1907 and orally argued in January 1910, although the decision was not handed down until May 1911.

Todd, ATC may have been a majority shareholder but if the Cobb back was included in the T206 set it would still be the only card in the set that came from a product that wasn't officially owned by the ATC at the time.

[GeoPoto]

Pat, not to take sides in the debate and with all due respect, that is a distinction without a difference.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

Pat, not to take sides in the debate and with all due respect, that is a distinction without a difference.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

+1. Penn apparently was owned or at least controlled by ATC when the Cobb brand was born and the card produced. At most, the card was promoted under the Penn name only, but it would appear that the rights to use the lithograph would have flowed to ATC.

[Pat R]

.

Originally Posted by Pat R

Todd, ATC may have been a majority shareholder but if the Cobb back was included in the T206 set it would still be the only card in the set that came from a product that wasn't officially owned by the ATC at the time.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

+1. Penn apparently was owned or at least controlled by ATC when the Cobb brand was born and the card produced. At most, the card was promoted under the Penn name only, but it would appear that the rights to use the lithograph would have flowed to ATC.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Pat R

.

If you are arguing that the Ty Cobb brand was not "officially owned" by the ATC, whatever that means, then I would describe such argument as weak sauce.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

If you are arguing that the Ty Cobb brand was not "officially owned" by the ATC, whatever that means, then I would describe such argument as weak sauce.

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.)

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Todd, ATC may have been a majority shareholder but if the Cobb back was included in the T206 set it would still be the only card in the set that came from a product that wasn't officially owned by the ATC at the time.

Pat,

Despite what others may say or think, I see the logic and can go along with your point/theory. You can also possibly look to other circumstances in the hobby to support your position/theory also.

For example, look no farther than the F-50 ice cream/food card sets that are out there, Yuengling's, Harrington's, Tharp's, Sweetman's, etc. They are all the exact same cards images, and 60 card sets, with the only real difference being the different companies/distributors that are listed on the card backs. Pretty much the exact same thing with all the T206 cards, same fronts, different products/brands on the backs. So why aren't all these F-50 cards considered as just one set, like the T206's are? Everyone I've ever seen, heard of, or talked to in the hobby considered each of the different F-50 distributor's/brand's cards as entirely different sets. They have been referred to as Sweetman's, Yuengling's, Tharp's, Harrington's, and so forth, and never as just the F-50 set alone. The only other real difference I am aware of between the T206 set and the various F-50 sets is that all the T206 brands on the back were all wholly-owned by the exact same company, the ATC. Meanwhile, all the brands/distributors that had the F-50 cards prepared for them, are all completely different companies, with different owners. And having worked in and been involved with many different businesses pretty much my entire adult life, I understand and know that there is a world of difference between being a wholly-owned company (like all the different ATC brands appearing in the T206 set are) and an entity that is only partially owned by the same company (think all the companies that Warren Buffet's Berkshire-Hathaway owns a major interest in). Those are not even close to the same thing, despite what many might think or try to argue

And in the case of the different distributors/brands shown on all the T206 and F-50 cards, the only real difference I can see between them is that only one company (the ATC) wholly owned all the T206 brands, while the F-50 brands were all owned by entirely different companies. The fact that the company that supposedly distributed the Ty Cobb/Ty Cobb back cards was not also a wholly-owned subsidiary of the ATC would seem to be a pretty huge difference, and maybe the only real explanation for why they weren't ever considered as part of the T206 set. That and the fact that they were sometimes found with glossy fronts. Not considering them as part of the T206 set seems to go right along with the apparent treatment given to the various F-50 sets. So, for anyone saying the Ty Cobb w/Ty Cobb backs should be part of the T206 after all, they should also be arguing even more then that there should only be one F-50 set, with different backs like the T206 set, and no separate Yuengling's, Sweetman's, Tharp's, Harrington's, etc., sets after all anymore.

