Vintage Tobacco Packs- Let's see them

[tedzan]

Recently, in a neat little Antique shop in Oklahoma, I found this Plow Boy Tobacco Tin (circa 1910-1912).
Given the condition of it and its price, it was a must buy.














Plow Boy Tobacco cards......1910 Chicago Cubs

Evers ......................................... Brown .................................................. ..... Chance

King Cole .............................................. Sheckard .................................... Lew Richie



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[jerrys]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Hello Jerry, your summary on the packs is interesting although I differ on some accounts. One I'd enjoy discussing with the experts would be the ornate GQ pack. Can you provide any reference to the ornate GQ packs being used in 1888 to distribute N162 cards? Jay's packs date to May 1887 and Nov. 1889, neither being ornate. Likewise, the Round Album which was released in July of 1889 has the plain looking pack depicted (the N162 album, A36, still being offered). GQ was the "cheap" brand in 1887 and perhaps remained so until ATC merger, selling for only 5 cents/10 count pack (Old Judge and Dogs Head were both 10 cents/pack of 10). Maybe the ornate pack is post ATC merger, perhaps no cards inserted? Thoughts?

Some time ago there was a debate here about the two different GQ card formats and the two different design packs. After it settled the relationship was as I display them:
1887 GQ-t1 (plain) N175 - 1888 GQ-t2 (ornate) N162.
I know the GQ-t1 is advertised on a Round Album page. The two GQs must have sold at the same time at least for a long overlapping period similar to the OJ and the Dogs Head's brands.

The GQ-t2 counter boxes are more plentiful than the GQ-t1 boxes and the N162 more plentiful than the N175s. The GQ-t2 packs were better sellers and as you say they were the cheaper smoke.

Possibilities:
1. GQ-t1 had N175 - GQ-t2 N162 cards. (Counter boxes, pack and card match design.)
2. GQ-t1 had N175 and N162- GQ-t2 no cards.
3. Both GQs had both cards.

ATC? Why?

[oldjudge]

Jerry-Can you show a Gypsy Queen Type 2 (ornate) pack with a tax stamp that would date it from 1887 or 1888?

[HOF Yankees]

awesome packs

[jerrys]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Jerry-Can you show a Gypsy Queen Type 2 (ornate) pack with a tax stamp that would date it from 1887 or 1888?

Jay - I've never seen a Gypsy Queen t2 pack, have you?

[Jobu]

This is a fantastic thread - simply incredible stuff! I especially like the T213, T215, and T216 packs.

Are there any other New Orleans packs/packaging out there? Virginia Extra? Highly unlikely but I'll ask anyway - Tango Eggs, Mothers' Bread, Weil, Holsum, etc?

I don't have any packs, but I do have the only metal El Principe de Gales box that I have been able to find.

[canjond]

Here is a Virginia Extra pack. It's not period (this one is 1920s), but the graphics would be exactly the same on a period pack, but most likely a slide and shell pack.

[Joe_G.]

Originally Posted by jerrys

Possibilities:
1. GQ-t1 had N175 - GQ-t2 N162 cards. (Counter boxes, pack and card match design.)
2. GQ-t1 had N175 and N162- GQ-t2 no cards.
3. Both GQs had both cards.

ATC? Why?

Jerry, we continue to learn more about the card sets and related items with time. For example, since publishing the OJ book ten years ago we know more about Goodwin, the cards issued, the distribution, redemption offers, etc. In the book you will find reference to belief that there were no baseball cards distributed in Dogs Head packs and we now know that is wrong. Every Dogs Head pack had an N172 + another card (initially N163 - Dogs of the World, followed by N165 Games & Sports). That is, until ATC merger.

Per your options above, I believe Option 2 is most likely, the plain box was used for both N175 and N162. N162 cards may have also been inserted in OJ packs once the baseball season ended as it was a set that covered far more than baseball. It wasn't until 1889 that Goodwin, per the Tobacco Journal that I wrote about in the last issue of Old Cardboard, kept the baseball player portraits (N172s) in the packs year round.

Regarding 5 cent packs such as GQ, there were others that had high quality cards inserted such as Duke's Best (N84 playing cards + N85 Postage Stamp cards), two color cards in one pack of 5 cent smokes.

