 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#51
10-23-2021, 07:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. 
|
|
#52
10-23-2021, 08:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
|
|
#53
10-24-2021, 11:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#54
10-24-2021, 12:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#56
10-24-2021, 12:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#57
10-24-2021, 12:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It strikes me as extremely odd that an employee of Old Masters, Brett, or American Lithographic (or some combination of the 3, which might really be 1 company) would be naming a prominent cigarette brand for American Tobacco. Perhaps he was working for both, the connection between the cigarette monopoly and the printers? It seems to me this gentleman might be the architect of the T card program in general, after he evidently was one of the people who worked on the N cards in the late 1880's, the first major trading card issues. Apparently, he then tries again in the 1920's under the T.F. Moore company name but it goes nowhere.
|
|
#58
10-24-2021, 12:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
July 25 1906 Fullgraff 1 July 25 1906.jpg Nov. 20 1928 Fullgraff 2 Nov 20 1928.jpg Jan. 12 1932 Fullgraff 3 Jan 12 1932.jpg Nov. 19 1928 this has Frank C but I think it's a typo and should b G Fullgraff 4 Mon__Nov_19__1928_.jpg
|
|
#59
10-24-2021, 01:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Great stuff, he seems to have accomplished a lot. Another hobby of mine happens to be firearms, I have a number of books and documentation on 19th century shooting sports. I will see if I can find anything further in my library on this rifle championship he won.
Some of the gents in the main board may have material on the Grammercy team. It’s really seeming to me like Fullgraff is a major part of the T card history in general, and not just to a couple sets.
|
|
#60
10-24-2021, 01:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Your panels have uncovered some fascinating information (at least to me).
Here is some more info on Brett Lithograph from my copy of the color explosion book on 19th century Lithograph. A lot of the info was in the link I posted earlier but some of it is new. [IMG]  [/IMG][IMG]  [/IMG]I think that Fullgraff might have worked for Brett Lithograph is a possibility to consider.
|
|
#61
10-24-2021, 01:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You aren't alone, this stuff is fascinating. Fullgraff must have worked for Brett to be speaking for them in contracts and using their letter head, but he also worked for whoever Old Masters is at this time. I don't have much in the wya of books or documents on Lithographers, but I will keep digging and see if I can find anything to tie these firms to American Lithographic or disprove a connection.
I found a June 1904 copy of the New York Athletic Club's Journal (https://books.google.com/books?id=yz...20club&f=false, page 34). He was apparently into boating as well. Harry Hillman, a T218 subject, is in the issue as well. The Larchmont Yacht Club and the Columbia Yacht Club, both of which he was a member of in 1904 according to this, are found in the 4th series of T59 flags. It seems many of these T cards, among popular subjects and figures of the day, featured his friends and associations. These NYAL journals are probably a good source on some of his activities. I believe the NYAL still exists and may have something in their records on Mr. Fullgraff.
|
|
#62
10-24-2021, 01:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
According to this edition, Fullgraff joined the club as a full resident member in 1896, membership #1499 on page 71: https://www.google.com/books/edition...sec=frontcover
His previous Athletic endeavors may have been under a different organization.
|
|
#63
10-24-2021, 02:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#64
10-24-2021, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
And, here is the gold. From the "Biographical Directory of the State of New York", published in 1900, we have the attached paragraph on page 150. Fullgraff's athletic memberships are again listed, and is listed as a Salesman connected to American Lithographic. His house address matches the previous link. He was born in 1851 (I think this means he is probably the man in a database here, who died in 1943 in Manhattan: https://www.ancientfaces.com/person/...1943/110083839)
https://www.google.com/books/edition...sec=frontcover A salesman for American Lithographic, detailing production for Old Masters, and working for Brett securing contracts, with at least the last 2 being at the same exact time. I am now pretty positive these companies were indeed shadow subsidiaries of American Lithographic, multiple locations but not really multiple independent businesses printing the T cards. It makes sense for 1910. Last edited by G1911; 10-24-2021 at 02:20 PM. Reason: punctuation error
|
|
#66
10-24-2021, 08:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
[IMG]  [/IMG][IMG]  [/IMG]
Last edited by Pat R; 10-24-2021 at 08:23 PM.
