My T206 Plank theory....New Follow-up info

[caramelcard]

Ted,

Here is a partial quote from Erik Varon's "Sweet Recollections..." book:

"...the Philadelphia Caramel Company issued a "25 Ball Player" card set in the summer of 1909. "

Not 1910.

Rob

[tedzan]

I find it interesting that the Philadelphia Caramel Co. issued their 25-card set (E95) with Plank. But, followed this
set with their 30-card set (E96) that did NOT include Plank.

There is no doubt that there was fierce competition between the American Caramel Co. (based in Philadelphia)
and the smaller Philadelphia Caramel Co. (based in nearby Camden, NJ).

As far as the actual dating goes, I have found that certain E-card sets are off a year in the ACC dating. I can
prove this by certain players in these sets whose trades in the 1909 and 1910 period are reflected in their cards.
Germany Schaeffer is the first one that comes to my mind.

My contention that the E90-1 set was really issued in 1908 is based on my research of certain player's trades.
However, as you know, the ACC dates the E90-1 set's 1st series as 1909.


TED Z

[tedzan]

My best answer for now to your......
" Hi Ted... I've read all of these before. So you're saying that ATC and ALC discontinued Plank in the 150 series
because of a threatened lawsuit, but then started up production of Plank again for the 350 series? "

1st....These entities did not threaten lawsuits back then, they simply filed a "cease and desist" order.

2nd....Yes, ALC was free to portray the A's that they were prevented from doing in the 150 series. So, when ALC
printed an additional 10 players from the A's team (as I noted above), they slipped in Eddie Plank. After all, they
still had Plank's plate image from their 1st series, so they thought they would give it the "good old college try" once
more. But note, that they selectively chose the NY market. I guess their thinking was, that they would be able to
get away with it. Eddie Plank was one of the most popular pitchers of that era.

In any event, ALC was forced to discontinue their 350 series Plank. Assuming 100% surviveability, then approx. 50
cards of this Plank were out in the market by then.


TED Z

[Brian-Chidester]

But this is all just your hypothesis, right? No cease and desist order has been found?

Is there any other theory besides the ACC cease and desist theory that would account for a card being so rare that was issued in the Piedmont 150, as well as the Sweet Caporal 150 and 350?

[caramelcard]

Hi Ted,

The E96 set didn't include Plank because it was clearly and intentionally marked as the second part of and a continuation of E95.

Rob

[tedzan]

You are absolutely correct. I just reviewed Erik's book and realized that the E96 had additional players. I should have known
this since I have several E96's, including Connie Mack.

You already know this, but for those here that don't, Erik Varon's book on "the Story of The Philadelphia Caramel Company" is
an excellent book.


TED Z

[tedzan]

Your......
"But this is all just your hypothesis, right? No cease and desist order has been found?"

A Philadelphia lawyer friend of mine told me some time ago, that "cease and desist orders" from the early 20th Century era
are virtually impossible to find. In many instances, such trivial orders (as this Plank contention was) were simply enforced
by spoken word and a handshake.

And yes, this Plank theory of mine is the result of my imagination upon my extensive research on my two favorite early 20th
Century BB card sets....E90-1 and T206. I have collected multiples of these two sets since 1981.

Obviously it's based on circumstantial evidence, But, this was no idle speculation on my part. I'm open to anyone's better (or
more plausible) story explaning why the T206 Plank is as rare as the Wagner ?


TED Z