New theory why American Beauty cards are narrower than other T206's

[tedzan]

Recently, Judson Hamlin posed the following questions on the American Beauty 460 thread regarding the 74
confirmed cards......
" Now let me ask a question: Does finding 74 AB460's mess with your sheet size theory?
If they were all single printed, we'd have two spares (6 sheets + 2) hanging out at 12 cards across a sheet.
Do you think some were double printed? Did they squeeze more than 12 on the sheet if they planned on the
cards being more narrow? 13 cards across would presumably yield 78 cards. "


OK, for some time now, I have speculated that American Litho. (ALC) printed T206's on sheet arrays that were
12 cards across by X number of rows down. I've based this theory primarily on the fact that standard lithograph
presses (circa..early 20th Century) were designed with an 18-inch press track.
Therefore......
12 cards x 1 7/16 inches width = 17.25 inches....resulting in a format of 12 cards across an 18-inch wide sheet.

Researching the settled survey data of either of the three American Beauty (AB) confirmed backs, I have obser-
ved the following......

AB 350 frame = 194 cards
AB 350 no frame = 38 cards
AB 460 = 74 cards

Add one more AB 350 (frame) card to 194 (either a currently unknown card or a double-print) and we get 195.
This number very neatly is divisible by 13. The same follows for the other two AB backs. So, what Judson has
suggested, and what I am saying......is that ALC printed their entire series of AB cards in a format of 13 cards
across an 18-inch wide sheet. This required that these cards be cut narrower by 1/16th of an inch than a stan-
dard width T206 card.

13 cards x 1 3/8 inches width = 17.875 inches

Jon Canfield has shown that the AB cigarette packs were no "slimmer" than any the other ATC packs; therefore,
I think this new scenario of "13 cards" may explain this age old mystery. But, of course another question that
arises (assuming this scenario is factual), is why did ALC print the AB cards in this format, while printing all the
other T206's in 12 card arrays ? I think that can be answered by further study of each of the other T-brands'
total card make-up.

Hey guys, just presenting some thought-provoking stuff for you to ponder. I anticipate some pros & cons here.


TED Z

I think your on to something here. The math is right and I know that my T205's are also short like the 206's. Very neat theory.

[FrankWakefield]

Timing wise, what if American Beauty 350 cards were the last of the 350s to be printed. And, what if they were the first of the 460s to be printed. Then, there wouldn't be as many transitions as to the number of cards printed across... Once from 12 to 13, then back again.

Seems to me with lithography, the various plates or stones for the fronts of the cards would be one big plate for each color pass. And to move from 12 to 13 would require completely redoing each of the plates for all of those cards. I don't think the cards were in there like pieces of removable type, I think there would have been multiple cards to a plate. If that's the deal, then 13 to a sheet doesn't seem likely to me.

It's a shame the narrow card for the cigarette package doesn't hold water anymore, that was such a nice reason.

[Jantz]

Ted

Am I missing something here?

Add one more card - "The same follows for the other two AB backs."

AB 350 frame 195 / 13 = 15
AB 350 no frame 39 / 13 = 3
AB 460 75 / 13 = 5.7692

I could be wrong, but 13 doesn't seem to work for the AB 460s.

I agree with your thoughts on sheets being 12 cards wide in the other brands and I've pretty much proven that.

Ironically, if you add 10 to those numbers ( 194 to 204, 38 to 48 and 74 to 84) things start adding up differently since 204, 48 and 78 are all divisible by 12. Possibly the number 15 could be the number we're looking for when it comes to the AB series.

Great post and worth researching.

Thanks

Jantz

[tedzan]

Jantz

13 divides into 78 very evenly......so, either four AB 460 double-prints, or possibly 4 new AB 460's might still be
found.....or, a combination of both.

Double-prints are very possible, since Crandall, Devore, Ford and McGraw are seen more than the other AB 460's.


TED Z

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by tedzan

13 divides into 78 very evenly......so, either four AB 460 double-prints, or possibly 4 new AB 460's might still be
found.....or, a combination of both.

Ted

I noted this also when I was running the numbers. Hopefully more members will have something to add to this thread since this is a subject I enjoy discussing. Maybe someday soon we can discuss the board's thoughts on the length of a T206 sheet. I don't recall, though I could be wrong, seeing it discussed before.

