T206, or not....let's have a continuing conversation....Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco card

[Exhibitman]

Problem with that, Ted, is that the PC may post-date the ATC's acquisition of the plant.

The more intriguing question is the one raised by the other posts that show the Ty Cobb brand was Penn, not ATC: how did Penn get access to this ATC lithograph of Cobb? Did they cut a deal with the printer? If there was a hidden ATC ownership, did the ATC lend the art to Penn as a silent partner?

As for Coupons



Not a T206 but damn nice.

[steve B]

The info that's been put out there recently about ALC or a related printer registering the brand names, leads me to think that ALC owned the rights to use the images instead of ATC.
There may have been contracts with some degree of exclusivity, but there's a possibility it ended up being more like MSA than Topps. (Not a clear analogy, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment)

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by G1911

This postcard does not seem to pre-date 1915 in its origin. It looks like a much later postcard styling. Here is a copy with a 1951 mailing date: .......

The Postmark date on that Ebay example you are referring to means NOTHING !

Back in the 1940's and 1950's, us old-timers would frequently mail vintage Post Cards to one another.

The picture on that example (and my P/C) show the old Factory #33 Water Towers. Subsequent Water
Towers (> 1916) were modernized and display the Lucky Strike cigarette logo on them.

Look, I'm a vintage Post Card collector, and the style of printing and the texture of the cardboard on this P/C is an early 20th Century vintage product.






TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by tedzan

The Postmark date on that Ebay example you are referring to means NOTHING !

Back in the 1940's and 1950's, us old-timers would frequently mail vintage Post Cards to one another.

The picture on that example (and my P/C) show the old Factory #33 Water Towers. Subsequent Water
Towers (> 1916) were modernized and display the Lucky Strike cigarette logo on them.

Look, I'm a vintage Post Card collector, and the style of printing and the texture of the cardboard on this P/C is an early 20th Century vintage product.






TED Z

T206 Reference
.

As a knowledgeable vintage postcard collector, I am sure you are well aware that these textured linen postcards are mostly all from the 1920's to the 1950's. There are numerous articles on their dating you can find online easily.

The original photo on which the art is based may, of course, long predate the issue, as happened often. This is a common postcard with many online at any given moment. I would love to see any evidence that it predates the linen postcard era and is from the time you claim.

A date stamp is indicative of the times a postcard was actually used, subsequent to production. The only one I can find is from decades after your claim, and fits into the linen postcard period. Again, I would love to see one with pre-1916 postal marks.

Further, even if it is from before 1916, which does not appear to be the case, it is not evidence the ATC was handling the Ty Cobb brand in 1910, as you claimed it was evidence of. It would need to be from 1910 or earlier for it to be evidence that the ATC was controlling Penn before the 1911 purchase. Do you have any evidence at all that this is from 1910 or earlier?

I suspect the Cobb card is from 1910-1911, that the ATC was probably controlling Penn before the purchase, and that the Cobb card was printed by one of the lithographers in their orbit during this period. But this postcard is not evidence of that whatsoever.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Problem with that, Ted, is that the PC may post-date the ATC's acquisition of the plant.

The more intriguing question is the one raised by the other posts that show the Ty Cobb brand was Penn, not ATC: how did Penn get access to this ATC lithograph of Cobb? Did they cut a deal with the printer? If there was a hidden ATC ownership, did the ATC lend the art to Penn as a silent partner?

Adam

My P/C of the Reidsville Plant (Factory #33) has no date on the back of it. However, the fact that the picture of this Plant doesn't have the LUCKY STRIKE logo
indicates that this PC was available prior to 1915.

James Buchanan Duke (ATC founder) bought the F. R. Penn Co. in 1911. Duke made Penn a Manager in one of ATC's divisions.

Duke and Joseph P. Knapp (American Lithographic Co. founder) were close business partners, which suggests to me that more than likely is why the Red Cobb
was printed (1910) as a promotional piece for the Ty Cobb Smoking Tobacco brand.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[nolemmings]

The American Tobacco Company started its connection with F.R. Penn Co. in 1903, and the Supreme Court's opinion in the Antitrust litigation states that the ATC owned 2/3 of the common stock in Penn (1,002 out of 1,500 shares). That seems like more than enough influence by ATC to promote the Ty Cobb tobacco brand and cards, despite ATC's argument that its acquisition of Penn "was made not with the purpose of destroying competition or acquiring a monopoly, but merely as an investment in the tobacco business."

