Fraud

December 13

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago this week?

Virginia Gazette [Purdie and Dixon] (November 26, 1772).

“In your Gazette of the 26th Ultimo, I observe and Advertisement signed by Alexander Wodrow.”

Colonizers placed newspaper advertisements to serve a variety of purposes.  They hawked consumer goods and services.  They described enslaved people who liberated themselves by running away and offered rewards for their capture and return.  They called on debtors and creditors to settle accounts with the executors of estates.  They offered real estate for sale.  They notified readers about stray livestock to claim.

Some colonizers used advertisements to pursue feuds with others or to defend their reputations to the public.  Such was the case with notices placed by Alexander Wodrow and William Love, both of Falmouth, in Alexander Purdie and John Dixon’s Virginia Gazette in November and December 1772.  It began with a “letter” addressed to the printers but placed among the paid notices in the November 26 edition.  Wodrow asked the printers “to acquaint the Publick that William Love, by the Connivance of David Kerr,” Wodrow’s former attorney, “has this Day in his Possession an accepted Note for near two Hundred Pounds, drawn by Kerr on Mr. Gavin Lawson, and accepted by Mr. Lawson, payable to William Love, and Company.”  Furthermore, “the said Note was fraudulently obtained” and accepted by Lawson “inadvertently.”  Wodrow did not specify his relationship to Lawson or his interest in the matter.

Virginia Gazette [Purdie and Dixon] (December 10, 1772).

That did not matter to Love.  What did matter was that his reputation had been impugned in the public prints.  In response, he dispatched his own “letter” to the printers.  It appeared among other paid notices in column with a header that read, “Advertisements,” in the December 10 edition.  Love cited the Wodrow’s advertisement, directing the printers (and readers) to “your Gazette of the 26th Ultimo.”  For those who had not seen the previous advertisement and did not have access to the newspaper from two weeks ago, Love provided a summary of Wodrow’s allegations.  He then declared that “the said Note is still in my Hands.”  To defend his reputation, he invited “any Persons who will give themselves the Trouble to inquire into the Matter of Mr. Gavin Lawson, or the Gentlemen of Falmouth” to consult with Love directly.  Upon doing so, Love was convinced that they would “be satisfied that there was no Fraud done or intended in this Transaction.”  Even if no readers went to “the Trouble” of contacting Love for more information, he did not allow Wodrow the sole power of framing their dispute in the public prints.

It was a convoluted story.  A significant sum and, just as valuable, the reputations of several colonizers were on the line.  Dressing up their notices as letters to the printers and purchasing space in a newspaper gave both Wodrow and Love an opportunity to air their grievances, warn others of a potentially fraudulent note, and defend their reputations to the broader public beyond their local community in Falmouth.  Purdie and Dixon published updates from London, Boston, Philadelphia, Charleston, and Williamsburg in the section of the newspaper devoted to news, but readers sometimes encountered accounts of local affairs, like the quarrel in Falmouth, among the advertisements.

June 24

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago this week?

Jun 24 - 6:21:1770 Pennsylvania Gazette
Supplement to the Pennsylvania Gazette (June 21, 1770).

“Large quantities of sickles, stamped S. PACHALL, in imitation … of my stamp.”

For several months in the spring and summer of 1770, Stephen Paschall ran an advertisement for scythes, sickles, knives, and similar items in the Pennsylvania Gazette.  Paschall made all of his wares and sold them, appropriately enough, “at the sign of the Scythe and Sickle” on Market Street in Philadelphia.  Paschall was confident in his skill, declaring that the products of his workshop “will prove as good as any made elsewhere.”

Others apparently shared this assessment, so much so that for several years counterfeit sickles attributed to Paschall circulated in Philadelphia.  He devoted half of his advertisement to describing the fraud and instructing prospective customers how to recognize authentic Paschall sickles.  He lamented that “some merchants of this city have … imported from Great Britain … and sold great quantities” of sickles “stamped S. PACHALL.”  Paschall marked his own sickles with his name, “S. PASCHALL.”  The difference could be easy to overlook:  “the letter S, between the A and C, is left out in the stamp on the English sickle.”  He deplored the unscrupulous purveyors of the counterfeit sickles for profiting off of his name and reputation when selling inferior goods, “many of which have been brought to me by farmers to alter.”  To add insult to injury, Paschall often found himself in the position of repairing sickles after farmers purchased them because they had been duped by the counterfeit mark.  He experienced some chagrin that those farmers confided that they “bought them for my make” only to discover “the workmanship is by no means equal to those formerly made by me.”

In addition to rehabilitating his own reputation, Paschall considered it important to bring this deception to public notice because he was in the process of “establishing my son in the same business (who is an apprentice to me).”  He defended his work not only for his own benefit but to safeguard the prospects of the next generation following the family business.

Labels, stamps, and other means of marking goods played an important role in marketing some products in the eighteenth century, but they could also be abused, adapted, and deployed to confuse consumers.  Paschall and others used newspaper advertisements to inform the public of this trickery, simultaneously protecting their own business interests and providing a service to unsuspecting consumers.

April 30

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , , , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Apr 30 - 4:30:1768 New-York Journal Supplement
Supplement to the New-York Journal (April 30, 1768).

“Each pot is sealed with his coat of arms, as in the margin of the directions, to prevent fraud.”

For quite some time John Baker, “SURGEON DENTIST,” had advertised his services to the better sorts and others and other residents of Boston in the newspapers published there, but in the spring of 1768 he migrated to New York and informed “the gentry” that “he will wait on receiving their commands.” He announced that he “cures the scurvy in the gums” and “makes artificial teeth,” just a few of the many aspects of dental hygiene and health he addressed in the lengthy notice he inserted in the New-York Journal.

In addition to those various services, the itinerant surgeon dentist also hawked a product that readers could purchase with or without undergoing any of the procedures he performed. A manicule drew attention to Baker’s “Dentrific … for preserving the teeth and gums.” Here Baker used an alternate spelling for “dentifrice,” a precursor to toothpaste described by the Oxford English Dictionary as “a powder or other preparation for rubbing or cleansing the teeth.” Baker provided “proper directions,” presumably a printed sheet or pamphlet, with each purchase.

He also realized the potential for counterfeits to circulate in a marketplace with little regulation of medicines. To that end, the inserted a nota bene to announce that “Each pot is sealed with his coat of arms, as in the margin of the directions, to prevent fraud.” Whether Baker actually anticipated spurious dentifrices attributed to him, this proclamation enhanced his marketing efforts. It implied that his dentifrice was so effective that others would indeed attempt to peddle substitutes that they passed off as authentic. It also allowed him to assert that he possessed his own coat of arms, which now doubled as a trademark to readily identify his product. Earlier in the advertisement he declared that he had provided his services “to the principal nobility, gentry, and others of Great-Britain, France, Ireland, and other principal Places in Europe.” Invoking his own coat of arms accentuated that claim, suggesting that his treatments were so effective that clients of means and influence had obtained his services and been satisfied with the results. As a newcomer to New York, Baker could not rely on a reputation built over time through extended interactions with local residents as a means of attracting new patients. Instead, he used his dentifrice, his coat of arms, and his own reports concerning his previous clients to achieve recognition and encourage prospective patients to engage his services in a new city.