Jantz

[judsonhamlin]

Thanks Ted!
When I read through your threads, I'm always been impressed by the time and effort you've been able to put in. The 74 number, then, came across as odd. I like the idea of 13 card sheets for AB cards. And, it would not surprise me at all if a couple of the 460's were double printed. With regard to the other two issues, the numbers make a great deal more sense if we think in terms of a 13 card sheet.
Frank W.'s point is well taken, but if the "stones" were individual to the player images and assembled for each sheet, then that, to me, would be conclusive. If there were miscut cards of the same player with different players to the left or right, that would be substantial proof that the stones were secured individually onto the printing plates (not sure of my terms here).
Great job (again).

[rebelsart]

I am pretty sure that the American Lithograph Company printed the T212 Obak cards as well as the T206 White border cards.
Judging from this "partial" T212 Obak sheet it seems as though 19 cards across is the correct number.


Art

[tedzan]

Art M

Are you sure that the Obak's were printed by American Litho. in New York City ?

I thought they were printed in California ?

Regards,

TED Z

[Jantz]

Art,

Very interesting!

Please keep in mind that you yourself referred to this as a "partial" sheet.

The scan you have presented is in a horizontal position and the card images are vertical, but what if the sheets were printed in a vertical fashion making the card images horizontal. Then, of course, the number 19 would be the sheet length and the width would still be unknown to us. I guess as collectors we could think that sheets were printed with the card images in the correct viewng position. Please keep in mind that this is one set that I know nothing about and any information from you or any other board member would be appreciated.

I believe though that the S74 Silks series may hold some evidence to the T206 AB theory. In Lew Lipset's Encyclopedia, he mentions two complete sheets known to exist. One sheet had the card dimensions of 12 rows x 12 columns or 144 silks total. The other sheet displayed 156 silks total. The dimensions were 13 rows x 12 columns. Of course, this is going under the assumption that the ALC printed the silks. If they did, then it could be quite possible for AB T206s to have been printed on a larger sheet size than the regular sheet size used for the other T206 brands.

Jantz

[teetwoohsix]

I think the significance of the T212 partial sheet (not sure what makes it partial though),is the T212's were within the same size parameter as the T206.
One thing I guess I'm confused about is:We understand,thanks to TedZ & many others research,that T206 cards were printed by the ALC and sent by rail to the various Factories for distribution.

When I looked up the T212 cards in Lew's Encyclopedia of Baseball Cards Vol.3,,,,it says (regarding T212 Obak's):
"All were printed by the same factory in the 1st District of California as the back of any card will indicate."

So,with T206 cards,they were only printed by the ALC and shipped to their factory destinations-and were not printed at the factories themselves,,,,,,,,but with the T212's they were printed at the factory,and not elsewhere?I am confused.

Sorry,I didn't mean to derail the thread.I hope everyone can figure out why the AB cards are narrower than the other T206 cards.
There sure are a lot of mysteries behind these tobacco cards!!!
Sincerely,Clayton

[tedzan]

OK guys...... FYI regarding the OBAK cards....and then hopefully, we can get back on the main track here talking
about T206 American Beauty cards.

The OBAK (T212) cards were printed in San Francisco at the Schmidt Lithography Co. Judging from the 76-card
uncut sheet shown in Post #8, Schmidt Lithography used a 30-inch wide press track to print 19 cards across the
sheet. This press track was considerably wider than American Litho's 18-inch press track used for the T206's.
For your edification regarding Schmidt Litho....check-out this link......
http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist1/schmidt.html


Judson....thanks for the kind words and regarding your......" Frank W.'s point is well taken, but if the "stones" were
individual to the player images and assembled for each sheet, then that, to me, would be conclusive. If there were
miscut cards of the same player with different players to the left or right, that would be substantial proof that the
stones were secured individually onto the printing plates. "

Lithography is an art, and as Frank says the images are initially created on stones ("lithos"..Greek). Now, my under-
standing of this process is....then the image is transferred to metallic plates. So, adding a 13th image (or 26th, or
39th, etc., etc. onto a printing plate is no big deal.

Gee, I don't appear to be invoking any really thought-provoking stuff here. Let's do some serious thinking and arrive
at some plausible explanation for this series of "skinny" cards.


