Were PIEDMONT 460 factory #42 & UZIT backs printed simultaneously ?

[tedzan]

The variance in BLUE ink of the UZIT backs is very similar to that seen on the PIEDMONT 460/42 backs (many are light blue, while some others are a dark blue).

Does this suggest that the UZIT backs and the PIEDMONT 460/42 backs were printed simultaneously ?

American Litho. records indicate that the UZIT cards were printed and issued at the tail-end of the T206 press runs in the Spring of 1911. And in early 1911,
ATC transferred a part of their PIEDMONT production to the Liggett & Myers plant in Durham, NC (Factory #42).

<img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/bp46042-1.jpg" alt="[linked image]"><img src="http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/herzogUZITx50b.jpg" alt="[linked image]"><img src="http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/schaeferUZITx50b.jpg" alt="[linked image]">



Hey guys, this is just meant to be a thought-provoking exercise....lest, the usual (contrarian) suspects on this forum accuse me of posting some "wild--a$$" theory.

So, what's your take on this subject ?

Thanks for engaging in a meaningful discussion,


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Does this suggest that the UZIT backs and the PIEDMONT 460/42 backs were printed simultaneously ?


On the surface it may seem as though the two backs have a connection given both are blue and appear to have a light and dark shade variation but they were not printed at the same time.

First, the Piedmont 42's do have a definite light and dark variation. With the help of Craig Wright, and the survey results from Net 54 members, I have been able to get a pretty good idea of the subjects included in the two different printings. When comparing the subjects included in the light 42 group or dark 42 group to those printed with Uzit backs, it shows they could not have been printed simultaneously.

Secondly, I'm not sure there is a definite light and dark variation to the Uzit back. I have seen light and dark Uzit's but I don't believe at this time that this was the result of a color change like the Factory 42 Piedmont's.

[Pup6913]

Just a question. Could it be possible that the paper stock is different and it has a higher acid content in one causing the fading of the ink??

[Abravefan11]

Could it be possible that the paper stock is different and it has a higher acid content in one causing the fading of the ink??

In my opinion what can be seen as color variations are likely a matter of how much ink was applied to the card. The darker Uzit backs are like the darker Sweet Caporal 649 over prints where it appears the amount of ink in the earlier runs was much heavier than the amount in the later runs. As the amount of ink tapered off it resulting in a lighter looking color. In both cases a noticeable amount of paper either does or doesn't show through the printed area. I believe a careful examination of the color that is there on the lighter looking examples shows it is the same color just less of it making it appear lighter.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-miTCDSQlrQg/Trf2M4N5ScI/AAAAAAAAFfQ/6qN9SzBoSZs/s512/UComp.jpg

[tedzan]

Tim

Please realize, I am referring only to the printing of the "backs" and the BLUE ink used. There are too many light (and porous) blue backs
found on either PIEDMONT 460/42 or UZIT cards.

Your example with the Factory #649 overprints is anecdotal....the greater majority of the cards with the Factory #649 overprinted back
are found with a normal Red color. Furthermore, such anecdotal examples can be shown for all of the T206 advertising backs.
What I am observing here with the PIEDMONT 460/42 and UZIT backs is....that at a certain timeline in early 1911, American Litho. (ALC)
was printing these 2 backs with an inferior quality of blue ink....therefore, the numerous lighter blue advertising backs on these 2 brands.
Conversely, ALC also used their normal (deeper) blue ink to print these two backs. Whether the dark blue ink was first used, or the light
(porous) blue ink was first is unknown (and probably irrelevant).


Now, let's consider the timeline. In the early part of 1911, the American Tobacco Co (ATC) was anticipating their forthcoming divestiture.
ATC transferred their PIEDMONT tobacco production to the Liggett & Myers (L & M) plant in Durham, NC (Factory 42). ATC's divestiture
also directed ATC to transfer their AMERICAN BEAUTY tobacco production to this L & M Factory (#42).

OK, I have previously made the linkage between the AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 fronts and the UZIT fronts for the 350/460 series subjects.
Therefore, it is fair to say that a coincident timeline exists in the printing of these AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 (Factory 42) and UZIT cards.

Also, recall the existence of an ALC letter (dated March 1911) that tells us of the of the intermixing of a T206 UZIT card with a T80 (Mil-
itary Series) card in a UZIT cigarette pack. This letter provides us a timeline of when in 1911 (January & February) the T206 production
run was nearing its end. UZIT cards, along with AMERICAN BEAUTY 460, LENOX, & PIEDMONT 460/42 cards, were at the very tail-end of
the T206 era.

