T220 Silver - Uncut Edition

[Pat R]

That's a large sheet 34-36 inches x 50-52 inches ?

[Exhibitman]

If they were pulled for some reason it could explain why there are some, but only a handful, in the wild. Like the 1948 Leaf Graziano, which was pulled but definitely had some go to market in packs.

[G1911]

That's how my math is coming out on the sheet size, Pat. And it assumes that that the left edge was just cut off and that Driscoll represents the furthest left row, otherwise it is even wider. Driscoll's left edge is definitely handcut. It's certainly a deductive leap to assign it as the left edge. I thought there was a significant chance this was more than one sheet, but I'm much more strongly believing it is indeed a 5x5 array at this point as the likeliest size. I would have thought there were less than 200 cards a sheet before this find.


I'm not surprised if they were split between factories. This reference here may be something out of the norm, a set switching location because of a literal fire burning out a plant might have produced uncommon behavior for a time, if it is not metaphor for a facility being overworked and unable to meet quota. it would seem to suggest some very close business relationship between Old Masters and Brett Litho at the least. I would not be surprised at all if T206, the biggest set and possibly the one produced over the longest time, was at multiple locations. This would certainly seem to increase the likelihood that this was the case. I am surprised that this possibly was not an ATC/AL partnership at all, and they were just one of several contracted printers. The Ball Letter would suggest T206 was done by one company, at any number of locations, but one company. But I can find nothing that these other firms were part of American Lithographic. Makes some sense that they could have had quiet subsidiaries in the political context of 1910. This possibility throws a curveball if true. I can find almost nothing on "Old Masters" at all - or Fulgraff.


I've been buying T220-1 pretty heavily for a long time. I don't believe there is a double printing situation going on with what I've seen over the years, where Donovan and Corbett were pulled and another panel substituted in their place and thus being roughly twice as common. The known Donovan's and Corbett's seem like issued cards. It makes sense to me it's just like the Graziano, cards pulled and not supposed to be issued, but of course if it's a manual removal process before shipment to factory 649 it's going to be imperfect. Such a manual process doesn't seem out of place in 1910. What still makes absolutely no sense to me is why? Perhaps with the Porter lawsuit, they were more careful about getting signed contracts in place and Donovan and Corbett hadn't yet signed, but did before the T220-2 issue. there are reasonable explanations for why they might be pulled. I can think of none for why Donovan had like 1/3 of the card art redone, the background beyond the stands is completely different between the two parts of the T220 issue. If a plate broke, you wouldn't redo the painting it was based on and then redo a plate. If the painting was somehow lost or damaged and you had to redo the image, there would be differences, perhaps subtle but clearly different, in the other 2/3 of the art. I can still think of no reasonable expiation at all for this element. Usually we have an abundance of ideas and a lack of evidence, but here I've got no idea even.

[Pat R]

I haven't been able to find much on Fullgraff either Greg but there is an older thread on here involving a contract for consent to use baseball players pictures on a tobacco card issue put out by him for the T.F. Moore company.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ight=Fullgraff

[G1911]

Found something more, Pat.

Source is this site (may want to turn monitor brightness down before clicking), Hyland's contract is last item on the page: http://w.ringmemorabilia.com/Recent%20Adds.htm

Interesting stuff here. Unlike the Ball Letter, this says nothing about him appearing on a cigarette card specifically, just general use of a photograph. No compensation is offered. Letterhead gives us a couple more names to look into.

The September 1909 date is pretty far in advance of his cards appearing. Hyland is in T225-1 and T218-1. The boxing set print dates in the Old masters general must be for T225-1. T218-1 was done after February 7, 1910 but probably before July 4, 1910. Both sets were right about the same time. I believe T220 was not really intended as a separate set, but was thought of as part of T218 (note its matching but odd series name). Presumably his rights here were used for both sets. His T218 was cloned in C52, but was one of the 12 fighters cut from T219.

This letter bears Fulgraff's signature, but on Brett Lithographic letterhead, not Old Masters. Fulgraff's ledger includes information from long after this (like T223), and also from decades before, so him switching jobs between the two in this period doesn't seem to fit. They are probably the same company, or subsidiaries of the same parent. I think this would suggest the likeliest scenario is the less-shocking one, that it was indeed an ATC/American Lithographic partnership and these are quiet subsidiaries; cards printed at multiple locations but not by multiple independent businesses.

Not to make everything about T206, but this also strikes me as increasing the probability for why Wagner's card was pulled. Unlike the Ball Letter, this letter doesn't mention or imply tobacco whatsoever. If Wagner had signed a release like Hyland's instead of like Ball's, it would explain more realistically how they started production on his card and then Wagner asked them to stop once he found out what his image was actually being used for.

Fulgraff appears to have had quite a central role in several decades of tobacco premiums. I've never encountered his name before the Lelands Ledger. I will keep digging. There may be something in the library and archival systems, a lot of businesses and businessmen's papers simply disappear, but a lot from this time period actually ended up in storage or basements at some library, archive, or university. New York is littered with them, may be another avenue.

[G1911]

Anyone here happen to have a NY Times description? I don't really feel like paying them just to search a couple articles. https://www.nytimes.com/1887/12/07/a...-must-pay.html

There seems to have been two Frank Fullgraff's in New York at this time, Frank T. and Frank G. Frank G. is our man.

[Pat R]

I found information on him Greg he was quite the athlete it seems. I'll clip and post some of it.