T-Rex TED

[danmckee]

Where is the "I don't care" button at the top of this thread like the Is it Joe D thread?

I like the AB's being thinner because of the packs, I don't care that the packs are the same size as the other brands.

[toppcat]

For those of you playing at home, facts from Lipset's Encyclopedia:

12 rows by 12 columns for the colored silks and 13 rows and 12 columns for the white ones. 144 colored silks with 24 duplicates for the colored, 156 silks with 68 (out of 90) known subjects in an early 1910 printing for the whites, as noted above.

Colored silks, per Lipset measure 1 7/8" by 3 1/2" and whites are 1 7/8" by 3". T206 cards are generally 1 7/16" x 2 5/8", none of my guides measure the width of an AB but I get 1 3/8" as noted above.

Now, I do not know what a T205 AB measures in width as I do not own one but Lipset has standard dimensions of 1 1/2" wide for non-AB's. When I measure my (non AB) T205's, I get a reading just between 1 7/16" and 1 1/2", so 1 15/32" the way I measure them.

There is a non sport AB issue: the T42 Bird series. According to Mitchell & Forbes in American Tobacco Cards, these measure 1 1/2" inches wide, which come in gold or white borders, 50 subjects apiece, with only one appearing in both. There is no mention of thinner AB cards by the authors.

Figured this was easier than everybody looking things up each time they log in!

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

Is there any consistency to the side that is narrower, the majority of the ABs I still have scans for have less border on the right.

Lee

[tedzan]

Here's an assortment of American Beauty cards, there is no consistency of which borders are narrower.











TED Z

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

Is there any AB's with miscut backs that might help in your theory?

Lee

[tbob]

Ted- thanks for this post. It so refreshing to read a thread like this.
tbob

[tedzan]

Lee B

It's strictly a theory of mine based on the known number of printed AB 350 & 460 cards....which appear to be multiples of 13.

Perhaps, someone will post an offset pair of printed AB cards that will support my theory.


Best regards,

TED Z

[tedzan]

Thanks....I too, found this refreshing, while researching the data. Heck, what else do we have that can explain these
"skinny" cards ?
Jon Canfield has certainly proven that the AB packs were no different than any other T-brand packs.

These AB cards are not the only "skinny" T-cards....if I recall correctly, American Litho. cut the T213-3 cards narrow.

Best regards,

TED Z

[steve B]

Originally Posted by tedzan

OK guys...... FYI regarding the OBAK cards....and then hopefully, we can get back on the main track here talking
about T206 American Beauty cards.

The OBAK (T212) cards were printed in San Francisco at the Schmidt Lithography Co. Judging from the 76-card
uncut sheet shown in Post #8, Schmidt Lithography used a 30-inch wide press track to print 19 cards across the
sheet. This press track was considerably wider than American Litho's 18-inch press track used for the T206's.
For your edification regarding Schmidt Litho....check-out this link......
http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist1/schmidt.html


Judson....thanks for the kind words and regarding your......" Frank W.'s point is well taken, but if the "stones" were
individual to the player images and assembled for each sheet, then that, to me, would be conclusive. If there were
miscut cards of the same player with different players to the left or right, that would be substantial proof that the
stones were secured individually onto the printing plates. "

Lithography is an art, and as Frank says the images are initially created on stones ("lithos"..Greek). Now, my under-
standing of this process is....then the image is transferred to metallic plates. So, adding a 13th image (or 26th, or
39th, etc., etc. onto a printing plate is no big deal.

Gee, I don't appear to be invoking any really thought-provoking stuff here. Let's do some serious thinking and arrive
at some plausible explanation for this series of "skinny" cards.


T-Rex TED

Lithography is either stones or plates. You wouldn't see both used.

The original image is converted to a film with a grid of dots, similar to any other halftone image. Alternately, a solid section of color can be printed.

Using stones was the older method, and is used mostly for art today.The stone is actually a nice thick piece of a special grade of limestone. The image is drawn on the stone with a water soluble material. Or printed on through a photographic process using a negative. The stone is waxed, and the water soluble part is washed off taking the image area wax with it. The stone is then etched with acid leaving depressions in the stone. In printing, the stone is wet on just the raised surface, and inked with an oil based ink. The ink sticks to the depressions, but not the damp stone. The paper is pressed onto the stone, making the printed item.

