sample="quota" bates="ATX05_0227117" isource="atc" decade="1950" class="ni" date="19401115" November 15, 1940 Mr. C. F. Neiley, Vice President The American Tobacco Company 111 Fifth Avenue New York, N.Y. Dear Sir: We are enclosing report on Physical Properties of the Six Brands from the Market, Lots No. 758 and No. 759, for the week ending November 15, 1940. WEIGHTS AND MOISTURES Weight distribution of LUCKIES, while superior to that of all the competing brands with the exception of Camel, leans somewhat to the light side. This is particularly true of Lot No. 758 and is caused largely by cartons 3 and 4, which average 107.67 and 108.08 respectively, on a 12% basis. Moistures on LUCKIES are of the usual order, and Camels continue to average above 12%. Raleigh Moistures, again, are very low. CIRCUMFERENCES Circumferences on LUCKIES average somewhat higher than the microscopic standard. Old Golds, Chesterfields and Raleighs are approximately the same size as LUCKIES; Philip Morris and Camels are considerably smaller. AIR FLOWS LUCKIES are intermediate in Air Flow; Ralieghs are lowest and Chesterfields are highest. SIEVE TESTS LUCKIES exhibit a normal distribution of tobacco among the various sieve fractions. They are lower in 1/2mm. fraction than any of the competing brands tested, although both Camel and Philip Morris have a higher percentage of 2 mm. tobacco. Raleighs 1/2mm. fraction is, as usual, excessive. Widths of Cut are within normal variation. LOOSE ENDS LUCKIES exhibit from 21.7% to 69.5% less Loose Ends than all of the competing brands tested. Raleighs, as usual, are excessive in Loose Ends. CELLOPHANE WRAPPERS Cellophane Seals on LUCKIES are very satisfactory and compare favorably with those of all the competing brands. Respectfully yours, H. R. Hanmer Research Department ESH:JCP Enc c.c. Mr. W. H. Ogsbury