T206 Wagner and Plank - They both didn't want their image on Tobacco cards

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Carter08

One argument I don’t love is the argument that Honus couldn’t have objected to tobacco because his leaf card shows him chewing. I get the argument from a superficial standpoint but it doesn’t hold for a bunch reasons - guy could be fine with tobacco for himself but not kids, he could have changed his mind after about 30 years, might be fine with chew but not cigarettes, etc.

I am one of those that falls on this side, I fully believe it's a myth. The real story likely has more to do with a tad of payola' for him to allow it vs. some noble venture.

I think that holds water like a screen door.

Most people tend to ignore the reference of history and use only a magnifying glass of current knowledge. During the T206 production, doctors would have been often touting the health benefits of smoking and the chance of your doctor walking into your exam room with a lit cigarette was likely very good. This continued well through the 30's, 40's , and 50's. To say that these 2 took some elite stance while ignoring of other tobacco releases seems questionable.

To be honest though, the truth means little. The story is ingrained and will never change, whether it is truthful or not. The facts for either are lost to time. Cobb will never regain his public reputation, we will never know the extent of Shoeless Joe's involvement, and we will never know the truth on this.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I am one of those that falls on this side, I fully believe it's a myth. The real story likely has more to do with a tad of payola' for him to allow it vs. some noble venture.

I think that holds water like a screen door.

I don’t disagree. As long as you’re not relying solely on the leaf card argument.

[mrreality68]

Ryan great collection

And I agree with your in-depth summary

I believe in this case the biggest part of the value discrepancy is the “ legend” and Icon of Wagner over Plank.

Both players are great but Wagner had the Mystique about him

[MVSNYC]

Johnny, great thread. I don't have anything else to add, but I think Sean & Ryan posted some great points.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Most people tend to ignore the reference of history and use only a magnifying glass of current knowledge. During the T206 production, doctors would have been often touting the health benefits of smoking and the chance of your doctor walking into your exam room with a lit cigarette was likely very good. This continued well through the 30's, 40's , and 50's. To say that these 2 took some elite stance while ignoring of other tobacco releases seems questionable.

At the time of T206 production, there was a very vocal anti-tobacco segment of the public. Journals of the time are filled with anti-tobacco articles, largely focused on it's negative health impacts (both true and imagined) and the view that it was somehow morally damaging. It is nigh impossible to gauge how unusual this view was among the public, but it was very common in the press and papers, and amongst health and exercise centric publications, and seems to have played a not insignificant role in the government targeting of the ATC at the local, state and federal levels. It wouldn't have been an elite stance, or ahead of its time, for an athlete to either be against tobacco and it's use or to not want to take any part in the public dialogue about it either way. At least one other ATC short printed athlete subject wrote public articles about distaste for tobacco and it's negative health impact.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by G1911

At the time of T206 production, there was a very vocal anti-tobacco segment of the public. Journals of the time are filled with anti-tobacco articles, largely focused on it's negative health impacts (both true and imagined) and the view that it was somehow morally damaging. It is nigh impossible to gauge how unusual this view was among the public, but it was very common in the press and papers, and amongst health and exercise centric publications, and seems to have played a not insignificant role in the government targeting of the ATC at the local, state and federal levels. It wouldn't have been an elite stance, or ahead of its time, for an athlete to either be against tobacco and it's use or to not want to take any part in the public dialogue about it either way. At least one other ATC short printed athlete subject wrote public articles about distaste for tobacco and it's negative health impact.

Again, going off an impossible to prove thought due to time and that I was not in existence prior to the very early Seventies (lol). However, I would place media and journals much more on the "morally damaging" stance and say much like prohibition it was far less accepted by the public and a signification of wealth and status wished to be imitated.

I would change my wording to "morally" or "Christian" elite stance.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Again, going off an impossible to prove thought due to time and that I was not in existence prior to the very early Seventies (lol). However, I would place media and journals much more on the "morally damaging" stance and say much like prohibition it was far less accepted by the public and a signification of wealth and status wished to be imitated.

I would change my wording to "morally" or "Christian" elite stance.

It was prevalent in athletic, sport and exercise journals of the time - the exact group of people that Wagner and Plank were members of. Numerous athletes wrote editorials and statements about the dangers of tobacco use (one of the ATC’s short-printed boxing subjects among them). It would hardly be out of tune with the times for Wagner and or Plank to be anti tobacco as much of the sporting world was for reasons of health and morals (the athletic focused health and wellness journals tend to include the former in their anti-tobacco articles and op-eds). It would not be assigning the base ballers to a class that they were not a part of, many people in the athletic world at this time were against tobacco. It was not an idea restricted to Christian preachers and elitists.

There is no evidence that has been produced that Plank was anti tobacco or wanted his card pulled, or wanted his card pulled for an anti tobacco reason. There is the article from the time stating this happened with Wagner, which may ir may not be really true but is at least primary source evidence. While I do not buy, on evidentiary grounds, that this theory can reasonably be said to be true or even probably true, it also cannot be dismissed as being modern in its logic or out of step with the realities of 1909.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I am one of those that falls on this side, I fully believe it's a myth. The real story likely has more to do with a tad of payola' for him to allow it vs. some noble venture.