In offset lithography the image first gets printed to a rubber blanket that transfers the image to the paper.

In the modern version, which is nearly exclusively offset lithography the images are photographed with the screen which creates the dot pattern, and a film is generated. This film is attached to a mask which is used to expose the plates, which are then etched. Modern plates are usually aluminum with a thin limestone like coating. Once the plates are etched the printing process is pretty much the same, and almost always the offset style.

Very modern printing skips a lot of the preliminary steps, doing it al with computers. I'm not at all familiar with exactly how it's done.

Changing a stone to add an image would be a load of work. you'd either start with a fresh stone or more likely grind or etch the image off a used stone, and begin again from scratch. If there was room, you might just sneak an image into the border. Moving the row over to add a card would be pretty tough.

Changing a plate is also very difficult. I've seen scratches repaired by using a pencil like item that puts some surface back on the plate. And stuff can be added by scratching the plate. But wholesale changes would take a very long time, and the plate wouldn't last very long. So you'd want to make a whole new plate, which would require a new mask to be made.


On the good side, I believe they would use a new "negative" to make the new plate in either case, and by its nature it would have some difference from the earlier one. And Just today I got a card that I also have in another brand.
AB460 and soverign 460. I'll be making a nice detailed scan so I can compare the two in great detail.


Steve B

[FrankWakefield]

Thanks for that, Steve.

I can't envision American Litho reingraving for the special runs of American Beauty cards. I don't think each card was individually etched. If they were, and they were pieced into the press like movable type, then it would have been likely with all of those cards with multiple passes that we'd have seen a card with one player's green and another player's yellow.... for example.

What seems more likely is that normal width sheets had the cards cut with just an extra sliver coming off of the side of each of the cards. Maybe someone at AB whined about the cards being so wide they were difficult to slide into that nice, wide, normal-sized package. So American Litho cut them a tad smaller for AB.

[steve B]

So I've done the scans and looked at them. Pretty interesting.

If they were different it wouldn't necessarily mean the stone/plate was different. A card from one part of the plate is usually different from one from another part if there's two of them on the plate. And I think there's enough T206s out there with the same name at the top from a miscut or even with the name at both top and bottom that we know they were often or usually doubled up on the sheet.

Here's the detail of the American Beauty card.


And here's the detail of the same area of the Soverign card


Both were scanned at 800dpi

The slight diffrences in the thickness of the black lines are from the black ink being a bit more liquid while the soverign card was being printed. The registration is also different. Blue a bit high on the AB and a grayish color slightly to the left on the Sov. Aside from that the dot pattern and even the lettering are close enough to call them identical. I'm nearly certain that not only were they printed by the same plate, but are from the same position on the plate.

I'd be interested to hear theories against this. I have a couple, but consider them to be unlikely.

Next up, looking at the maybe two other t206s I have two of, and looking at a modern card or two that I know for sure are double prints so I can show examples of differences.

I'm thinking on the extra sliver trimmed off idea, currently thinking not, but it bears some thought.

Steve B

[ethicsprof]

Steve B,

i am very impressed with your expertise in this arena.
i know Joe has offered much help with printing issues since he is trained and practices in that area. Jamie has helped a great deal with his knowledge of key texts in the field of lithography. And David has offered help when it comes to photography.
I do believe that your specialty has been desperately needed and very much welcome!!!
I'm late to this thread and now have much to delve into and incubate.
all the best,
barry

[teetwoohsix]

Steve,I think you are 100% right.If you compare the letter "W" in the word "NEW" and the letter "R" in the word "AMER." on both cards,you can see an exact match-this is great work!!

Thank you also for the detailed breakdown with the printing processes,this is an awesome addition to this thread.

Sincerely,Clayton

[mkdltn]

I did a patent search on Google, I think these coupons were machine fed into the package. If the cards were a tad to large for the feeder mechanism it would really cause problems on the line. This would explain the isolation of the thin cards to one factory. It was a customer request easily implemented quite late in the production process. Just an Idea.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=IB9...coupon&f=false

Mike

[steve B]

Thanks guys, I'm far from being an expert. I worked for a couple years in a print shop years ago. 1979-81 actually only 2 years as the first and last were half years. But the shop was a great place to work and insisted on the guys like me doing other jobs. And we were expected to pay attention. I got to run a 35 inch Heidelbeg press my last week due to an injury. And I did at least a day or two helping and learning in all the other departments except sales.