|
|
#67
10-24-2021, 10:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#68
10-24-2021, 11:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#69
10-24-2021, 11:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#70
10-24-2021, 11:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
" 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.
|
|
#71
10-24-2021, 11:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
"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.
|
|
#73
10-25-2021, 11:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#74
10-25-2021, 12:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. Last edited by G1911; 10-25-2021 at 12:25 PM. Reason: grammar
|
|
#75
10-25-2021, 12:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Circling back to the original subject, which is frankly less interesting than this investigation into the ATC/AL partnership, I started digging into Mike Donovan as well, for some reason his card may be so oddly difficult.
Donovan was a fascinating guy on his own, about 1910 he was in his 60's and still prominent in sporting circles. He was a personal friend of Theodore Roosevelt and appeared routinely in the press as an expert on sport, fitness, health in old age, and all-around manliness. He was at that time, as his T220 notes, the boxing director of the New York Athletic Club, the prominent sportsmen organization that Fullgraff was also an active and dedicated member of, and still active in sparring. Donovan appears to have been anti-tobacco. In a 1918 book compiling issues of a journal titled "Good Health", is a section featuring anti-tobacco statements from authorities on grounds "physical, mental, and moral". this includes a statement from Mr. Donovan (page 533, https://books.googleusercontent.com/...Arjon4_xydvp): "Mike Donovan, formerly athletic director of the New York Athletic Club: 'Anybody who smokes can never hope to succeed in any line of endeavor, as smoking weakens the heart and lungs and ruins the stomach and affects the entire nervous system. Physicians who have had much to do with alcoholic inebriates realize that there is a direct relationship between alcohol addiction and tobacco abuse. The first effect of tobacco smoking is stimulating, with a rise of blood pressure; and if the smoking be continued, the nerve cells are depressed. The depression is cumulative in the system of the smoker, and after a varying interval (of days, weeks or months) it creates an instinctive demand for the antidote to tobacco poisoning - and that is alcohol. The intemperate use of tobacco thus explains 75 per cent of all drink-habit cases. The alcoholic thirst is engendered and inflamed by smoke. The real danger in smoking consists largely in the habit of inhalation whereby the volatilized poisons are brought into immediate contact with at least 1,000 square feet of vascular air-sac walls in the lungs, and are thus promptly and fully absorbed to be diffused into the blood and carried on their disastrous errand to the several organs of the body. The world of today needs men, not those whose minds and will power have been weakened or destroyed by the desire and craving for alcohol and tobacco, but instead men with initiative and vigor, whose mentality is untainted by ruinous habits. Every young man should aspire to take advantage of the opportunity which at some time during his life beckons him, and he should be ready with the freshness of youth and not enveloped in the fumes of an offensive and injurious cigarette.'" There is hardly room for equivocation in this statement, 8 years after the T220 set was issued. If Donovan was passionately against smoking, it makes sense he would not want his image used to sell them. It also makes sense he would sign a general release for a club friend, that like Hyland's may not have mentioned tobacco at all. And it makes sense that this club friend may have persuaded him to reconsider and allow the use of his image, reinstating him in t220-2 white borders. And it makes sense that, as the boxing instructor at the club of which the architect of the card set was an active and dedicated member and apparently made friends everywhere he went, it is Donovan alone who gets two cards in that second issue. Still does not explain the bizarre background change between the two issues of T220 to his card's artwork, but perhaps this has something to do with why he is so difficult. On a completely unrelated note, this journal is fascinating as an insight into the leading health theories of a century ago on a whole host of issues. Perhaps I am simply easily entertained and sidetracked. Last edited by G1911; 10-25-2021 at 12:53 PM. Reason: Corrected a typographical error in the transcript.
