Piedmont pack expert needed

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by chriskim

Pat R.

Thanks for posting the link. I wasn't aware of that discussion at all. I spent 2hrs reading the info and digested a lot of info out of it.

Thank you!

Yeah it's perplexing, the original owner seemed like an honest guy and most people that knew him or talked to him believed what he said and he said there was no way the card could have been inserted in the pack and re-sealed. If that's true to me it seems highly unlikely that a T206 was inserted in a pack in 1917 or later but the people who are knowledgeable about the cigarette packs claim that's the only other option.

My knowledge about the cigarette regulations is limited could these cigarettes be distributed in other country's with different regulations and would these tax stamps have been put on them? I know ATC had factories in other country's like Canada, Japan and Egypt or could it have been a pack distributed in the Military and had different regulations?

[Joe_G.]

I'm not a T206 guy but have studied domestic cigarette taxation. If the stamp is original to the pack, then the pack was likely issued 1918 or later, no earlier than 1917.

12 count was legal on "Class A" cigarette packs . . .
- prior to May 1st 1879
- Nov. 2nd, 1917 to 1945
- 1955 to ?

This particular stamp is considered a "Type III" design which for the 12 count pack likely wasn't adopted until 1918 although still considered a "Series of 1917" tax stamp.

For reference . . .
Legal pack sizes in 1910 were 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 50, and 100 and would remain unchanged until 1917.
Legal pack sizes in 1917 were 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 50, & 100 with some change in late 1917/1918 with 16 count eliminated and adding 40 and 80.

I much prefer the simplicity of 19th century cigarette packs where everything from May 1st 1879 on was 10, 20, 50, or 100 (no exceptions unless manufacturer broke the law).

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

I'm not a T206 guy but have studied domestic cigarette taxation. If the stamp is original to the pack, then the pack was likely issued 1918 or later, no earlier than 1917.

12 count was legal on "Class A" cigarette packs . . .
- prior to May 1st 1879
- Nov. 2nd, 1917 to 1945
- 1955 to ?

This particular stamp is considered a "Type III" design which for the 12 count pack likely wasn't adopted until 1918 although still considered a "Series of 1917" tax stamp.

For reference . . .
Legal pack sizes in 1910 were 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 50, and 100 and would remain unchanged until 1917.
Legal pack sizes in 1917 were 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 50, & 100 with some change in late 1917/1918 with 16 count eliminated and adding 40 and 80.

I much prefer the simplicity of 19th century cigarette packs where everything from May 1st 1879 on was 10, 20, 50, or 100 (no exceptions unless manufacturer broke the law).

Joe, can you post the sections of the laws that state the legal pack sizes.

[jbsports33]

I think the year for this pack is closer to 1920, there are a few things to look for and most of the time they are other cards non sports or the stamps

see below

I only have the front picture and sold it a year ago, but there are a few things to look for with the design and wrapping. The stamp is a factor as well, there are other resources and pictures. I think I have looked on REA for sealed pack before - good luck

[Pat R]

To be clear I also think the pack Chris posted probably isn't a T206 era pack but he was also asking about the 12 count pack that sold in the 2008 REA auction that a T206 was supposedly pulled from.

[rdwyer]

Show us a picture of the tax stamp.

[chriskim]

Originally Posted by rdwyer

Show us a picture of the tax stamp.

I read somewhere if a pack that has a "Series of 1909" tax stamp which means a very high chance of finding a tobacco card inside but I have googled for hrs and could not find a "Series of 1909" tax stamp. All i found was "Series of 1910". Anyone has any example of "Series of 1909" tax stamp???

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Archive

Posted By: J Hull

Jon Canfield had an excellent, thoughtful post in the REA Is Up thread which raised some questions about this lot. I thought rather than follow up in a thread that’s hopelessly offtrack, I’d start a new one.

I agree that this Piedmont pack probably isn’t all it is purported to be. I’ve been researching tobacco/cigarette taxes and regulation, starting from 1879 (the year of an enormous tax and tariff act). I’ve currently researched to 1915. Over all those years, Congress dictated, through their revenue acts, the number of cigarettes that could be sold in a package.

The 1879 act limits packages to either 10, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. According to my notes, this was the case until August of 1909, when a revenue law was passed that authorized packages to have 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. This was the law through at least 1915. Basically, the point is no package containing 12 cigarettes could have been manufactured or sold over the production years of T206s. So far as my research has shown. Tax stamps for 12-packs weren’t authorized or printed over those years.

