REA Lot 319 (Piedmont Cigarette Pack)

REA Lot 319 (Piedmont Cigarette Pack)

Joined: October 11th, 2005, 12:09 am

March 26th, 2008, 1:11 am #1

Jon Canfield had an excellent, thoughtful post in the REA Is Up thread which raised some questions about this lot. I thought rather than follow up in a thread that’s hopelessly offtrack, I’d start a new one.

I agree that this Piedmont pack probably isn’t all it is purported to be. I’ve been researching tobacco/cigarette taxes and regulation, starting from 1879 (the year of an enormous tax and tariff act). I’ve currently researched to 1915. Over all those years, Congress dictated, through their revenue acts, the number of cigarettes that could be sold in a package.

The 1879 act limits packages to either 10, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. According to my notes, this was the case until August of 1909, when a revenue law was passed that authorized packages to have 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. This was the law through at least 1915. Basically, the point is no package containing 12 cigarettes could have been manufactured or sold over the production years of T206s. So far as my research has shown. Tax stamps for 12-packs weren’t authorized or printed over those years.

As Jon said, I'd like to see someone offer an opposing argument, but something doesn't seem right here.

Jamie


http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bid ... emid=10075
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 5th, 2003, 1:18 pm

March 26th, 2008, 1:50 am #2

Jamie,

Glad to see someone else picked up on what I said and I think your references to the Revenue Acts brings even more credence to the belief this pack most likely is a "fantasy" piece used to drum up the value of what would be an ordinary common T-206.

I've decided to repost my initial thoughts which I posted in the previous thread here. Hopefully Rob will see this post or have his attention drawn to it as I think we have strong evidence this pack isn't quite what it seems.

My previous post:

. . . I don't quite think Lot 319 (Piedmont Pack w/ card) is all it is purported to be. I may be wrong and would love to be convinced I am wrong, however the pack is purported to be recently opened with Herman Armbruster of St. Paul inside. When looking at the pack, however, I noted that the pack was a 12 count with L&M printing on the bottom and no "successor" language at all.

My problems with the pack are as follows:

1.) ATC was split up in 1911. Piedmont packs could not possibly have been printed with L&M on the bottom until after the split.

2.) The first Piedmont packs to be printed stated L&M, successor to ATC - this pack does not have the successor language.

3.) It is a 12 count pack - I have only heard / seen cards being packaged in 10 count cig packs.

4.) I believe Armbruster is a 350 only series (but please correct me if I'm wrong). If this is the case, wouldn't the release of the card be more in tune with summer of 1909, winter 1910 - a full year before ATC was split into L&M?

5.) It's hard to see the tax stamp but it does not appear to be the correct series/year for the T206 issue.

All of these facts, while not conclusive, lead me to believe that this pack couldn't have contained a card. With a minimum bid of $500, I can't help but wonder whether a card worth maybe $150-$200 has been placed in a pack to make it a more valuable piece.

I would welcome any evidence proving me incorrect but as a collector of these packs, something is fishy here . . .

Here is the description:

