Attention S74 Silk Collectors

[Pat R]

There is a page on the S74's in the old ATC journal that was discovered several years ago unfortunately unlike most of the other entry's it doesn't have the packing and shipping information and dates but based on the page number and location the packing and shipping dates appear to be around March/April of 1911.

img400.jpg

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Pat R

There is a page on the S74's in the old ATC journal that was discovered several years ago unfortunately unlike most of the other entry's it doesn't have the packing and shipping information and dates but based on the page number and location the packing and shipping dates appear to be around March/April of 1911.

Attachment 555520

Great info Pat. Hadn't seen that page/image before. What is also very interesting, and odd as well, is why would they attach a full size S72 actress silk, but then next to it attach an obviously trimmed, at both the top and bottom, S74-1 silk of Dots Miller? That Miller silk is clearly short, but why would they have done that? it wasn't like there wasn't enough room on the page to attach a full-sized one. And that is what I meant by it also being odd as well.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by BobC

Great info Pat. Hadn't seen that page/image before. What is also very interesting, and odd as well, is why would they attach a full size S72 actress silk, but then next to it attach an obviously trimmed, at both the top and bottom, S74-1 silk of Dots Miller? That Miller silk is clearly short, but why would they have done that? it wasn't like there wasn't enough room on the page to attach a full-sized one. And that is what I meant by it also being odd as well.

It's really too bad the page doesn't have more info.

With the s72-3 not including a brand it makes me wonder.
The s-74s would be easy to trim or deliberately cut short to use in a different brand alongside the non- branded actresses.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by BobC

Great info Pat. Hadn't seen that page/image before. What is also very interesting, and odd as well, is why would they attach a full size S72 actress silk, but then next to it attach an obviously trimmed, at both the top and bottom, S74-1 silk of Dots Miller? That Miller silk is clearly short, but why would they have done that? it wasn't like there wasn't enough room on the page to attach a full-sized one. And that is what I meant by it also being odd as well.

Yeah I'm not sure why they trimmed the Miller but Steve could be right about cutting the brand off because they were inserted in different brands.

Originally Posted by steve B

It's really too bad the page doesn't have more info.

With the s72-3 not including a brand it makes me wonder.
The s-74s would be easy to trim or deliberately cut short to use in a different brand alongside the non- branded actresses.

It is too bad because most of the other pages do have the brand and packing and shipping info.

I don't know if it's a case of the person that did that entry being lazy or not very thorough but they also neglected to enter the page on the index page.

img402.jpg

[nolemmings]

The Dots Miller silk did not trim off the brand name and factory info. The silk appears to be a s74-1; if so, it did not carry that information on the front anyway. So the mystery remains.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

The Dots Miller silk did not trim off the brand name and factory info. The silk appears to be a s74-1; if so, it did not carry that information on the front anyway. So the mystery remains.

Well, I missed that.... Indeed the mystery remains

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Yeah I'm not sure why they trimmed the Miller but Steve could be right about cutting the brand off because they were inserted in different brands.




It is too bad because most of the other pages do have the brand and packing and shipping info.

I don't know if it's a case of the person that did that entry being lazy or not very thorough but they also neglected to enter the page on the index page.

Attachment 555543

Todd/nolemmings already addressed yours and Steve's question/comment about the idea of cutting off the brand on that Dots Miller silk, as did I in my last post. Leaving the only real true question left, why did they bother trimming the silk in the first place just to attach a copy in their book/journal? No idea, and makes absolutely no sense why someone would have had to do that. Especially since they didn't have to trim the actress silk right next to it to also get it in the book/journal.

Now as for why they didn't make similar entries and include all the same details and distribution info for these silks as they did for all their other card and advertising releases, could it possibly have anything to do with the unique nature of the silks themselves and how they were not cards? Unlike cards, these silks obviously involved multiple manufacturers being involved, as I'm guessing the ATC didn't luckily for them find some manufacturer that just so happened to print cards, like would have been used for the backings on these baseball and actress silks, AND could also create/weave satin material and additionally be able to imprint images of ballplayers and actresses on it, all out of one single location.

