T220 Silver - Uncut Edition

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

Google Books is amazing. From an 1898 book titled "Club Men of New York
Their Occupations, and Business and Home Addresses: Sketches of Each of the Organizations: College Alumni Associations", we get an occupation and address.

"Fullgraff, Frank G., clerk with J. Bien & Co., 140 Sixth Av. - Lty, NYAth, HorseSHY. 266 W 23"

NYAth is the New York Athletic Club, one of 3 organizations he was a member of. LTY could be Larchmont Yacht.

J. Bien & Co. = the lithographic company of Julius Bien (1826-1909), who was centered in New York? I don't know lithography well, perhaps J. Bien & Co., means something more to you Pat than I'm searching.


https://www.google.com/books/edition...J?hl=en&gbpv=0

Here's the info in the book I have on Bien they were at that address from 1892-1915 when the company was sold. Interesting connection with Audubon and all the bird images considering the different bird series tobacco issues and the ones in Fullgraff's book.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[G1911]

This book you have is gorgeous. Perhaps another connection to the cards.

I found a lawsuit from Fulgraff suing Brett Lithography in 1919 over $2,657.69 of unpaid work. It's a few hundred pages of information, but it includes some letters between Brett, Fullgraff, American Lithographic and R.J. Reynolds among others in the early 1910's. I haven't read the whole case yet, but the business relationships seem closely intertwined.

Included is a 1914 letter from Brett to American Tobacco certifying that Fullgraff has worked for them for five years, done good work, and they are okay with him working as a salesman for American Tobacco (who he already worked for years before, as we know from the earlier link) because their business has shifted interest and it would be a disservice to Fullgraff's 'customers'. It is an odd letter considering what else we know of Fullgraff's business life, reads kind of like a formality being handled with a deal already worked out. This case begins at page 608 in the downloaded .pdf here: https://books.googleusercontent.com/...fr4lkgzLdUshSA

this letter is plaintiff exhibit 31.


Page 5 of the case, page 618 of the .pdf, has Fullgraff switching to commission only basis for lithography orders to Brett in March, 1910, at apparently a 10% rate (10).

In plaintiff Exhibit 3, in a 1911 letter from Brett Lithograff by Fulgraff to R.J. Reynolds, he says "I have been doing business with the American tobacco company for twenty-five years and have gotten out several new brands, one of which is the Turkey Red, and I have printed millions of cigarette and show cards for them"

Plaintiff exhibit 9 has Brett paying Fulgraff $3 per thousand silk cards printed as commission in July, 1911.

He's sending artwork he's apparently made to R.J. Reynolds in several of these, for some kind of promotional work it seems. In Plaintiff exhibit 15 is a letter in which he sends Reynolds images from the "Forbes Lithography company", while signing off as an employee of Brett and apparently speaking for them. Exhibit 17 specifics they are pictures of Indian heads

Fullgraff just gets more interesting. He's a designer of some kind for Brett. He's doing similar work for Old Masters. He's a salesman for Brett and Forbes Lithography. He's worked for American Lithography in the past, and seeks more work for them in the 1910's, although he already seems to be involved with them. He's not only doing art design and print jobs for American Tobacco, he's naming and creating cigarette brands for them, which seems bizarre for a business partner at another company, a lithography company at that, to do. And he's worked with hem for 25 years, long preceding his apparent employment at Brett beginning in 1909. After the ATC breakup he's trying to interest R.J. Reynolds in lithographic advertising or possibly even cards again.

The defendants first exhibit has 21x17 lithographic orders for images of several people, including John L. Sullivan, just to route back to boxing here.

Fullgraff seems to do everything, and to know everyone in the lithography and tobacco industries, working for many of them, apparently often simultaneously. The conflicts of interest in his business life seem to be numerous, but they all write favorably of him in the court admitted correspondence and repeated references are made to his character and virtuous conduct. What's here only hints at what all he was really doing, the focus is on his sales job at Brett for the unpaid money, but this doesn't seem to be his only job or his only employer. He's a very interesting guy, even outside of my card interest.

I have not finished the full, lengthy read yet, but there's a lot in here on the players of the cigarette card world, even if they aren't really in here directly very much as the focus is on Silks and some other non-card contracts Brett didn't pay up for.

[G1911]

Page 1020 in the .pdf, 420 in the case file, a letter from R.j. Reynolds to Brett:

"Dear sirs,

We have requested the American Lithographic Co. to deliver to you ten sketches, one of John L. Sullivan, one of Admiral Bob Evans, one of Mark Twain, one of Sir Walter Raleigh, and six desig nated as A, B, C, D, E, and F.
Please quote us best price at which you can re produce these designs, as per specifications herein outlined, making us quotations for lithographic re production, as well as reproduction by the offset press method."