“This is an original pack of Piedmont cigarettes (Factory 25, Dist. VA.) dating from the era of T206 tobacco cards! This was originally purchased by our consignor as an unopened pack. He wanted the thrill of opening an original T206 pack and actually was successful in doing this. We would not recommend anyone purchasing packs to try this! Not only could this be very expensive, but so many of the tobacco packs that are represented as being from the T206 era are, in fact, not T206 packs, are often not even from the correct era, and do not even include a card. Even if one found a pack that was believed to have a T206 card, so many different sets were issued in the 1910 era, one could easily be disappointed and wind up with a flag or a fish card, or a card from some other nonsport tobacco-card set. This is a real T206 pack, one that has been confirmed with 100% certainty. The pack has been opened and inside was discovered the T206 baseball tobacco card, as hoped and expected. Over the years we have seen many empty boxes, but do not recall seeing an unopened 1910-era Piedmont cigarette pack. The good news is that it was a baseball player inside the pack, and this pack shows us precisely how cards were packaged in Piedmont cigarette boxes, with the card well protected from the tobacco by a protective interior lining. The bad news is the pack did not contain a Cobb, Mathewson, Johnson, or Wagner, but a minor league player by the name of Herman Armbruster of St. Paul. Aside from the consignor peeking at the card, and our pulling it partially out to properly identify the player, this card has never been touched by human hands! It is miraculous to actually see a Nr/Mt card inside the pack exactly as issued in 1910. Even though the pack was already opened, it was still very exciting for us to reopen the pack and see the card inside. Occasionally empty boxes that once held T206s surface, but this is in a whole different league. The pack was originally purchased encapsulated and graded by GAI as an unopened pack in NM 7 condition, and the GAI holder (seal broken) accompanies. This would be a fascinating and exciting item for both a T206 or unopened-pack collector. Reserve $500. Estimate (open).”
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 8th, 2007, 4:33 am

March 26th, 2008, 7:09 am #3

Jon Canfield had an excellent, thoughtful post in the REA Is Up thread which raised some questions about this lot. I thought rather than follow up in a thread that’s hopelessly offtrack, I’d start a new one.

I agree that this Piedmont pack probably isn’t all it is purported to be. I’ve been researching tobacco/cigarette taxes and regulation, starting from 1879 (the year of an enormous tax and tariff act). I’ve currently researched to 1915. Over all those years, Congress dictated, through their revenue acts, the number of cigarettes that could be sold in a package.

The 1879 act limits packages to either 10, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. According to my notes, this was the case until August of 1909, when a revenue law was passed that authorized packages to have 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. This was the law through at least 1915. Basically, the point is no package containing 12 cigarettes could have been manufactured or sold over the production years of T206s. So far as my research has shown. Tax stamps for 12-packs weren’t authorized or printed over those years.

As Jon said, I'd like to see someone offer an opposing argument, but something doesn't seem right here.

Jamie


http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bid ... emid=10075
post atc breakup - doesn't say american tobacco company. Just of interest Liggett and Myers also had their own brands prior to the merger and I believe some brands remained independent even thru that period. They first issued a card in their Sweet Moments brand in the 1800's and that may be a brand they retained. They also were among a few tobacco companies that continued to insert cards into their packs after the break-up. Coupon cigarettes contained a NS card as late as 1917 and brands like Lucky Strike inserted cards into their tins in the 1930's.......

Wax wrap - I have 5/6 packs with this type of paper wrap including a great "dummy" pack from Piedmont. I haven't seen one with a definitive "stamped for sale" date as I like to call it before 1916 or 1917.

12 pack - as mentioned earlier it was an unusual configuration for which they needed to add a tax stamp series - as the number of smokes determined the tax paid by the manufacturer for their cigars and cigarettes.

*********the final and best reason is that someone authenticated it ***********
Quote
Like
Share

fkw
Joined: December 4th, 2004, 11:32 pm

March 26th, 2008, 8:33 am #4

Jon Canfield had an excellent, thoughtful post in the REA Is Up thread which raised some questions about this lot. I thought rather than follow up in a thread that’s hopelessly offtrack, I’d start a new one.

I agree that this Piedmont pack probably isn’t all it is purported to be. I’ve been researching tobacco/cigarette taxes and regulation, starting from 1879 (the year of an enormous tax and tariff act). I’ve currently researched to 1915. Over all those years, Congress dictated, through their revenue acts, the number of cigarettes that could be sold in a package.

The 1879 act limits packages to either 10, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. According to my notes, this was the case until August of 1909, when a revenue law was passed that authorized packages to have 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. This was the law through at least 1915. Basically, the point is no package containing 12 cigarettes could have been manufactured or sold over the production years of T206s. So far as my research has shown. Tax stamps for 12-packs weren’t authorized or printed over those years.

As Jon said, I'd like to see someone offer an opposing argument, but something doesn't seem right here.