|
|
#76
10-25-2021, 01:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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]
|
|
#77
10-25-2021, 01:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Next up, the Frazier's. The Hyland letterhead lists Charles Frazier as treasurer, Charles W. Frazier as secretary of Brett Lithography.
volume 10 of American Biography: A New Cyclopedia published in 1922 (https://books.googleusercontent.com/...E067eDmxqjuXhl) Charles William Frazier (1873-?) is the son of the former (1839-1921). The father was President of the East River Savings Bank, "and treasurer and director of Brett Lithographic Company" among other business interests, apparently a significant figure in New York banking for many decades. "Charles Frazier" is referenced as the president of Brett lithography in 1917 (Printers Ink 100) and in 1919 (National Lithographer 26, 1919). In 1917 he is also elected President of The National Association of Employing Lithographers, with William Forbes as Vice President (Marketing Communications 100). Forbes name comes up a lot in trade organizations alongside the Fraziers. Frazier the father is apparently also knowledgeable about lithography itself and is more than a money man for the banks. The Printing Art 23, from 1914 features an article on a lecture he gave about the technical aspects of Lithography and offset printing. Several other trade journals and books tell us that Charles W. is the president of Brett Lithography by 1924. He is a co-founder of a trade organization, the Lithographic Technical Foundation, alongside the President of Forbes and other lithography companies and is not surprisingly chosen as treasurer. Also a member of the finance committee alongside William S. Forbes and executive committee (Page 42 of December 20, 1924 edition of The American Printer, found here: https://books.googleusercontent.com/...eG53vaurwKu7hQ) I'm not succeeding on finding more from 1910 on Frazier's in relation to lithography and not banking. They are 2 of the 3 names on the official company letterhead, so obviously they played a significant role at the firm. It all suggests Brett Lithography was heavily controlled by the established banking powers in the city.
|
|
#78
10-25-2021, 02:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I haven't found much trying to just shortcut this and looking for Brett and American Lithography referenced together to find a smoking gun connection. I haven't found envelopes, but here is an order from the Department of Agriculture for 411,627 copies of a series of 8 illustrations and then 2 other illustrations in the same count. American and Brett Lithography are both listed as among the vendors for this order, on page 301 (https://www.google.com/books/edition...sec=frontcover). The scale of business must have been huge, millions of cards in sets that aren't super common today were printed according the Lelands ledger, large orders like this seem abundant. And Fullgraff only got commission on orders of $30,000 or more, at least for a time, which was a very large sum amount of money in that period. I think what we are learning is that American Lithography did not actually "gradually combine" the activities of all their subsidiaries as the book says. The reference in the next paragraph, that "The American Lithographic company produced all the products that had been made by its component companies, including cigar box labels, posters, trade cards, pamphlets and book illustrations" seem to be closer to what we are finding. They are not so much the actual printer as the producer and orchestration of a whole host of clandestine subsidiaries or very friendly partners, producing art and images and sourcing much of the actual printing work to these 'other companies', even splitting specific jobs between different sub-parts of their network. Perhaps it is better to think of ALC as the producer and one of many printers among their component companies, not so much the actual printer of all of it as is generally said within the hobby.