Also, I don't really study or have a lot of knowledge regarding any other silk tobacco issues, aside from the S74 and S72 silks. But to my knowledge, I'm unaware of any other sport or non-sport silk related issues that ever came with a paper advertising backing attached to them, like with the S74-1 and S72-3 baseball player and actress silks did. And if I'm right and there weren't any others, that would truly make those ad-backed silks unique in the world of tobacco advertising. And again, maybe a possible reason why they didn't keep track of them in a similar manner as they did with the other issues recorded in the ATC books/journals. Pure speculation on my part though, but maybe something to at least think about.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by BobC

Todd/nolemmings already addressed yours and Steve's question/comment about the idea of cutting off the brand on that Dots Miller silk, as did I in my last post. Leaving the only real true question left, why did they bother trimming the silk in the first place just to attach a copy in their book/journal? No idea, and makes absolutely no sense why someone would have had to do that. Especially since they didn't have to trim the actress silk right next to it to also get it in the book/journal.

Now as for why they didn't make similar entries and include all the same details and distribution info for these silks as they did for all their other card and advertising releases, could it possibly have anything to do with the unique nature of the silks themselves and how they were not cards? Unlike cards, these silks obviously involved multiple manufacturers being involved, as I'm guessing the ATC didn't luckily for them find some manufacturer that just so happened to print cards, like would have been used for the backings on these baseball and actress silks, AND could also create/weave satin material and additionally be able to imprint images of ballplayers and actresses on it, all out of one single location.

Also, I don't really study or have a lot of knowledge regarding any other silk tobacco issues, aside from the S74 and S72 silks. But to my knowledge, I'm unaware of any other sport or non-sport silk related issues that ever came with a paper advertising backing attached to them, like with the S74-1 and S72-3 baseball player and actress silks did. And if I'm right and there weren't any others, that would truly make those ad-backed silks unique in the world of tobacco advertising. And again, maybe a possible reason why they didn't keep track of them in a similar manner as they did with the other issues recorded in the ATC books/journals. Pure speculation on my part though, but maybe something to at least think about.

Thanks for the clarification on the different silks Bob. I don't know if you've looked at the pages from the journal but the majority of them are instructions on what to insert in each product from 1909-1912 they even listed the ones that didn't have any inserts.

img403.jpg

I don't have an answer either as to why they trimmed the S74 but for the purpose it served I don't think it would have mattered maybe they had a sheet or whatever the uncut silks are called and that's the way the person cut it I'm sure there were probably more than one of these journals that were used for a reference in what to pack in the products.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Thanks for the clarification on the different silks Bob. I don't know if you've looked at the pages from the journal but the majority of them are instructions on what to insert in each product from 1909-1912 they even listed the ones that didn't have any inserts.

Attachment 555585

I don't have an answer either as to why they trimmed the S74 but for the purpose it served I don't think it would have mattered maybe they had a sheet or whatever the uncut silks are called and that's the way the person cut it I'm sure there were probably more than one of these journals that were used for a reference in what to pack in the products.

Hey Pat,

No, I have honestly not closely looked at and/or studied any of the pages from the ATC journal, though I am aware of it existing and being out there. Just never got quite that deep into the tobacco issues of individual products. Probably should take a closer look at some point though. Is there a source to actually view the complete pages of the Journal? If so, I was not aware of one, and have only seen someone post a page or image from time to time, like was done with this image posted in this thread.

And you're right, we'll likely never know why the Journal failed to list any details or info on the silks' distribution. Interesting to think about and discuss though.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by BobC

Todd/nolemmings already addressed yours and Steve's question/comment about the idea of cutting off the brand on that Dots Miller silk, as did I in my last post. Leaving the only real true question left, why did they bother trimming the silk in the first place just to attach a copy in their book/journal? No idea, and makes absolutely no sense why someone would have had to do that. Especially since they didn't have to trim the actress silk right next to it to also get it in the book/journal.

Now as for why they didn't make similar entries and include all the same details and distribution info for these silks as they did for all their other card and advertising releases, could it possibly have anything to do with the unique nature of the silks themselves and how they were not cards? Unlike cards, these silks obviously involved multiple manufacturers being involved, as I'm guessing the ATC didn't luckily for them find some manufacturer that just so happened to print cards, like would have been used for the backings on these baseball and actress silks, AND could also create/weave satin material and additionally be able to imprint images of ballplayers and actresses on it, all out of one single location.

Also, I don't really study or have a lot of knowledge regarding any other silk tobacco issues, aside from the S74 and S72 silks. But to my knowledge, I'm unaware of any other sport or non-sport silk related issues that ever came with a paper advertising backing attached to them, like with the S74-1 and S72-3 baseball player and actress silks did. And if I'm right and there weren't any others, that would truly make those ad-backed silks unique in the world of tobacco advertising. And again, maybe a possible reason why they didn't keep track of them in a similar manner as they did with the other issues recorded in the ATC books/journals. Pure speculation on my part though, but maybe something to at least think about.