Jamie


http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bid ... emid=10075
I cant comment on this Piedmont pack because I am far from an expert on packs, but a few years ago I owned a 1909 Obak pack (of 10 cigarettes) and it had a card inside (see photo). The card actually shows light stains that matchup with the packs flap and inside slider.

Maybe if we can somehow see the actual T206 card inside the Piedmont pack we can look for evidence the card was in the pack for 98 years.


1909 Obak pack with stained card

<img src=http://centuryoldcards.com/images/1909obakboxlewis.jpeg>
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 5th, 2003, 1:18 pm

March 26th, 2008, 2:11 pm #5

Jon Canfield had an excellent, thoughtful post in the REA Is Up thread which raised some questions about this lot. I thought rather than follow up in a thread that’s hopelessly offtrack, I’d start a new one.

I agree that this Piedmont pack probably isn’t all it is purported to be. I’ve been researching tobacco/cigarette taxes and regulation, starting from 1879 (the year of an enormous tax and tariff act). I’ve currently researched to 1915. Over all those years, Congress dictated, through their revenue acts, the number of cigarettes that could be sold in a package.

The 1879 act limits packages to either 10, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. According to my notes, this was the case until August of 1909, when a revenue law was passed that authorized packages to have 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. This was the law through at least 1915. Basically, the point is no package containing 12 cigarettes could have been manufactured or sold over the production years of T206s. So far as my research has shown. Tax stamps for 12-packs weren’t authorized or printed over those years.

As Jon said, I'd like to see someone offer an opposing argument, but something doesn't seem right here.

Jamie


http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bid ... emid=10075
Frank - not sure if you recall but I purchased the card/pack from you. It was an upgrade from the Obak in my ollection and I still have it today.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 5th, 2003, 1:18 pm

March 26th, 2008, 4:46 pm #6

Jon Canfield had an excellent, thoughtful post in the REA Is Up thread which raised some questions about this lot. I thought rather than follow up in a thread that’s hopelessly offtrack, I’d start a new one.

I agree that this Piedmont pack probably isn’t all it is purported to be. I’ve been researching tobacco/cigarette taxes and regulation, starting from 1879 (the year of an enormous tax and tariff act). I’ve currently researched to 1915. Over all those years, Congress dictated, through their revenue acts, the number of cigarettes that could be sold in a package.

The 1879 act limits packages to either 10, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. According to my notes, this was the case until August of 1909, when a revenue law was passed that authorized packages to have 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. This was the law through at least 1915. Basically, the point is no package containing 12 cigarettes could have been manufactured or sold over the production years of T206s. So far as my research has shown. Tax stamps for 12-packs weren’t authorized or printed over those years.

As Jon said, I'd like to see someone offer an opposing argument, but something doesn't seem right here.

Jamie


http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bid ... emid=10075
Henry - can you email me please. Thanks!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 8th, 2008, 1:43 am

March 26th, 2008, 5:01 pm #7

Jon Canfield had an excellent, thoughtful post in the REA Is Up thread which raised some questions about this lot. I thought rather than follow up in a thread that’s hopelessly offtrack, I’d start a new one.

I agree that this Piedmont pack probably isn’t all it is purported to be. I’ve been researching tobacco/cigarette taxes and regulation, starting from 1879 (the year of an enormous tax and tariff act). I’ve currently researched to 1915. Over all those years, Congress dictated, through their revenue acts, the number of cigarettes that could be sold in a package.

The 1879 act limits packages to either 10, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. According to my notes, this was the case until August of 1909, when a revenue law was passed that authorized packages to have 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. This was the law through at least 1915. Basically, the point is no package containing 12 cigarettes could have been manufactured or sold over the production years of T206s. So far as my research has shown. Tax stamps for 12-packs weren’t authorized or printed over those years.

As Jon said, I'd like to see someone offer an opposing argument, but something doesn't seem right here.

