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

[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.

[G1911]

The law referencing the use of a persons photo was, as I recall, a New York State law. It wouldn't have been relevant to T216 but of course very relevant to T206.

I've never been able to find reference in primary source material to Plank being anti-tobacco or vehemently averse to tobacco use. I don't drink, but I'm not anti-alcohol. It's very possible he was, the chain of events posited here may be true, but I've never been able to find any evidence of any of it's points for Plank.

If Wagner was not anti-tobacco, he had a good PR agent. He may have done it over money, but he at least made a pretense of being anti-tobacco.

[JustinD]

I think Pat’s intro, for myself at least, of the Neal Ball letter has helped me better understand the beginning or roots of the T206 issue on this.

I am leaning toward the Plank withdrawal for anti tobacco stance but still feeling Wagner can be best explained by either compensation or possibly just being incredibly uppity. Wags loved his tobacco and the hall has record of this. He was an avid user of both cigars and chew. The backing of the T206 argument is that he thought cigarettes were “low class” and that cigars and chewing tobacco were somehow better.

The Hall has this specific quote attributed to Wagner on his use from 1916 - “Tobacco may shorten a man’s life and interfere with his baseball career but I guess it hasn’t shortened mine a great deal. I have noticed that where a player starts to quit hitting, it will shorten his career a good deal quicker than tobacco.”