T206 Reference / Reflections.....Tuesday Nite Trivia

[Ronnie73]

I don't think I have any grading preference at the moment. When I first started the set, I wanted everything graded by PSA. Mainly for their Registry. But as time went on, I didn't care much. I had no problem buying raw or SGC cards. At times I would count how many raw and other TPG's I had, and then multiply them by $6 because at the time, that was PSA's bulk pricing. It was too much money and I couldn't justify it, and would rather use that same money for more T206's. Then I'd buy more cards and a year would pass, and I'd count them up again, and come to the same conclusion. Even now at $22, I wouldn't do it. Plus I have a bunch of PSA cards that need to be reholdered, so it would identify the card back, subject, and factory number. So that would be even more money.

My collection sits in BCW graded double rowed boxes. I don't get to enjoy the cards, like another member mentioned above. They are well secured but probably not to the extent as Ryan's collection. Honestly, the only time I get to enjoy the cards is when someone wants to see a scan or picture of a certain card. While I shuffle through the boxes to find the card, I see many other cards and I'm suprised to see I have them, even though I see my spreadsheet daily. So it's safe to say I don't enjoy them as much as I should. I keep them in alphabetical order. Once a year, I pull out all the boxes and set them up on a 8 foot folding table, and add in my past years purchases. I keep all the raw cards in one box, with each card in a card saver, so they are ready to grade maybe one day or if everything goes to auction. I might be open to a trade for a T206 Honus Wagner PSA 1. I might enjoy that more often.



Currenly my grading breakdown of cards is:

19 BVG
4 GAI
1 GMA
1 ISA
762 PSA
321 SGC
462 Ungraded


Currenly my card back breakdown is:

American Beauty No Frame 350 = 21
American Beauty With Frame 350 = 48
American Beauty 460 = 11
Cycle 350 = 81
Cycle 460 = 25
EPDG = 102
Hindu Brown = 4
Old Mill Black = 193
Old Mill Blue = 1
Old Mill Black SL = 48
Piedmont 150 = 19
Piedmont 350 = 69
Piedmont 350-460 Factory 25 = 3
Piedmont 350-460 Factory 42 = 11
Polar Bear = 248
Sovereign 150 = 102
Sovereign 350 = 177
Sovereign 460 = 51
Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 25 = 14
Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 30 = 10
Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 649 Over Print = 31
Sweet Caporal 350 Factory 25 = 75
Sweet Caporal 350 Factory 30 = 38
Sweet Caporal 350-460 Factory 25 = 9
Sweet Caporal 350-460 Factory 30 = 12
Sweet Caporal 350-460 Factory 30 No Prints = 57
Sweet Caporal 350-460 Factory 42 = 2
Sweet Caporal 350-460 Factory 42 Over Print = 6
Tolstoi = 99

The totals above include a few varieties and a small handful of duplicates.



So, 71 Percent Is Graded. I don't see my collecting strategy changing. I'd really like to see my collection displayed like how Powell's collection was displayed. Except I would need more depth for all the back runs of each card.




MY CURRENT DISPLAY (picture from a few years ago. boxes are currently much more full)






MY FUTURE DREAM GOALS (not my display. this is Powell's display)

[tedzan]

Hi Ron

Great story and great pictures. Thanks for posting them.


TED Z

T206 REFERENCE....convenient access to T206 checklists
.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie73

I keep all the raw cards in one box, with each card in a card saver, so they are ready to grade maybe one day or if everything goes to auction. I might be open to a trade for a T206 Honus Wagner PSA 1. I might enjoy that more often.

Ron......Over the years, it has been amazing how our thinking and experiences coincide (especially with respect to T206's). But, in this case, I disagree with you.

Wagner was a great ballplayer; however, I have never been fascinated with Wagner's "anti-Tobacco" story. He smoked cigars and chewed tobacco. In my opinion
his T206 card is overrated and over-priced. It defies the "the law of supply vs. demand". There are approximately the same number of T206 Plank's vs Wagner's.

The true anti-Tobacco dudes of that era were Connie Mack and Eddie Plank. Both of them avoided the use of tobacco in any form.


- - - -


TED Z

T206 REFERENCE....convenient access to T206 checklists
.

[tedzan]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * T206 REFERENCE....Reflections, Theory's, Surveys, etc. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

.
.. Sweet Caporal ..... Sovereign ......... Piedmont_____The "House" that created these Tobacco cards____...............American Beauty 460 .............................


I received an email from a Net54 "reader" asking me for the source of information for my contention that Mack and Plank refrained from using tobacco in any form.

In 2007 I posted a Net54 thread....https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...caramel&page=2....of my complicated theory regarding the scarcity of the T206 Eddie
Plank card, based on upon T206 cards vs E90-1 cards. Subsequently, my further research on this topic resulted in the most likely reason Plank was "short-printed".
Here are the two reasons......