As Jon said, I'd like to see someone offer an opposing argument, but something doesn't seem right here.

Jamie


http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=10075

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

I'm not a T206 guy but have studied domestic cigarette taxation. If the stamp is original to the pack, then the pack was likely issued 1918 or later, no earlier than 1917.

12 count was legal on "Class A" cigarette packs . . .
- prior to May 1st 1879
- Nov. 2nd, 1917 to 1945
- 1955 to ?

This particular stamp is considered a "Type III" design which for the 12 count pack likely wasn't adopted until 1918 although still considered a "Series of 1917" tax stamp.

For reference . . .
Legal pack sizes in 1910 were 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 50, and 100 and would remain unchanged until 1917.
Legal pack sizes in 1917 were 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 50, & 100 with some change in late 1917/1918 with 16 count eliminated and adding 40 and 80.

I much prefer the simplicity of 19th century cigarette packs where everything from May 1st 1879 on was 10, 20, 50, or 100 (no exceptions unless manufacturer broke the law).

The reason I asked if someone could post the section of the law that specifies the legal pack sizes is I haven't been able to find it and some information in the old thread referred to the act of August 5 1909 but that law didn't actually take effect until July 1 1910 and the distribution of the Armbruster card in the REA pack began before that date, we know this from the ledger pages in the old journal. The portion where the dates of the packing and shipping would be is missing on the PD350 page but they were distributed before the American Beauty's and Cycles.

[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

Also in both threads it is stated that the T206 cards were only packed with the 10 count packs but the ledger pages show that they were packed with 20's too for Sweet Caporal. Some of the other brands do say to pack with 10's but they don't specifically say to only pack with 10's and some other brands just say to pack with (name of brand) cigarettes. I can't tell what it says before in 10's pkgs in the second line.

[IMG][/IMG]

[chriskim]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Also in both threads it is stated that the T206 cards were only packed with the 10 count packs but the ledger pages show that they were packed with 20's too for Sweet Caporal. Some of the other brands do say to pack with 10's but they don't specifically say to only pack with 10's and some other brands just say to pack with (name of brand) cigarettes. I can't tell what it says before in 10's pkgs in the second line.

[IMG][/IMG]

Interesting found Pat! So 20 count packs like this one might really has t206 card inside?

http://www.milehighcardco.com/sweet_...-lot55522.aspx

[canjond]

Originally Posted by chriskim

Interesting found Pat! So 20 count packs like this one might really has t206 card inside?

http://www.milehighcardco.com/sweet_...-lot55522.aspx

No - that 20 count wasn’t manufactured until at least the 1940s or later.

[canjond]

Originally Posted by Pat R

The reason I asked if someone could post the section of the law that specifies the legal pack sizes is I haven't been able to find it and some information in the old thread referred to the act of August 5 1909 but that law didn't actually take effect until July 1 1910 and the distribution of the Armbruster card in the REA pack began before that date, we know this from the ledger pages in the old journal. The portion where the dates of the packing and shipping would be is missing on the PD350 page but they were distributed before the American Beauty's and Cycles.

[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

Also in both threads it is stated that the T206 cards were only packed with the 10 count packs but the ledger pages show that they were packed with 20's too for Sweet Caporal. Some of the other brands do say to pack with 10's but they don't specifically say to only pack with 10's and some other brands just say to pack with (name of brand) cigarettes. I can't tell what it says before in 10's pkgs in the second line.

[IMG][/IMG]

Pat -

Great find on that ledger page. It looks like it’s written again on the left side at the bottom (text is on the long edge of the page). 1 to 10s, 2 to 20s.

- Jon

[chriskim]

Not only finding an example of "Series of 1909" tax stamp is difficult, finding a 20 ct. Sweet Caporal in the 1910 era is difficult as well. I still couldn't find any examples so far.

[1880nonsports]

That I sold a carton of "ask dad" from circa 1917-1920 with series of 1910 and the packs were soft 20's and there wasn't a card in sight when one was opened. Not even an ask dad card......

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by chriskim

Not only finding an example of "Series of 1909" tax stamp is difficult, finding a 20 ct. Sweet Caporal in the 1910 era is difficult as well. I still couldn't find any examples so far.

Chris, Here's 20 count pack from that era

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

https://memorylaneinc.com/site/bids/...e?itemid=54016

[chriskim]

Originally Posted by Pat R

https://memorylaneinc.com/site/bids/...e?itemid=54016

Thankyou Pat! So 20ct packs were soft packs not slide shell packs.