|
|
#79
10-25-2021, 03:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#80
10-26-2021, 12:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I checked Reader's book again, to make sure my memory of the calculation was right. He says 370,000,000, but honestly I think the methodology of this estimate is fundamentally wrong. It all starts on extrapolations from the Piedmont cigarette production run in 1910, and assuming that every pack had a T206 card. Then the rough percentage of t206's that are Piedmont are used to guesstimate what the total run is, and assumes the same rate of packing out for the months in 1909 and 1911 in which T206 was apparently issued. The problem is that the starting point is the flawed one; it is factually wrong. This is acknowledged at the end that "on the other hand, actual circulation may have been considerably lower. It has been reported that in 1910 and 1911 bird and fish subjects were distributed in some Old Mill, Piedmont, Sovereign and Sweet Caporal packs instead of baseball subjects. This would likely have meaningfully reduced the number to T206 cards circulated". Of course, "been reported" is saying it lightly - we know this beyond any reasonable doubt. Piedmont absolutely and undeniably issued other sets during this time, not every Piedmont pack had a baseball subject. This "would likely have meaningfully reduced..." again turns a long known fact into a conjecture, as if it is a possibility instead. The overstatement of Piedmont, based on a version of events that is not true, and on which every subsequent calculation is based, means the estimate is not reasonable. T206 is more common than T58, personally I doubt there are 9 or 10 for every T58 but my opinion isn't data. T58's just aren't put up for sale as much because they're worth .40 instead of $25 for poor commons. I can sell my whole box of `1,500 T59's for, if I'm lucky, as much as a single T206 Mathewson super print. Thus eBay is littered with cards worth selling, and pickup threads are filled with baseball stars that cost more and thus get more positive attention and responses. It's difficult to extrapolate because we see certain items far more often than others for reasons that have nothing to do with scarcity. Maybe it is about right, but if it is, it's not about right for the reasons that it was calculated from.
|
|
#81
10-26-2021, 11:41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
That's a really interesting point. We do not know much about the production of any of the N, T or E cards. We know something about the marketing thanks to advertisements that have come to light from old publications in the digital age. It leaves it to intuition and experience. I once tried to construct a list of N-T-E boxing cards ranked from rarest to easiest. It was just impossible: is there any meaningful distinction between the E125 Jack Johnson (SGC pop 1, PSA pop 1), T226 Red Sun Johnson (SGC pop 3, PSA pop 1), N223 Kinney Hold to Light Sullivan (SGC pop 1, PSA pop 4), and N60 Jem Mace (SGC pop 1, PSA pop 0)? And there are so many other rarities from around the world that aren't even found in TPG pops or are barely there. I mean, find me one of these:
  
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true. https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/ Or not... Last edited by Exhibitman; 10-26-2021 at 01:48 PM.
|
|
#82
10-26-2021, 12:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
How do you know the fish cards in the Fullgraff book are T58's? We do know from the ATC ledger that T206's were packed with T58's one each per pack as follows Piedmont - began packing 1 fish (T58) and 1 ballplayer 4-18-10 Discontinued pack fish 8-24-10 continue packing 1 ballplayer. Sovereign and Sweet Caporal share the same dates - began shipping 1 fish and 1 ballplayer 4-23-10 discontinue packing fish 8-29-10 continue packing 1 ballplayer. Comparing the T206's to the T58's we know for sure that they started packing T206's in July 1909 in some brands and continued packing them in some brands until the summer/fall of 1911. So the T206's were distributed for 6-7 times longer than the T58's in 5x more brands than the T58's and from what we do know shows that there was 1 t206 packed with every T58 that was distributed. There are also ads that show there were 2 T206's packed in some packs and also in Polar Bears. Now if the 40 million fish cards are T58's we don't know for sure if that's all that were produced we just know that's what was produced by Brett lithograph at a particular time. Last edited by Pat R; 10-26-2021 at 12:09 PM.