1.....Connie Mack is quoted in his Biography...."Connie Mack (The Early Years of Baseball)", by Norman Macht.
"The secret of Plank's pitching is no secret at all. It is a good strong arm, a powerful constitution to back it, and neither drinks, SMOKES, nor swears"

2.....I attended events of the Philadelphia A's Historical Society. A number of years ago, the guest speaker at their annual November banquet was Connie Mack III.
He kept us mesmerized for 2 hours talking about his famous Grandfather. Afterwards, I had a chance to talk with him. A really friendly guy, Connie and I talked for
about 30 mins. We covered a lot of A's baseball (1901 - 1953). He confirmed that his Grandfather and Eddie Plank, both had a disdain for any form of tobacco use
and that they refused to endorse Tobacco products.


TED Z

T206 REFERENCE....convenient access to T206 checklists
.

[tedzan]

The theory I originally posted in 2007, though, is not too far-fetched. It appears that Connie Mack and Eddie Plank refused to endorse tobacco cards by not
having their image on them. Both are depicted on a number of E-cards in the early days (1909 - 1911). With the exception being the 1909 Ramly Plank.
Regarding the T206 Plank, my guess is that Plank issued a "cease and desist" order to ATC to remove his card.


. .
E96 ------------------------------------------------------------ E90-1




TED Z

T206 REFERENCE....convenient access to T206 checklists
.

[Rhotchkiss]

T Cards of Wagner and Plank are rare. I believe these are the only examples (aside from maybe Fatima team cards), although there may be a MINO Plank

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

T Cards of Wagner and Plank are rare. I believe these are the only examples (aside from maybe Fatima team cards), although there may be a MINO Plank

Hi Ryan

Thanks for displaying your Wagner and Plank cards.

And yes, there is a MINO (T216) Plank card, and a VIRGINIA EXTRA (T216) Plank card.

Furthermore, a 1911 tobacco card regional issue is the T208 Cullivan's Fireside Philadelphia A's set (18 cards) which includes Connie Mack and Eddie Plank.




TED Z

T206 REFERENCE....convenient access to T206 checklists
.

[G1911]

I don't think we know why the Plank is rare. The Wagner story is at least a contemporary source in the newspapers (which doesn't make it true, fake news abounds), that his card was pulled because Wagner didn't want them to make it, but it is much better sourced than a line in a book many years later that isn't about the cards even.

I can see it as this, or something else. We have two documents related to the acquisition of subjects rights, the Ball letter and the contract for pugilist Dick Hyland. The letter to Ball tells him it is for tobacco cards, but the contract with Hyland does not; probably because it is a contract with the lithographers and they may have wanted to use subjects for other purposes and other product as well, or to at least leave that door open. It's possible that Plank (and Wagner) did sign a waiver, and then there was a fight over it later because they didn't know when they signed it was for pictures to be inserted into tobacco.

The reason they had to get signatures was, by my understanding, only a state law in New York. After the federal prohibition on tobacco cards was removed, the ATC and their lithography partner(s) (it is unclear to me if the lithographic companies printing cards were all under American Lithogrpahic's umbrella, I have never been able to find a shred of direct evidence that Brett, for example, was a subsidiary, but much of the correspondence Pat and I have found suggests that they work awfully closely for competitors, and considering the fresh Sherman Antitrust Act laws, it makes sense they would pose as separate businesses) put together the T cards, following the 1903 (off memory it's 1903) state law. It is the program manager for at least many of the T card sets that signs the Hyland letter for the lithographers. There was no federal law yet around this at the time as far as I can tell. As a state law, I am not clear that an Athletics player who was not a New Yorker and only occasionally came to the state would have standing to bring suit or require a contract under this legislation. I don't know if we have a law historian around here...

Ball was a New York Highlander when T206 was being planned (his Cleveland pose comes later, after his purchase in May 1909). Hyland was a west coast boxer in origin, but he was based in New York during the period the cards were produced. I am not clear if a Pennsylvania ball player would be covered by the law. It is possible that not everyone had to sign a contract, it is possible the lithographers had them all sign anyways, and it is possible that only New Yorkers were asked to sign waivers. This could explain how Wagner and Plank were pulled; they didn't need to agree to a waiver at all but the conglomerates didn't want to deal with a fight over such an inconsequential thing (to them), and just pulled the cards.

We have records of only one lawsuit over the T cards, from Harry Porter who appeared in the T218 set of non-baseball athletes, a member of the NY Irish-American Athletic Club under whose auspices he competed. Porter sued them for the illegal use of his image under the NY state law. I'm not quite clear how this resolved as not all of the documents survive (only a summary of selected hearings on it, as far as I have been able to find), but the defense was essentially 'actually he signed a waiver and we have a copy of it', so I can't imagine he won (or the defense was taking one heck of a bold lie that would shortly after fall apart if they couldn't produce that document). But again, we have 1 lawsuit and 2 contract related pieces of evidence, all of which center around New Yorkers who would definitley be covered by the state law.