Again, it appears American Lithographic and Brett Lithographic are different companies - but only on paper. It makes no sense that American Lithographic would design images, and then send them, apparently for nothing, to Brett so that they could print them up for a customer and get paid instead. American lithographic was a large business who bought up competitors and was trying to get as much of the market as possible, not a routing charity. It seems to me another veiled wink, that they are separate companies to avoid government regulation but their business dealings indicate they really aren't fully separate firms. I don't want to get tunnel vision and locked into a theory, but every reference to the two I can find seems to follow this pattern

[G1911]

Pages 422 and 423 of the internal numbering of the case file have his original contract with Brett that was later amended to be commission only. He took a 5% commission on orders over $30,000, and a salary of $3,000 a year. He made quite a lot of money for the time. He agreed to:

"Fourth. The party of the second part [Mr. Fullgraff] has agreed and hereby agrees to accept the compensation aforesaid during the term aforesaid, and to engage in no other business and to do no other work for any person other than the party of the first part [Brett]."

Sure doesn't seem like this was really stuck too at all. Old Masters seems to have had him on the payroll at the same time, and American Lithographic apparently were paying him or had a bizarrely close relationship still. American Tobacco, who he was working with for 20 years by the time Brett put him on payroll, presumably wasn't hiring Brett Lithography to name, design, and create entire cigarette brands for them (why would anyone hire a lithography business to do this? Design the packaging, maybe, but the rest of it could not have been normal), so he almost certainly was getting something from them too.

[G1911]

" Mr. A. Kline, Cigarette Dept. American Tobacco Company,
#111-5th Avenue, New York City.

February 9, 1911.
Dear Sir,

We have carefully figured the cost of an edition of Actress Cards printed on satin size 1 3/4 x3. The scheme, as we understand it, is to use the same drawings as we used for the series of Actress Cards
made for the Fatima Cigarettes, except that the
back grounds shall be entirely eliminated. The
name of brand of cigarettes for which the satin
cards are to be used is to be printed across the top
edge of the satin, and the factory number on the
bottom edge of the satin. The designs to be in all
other respects the same as we made before. The
cost of those cards printed on satin furnished by
you and delivered collated in sets of twenty-five, in
an addition of one million and a half will be $2.00
per M. If we furnished the satin our price would
be $5.00 per M cards. W e are estimating on satin
of the quality of the satin we are enclosing here With.
Should you furnish the satin we would require twelve thousand yards of 24 inch goods.
We regret that the proofs are not finished as We hoped, so that they could be submitted to you today. We found it necessary to make changes in the back grounds of some of the cards so that you would get a correct impression of the way that they would look when finished, and this delayed the proving somewhat. You will have them, however, in a day or two."

These are the earliest silks referenced, and the only 'card' set of them, I think. The S version of T27? I don't know the Silks. Not sure what the price per "M" is, it clearly isn't per million.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by G1911

Pages 422 and 423 of the internal numbering of the case file have his original contract with Brett that was later amended to be commission only. He took a 5% commission on orders over $30,000, and a salary of $3,000 a year. He made quite a lot of money for the time. He agreed to:

"Fourth. The party of the second part [Mr. Fullgraff] has agreed and hereby agrees to accept the compensation aforesaid during the term aforesaid, and to engage in no other business and to do no other work for any person other than the party of the first part [Brett]."

Sure doesn't seem like this was really stuck too at all. Old Masters seems to have had him on the payroll at the same time, and American Lithographic apparently were paying him or had a bizarrely close relationship still. American Tobacco, who he was working with for 20 years by the time Brett put him on payroll, presumably wasn't hiring Brett Lithography to name, design, and create entire cigarette brands for them (why would anyone hire a lithography business to do this? Design the packaging, maybe, but the rest of it could not have been normal), so he almost certainly was getting something from them too.

I wonder if they handled it similarly to how the big box stores do some things like groceries. Where an outside vendor is responsible for stocking an aisle, including competitors products?

It's also not uncommon in manufacturing and printing for a customer to own the original art they paid for, (Or molds or other tooling) and the company stores it for convenience.

As an example, when the contract for stamps changed from one banknote company to another the dies plates etc all got sent to the new company.

Fascinating stuff.

Especially the bit Pat found about a rotary press using an aluminum plate before 1903. I had thought from what I've read that similar presses were used to print on tin, but not necessarily on paper.

https://www.aptpressdirect.com/blog/...printing-press

https://www.historyofinformation.com...hp?entryid=666

[G1911]

Originally Posted by G1911

Page 1020 in the .pdf, 420 in the case file, a letter from R.j. Reynolds to Brett:

"Dear sirs,

We have requested the American Lithographic Co. to deliver to you ten sketches, one of John L. Sullivan, one of Admiral Bob Evans, one of Mark Twain, one of Sir Walter Raleigh, and six desig nated as A, B, C, D, E, and F.
Please quote us best price at which you can re produce these designs, as per specifications herein outlined, making us quotations for lithographic re production, as well as reproduction by the offset press method."

Again, it appears American Lithographic and Brett Lithographic are different companies - but only on paper. It makes no sense that American Lithographic would design images, and then send them, apparently for nothing, to Brett so that they could print them up for a customer and get paid instead. American lithographic was a large business who bought up competitors and was trying to get as much of the market as possible, not a routing charity. It seems to me another veiled wink, that they are separate companies to avoid government regulation but their business dealings indicate they really aren't fully separate firms. I don't want to get tunnel vision and locked into a theory, but every reference to the two I can find seems to follow this pattern

Following up with more here,

"R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
Winston -Salem , N. C.