I stayed up way too late last night scanning cards, and I've got some ideas that may make things a bit more confusing.

I like Mikes idea about the machine, but with some reservations. More to think about.

Steve B

[tedzan]

This is all very interesting; however, I do not see any noticeable difference in the Brown lettering captions of my three Ford
cards.
The Brown captions were printed in the initial ink printing phase (of the 6-color process) in the printing of T206's. There are
many T206 proofs that confirm this fact. Therefore, I don't expect any significant differences in the printing of the captions.









Regarding the main subject of this thread, the cigarette packaging (cutting, folding, assembling the packs and the cigarette
stuffing) was done by machinery at the "modernized" Factory's [such as the Kimball plant (#649). in Rochester, NY].

But, it's my impression that the the T-card insertion was done by the employees (usually, low paid women or teenage youth).
Inserting two cards (one on each side of the slide) in the pack was a very quick and simple process.


TED Z

[tedzan]

One more very important bit of information. The majority of the Tobacco brands, reflected on the backs of the T206 cards,
were produced at the Richmond, VA factory (#25) during the 1909-1910 timeframe.

The Factory #25 cigarette production includes the following T206's......

American Beauty 350 (frame and no frame)
Broad Leaf 350 & 460
Carolina Brights
Cycle 350 & 460
Drum
Old Mill
Piedmont 150 & 350 & 460
Sovereign 150 & 350 & 460
Sweet Caporal 150 & 350 & 460

Therefore, I do not understand this comment......

" I think these coupons were machine fed into the package. If the cards were a tad to large for the feeder mechanism it would
really cause problems on the line. This would explain the isolation of the thin cards to one factory. "


TED Z

[steve B]

That was one of the reservations I had about the machine theory. I can only think of a few reasons why a factory would have one particular machine that required different inserts. None of those reasons make much sense considering how industry worked at the time.

The only halfway sensible thought is that they were testing a new machine that had potential to be faster. I don't think that's the case. If it was there would be a population of some other brands cards that were narrow like the ABs. And there would more than likely be a population of ABs that were normally sized. The same would go for a change during production. Since there isn't any evidence of either, I think that can be set aside for now.

Nice to see more Fords. A sample of two isn't all that much, 5 is a bit better.

My main point with the ford was that if they made a new plate for the AB cards to fit more across the row they would have probably taken new halftone pictures, and they'd be different. The consistency between all the Fords leaves me convinced that all were printed from the same plate.

I've looked at a few different t206s that I have two of,(11, more than I thought) and there aren't really any screening differences on any of them. There are a few differences, but nothing I can really say isn't just due to the variable inking. The Absteins I have show a difference on the hat that is close, but not enough to say it's different. And there's a mark on the left frame line of Beck. And Abbattichio blue sleeves has a difference near the neck. All of these could be merely from over or underinking, or even just how fluid the ink was that day.

It has also occurred to me that if you were doing several of the same player on a sheet you could take multiple images of the same halftone, so the different positions wouldn't absolutely be different.

I was thinking that it would also be a nuisance to trim the extra bit off the AB cards in production, but it's probably possible to cut the sheet normally and still make the narrow cards.

Fascinating stuff, the more I think and try to prove/disprove a theory, the more It looks like it might just be possible.

Steve B

[Bridwell]

From my collection, here's a thinner pack with a 1910 tax stamp, pictured next to a wider pack with a 1905 date. One simple theory is that the thinner American Beauty cards were designed with the possibility of being inserted into these thinner packs. Whether they ever were is debatable.

Ron R

[teetwoohsix]

Wow Ron,when comparing the width of the AB460 and the width of the thinner AB pack,you can see it would fit in the pack perfectly!!Thanks for posting this picture along with the ruler at the bottom.Now we see where the old theory actually holds some weight...........

Sincerely,Clayton

[tedzan]

Here is the standard size 10-cigarette pack that all the T-brands during the 1909-1911 timefrane
of the T206 issue. This pack of mine was issued in the 1908-1910 timeframe.






