Why I think Cobb wasn't printed with a Brown Hindu back

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Hi Pat,
I agree player authorizations can help explain T206 “no prints” (most obviously in the case of Honus) but since Hindu printing started *after* Pied and SC 150 printing one has to ask why, if lack of permission was the issue, all Hindu “no prints” were printed with Pied and SC 150. Is your contention that Hindu “no prints” were only printed with Pied and SC 150 in post-Hindu stages of the 150 series print run?
Scot

Hi Scot,

Yes that's exactly my thinking that they were first printed with those backs in stage 2 or 3 for example.

[FrankWakefield]

First, interesting stuff... thank you for posting.

As to Piedmont's and Sweet Caporal's but no brown Hindu's, consider that the printers just started putting cards out there, P's and SC's, and as a few players and others complained, that's when they started sending what we'd think of as 'Ball letters.' I concede a problem with that is the postmark of when the Ball letter went out...

Pat, as I read along with what you'd posted, it occurred to me that we've always assumed that cards on a sheet would always have identical backs... It makes sense to me that they'd be that way, but it's an uncertain variable that I don't recall anyone considering. Surely all backs on a given sheet would be the same.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

First, interesting stuff... thank you for posting.

As to Piedmont's and Sweet Caporal's but no brown Hindu's, consider that the printers just started putting cards out there, P's and SC's, and as a few players and others complained, that's when they started sending what we'd think of as 'Ball letters.' I concede a problem with that is the postmark of when the Ball letter went out...

Pat, as I read along with what you'd posted, it occurred to me that we've always assumed that cards on a sheet would always have identical backs... It makes sense to me that they'd be that way, but it's an uncertain variable that I don't recall anyone considering. Surely all backs on a given sheet would be the same.

Both surviving letters indicate permission was requested and given before cards went into production. ATC's position in the Porter lawsuit indicates such as well. I don't think they completely ignored the New York law until someone complained; there's no evidence for this.


ATC miscuts strongly indicate all cards on a sheet, of all the ATC sets, had the same back brand.

[Pat R]

Here's a good example of a PD150 that would have been printed very late in the print group 1 150/350 printing.

It's a PD150 that a member posted in the two name thread a Konetchy with Jennings portrait on the top.

Konetchy Jennings.jpg

Konetchy was printed with a Hindu but Jennings was the last addition to the print group 1 subjects and the only 150 back he was printed with in the 150 series was Piedmont. So the Piedmont sheet this card came from would have been from close to or in the last stage printing of print group 1.

[sreader3]

Interesting theory and consistent with the fact that all of the 150-only subjects (save for Honus) were printed with Hindu.

On the other hand, it seems possible that ATC obtained *all* necessary authorizations (including Cobb’s) by mid-summer 1909 and sequenced the printing of subjects based on other reasons, i.e. availability of artwork.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Interesting theory and consistent with the fact that all of the 150-only subjects (save for Honus) were printed with Hindu.

On the other hand, it seems possible that ATC obtained *all* necessary authorizations (including Cobb’s) by mid-summer 1909 and sequenced the printing of subjects based on other reasons, i.e. availability of artwork.

I know you meant Sovereign Scot.

I haven't given it a whole lot thought beyond print group 1 yet and of course I'm not insinuating in any way that this would explain all the odd changes throughout the set but part of my thought is that at the start they had enough photo's for the first series but still need permission for some of them and then needed to obtain more photo's and permissions as they moved along with each series.

We know they started the SL's early with the Hindu's and Old Mills then stopped for a period of time before printing them with the Piedmont 350's and Old mills. One thought was that they did the early printing of SL's with the Hindu's and Old Mills while they were waiting for the permissions they needed to move on to the next stage and finish out the series but they didn't get them in time to finish out the Hindu major league subjects as the originally planned. I haven't looked into it but maybe the way the new law was written they didn't have to have permission from the SL players or they already had all of them.

They probably had permission and photo's for most of the series as they moved along after the first series but I think there could have been some that still came in late or that they couldn't get that were never included in the set. For instance if some came in late in the 350 only printing it would explain guys with odd back patterns like Rossman, Cross and McElveen and if a player that they wanted to get in the sets permission came in late they may have removed someone else to put that player in.

[Pat R]

I think this is the new law Bulger is referring to. I'm not sure if I'm reading it right but it seems like they wouldn't need permission if they already had the photo's. I'm not sure if they mean before 1905 or before October 1908. It appears they could have used an older photo of Plank or Wagner if they had one in their possession before a certain date and included them in the set without their permission.

The date on this is October 28th 1908


[IMG][/IMG]

[jlehma13]

Is there any evidence of money changing hands for permission to use players’ likenesses? I wonder if the off season letters were a last ditch effort to secure signatures they were unable to get in the clubhouses in ‘08. Simpler times for sure.