Jamie


http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bid ... emid=10075
I don't get why anyone would pay 500 for a pack that they know already contains a non-star card.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 30th, 2008, 2:16 am

March 26th, 2008, 5:13 pm #8

Jon Canfield had an excellent, thoughtful post in the REA Is Up thread which raised some questions about this lot. I thought rather than follow up in a thread that’s hopelessly offtrack, I’d start a new one.

I agree that this Piedmont pack probably isn’t all it is purported to be. I’ve been researching tobacco/cigarette taxes and regulation, starting from 1879 (the year of an enormous tax and tariff act). I’ve currently researched to 1915. Over all those years, Congress dictated, through their revenue acts, the number of cigarettes that could be sold in a package.

The 1879 act limits packages to either 10, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. According to my notes, this was the case until August of 1909, when a revenue law was passed that authorized packages to have 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. This was the law through at least 1915. Basically, the point is no package containing 12 cigarettes could have been manufactured or sold over the production years of T206s. So far as my research has shown. Tax stamps for 12-packs weren’t authorized or printed over those years.

As Jon said, I'd like to see someone offer an opposing argument, but something doesn't seem right here.

Jamie


http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bid ... emid=10075
why wouldn't they show the card ?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 11th, 2005, 2:39 am

March 26th, 2008, 5:33 pm #9

Jon Canfield had an excellent, thoughtful post in the REA Is Up thread which raised some questions about this lot. I thought rather than follow up in a thread that’s hopelessly offtrack, I’d start a new one.

I agree that this Piedmont pack probably isn’t all it is purported to be. I’ve been researching tobacco/cigarette taxes and regulation, starting from 1879 (the year of an enormous tax and tariff act). I’ve currently researched to 1915. Over all those years, Congress dictated, through their revenue acts, the number of cigarettes that could be sold in a package.

The 1879 act limits packages to either 10, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. According to my notes, this was the case until August of 1909, when a revenue law was passed that authorized packages to have 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. This was the law through at least 1915. Basically, the point is no package containing 12 cigarettes could have been manufactured or sold over the production years of T206s. So far as my research has shown. Tax stamps for 12-packs weren’t authorized or printed over those years.

As Jon said, I'd like to see someone offer an opposing argument, but something doesn't seem right here.

Jamie


http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bid ... emid=10075
Only boxes with 10 cigarettes were possible T206 boxes. Also the tax stamp doesn't have a date at all on it, if I remember right. Dewitt/Clinton stamps went all the way to 1956.

Here's a tax stamp that would prove without doubt there was a T206 card inside. The overprinting shows Factory 30, 2nd District, NY and has date of 1911. Factory, district, state, and year are all correct.

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 14th, 2005, 1:21 pm

March 26th, 2008, 5:54 pm #10

Jon Canfield had an excellent, thoughtful post in the REA Is Up thread which raised some questions about this lot. I thought rather than follow up in a thread that’s hopelessly offtrack, I’d start a new one.

I agree that this Piedmont pack probably isn’t all it is purported to be. I’ve been researching tobacco/cigarette taxes and regulation, starting from 1879 (the year of an enormous tax and tariff act). I’ve currently researched to 1915. Over all those years, Congress dictated, through their revenue acts, the number of cigarettes that could be sold in a package.

The 1879 act limits packages to either 10, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. According to my notes, this was the case until August of 1909, when a revenue law was passed that authorized packages to have 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 50, or 100 cigarettes. This was the law through at least 1915. Basically, the point is no package containing 12 cigarettes could have been manufactured or sold over the production years of T206s. So far as my research has shown. Tax stamps for 12-packs weren’t authorized or printed over those years.

As Jon said, I'd like to see someone offer an opposing argument, but something doesn't seem right here.

Jamie


http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bid ... emid=10075
Richard,
Would a tax stamp like that prove there was a T206 inside, or a card from any set produced? If they did not produce any other cards at that time, I would agree. IF they did produce other cards at the time, is there any way to know from a sealed pack what is inside?
Quote
Like
Share