Here is a more complete, yet small image of the ornate pack courtesy of Jim Shaw (doesn't own it but shared image). After the ATC merger there were a lot of changes to the lesser brands, the distribution and packaging often changed (sometimes ceased altogether if experimenting with it failed).

Enough about GQ Your dating on N28 and N29 cards are off a bit, it should state fall of 1888 for N28 and late summer of 1889 for N29. These cards were also distributed in more than just Richmond Straight Cut packs. I've mentioned this before on the forum and published some of the details in last issue of OC. I'll write on this a bit more in a separate thread as there is a good bit to share.


More pics . . . Here are a couple images of a candy & tobacco store from Grand Haven, MI (dated on back as 1913).

If you look hard at the shelf below the pipes (top) you will see OBAK, Fatima, and others. Henry, looks like the Tiger Chewing Tobacco tin at bottom center is a match to the one in your display.

[canjond]

Neither belong to me, but both incredible items.

[NYHighlanderFan]

The counterfeit "GQ" packet posted earlier in this thread must have existed at some point. It would be the ATC variation, possibly early-mid 1890's? Has anyone seen a true pack of that design?

[1880nonsports]

pretty sure copied from some other image - NOT A PACK. It actually looks a little familiar.....

Jon - can you provide a larger picture of the image next to the Mono pack? I'm old and can't see anything that small (mainly a problem when I need to pee).

[canjond]

Henry - unfortunately that's the largest scan I have. However, if you look to the upper portion of the photo, you will see large Mono cigarette display packs (similar to the Ramly display packs from Leon's post).

[NYHighlanderFan]

You would think, at least one of those large pack displays survived and is somewhere on earth!

[ValKehl]

Leon, I suspect that your neat RPPC showing the Ramly storefront display helps explain why T204 Ramly cards are so easy to find compared to T204 T.T.T. cards.

[jerrys]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

Jerry, we continue to learn more about the card sets and related items with time. For example, since publishing the OJ book ten years ago we know more about Goodwin, the cards issued, the distribution, redemption offers, etc. In the book you will find reference to belief that there were no baseball cards distributed in Dogs Head packs and we now know that is wrong. Every Dogs Head pack had an N172 + another card (initially N163 - Dogs of the World, followed by N165 Games & Sports). That is, until ATC merger.

Per your options above, I believe Option 2 is most likely, the plain box was used for both N175 and N162. N162 cards may have also been inserted in OJ packs once the baseball season ended as it was a set that covered far more than baseball. It wasn't until 1889 that Goodwin, per the Tobacco Journal that I wrote about in the last issue of Old Cardboard, kept the baseball player portraits (N172s) in the packs year round.

Regarding 5 cent packs such as GQ, there were others that had high quality cards inserted such as Duke's Best (N84 playing cards + N85 Postage Stamp cards), two color cards in one pack of 5 cent smokes.

Here is a more complete, yet small image of the ornate pack courtesy of Jim Shaw (doesn't own it but shared image). After the ATC merger there were a lot of changes to the lesser brands, the distribution and packaging often changed (sometimes ceased altogether if experimenting with it failed).

Enough about GQ Your dating on N28 and N29 cards are off a bit, it should state fall of 1888 for N28 and late summer of 1889 for N29. These cards were also distributed in more than just Richmond Straight Cut packs. I've mentioned this before on the forum and published some of the details in last issue of OC. I'll write on this a bit more in a separate thread as there is a good bit to share.


More pics . . . Here are a couple images of a candy & tobacco store from Grand Haven, MI (dated on back as 1913).

If you look hard at the shelf below the pipes (top) you will see OBAK, Fatima, and others. Henry, looks like the Tiger Chewing Tobacco tin at bottom center is a match to the one in your display.

Dogs Head packs having a two card premium is a surprise.

You suggest option two: GQ-t2 no card - however the likeness of the design of the card to the pack suggest they were related therefore packaged together. They were printed at the same time for the same reason. You can't prove a negative - so why not consider option 3?

In my belief of option 1 or option 3 I show images of the GQ and OJ packs as sources of the N162 on my website. What must I do???

http://bcc.anaclubs.org/n162.htm

Yes, Jim Shaw has had his great tobacco pack collection website on the Internet for many years.

