Mystery postcard - Eastern Exhibit variation?

[nolemmings]

Please let me offer a theory about the card queried by the OP, which theory may have been discussed over the years but I do not recall it. It has to do with Louis Hurwitz, to whom I made reference a few posts back. Some may know that Mr. Hurwitz pirated Exhibit cards for his own purposes, resulting in a lawsuit by the ESCO owner Meyer. The background for what transpired is laid out in a published opinion for those who care to read it– it is short and interesting. Meyer v. Hurwitz, 5 F.2d 370 (E.D. Penn. 1925). As a result of the published opinion, an injunction was issued halting Hurwitz from continuing; I suspect the ultimate outcome of the litigation also required him to relinquish any rights in Eastern Exhibit cards. This could explain why many Eastern Exhibit identifications are canceled and replaced by the well-known Chicago ESCO line. I believe that the thinner exhibit-looking postcards were also Hurwitz’ creation, and that the tints, whether they are different shades of sepia or both sepia and black and white, are also attributed to Hurwitz. Keep in mind I have neither much time nor money invested in collecting Exhibits, but I wanted to get some feedback on this theory, so it can be explored further and/or ruled out.

In the court case from 1925, the judge observed that Hurwitz “began the manufacture and sale of cards substantially similar in subject-matter and in many cases identical with the pictures theretofore and then sold by [Exhibit Supply Co] and so designed as to permit of their being dispensed by the machines in the hands of [ESCO’s] distributors; it being necessary in the use of the cards in the machines that they be of precisely the correct length, breadth, and thickness”. Hurwitz “then adopted the trade name of Eastern Exhibit Supply Company”, which he changed after protest from ESCO to “United Post Card Supply Co.”. According to the Court, Hurwitz then solicited ESCO distributors and sold his own cards to them at a lower price, thereby damaging ESCO through lost business and profits. Importantly to our discussion, the Court also noted “[I]t appears in some instances that cards furnished by Hurwitz have, through lack of thickness identical with that of the plaintiff's cards, caused the machine to fail to function as the plaintiff's cards cause it to do, whereby the intended purchaser, who has deposited his coin, has failed to receive the expected card.” Of course, this too would damage ESCO’s reputation, whose apparently failing machines prominently displayed a notice stating “Man'f'd byExhibit Supply Co. not Inc. Chicago, Ill.”

The long and the short of it was the judge used “the power of a court of equity to restrain such unfair practices”. Hurwitz was shut down. Since this opinion only addressed the issue of a preliminary injunction it is unclear what other damages or relief that ESCO obtained as part of the final case disposition, although such relief (or some settlement) may have included the right of ESCO to obliterate the Eastern Exhibit tag line on the back of the postcards and replace it with its own. It also explains why the Eastern Exhibit company cards were short-lived. Finally, the facts as described might also explain the origin of some of the “thinner” cards that jammed the ESCO machines, although these seem to lack the company ID tagline on the back–maybe they were precursors or were part of Hurwitz’ efforts after he changed his company name. The case does not discuss the issue of various tints to the so-called Eastern Exhibit cards, although one could speculate that Hurwitz was responsible for them through various print runs. Given that ESCO showed a willingness to fight in court, it seems unlikely others would have wanted to get into the business, so if not him, who?