EDITED to add: the Anti-trust litigation was filed in 1907 and orally argued in January 1910, although the decision was not handed down until May 1911.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

The American Tobacco Company started its connection with F.R. Penn Co. in 1903, and the Supreme Court's opinion in the Antitrust litigation states that the ATC owned 2/3 of the common stock in Penn (1,002 out of 1,500 shares). That seems like more than enough influence by ATC to promote the Ty Cobb tobacco brand and cards, despite ATC's argument that its acquisition of Penn "was made not with the purpose of destroying competition or acquiring a monopoly, but merely as an investment in the tobacco business."

EDITED to add: the Anti-trust litigation was filed in 1907 and orally argued in January 1910, although the decision was not handed down until May 1911.

Todd, ATC may have been a majority shareholder but if the Cobb back was included in the T206 set it would still be the only card in the set that came from a product that wasn't officially owned by the ATC at the time.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Todd, ATC may have been a majority shareholder but if the Cobb back was included in the T206 set it would still be the only card in the set that came from a product that wasn't officially owned by the ATC at the time.

Pat,

Despite what others may say or think, I see the logic and can go along with your point/theory. You can also possibly look to other circumstances in the hobby to support your position/theory also.

For example, look no farther than the F-50 ice cream/food card sets that are out there, Yuengling's, Harrington's, Tharp's, Sweetman's, etc. They are all the exact same cards images, and 60 card sets, with the only real difference being the different companies/distributors that are listed on the card backs. Pretty much the exact same thing with all the T206 cards, same fronts, different products/brands on the backs. So why aren't all these F-50 cards considered as just one set, like the T206's are? Everyone I've ever seen, heard of, or talked to in the hobby considered each of the different F-50 distributor's/brand's cards as entirely different sets. They have been referred to as Sweetman's, Yuengling's, Tharp's, Harrington's, and so forth, and never as just the F-50 set alone. The only other real difference I am aware of between the T206 set and the various F-50 sets is that all the T206 brands on the back were all wholly-owned by the exact same company, the ATC. Meanwhile, all the brands/distributors that had the F-50 cards prepared for them, are all completely different companies, with different owners. And having worked in and been involved with many different businesses pretty much my entire adult life, I understand and know that there is a world of difference between being a wholly-owned company (like all the different ATC brands appearing in the T206 set are) and an entity that is only partially owned by the same company (think all the companies that Warren Buffet's Berkshire-Hathaway owns a major interest in). Those are not even close to the same thing, despite what many might think or try to argue

And in the case of the different distributors/brands shown on all the T206 and F-50 cards, the only real difference I can see between them is that only one company (the ATC) wholly owned all the T206 brands, while the F-50 brands were all owned by entirely different companies. The fact that the company that supposedly distributed the Ty Cobb/Ty Cobb back cards was not also a wholly-owned subsidiary of the ATC would seem to be a pretty huge difference, and maybe the only real explanation for why they weren't ever considered as part of the T206 set. That and the fact that they were sometimes found with glossy fronts. Not considering them as part of the T206 set seems to go right along with the apparent treatment given to the various F-50 sets. So, for anyone saying the Ty Cobb w/Ty Cobb backs should be part of the T206 after all, they should also be arguing even more then that there should only be one F-50 set, with different backs like the T206 set, and no separate Yuengling's, Sweetman's, Tharp's, Harrington's, etc., sets after all anymore.

What you'll likely get in response from the naysayers is that your theory/point is weak or doesn't truly matter, simply because they don't really understand and/or know any better. Saying something is weak without any facts, logic, or even simple explanations as to why, to back up someone's accusation of your statement being weak, now that is what is really, truly weak!

[G1911]

Like Steve said, the ATC does not appear to have owned the lithographs or the player rights. The contracts seem to be directly with the lithographers (Hylands makes no mention of tobacco at all), who are not all Knapp's American Lithographic, at least not directly (presumably they are shadow subsidiaries, designed to avoid anti trust law). The lithographic companies seem to be running product design and marketing for the ATC, they aren't just contracted printers.

Presumably there must have been an exclusivity contract for some period of time, otherwise we would probably have cards with all kinds of backs cashing in on the fad. This is deductive as no contract has surfaced. If the Cobb/Cobb card is from 1910, it would be the only copy of a T card made for the ATC sets made for a different or semi-independent firm between 1909-1912. At least, I cannot think of another example. Can anyone else? I would suspect they were tied to the ATC before public merger, like the lithographers, as more likely.

This postcard does not seem to pre-date 1915 in its origin. It looks like a much later postcard styling. Here is a copy with a 1951 mailing date: https://www.ebay.com/itm/14479874516...a369%7Ciid%3A1. The others on eBay don't have mailing dates on the back. This postcard is in not evidence the ATC was manufacturing Ty Cobb brand in 1910. It is evidence that they owned factory 33 decades later, which we already know.