As for the A&G - not scientific, can't set your watch by my dates, the year is as close as I could determine.

The Goodwin group was tough in determining the card/pack relationships also I failed to determine how the 175 large card was distributed.


The Charles Gross Co. was tough also - I received some help from Keith Obermann to correctly attributing the Kalamzoo Bats cards.


Hello - Henry still connected? Have no feedback for page 45.

[NYHighlanderFan]

For you non-sport guys: The Nebo pack in the postcard looks to have reversed colors than the packs seen still out there today.

[7nohitter]

These are absolutely amazing! I would love to buy a pack some day, just to have as a display piece....

[that T206 Guy]

This is an Awesome Thread

I look Forward to More Pics

[Joe_G.]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

pretty sure copied from some other image - NOT A PACK. It actually looks a little familiar.....

Interesting Henry, Jim and I thought it was front, side, and back to a shell that was unfolded. Would love to know it's origin.

Originally Posted by jerrys

You suggest option two: GQ-t2 no card - however the likeness of the design of the card to the pack suggest they were related therefore packaged together. They were printed at the same time for the same reason. You can't prove a negative - so why not consider option 3?

In my belief of option 1 or option 3 I show images of the GQ and OJ packs as sources of the N162 on my website. What must I do???

The N162 cards are pretty but not sure why you suggest they are styled in the same format as the ornate GQ pack. They don't share colors, fonts, or style that I notice. To me, the facts are that the pack we know from 1887 and 1889 would be the pack that was used to distribute N162 cards in 1888 (the plain appearing pack). By your reasoning, did they also have an ornate OJ pack for N162 distribution?

Originally Posted by jerrys

As for the A&G - not scientific, can't set your watch by my dates, the year is as close as I could determine.

You provided pretty specific dates on your website as follows which we now know to be in error.

Originally Posted by jerrys

The Allen & Ginter Company, who had been producing advertising cards, made a promotional decision in the spring of 1888 to produce and insert the N28 lithograph cards of World Champions into their Richmond brand 10-cigarette packs. Later in 1888 the N29, a second series, succeeded the N28 . . .

Your spring of 1888 timing for N28 should retreat to fall of 1888 and your N29 date should get bumped to 1889, August of 1889 was start of distribution. The cards were also inserted in packs of Virginia Brights. For the VB packs, The "Crop of 1885" is correct for N28, the "Crop of 1886" is correct for N29. As I mentioned earlier, I will post details in another thread that repeats what I've published in OC and on this forum previously but with more details and evidence.

Here is an 1888 VB pack (A&G used ~3 year old tobacco). VB packs are easier to come by than many others and consistently have dated over-prints on the tax stamp to allow accurate dating of the pack. I have three 1888 VB packs dating from Feb. 28th to Dec. 18th, 1888 and all are "Crop of 1885".

[jerrys]

Joe -

With almost no hard evidence forming absolute facts is nearly possible. Your new information alters earlier opinions. If I had access to more information it would have been ideal. I used what I had.

As I stated previously, this article was published last year. The webpage you see I wrote in HTML for submission. It was transformed by Beckett webpage designers to give it a 19th century atmosphere for the magazine. This subject is one of the five of my VC articles - they did a superb job on all. VC is a high quality sports card and memorabilia magazine.

Some of the statements you have made here have already been addressed - some are unfriendly to comments I made in jest. Some of my statements were overlooked.

The N28s were previously booked for the year 1887 - changed to 1888 just a few years ago. New information comes along as we progress. No reason to condemn the originators.

We have more than exceeded the purpose of this thread. There is more but not suitable for this forum.

[Leon]

Using what you had doesn't change the facts. We all make mistakes. That said, thanks for your research.

And thanks to Joe for the great information....(and everyone in this thread, it's really good)

Originally Posted by jerrys

Joe -

With almost no hard evidence forming absolute facts is nearly possible. Your new information alters earlier opinions. If I had access to more information it would have been ideal. I used what I had.

As I stated previously, this article was published last year. The webpage you see I wrote in HTML for submission. It was transformed by Beckett webpage designers to give it a 19th century atmosphere for the magazine. This subject is one of the five of my VC articles - they did a superb job on all. VC is a high quality sports card and memorabilia magazine.