TED Z

[FrankWakefield]

What we need is for Jon Canfield to look at those 2 packs that Ron has posted... seeing them, I'm thinking the 'thinner pack' rationale now seems more plausible. Because of the perceived difficulties in replating the press runs, and considering how it seems that frequently AB's are cut with one side with less margin than another, that the cards were printed with the same front plates as the other brands and then the cards were trimmed down. One thing is certain, American Beauty cards are not as wide as cards of the other brands. Anyone ever seen an AB back on a normal width card?

[teetwoohsix]

The thing I'm a little confused on,is Ron's "wider" pack looks very much like TedZ's pack.Ron's is dated 1905,and TedZ said his is from the 1908-1910 timeframe.
Ron's "thinner" pack has a 1910 tax stamp on it.
Am I getting this right?Please correct me if I'm not.Thanks.

Sincerely,Clayton

[canjond]

Frank,

I have seen the soft packs before. There are 8-count soft packs dating to 1910 (I'm not sure if the one pictured above is an 8 or 10 count). The majority of the soft packs that are out there came from a New Jersey find circa 2005. I believe the seller came across 8 or 10 of them.

While I've had discussions about the soft pack theory with a few others in the past, I still don't completely agree that the AB's were cut thinner to fit in it.

- Based on ATC records discovered by Terry a few years back, AB was listed as being packaged in 10-count packs, not 8 count packs (not sure if the pack pictured above is an 8 or 10 but most of the softs I've seen have been 8 counts)

- The soft packs I have seen did not match the factory and district numbers for the AB cards.

- Many AB cards would show OBVIOUS signs on wear because of the relative lack of protection that the soft pack affords.

- I do have a 1910 AB slide and shell pack - exact same size as other slide and shell packs (including the 1905 ones). The factory and district codes DO match the cards. I'll post a picture of this pack later.

- All other "categorized" T206s were packaged in hard packs, not soft packs. The only exception to this would be Coupon, if you believe Coupon is a T206. However, Coupons did not offer any other configuration other than soft pack (so there was no alternative). The cards were much more brittle and the Type 1s that exist display the wear that would be typical for cards coming from soft packs.

In the end, I can neither prove nor disprove the soft pack theory. However, I do believe the reason for the thinner ABs does not have to do with packaging...

[canjond]

1910 slide and shell...

[canjond]

1908 ABs

[tedzan]

Jon stated the all-important factor in determining which American Beauty cigarette packs contained T206's....
"I do have a 1910 AB slide and shell pack - exact same size as other slide and shell packs (including the 1905
ones). The factory and district codes DO match the cards. "

Conversely, Jon said......
"The soft packs I have seen did not match the factory and district numbers for the AB cards."

This clearly spells it out, guys. It was a violation of Federal Law to mix tobacco advertising premiums (T206's)
with differently labelled (Factory's) tobacco products.


TED Z

[FrankWakefield]

Ted, I've seen sufficient reason here to doubt the "smaller package" theory as for why AB cards aren't as wide. But I've not seen anything anywhere about any federal law about cigarette inserts. Where did you get that? I'd have thought the factory and district numbers were in there because American Tobacco wanted it, not because of some federal law. What would have been the harm in Piedmont putting a Piedmont back on the cards they distributed without any factory or district designation? Red Man tobacco cards don't have such a designation, do they? I don't think Worch tobacco cards have that. Where did you get this federal law thing? Just because they did or didn't do something doesn't mean it was because of a federal law....

[canjond]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Ted, I've seen sufficient reason here to doubt the "smaller package" theory as for why AB cards aren't as wide. But I've not seen anything anywhere about any federal law about cigarette inserts. Where did you get that? I'd have thought the factory and district numbers were in there because American Tobacco wanted it, not because of some federal law. What would have been the harm in Piedmont putting a Piedmont back on the cards they distributed without any factory or district designation? Red Man tobacco cards don't have such a designation, do they? I don't think Worch tobacco cards have that. Where did you get this federal law thing? Just because they did or didn't do something doesn't mean it was because of a federal law....

Frank - I'm away on vacation but yes, there is a federal law. I'm sure Jamie Hull will post the citation before I get home to look it up, but regulations were such that inserts had to state the factory and district numbers for the packages in which they were contained.