Gentlemen :
We beg to acknowledge receipt of your favor of
the 21st inst., and also acknowledge receipt of ten
sketches from the American Lithograph Company. We have taken a careful record of these sketches which will enable us to make you prices, and have today forwarded the sketches to the Forbes Lithograph Company, Boston, Mass., by express prepaid, and will send you a bill for the express charges in a day or two. We will within the next two or three days submit you our prices for reproducing the designs in accordance with your specifications.
Thanking you for an opportunity of figuring on this work for you, we remain,

Yours truly,
Brett Lithographic Company"

So... Fullgraff solicits R.J. Reynolds to print up some advertising pieces. Reynolds accepts after some queries. The images are then provided by American Lithographic to Brett Lithographic. Brett Lithographic then sends the pictures to Forbes Lithographic in Boston to do pre-production and full cost estimate on the items.

How many lithographic companies does it take to print a picture of John L. Sullivan? At least 3.

This again seems to suggest American Lithographic was regularly working through "other companies" to do print jobs.

I know we have multiple John L. collectors here. I'd love to see it if anyone knows of an R.J. Reynolds advertisement of Sullivan from the 1910's.

[Pat R]

Superb research and information Greg.

Here's a page on Forbes and another page that lists the number of employees that Forbes and some of the other lithograph company's had in 1889.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[G1911]

This is great stuff Pat. Even with the manual workflows of 1910 these aren’t small companies. Their size in 1889 had surely grown by this time as the advertising and printing businesses were in a boom. Does your book ever give an employee count for American Lithographic? My understanding has been they were the biggest of the east coast lithographers. Wondering how much bigger they are than these apparently semi-subsidiaries.

We’ve got several more names of people who are apparently key to day to day operations at these companies from these letters and the Hyland letter. I’ll see if I can find connections between them and American Lithographic as well. I think it is the business side that will lead us to water on the card stuff. I’m finding it pretty interesting in its own right anyways.

I also want to dig into the Porter suit, that Scot Reader makes brief reference to in Inside T206. This might give us a lot of information on the player contracts, which I’m hoping will identify more on the structure of the sets and how they worked, and also why certain cards in certain sets might be so difficult.

[G1911]

Here's some stuff on the Porter suit.

I only know of this because of Inside T206, which references it in a footnote but doesn't give much else. It says this is the only known time a T card subject actually sued over the use of their image.

Harry Porter was a subject in the first series of T218, one of the many Irish American Athletic Club members to appear. His card had to have been printed after February 7, 1910, judged by the back text on series 1 cards. Several dates of issue in 1910 are given in the ATC ledger, that are plausible. His card does not appear to have been pulled from production, he's a common card that seems as readily available as any other card to me.


I found a record of the case in an old government compilation of cases before the NY court that year: https://books.googleusercontent.com/...kJTWw6Kvg6qxwc.

Pages 871-873 of the book cover the Porter case. Porter claimed he did not give his permission for advertising and sued for damages. The text is largely about procedural nuance, and is a decision for November 1910 on an ATC appeal. The case seems to have moved fairly quickly, as this is only a few months after the card could have been issued. American Tobacco claims that Porter did indeed sign a release, on July 5, 1909. The court rules against ATC's procedural motion. There should be a prior and later court event on this case, I think. The exacts of this are probably more clear to our lawyers here than to myself.

The case (Porter v. American Tobacco Co.,125 N. Y. S. 710 (fol.71).) is referenced as precedent in several later decisions in the 1930's. All later references in the ensuing decades seem to be to this motion that Porter won, though this part of the suit does not address the larger issue on which the legal use of his image hinges - did Porter on or about July 5, 1909 give his written consent to American Tobacco, or not?

While interesting and a part of T218 history, I'm striking out on getting anything that tells us much, beyond what we can reasonably infer from the Ball and Hyland letters, of the larger context thus far.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is great stuff Pat. Even with the manual workflows of 1910 these aren’t small companies. Their size in 1889 had surely grown by this time as the advertising and printing businesses were in a boom. Does your book ever give an employee count for American Lithographic? My understanding has been they were the biggest of the east coast lithographers. Wondering how much bigger they are than these apparently semi-subsidiaries.

We’ve got several more names of people who are apparently key to day to day operations at these companies from these letters and the Hyland letter. I’ll see if I can find connections between them and American Lithographic as well. I think it is the business side that will lead us to water on the card stuff. I’m finding it pretty interesting in its own right anyways.

I also want to dig into the Porter suit, that Scot Reader makes brief reference to in Inside T206. This might give us a lot of information on the player contracts, which I’m hoping will identify more on the structure of the sets and how they worked, and also why certain cards in certain sets might be so difficult.

I haven't found anything in the book on an employee count but I do remember finding an article about work that ALC did for the government
I think it was for printing envelopes. I can't remember if it said anything about the employees but I do remember being impressed at the volume
they were printing. I'm trying to find it if I saved it but I did find this clip from Dec. 19 1905 on a copyright suit involving ATC and ALC.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]