Some of the statements you have made here have already been addressed - some are unfriendly to comments I made in jest. Some of my statements were overlooked.

The N28s were previously booked for the year 1887 - changed to 1888 just a few years ago. New information comes along as we progress. No reason to condemn the originators.

We have more than exceeded the purpose of this thread. There is more but not suitable for this forum.

[oldjudge]

Jerry-It's a good thing when more and better information comes out. Don't think of yourself as being attacked (you are not); think of the body of hobby knowledge being added to. And BTW, there is not a nicer, more diligent, hobby researcher than Joe Gonsowski.

[1880nonsports]

[rommesc]

Believe examples have already been shown, but here are the ones in my collection. Note: The drum pouch likely didn't hold a card, pirate pack contains all of the cigarettes/foil with an oriental card inside, and the wooden EPDG box is older than T206 period.

[tedzan]

Picked up this Tobacco pack in Cooperstown.

My understanding is the B18 flannels were issued wrapped around the Egyptienne pack.






TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[1880nonsports]

I remember seeing about 20 such packages with the left behind strips that attached them as well as a couple that still had the blankets. It was in the early 1990's and I didn't realize at the time that I would covet an example 20 years later.

[Marslife]

Hey All, have a few boxes from my T card collection, mostly held non sports cards, few cross over to BB as well...

Love the old Boxes!

Cliff


DSCF0001.jpg

Mecca T201z - Factory 30 and Factory 649 and a coupon:

DSCF0002.jpg

DSCF0003.jpg

Love the T227z!

DSCF0004.jpg

DSCF0005.jpg

T28 and T96 Boxes:

DSCF0006.jpg

DSCF0007.jpg

T68 and T70 Boxes:

DSCF0008.jpg

DSCF0009.jpg

Awesome T28 Advertisement:

DSCF0010.jpg

Awesome T227 Miners Extra Shipping Box!

DSCF0011.jpg

[canjond]

That Miner's carton is awesome.

[vwtdi]

Not mine, but wanted to add it to the mix.

[Mozzie22]

I was hoping for this thread to take off when I posted it. You guys never disappoint! Great stuff!

[JollyRoger]

:

[canjond]

Looks great framed

[Cerberus]

Naturally, I'm envious of many of these packs (preferably unopened and properly dated), that I'll never be able to get into my collection. Jealousy aside, these are some beautiful packs that all of you have posted. Here are a few of my favorites from my collection (all sealed and full):

[rdwyer]

Thank you Global for all the BS you authenticated. Maybe one in a hundred boxes they graded might have a card in it.

[Joe_G.]

Henry Moses recent pick-up of an early GQ paper pack helps put a mystery to sleep. I hope you don't mind me re-posting your pick-up here Henry, its a beauty.

This is the ornate 20 count GQ pack, dates to 1886 prior to Goodwin & Co. moving from paper packs to slide and shell boxes. The tambourine strip would have sealed the seam on back of pack. It appears to have long ago been soaked off together with the tax stamp. As I look at the other two images I have of ornate packs they also appear to be paper packs (not slide & shell). My theory is now that the GQs were ornate up until they went to slide & shell. The ornate paper packs wouldn't have cards in them, the plain slide & shell would (in approx. order, likely including N171, N175, N164, N162, N165, and others).

I suspect the cigarette box cases that held these packs were ornate both with the early paper packs and remained so with the later plain packs. I welcome other's thoughts.

[1880nonsports]

pretty sure I noticed differences in the case boxes? I have one and have seen 5/6 others. A while back I remember looking through Heritage past sales and think at least one was different than the others?

[Joe_G.]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

pretty sure I noticed differences in the case boxes? I have one and have seen 5/6 others. A while back I remember looking through Heritage past sales and think at least one was different than the others?

I concur Henry, there are at least two distinct different GQ case boxes as follows (courtesy of Heritage):

Previously some argued both styles housed ornate packs because of the ornate lid. I believe the box on left did distribute the ornate paper packs while the case on the right distributed the plain slide & shell. My previous response was meant to merely share that the ornate lid was used on both.

[canjond]

That all seems correct to me.