|
|
#83
10-26-2021, 02:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I think we can say they are T58 because there is no other fish series of tobacco cards from the 1909-1912 period, and while this ledger includes N cards very precise dates are given on this page that rule them out. It can really only be T58. Some of the other sets in this page are difficult to identify (“Actresses, Athletes of America, Indian”), but this one is straight-forward. I think the issue with comparing T206 to unpopular non-sports sets is that our sources for T206 populations (‘I see X more than Y, dealers have more of X than Y, pop reports, etc. are so heavily and clearly biased in favor of baseball subjects that no meaningful guess can be made beyond the most broad of terms in obvious cases (such as “T206 is more common than T220”). There may well be more T59’s and T206’s, it’s just that nobody besides a handful of us cares. The ledger has some packs getting two cards, and the period ads show this as well. This doesn’t appear to be so for the entire production; if there is any evidence that every T42 was paired with a T206 I’d love to stand corrected. That this is true for both series of t58 in their entirety is a deductive jump. It is a mighty leap away from the evidence to state that there is a Piedmont T206 for every 10 Piedmont cigarettes. I do not think we can reasonably say it is true that T206 was issued non-stop or almost non-stop during its production run from earliest date to last date, which all estimates seem to take for granted. We do not know this. I know we disagree on the ATC ledger, but it includes some dates that seem to contradict internal and external evidence. Some series with a single issuer have multiple issue dates given in it, and multiple “stopped packing” dates. Much of it is missing, and it means we don’t know which sets all have these multiple dates and which don’t. The ledger dates are highly questionable, and even if the contradictions between issue dates and card text are ignored, they indicate cards were issued in a stop-start pattern, not sets for many months or even years continuously without break. Frankly I hope you are correct, sir, about the ledger, and my skepticism is misplaced. That there is some logical way we can arrive at a statement that resolves the contradictions and without having much of the data originally present on start/stop dates and checks out as true. I remain skeptical, but I’m always skeptical. I guess, to extend the theme, this is my general disagreement with much of what is said to be so in the hobby - it tends to rely on a series of stacking deductions and/or conclusions credited to authorities and then referred to and repeated as fact, whereupon further deductions are then stacked on top, too far away from the actual evidence itself to be anything more than an educated guess at best. The 5X more brands for T206 doesn’t seem a strong argument to me - the brand gap is mostly from very uncommon backs. Half of them have almost 0 impact on our total for T206, whatever that unknown and unlikely to be known figure is. Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign of course are not 1/5 of T206 cards. If we want to go by total possible back types, T59 dwarfs T206 and must have had many billions if we use this logic. I concur entirely that the 40,000,000 may not be representative of that sets entire run. I would think it quite possible it is not the entire production run, that multiple facilities for larger sets may well have been how it was done. We haven’t anything to prove this was done; but the bizarre structure of these firms and their collaboration on even small non-card orders for cigarette makers would suggest it may well be true. It does not appear to be the cards printed at Brett though; it notes in this section that Brett “burned out” (still not sure if this is literal or a comment on inability to meet the massive order in time) on March 30, 1910. The figures are for February 23 to May 16, 1910, according to the text. This seems to be the production at Old Masters Litho. Corporation, not Brett (they are presumably, from Fullgraff’s contract, the court records etc. very closely related or two subsidiaries of the same parent) - I haven’t yet got around to digging into Old Masters yet. T206 may have had 200,000,000. Or 370,000,000. Or 500,000,000. I think no guess given can be close enough to the evidence to be reasonably accurate in any meaningful way. I would very much like to be wrong; attempting to understand the ‘true scarcity’ has given way to ‘relative scarcity’, and even that is a wildly imprecise thing of which we can still say little with any reasonable degree of practical certainty, to Adam's point.
|
|
#84
10-26-2021, 02:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Last edited by G1911; 10-26-2021 at 02:26 PM.