What you'll likely get in response from the naysayers is that your theory/point is weak or doesn't truly matter, simply because they don't really understand and/or know any better. Saying something is weak without any facts, logic, or even simple explanations as to why, to back up someone's accusation of your statement being weak, now that is what is really, truly weak!

[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.

[G1911]

There is certainly a difference, though I am not sure it should be of much importance to whether or not it can be a T206 personally. I think Pat is pretty clearly correct in the claim to fact, whether or not that should be a decisive or even significant factor is an opinion one may or may not agree with.

Generally, the cards from subsidiaries like this have been considered a different set, like many of the C sets that are the same as the T set but having an Imperial back (or even no advertising on back and just assumed to be an Imperial Canadian release).

Is there even 1 other card issued by a tobacco company that the ATC was a stockholder of but kept operationally independent during the 1909-1912 card promotion that also has backs from the ATC direct and we consider part of 1 set? I cannot think of one off the top.


I am not a self-proclaimed expert, an expert proclaimed by any person or entity, or an intelligent feller.

[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.

[nolemmings]

First and foremost, I would like to apologize to Patrick for coming across as dismissive. I like to think that I can disagree without being disagreeable, but I know I often fail at that. I am sorry.

The question posed is thus: Should the Ty Cobb King of the Smoking World card be considered excluded from T206 because it was produced by a company owned, but not wholly owned, by the American Tobacco Company? I say no–exclude it if you will (and I would), but such basis is artificial and contrived, in my opinion.

Bob, I believe I considered, at least momentarily, most of what you scribed– or what I could discern from a cursory review. With all due respect, I find it wholly unpersuasive.

For one thing, you assert that laws would have been in place protecting minority shareholders(in Penn) such that they had “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.” Please cite me to any such law, as I find that assertion unsupported. Do you really believe that the minority shareholders would have been able to prevent or even make any significant noise to stand in the way of that decision? That a corporation’s decisions in marketing its products is something beyond normal operations that would require a shareholder vote? What shareholder interests are implicated by such decision that would give the directors pause when exercising their business judgment? At most I could see that creating a new brand of tobacco might require some level of approval or at least canvassing, but decisions regarding the insertion of a baseball card to promote it? Seriously?

Next, your theorizing as to what the defendants and/or their attorneys in the antitrust litigation were thinking when contemplating the issuance of a single baseball card under a single brand is, well, out there. The ATC had its tentacles all over the place in the Tobacco manufacturing and distribution market, both horizontally and vertically. The scope of their endeavor was massive.

Still, you say: “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.”

Sure–yeah, no. The thought that litigation of that size, then two plus years old, would be impacted by such decision or that it would go into the calculus at all is frankly absurd. Dozens of companies and hundreds of transactions were under scrutiny to determine whether an illegal combination had been formed and whether there had been a restraint in trade. Any decision by ATC (cough, I mean Penn) to create a new brand and include a baseball card in 1909 or 1910 was immaterial to the matter. I can just see the lawyers asking the court to consider this “new evidence” to show one way or the other that the outcome would be impacted somehow by this Ty Cobb baseball card activity. Uh-huh.

I do not hold myself out as any sort of expert, but I have been practicing law for nearly 40 years in areas that require some understanding of commercial and business practices. Perhaps Mr. Spaeth would chime in on aspects of the anti-trust litigation, as that is his bailiwick. I can say confidently, however, that your analysis from a general legal standpoint is lacking.

[Pat R]

Thanks for the apology Todd but it wasn't necessary I think we both misinterpreted each others posts a little bit. The fact that Penn produced the Ty Cobb tobacco isn't even in the top three reasons why the Cobb back in my opinion doesn't belong in the set I only mentioned it because I didn't think it had been brought up before which I was wrong about because it's in the thread that Rob linked. I also don't think it would have been a legal issue because there are a couple of documents including the Ball letter that indicate it was the Lithograph companies not the Tobacco companies that had the permission to use the images on the T206's and other tobacco cards.