I think that holds water like a screen door.

Most people tend to ignore the reference of history and use only a magnifying glass of current knowledge. During the T206 production, doctors would have been often touting the health benefits of smoking and the chance of your doctor walking into your exam room with a lit cigarette was likely very good. This continued well through the 30's, 40's , and 50's. To say that these 2 took some elite stance while ignoring of other tobacco releases seems questionable.

To be honest though, the truth means little. The story is ingrained and will never change, whether it is truthful or not. The facts for either are lost to time. Cobb will never regain his public reputation, we will never know the extent of Shoeless Joe's involvement, and we will never know the truth on this.

Not that newspaper clips are 100% proof but there are several from the early 1900's that quote Wagner as saying he didn't want his picture used in cigarettes because of the kids. I haven't found anything on Plank refusing to have his picture used.

Wagner refuses to allow picture.jpg

Wagner.jpg

Wagner ad Part 1.jpg
Wagner ad Part 2.jpg

[JustinD]

Perhaps everyone is just thinking I am positive that I am right, lol. Not in the least.

I just have personal thoughts as I think that as time goes on history adds a romantic flavor to many things.

I only have a hard time with this as it is so specific to the T206 release, as there are so many other tobacco releases with both. Perhaps neither chose to pursue any legal actions toward the other releases and the American Litho Co. or ATC were the only companies polite enough to seek permission...I just don't know the why. While it could indeed be just as reasonable to take it all as fact, and I have no qualms with that in the least. There are just so many gaps in the T206 stories whether these two had disagreements with tobacco or not.

Personally I think financial reasons are a more logical explanation for the specific T206 issue than mere moral stance even if they did have a full moral stance on the subject.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Perhaps everyone is just thinking I am positive that I am right, lol. Not in the least.

I just have personal thoughts as I think that as time goes on history adds a romantic flavor to many things.

I only have a hard time with this as it is so specific to the T206 release, as there are so many other tobacco releases with both. Perhaps neither chose to pursue any legal actions toward the other releases and the American Litho Co. or ATC were the only companies polite enough to seek permission...I just don't know the why. While it could indeed be just as reasonable to take it all as fact, and I have no qualms with that in the least. There are just so many gaps in the T206 stories whether these two had disagreements with tobacco or not.

Personally I think financial reasons are a more logical explanation for the specific T206 issue than mere moral stance even if they did have a full moral stance on the subject.

Justin, the reason it's specific to the T206 release is there was a new law passed right before they were starting the printing of the T206's. It is referred to in the Neal Ball letter and I have seen court documents that mention needing permission with an exception for images that the lithograph companies had prior to I think 1904, I'm trying to locate the document I saw that in but I haven't found it yet.

Here's the reference to the new law in the Neal Ball letter.
Neal Ball Letter - Copy.jpg

[JustinD]

Thanks Pat, that is a new piece for me!

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Justin, the reason it's specific to the T206 release is there was a new law passed right before they were starting the printing of the T206's. It is referred to in the Neal Ball letter and I have seen court documents that mention needing permission with an exception for images that the lithograph companies had prior to I think 1904, I'm trying to locate the document I saw that in but I haven't found it yet.

Here's the reference to the new law in the Neal Ball letter.
Attachment 507777

Okay I found it from 1908 and it appears that at the time it didn't require permission to use an image for advertising or trade purposes if it was from a picture that was acquired prior to 1905 and the ownership of the picture hadn't been transferred.

[IMG][/IMG]

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Perhaps everyone is just thinking I am positive that I am right, lol. Not in the least.

I just have personal thoughts as I think that as time goes on history adds a romantic flavor to many things.

I only have a hard time with this as it is so specific to the T206 release, as there are so many other tobacco releases with both. Perhaps neither chose to pursue any legal actions toward the other releases and the American Litho Co. or ATC were the only companies polite enough to seek permission...I just don't know the why. While it could indeed be just as reasonable to take it all as fact, and I have no qualms with that in the least. There are just so many gaps in the T206 stories whether these two had disagreements with tobacco or not.

Personally I think financial reasons are a more logical explanation for the specific T206 issue than mere moral stance even if they did have a full moral stance on the subject.

Justin, there are virtually NO tobacco releases with either. The only other tobacco issue with Wagner is t216 (and those were pirated from the E cards) and t216, t204 and t208 (a team specific issue) are the only T cards with Plank. I agree it was a long time ago anc there are all sorts of theories, but the anti-tobacco stance by BOTH Plank and Wagner appears the most likely (by far) reason they were pulled from
T206

[x2drich2000]

Ryan, while I agree with your premise, as an FYI, both Wagner and Plank are also in the T5 Pinkerton set.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by x2drich2000

Ryan, while I agree with your premise, as an FYI, both Wagner and Plank are also in the T5 Pinkerton set.

Ok, so T5. But no T3, or t205, t202, T207, t213, T214, T215 etc. And they are in basically every E, D, W, and M series. Strong odds are anti-tobacco

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Ok, so T5. But no T3, or t205, t202, T207, t213, T214, T215 etc. And they are in basically every E, D, W, and M series. Strong odds are anti-tobacco

But yes T216...who knows if he even knew about a little Louisiana issue.