|
|
#85
10-26-2021, 06:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I think Hindu and Polar Bear were the only products that Advertised two ball player cards. I don't have any ironclad proof that the T206's were issued non stop but I'm pretty confident that they were. ads for Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign ran in sporting life from July-September 1909 ads for Hindu ran in papers from August-September 1909 ads for Piedmont ran in papers from February-August 1910 Old mill ads ran in papers in August 1909 and March - September 1910 the ATC journal shows packing and shipping dates from 1909-1911 No problem with different opinions on the ATC ledger I think many of the tobacco card printings changed midstream and unless there is a specific card pasted next to a date that's wrong I don't find a problem with the printings on a couple of backs not matching dates unless it's off by an unexplainable amount of time. In statement about the 5x more T206 brands I wasn't implying that it would multiply the T206 production by 5 over the T58's. I thought the court documents indicated that Fullgraff was working for Brett Lithography during the time period of the dates in the Fullgraff book? I haven't been able to find anything on an Old Masters Lithography Company. I did find that it was a frequently used term in the business though. You have probably mentioned this before but if the panels you have are from one sheet and the write ups on the backs of the T220 cards are correct they must have done the write ups after August 10 1910 and before September 27 1910. Last edited by Pat R; 10-26-2021 at 07:46 PM. Reason: added info
|
|
#86
10-26-2021, 07:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
N60 has a few boxers: Edward McGlinchy, James Mace (aka Jem Mace) and Joe Goss. Here is a Joe Goss that Lelands sold in 2019:  it is the only N60 boxer I have seen sold since 2011. I would have chased it up some (sold for $776.40) but I was over-committed chasing some other lots I wanted more.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true. https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/ Or not... Last edited by Exhibitman; 10-26-2021 at 07:34 PM.
|
|
#87
10-26-2021, 08:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Fullgraff was definitely working for Brett when some of these sets were printed. he began work there early in 1909. 'Old Masters' seems to be a term in common use in the industry, but I haven't yet got to them as a company. The Fullgraff ledger has what looks like his business card on the cover for the "Old Masters Litho. Corporation". This has not come up as an alternate name in my digging into Brett, and the "Litho Corporation" part makes it sound like another one of these semi-separate businesses instead of an internal company nickname. It seems like a different company from Brett at this point, but we don't have much. His ledger includes N cards. Fulgraff states he's been doing business for "25 years" with the American Tobacco Company in 1911, which may be a rounding but if literal would place him involved with them starting in 1886 or so, in time for the N sets, in his mid 30's. I have found very little on Fulgraff's business life in the 19th century. Perhaps Old Masters Litho. Corporation is his name for his own work? What we would today call an independent contractor? That kind of setup might help explain his seemingly multiple employers, and conflicts of interest that don't seem to have bothered his employers. I will see if I can find anything, there are many possibilities. For the T220 dating: The backs of T220 had to have been finalized after August 10, 1910. Gans card very explicitly includes his date of death on August 10th, and he is included in the first of the two series. The Jordan panel bears a Brett stamp dated September 13th, 1910 with blank backs. I think all of these, save for possibly Beecher and Wilson that connect together, are definitely from the same sheet after piecing them together for a couple hours. The ATC Ledger says they started packing Tolstoi backs of the second series on March 11, 1911, which is entirely possible and plausible but surprisingly late for the back texts that often cut off a year before that or more and ignore subsequent events. My notes are getting quite long and I may have missed something or am having an idiot moment, but where does the September 27th, 1910 cutoff come from?
|
|
#88
10-26-2021, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
That's an awesome card. I think I have a pair of actresses in one of my random-old-card boxes. I had no idea boxers even existed.
|
|
#89
10-26-2021, 09:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#90
10-27-2021, 10:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I don't recall ever seeing a full book for cards. I think it's likely these were from the masters used to print the layout transfers for the production plates/stones.
|
|
#91
10-27-2021, 10:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And the quantities shown in the ledger! It's possible the survival rate was way lower than thought, and unfortunately that Scot Rs possible production numbers are low by quite a bit. Another possibility I need to eventually get to the local historical society to check on is the orange border candy boxes which share some images with T206 The company that printed those movd from Boston to here in Lowell, printed mostly novelty candy boxes including the orange borders, then promptly went out of business in 1910 or 1911. I suspect an ALC connection there too, and I'm hoping the local history society has some info.