Good points here and in the earlier post.

I'm trying to remember if I've seen another "silk" item with a backing from that era. A couple quick searches shows some butterfly silks with backings, but the pic is small, and the back design seems more British than American.
https://www.antiquequilthistory.com/...nd-quilts.html

I'd be surprised if the material kept them from recording details, but without any solid explanation out side of the usual "they pasted the stuff in Friday at 4:55 and for got to finish Monday" sort of thing it's as good an explanation as any other.

My other thought on the trimmed baseball silk is that it was defective and cut short already but none of the other pages I've seen used an obviously defective card.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by steve B

Good points here and in the earlier post.

I'm trying to remember if I've seen another "silk" item with a backing from that era. A couple quick searches shows some butterfly silks with backings, but the pic is small, and the back design seems more British than American.
https://www.antiquequilthistory.com/...nd-quilts.html

I'd be surprised if the material kept them from recording details, but without any solid explanation out side of the usual "they pasted the stuff in Friday at 4:55 and for got to finish Monday" sort of thing it's as good an explanation as any other.

My other thought on the trimmed baseball silk is that it was defective and cut short already but none of the other pages I've seen used an obviously defective card.

Thanks for the link to the ad-backed British butterfly silks. I was not aware of any other silks with backings, and probably thinking more of US issues anyway. Didn't think of British issues. There may be some more out there as well, but for now, I still think the S74 and S72 ad-backed silks are fairly unique.

As for recording the distribution details, like I was saying, pure guessing on my part as to why not more info on the silks. Agree we'll likely never know.

Same thinking with that cut Miller silk in the journal page. No real idea why they would have to cut it short like that. Your theory is just as good as any other one. Again, something else we'll never probably know the correct answer to. Interesting stuff to talk about though.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by steve B

It's really too bad the page doesn't have more info.

With the s72-3 not including a brand it makes me wonder.
The s-74s would be easy to trim or deliberately cut short to use in a different brand alongside the non- branded actresses.

Agreed Steve, but you never see any trimmed S74-1 silks like that out in the hobby. Now if the backing is off and they've frayed short like that, then yes. But that Dots Miller silk looks like the backing is still attached so that it had to be purposely trimmed to look like that. And if the shortness was due to fraying instead, that fraying would most likely be real obvious. But I honestly can't tell for certain without seeing that page in person.

As for the actress silk not having any brand identified, that is because it also came with a paper backing advertising the brands just like with the S74-1 baseball player silks. Later unbacked versions of the actress silks that had the tobacco brands on the front, just like the S74-2 colored version baseball players silks, were also released.

http://www.s74silk.com/related/

There are to my understanding 5 different recognized versions of the S72 actress silks. The S72-1 and S72-2 versions did not come with advertising backings, and showed the tobacco brands on the fronts of the silks. Both the A and B versions of the S72-3 silks did come with an advertising backing attached. The silk of Isabel D'Armond shown in the above image next to the Dots Miller S74-1 silk looks to be an S72-3A silk, with the image in an all brown/sepia tone. The actress silks shown on the site I included a link to just above are S72-3B full colored actress silks. Though at first glance the Helen Holmes image looks like it might be all brown/sepia toned, and therefore actually an S72-3A silk after all, when compared more closely to the D'Armond silk above, and also viewed in person, it becomes clearer it is an S72-3A full colored actress silk after all. Also note that the numerical references given by Burdick to the actress silks, 1 - 2 - 3, do not equate to their chronological release. The ad-backed S72-3 actress silks were likely released first, alongside the S74-1 baseball silks, with the unbacked S72-2 and S72-3 actress silks released later with the S74-2 colored version baseball player silks.

S72-1A ACTRESSES (Hvy prnt halftones, serrated, Old Mill) - 14

S72-1B ACTRESSES (Lt prnt halftones, two lengths, Old Mill, Turkey Red, Piedmont, The Pet - longer, Nebo, Zira - shorter) - 90

S72-2 ACTRESSES (Line Drawings, serrated, Old Mill) - 12

S72-3A ACTRESSES (Brown, As T27C) - 25

S72-3B ACTRESSES (Colored, As T27C) - 25

[BobC]

Sorry, double post.