I think it's possible that Plank and Wagner simply never had to give their permission at all. Wagner was pulled after making a public stink, Plank for possibly the same root thing, but the big complication with Plank is that his card was printed and pulled in 2 series. If he was pulled from series 1 and scratched off the list over contractual or 'let's not have drama' reasons, it's hard to see why he would have been reinstated. I tend to lean to that something more complicated happened with Plank, but I don't think we can really say what actually happened, there's no direct evidence of anything, just things that might reasonably fit one possibility or another.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't think we know why the Plank is rare. The Wagner story is at least a contemporary source in the newspapers (which doesn't make it true, fake news abounds), that his card was pulled because Wagner didn't want them to make it, but it is much better sourced than a line in a book many years later that isn't about the cards even.

I can see it as this, or something else. We have two documents related to the acquisition of subjects rights, the Ball letter and the contract for pugilist Dick Hyland. The letter to Ball tells him it is for tobacco cards, but the contract with Hyland does not; probably because it is a contract with the lithographers and they may have wanted to use subjects for other purposes and other product as well, or to at least leave that door open. It's possible that Plank (and Wagner) did sign a waiver, and then there was a fight over it later because they didn't know when they signed it was for pictures to be inserted into tobacco.

The reason they had to get signatures was, by my understanding, only a state law in New York. After the federal prohibition on tobacco cards was removed, the ATC and their lithography partner(s) (it is unclear to me if the lithographic companies printing cards were all under American Lithogrpahic's umbrella, I have never been able to find a shred of direct evidence that Brett, for example, was a subsidiary, but much of the correspondence Pat and I have found suggests that they work awfully closely for competitors, and considering the fresh Sherman Antitrust Act laws, it makes sense they would pose as separate businesses) put together the T cards, following the 1903 (off memory it's 1903) state law. It is the program manager for at least many of the T card sets that signs the Hyland letter for the lithographers. There was no federal law yet around this at the time as far as I can tell. As a state law, I am not clear that an Athletics player who was not a New Yorker and only occasionally came to the state would have standing to bring suit or require a contract under this legislation. I don't know if we have a law historian around here...

Ball was a New York Highlander when T206 was being planned (his Cleveland pose comes later, after his purchase in May 1909). Hyland was a west coast boxer in origin, but he was based in New York during the period the cards were produced. I am not clear if a Pennsylvania ball player would be covered by the law. It is possible that not everyone had to sign a contract, it is possible the lithographers had them all sign anyways, and it is possible that only New Yorkers were asked to sign waivers. This could explain how Wagner and Plank were pulled; they didn't need to agree to a waiver at all but the conglomerates didn't want to deal with a fight over such an inconsequential thing (to them), and just pulled the cards.

We have records of only one lawsuit over the T cards, from Harry Porter who appeared in the T218 set of non-baseball athletes, a member of the NY Irish-American Athletic Club under whose auspices he competed. Porter sued them for the illegal use of his image under the NY state law. I'm not quite clear how this resolved as not all of the documents survive (only a summary of selected hearings on it, as far as I have been able to find), but the defense was essentially 'actually he signed a waiver and we have a copy of it', so I can't imagine he won (or the defense was taking one heck of a bold lie that would shortly after fall apart if they couldn't produce that document). But again, we have 1 lawsuit and 2 contract related pieces of evidence, all of which center around New Yorkers who would definitley be covered by the state law.

I think it's possible that Plank and Wagner simply never had to give their permission at all. Wagner was pulled after making a public stink, Plank for possibly the same root thing, but the big complication with Plank is that his card was printed and pulled in 2 series. If he was pulled from series 1 and scratched off the list over contractual or 'let's not have drama' reasons, it's hard to see why he would have been reinstated. I tend to lean to that something more complicated happened with Plank, but I don't think we can really say what actually happened, there's no direct evidence of anything, just things that might reasonably fit one possibility or another.

Greg, your T220 uncut sheets thread stirred up some interesting investigating and some of that reinforced a thought that I've had for a long time that American Lithograph had several "subcontractors" printing tobacco cards for them. There were massive amounts of them printed during the T206 era and beyond and even though they were by far the largest lithograph company at the time it would have been a monumental task to keep up with the orders.

We see inconsistency's in most set's from that time frame and having the same cards printed at different places would explain a lot of the inconsistency's we see. Using a t206 examples I wouldn't be surprised if the Magie was never corrected and it was just an error made in the printing of that card by one of the smaller "subcontractors".