|
|
#92
10-27-2021, 11:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#93
10-27-2021, 11:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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
|
|
#94
10-27-2021, 01:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
That said, older assumptions are definitely being revised all the time. I try hard to remember to stay humble and open to new information about the cards I collect, because information does surface from time to time as people research or as I research new sources of data that come online for public use. Like the Burdick Collection. For my initial boxing card deep-dive research I had to go to NYC and make an appointment at the print department of the Met to research his collection holdings. Now a lot of the same stuff is online and publicly available. I also know for a fact that there are several jaw-dropping collections out there that will eventually free up most of the known populations of many of the rarest boxing cards. May not be for decades, though. One thing we really haven't had ever for boxing is a "Black Swamp" style find of material that busts the pop of a rare set. Finding a single T226 Red Sun of a Negro [sic] pugilist is a find given how tough Johnson, Gans, Jeannette and Langford are to find at all in that set. Candidly, I do not think we will. Unlike Topps, these things were made a long time ago and many of them must have been made in far smaller quantities than Topps cards. Unless it is a test set, nothing Topps is truly rare in the absolute sense.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true. https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/ Or not... Last edited by Exhibitman; 10-27-2021 at 02:09 PM.
|
|
#95
10-27-2021, 04:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Steve, is that why we see tearing by the alignment marks I've seen it on other sheets and Greg's Jordan panel with the alignment marks on the border is torn. Were they held down with tape?
|
|
#96
10-27-2021, 04:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#98
10-27-2021, 04:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The change in card images strongly suggests to me the silver's were not issued concurrently with the white borders, but this can't be stated as absolute fact. The checklist was then expanded to 50 cards and issued as a single (probably) White Border series, with Mecca and Tolstoi. You can tell, for the non-fight-between cards, purely by the style of the artwork and its background whether a card was first produced in the Silver run or was only issued with the second series. I would think there was likely a gap between Mecca and Tolstoi's release of the 2nd series white border run, if the date in the ATC ledger is accurate. I think it is a strong possibility that, internally, ATC thought of T220 as the same set as T218 (note the series caption on card backs, there are no "athletes" in T220, used by 2 of the 3 T218 brands; 2 of which did not issue the entire set), and T220 is really the third series of T218, making what we call the third series actually the fourth series. Last edited by G1911; 10-27-2021 at 04:14 PM.
|
|
#99
10-27-2021, 04:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I hope some of this stuff means something to you, Steve, I don't know squat about printing really.
For the sake of completeness, here are my T25 strips I got recently, clearly not printed in block format. These two strips do not fit together, and have a right side border. Presumably there were more cards to the left in each row. This is all I know of of uncut ATC/presumed American Lithographic cardboard cards. The T62 internal test sheet, these T25's, the T220 Silver's, These E229 or D353 sheets, and then of course the famed Wagner strip. There is probably more known to others, this is just all I have records of in my photo archive or possession.
|
|
#100
10-27-2021, 05:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
For what it worth as far as the T220 Tolstoi's go I strongly feel the Tolstoi back were printed later in each T206 series that they were printed in. I felt that way before I knew about the ATC journal and the info in the journal that pretty much backs it up.
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| WTB T220 Silver James J. Corbett | G1911 | Everything Else, Football, Non-Sports etc.. B/S/T | 9 | 05-25-2022 11:15 PM |
| WTB:T220 Silver Borders | sebie43 | Boxing / Wrestling Cards & Memorabilia Forum | 3 | 06-26-2016 05:25 PM |
| Boxing - 1925 SGC Exhibits & T220 Silver PSA's | Jay Wolt | Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T | 1 | 08-24-2012 06:22 AM |
| T225; T220 Silver Dempsey | Archive | Everything Else, Football, Non-Sports etc.. B/S/T | 2 | 10-22-2007 05:04 PM |
| Need help with T220 Silver Borders for book/web site | Archive | Boxing / Wrestling Cards & Memorabilia Forum | 7 | 10-05-2007 07:54 AM |
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
Linear Mode