[jimonym]

Jon,
I'll post the statute later this afternoon.

Frank,
Factory and district info were required for two reasons: concern about illegal lottery schemes and concern about the distribution of indecent material. Factory and district info would allow the authorities to trace any improper inserts to their source.

[jimonym]

The relevant bit of federal law is Section 3394 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

Effective July 24, 1897, as part of the so-called Dingley Tariff Bill, federal law prohibited any inserts of any kind to be packaged with any type of tobacco product. The statutory language was as follows:

"None of the packages of smoking tobacco and fine-cut chewing tobacco and cigarettes prescribed by law shall be permitted to have packed in, or attached to, or connected with them, any article or thing whatsoever, other than the manufacturer’s wrappers and labels, the internal-revenue stamp, and the tobacco and cigarettes, respectively, put up therein, on which the tax is required to be paid under the internal-revenue laws; nor shall there be affixed to, or branded, stamped, marked, written, or printed upon, said packages, or their contents, any promise or offer of, or any order or certificate for, any gift, prize, premium, payment, or reward."

Below is some good context and background on the law. This comes from testimony to Congress by John Yerkes, former Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in 1908:


The Dingley provision was challenged in the courts, all the way to the Supreme Court (Felsenheld v. U.S., 186 U.S. 126 (1902)), and upheld.

But shortly after the Felsenheld case, the law was repealed, effective July 1, 1902, and the language of Section 3394 was amended to read:

"No packages of manufactured tobacco, snuff, cigars, or cigarettes, prescribed by law, shall be permitted to have packed in, or attached to, or connected with, them, nor affixed to, branded, stamped, marked, written, or printed upon them, any paper, certificate, or instrument purporting to be or represent a ticket, chance, share, or interest in, or dependent upon, the event of a lottery, nor any indecent or immoral picture, representation, print, or words; and any violation of the provisions of this paragraph shall subject the offender to the penalties and punishments provided by section thirty-four hundred and fifty-six of the Revised Statutes."

The actual requirement to include the registered factory number and internal revenue district information on inserts is found in Internal Revenue Regulations. The earliest I've been able to pin down that requirement is from Regulations No. 8, revised August 1, 1907:

"In view of the report of the committee submitting the above amendment (act approved July 1, 1902), it is decided that a manufacturer may place within his statutory package containing tobacco, snuff, cigars, or cigarettes small advertising cards, coupons, certificates, paper bands, circulars, trade-mark tin tags, and trade-mark strips, and which do not materially increase the size of the package, and which are intended as an advertisement of his business, and concern the manufacture and sale of his products and no other business; and such advertising matter will not be prohibited, although intended to be returned to the manufacturer, or to some person designated by him on the coupon, and exchanged for other articles, provided the distribution of the prize articles does not depend upon the event of a lottery.
It is required that the manufacturer’s registered factory number, district, and State shall appear upon each card, coupon, or certificate placed within the statutory package."

[FrankWakefield]

Thank you, JH. On occasion I'm educable. I see the factory and district info on the 1913 Fatima cards. I don't recall it on Red Man Tobacco cards, but it may well be there. Is it still required? If not, when did the law change? I get the impression that folks still wanted 'something' with their tobacco, even if the government didn't want them to have it.

[toppcat]

So from 1887 until 1908 or so, you could not insert a card into a cigarette pack? Interesting indeed.

[canjond]

Except if you make ramlys!

[tedzan]

Jamie H

Thanks for posting your info regarding that Federal Law that I alluded to in Post #39.
I vaguely recall reading it years ago; but, I could not cite the details of it.

Best regards,

TED Z

[ethicsprof]

continuing great research fellows with appropriate corroborative sources.
my AB pack ,which is the same size as my other T206 era packs, still shines
knowingly across from me on the wall--proud to keep us enamored of its mysteries.
best,
barry

[tedzan]

I love my AMERICAN BEAUTY pack, too.

Tell me ole buddy, should I light-up one of those cigarettes ?



TED Z

[ethicsprof]

i've got a full pack,too, ole buddy and i say we'd better not touch them!!!
on the other hand, i have an unopened polar bear pouch on the way from
Jon C. and i'm tempted to chew a bit!!
but jon and my wife both say----No Way!!!

best,
barry