[wolf441]

Just thinking out loud, so I apologize if there are easy answers to these questions...

Why is the Bozeman Bulger letter on New York Highlanders letterhead? He didn't work for the team, did he?

When was the Bulger letter first discovered, was it known back at the time, or in the decades after, or did it not come to light until more recently?

Given the number of different subjects in the set, there should have been almost 400 of these letters either delivered in person at the ball park or through the mail. Is there a reasonable explanation as to why this is the only one that has been discovered to date? I am operating under the assumption that permission would have to have been granted (based on the 1908 law) for any likeness to be sold, with not only cigarettes, but also gum, candy, bread, etc. That would require many more signed letters of permission across major and minor league players, across many different sets and they would have to be held on file at multiple different firms (American Tobacco, American Lithography, as well as various candy manufacturers, etc.). If it was just American Tobacco (or American Lithography), I guess they could have all been destroyed/thrown away at the same time. How likely is it that all of these signed letters would suffer the same fate across many different companies?

Adding on, based on a quick Google search

The letter was owned at one time by Barry Halper. Weren't there some items that Halper owned that were later discovered to have been forgeries? Is it possible for the envelope and letterhead to be real, but the actual content of the letter to be a fake? By that I mean, the envelope and they letter down to "Dear Neil," as genuine.

Are there any examples of Bulger's signature that can be compared to the letter?

Again, I am just thinking out loud and do not have any ax to grind here, no need to fire arrows at me

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jlehma13

Is there any evidence of money changing hands for permission to use players’ likenesses? I wonder if the off season letters were a last ditch effort to secure signatures they were unable to get in the clubhouses in ‘08. Simpler times for sure.

No evidence of payment, the letters imply to me there was none.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I think this is the new law Bulger is referring to. I'm not sure if I'm reading it right but it seems like they wouldn't need permission if they already had the photo's. I'm not sure if they mean before 1905 or before October 1908. It appears they could have used an older photo of Plank or Wagner if they had one in their possession before a certain date and included them in the set without their permission.

The date on this is October 28th 1908

It must be 1905; October 1908 is the court upholding the law in a case, not creating new law. The reference must be to photos owned before the enactment of the 1905 law.

Plank is complicated by having 150 and 350 series backs, but perhaps Wagner signed a letter like the one sent to Hyland that doesn't mention or imply tobacco whatsoever. If he signed, they would include him and he may then have protested if he was anti-tobacco once he found out what they were really doing. One possibility.

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I know you meant Sovereign Scot.

I haven't given it a whole lot thought beyond print group 1 yet and of course I'm not insinuating in any way that this would explain all the odd changes throughout the set but part of my thought is that at the start they had enough photo's for the first series but still need permission for some of them and then needed to obtain more photo's and permissions as they moved along with each series.

We know they started the SL's early with the Hindu's and Old Mills then stopped for a period of time before printing them with the Piedmont 350's and Old mills. One thought was that they did the early printing of SL's with the Hindu's and Old Mills while they were waiting for the permissions they needed to move on to the next stage and finish out the series but they didn't get them in time to finish out the Hindu major league subjects as the originally planned. I haven't looked into it but maybe the way the new law was written they didn't have to have permission from the SL players or they already had all of them.

They probably had permission and photo's for most of the series as they moved along after the first series but I think there could have been some that still came in late or that they couldn't get that were never included in the set. For instance if some came in late in the 350 only printing it would explain guys with odd back patterns like Rossman, Cross and McElveen and if a player that they wanted to get in the sets permission came in late they may have removed someone else to put that player in.

Actually I meant Hindu. What I was trying to say is that the fact that 150-only subjects like Ames (Hands at Chest), Burch (Batting) and Donlin (Fielding)—which were the earliest in the process—were printed with Brown Hindu is consistent with your theory about staged printing within the 150 series. That staged printing *could* be linked to the timing of authorizations; however, it might not be. The stages could have been driven by other considerations, such as when the artwork for various subjects was ready.

So I think you are probably right about the Hindu “no prints” being printed at a late stage in the 150 series, and that might be due to late permissions; however, it might also be due to other factors.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Actually I meant Hindu. What I was trying to say is that the fact that 150-only subjects like Ames (Hands at Chest), Burch (Batting) and Donlin (Fielding)—which were the earliest in the process—were printed with Brown Hindu is consistent with your theory about staged printing within the 150 series. That staged printing *could* be linked to the timing of authorizations; however, it might not be. The stages could have been driven by other considerations, such as when the artwork for various subjects was ready.

My apologies Scot I misread what you wrote. Yes it could have been the timing of the authorizations or the art work or both but if they were printed in stages it would explain a lot of the inconsistent patterns in the set.