Finally, I think it's fair to conclude that a coincident timeline exists in the printing of the backs of the PIEDMONT 460/42 and UZIT cards.
It is standard practice that when printers are applying a certain color, they will print all jobs that require that color.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Ted - I too am only discussing the backs of the cards and I believe there are three key points to answering your original question:

"Does this suggest that the UZIT backs and the PIEDMONT 460/42 backs were printed simultaneously ?"

1) I do not believe there are two color variations of Uzit, just differences in the amount of the same color ink applied. The image I included in my post above hopefully illustrated that point.

2) Unlike the Uzit backs, Piedmont 42's were printed with two different color blue inks.

3) A comparison of the Uzit subjects to the light P42's or to the dark P42's show that the two were not printed simultaneously.

You included a lot of great information in your post but I don't believe there are any connections between any of the stated facts that would change the three points I posted above.

I hope that helps.

[White Borders]

Hi Ted,

Maybe I'm not completely understanding the hypothesis. If you think the light Uzits were printed simultaneously with the light P42s, and the dark Uzits were printed simultaneously with the dark P42s, wouldn't you expect them to have the same front/back combos? But from your surveys, I don't believe Uzits and P42s have the same confirmed front/back combos.

Your confirmed Uzits are here: Uzit Confirmed List (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=125104)

Your confirmed P42's are here: P42 Confirmed List (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=124959)

As for whether the light vs dark was caused by truly different colors of blue, or was caused by how much ink was applied, I have no clue by looking at them. One way to objectively determine by scientific methods might be by analyzing the wavelength. I'm not really knowledgeable about this, but with your electronic background you might be. I'm thinking every color reflects at its own unique wavelength in the visible spectrum and absorbs all others when exposed to a white light. So, if the colors are truly different blues, they should reflect different wavelengths. But if the colors are the same blue but differ in how much ink was applied, then I'd think they should reflect the same wavelength but at different amplitude (intensity). Just a thought.

Best Regards,
Craig

[tedzan]

Craig

Thanks for your response here. Perhaps, I should have used another word rather than "simultaneously", as I now see that it can be confusing.

The front/back combo coincidence, such as is evident in the AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 and UZIT cards (350/460 series), is not applicable to my
contention here with respect to the two shades of blue backs.

Your suggestion as to the use of wavelength recognition is quite interesting. However, I have been retired for several years now; and, live far
away from my old workplace....therefore, I don't have convenient access to such instrumentation.

Anyway, under high magnification of the P460/42 and UZIT backs, I have observed certain characteristic similarities in their inks. This is most
evident in the porous appearance of the light blue backs on both these 2 brands. This effect dismisses any "fading" factor, as some have said.

Furthermore, considering that these 2 backs were printed approximately the same time in the early months (Jan. to March) of 1911, suggests
to me that it is quite possible that the same barrel of (inferior) blue ink was applied to print these lighter blue backs.


Best regards,

TED Z

[steve B]

The ink wouldn't necessarily have to be inferior.

Inks were and likely still are mixed by hand for many colors. (They definetly were into the 1980's, but there may be more premixed colors available now)

It could be as simple as a different operator reading the ink recepie differently.

There are a couple other ways the light ink could happen.

The presses have some control of the ink volume, a different pressman may have run a bit less ink.

If they were low on blue they may have added a small ammount of white or a different blue base to the mix, not enough to change the color in a major way, but enough to stretch the last bit of some remaining stock.

Steve B

[tedzan]

Steve

Your points are good ones; and, any one of them may explain the difference in the light blue vs dark blue phenomena of the P460/42 and UZIT backs.

In any event, I still feel strongly that both these T-brand backs were printed during the same ink runs. Press runs with the dark (normal) blue ink and
separate press runs with the (whatever) lighter blue ink.


Thanks Steve for your post here.

TED Z

[Rob D.]

Thanks Tim for your posts here.

ROB D

[tedzan]

rob d

Your recurring snide remarks in my threads have worn out. Why don't you try to contribute some meaningful
inputs to the subject matter. Rather than your subtle mean-spirited comments.

GROW UP.....WILL YOU !

You act as if you are still stuck in your teenage years.

[Rob D.]

rob d

Your recurring snide remarks in my threads have worn out. Why don't you try to contribute some meaningful
inputs to the subject matter. Rather than your subtle mean-spirited comments.

GROW UP.....WILL YOU !

You act as if you are still stuck in your teenage years.

Sure, Ted. Lead the way.

[cfc1909]

Tim

I agree with the lighter Uzit just having less ink applied and think the Sweet Caporal comparison shows very good evidence and backs up your thoughts.

I also think if the P42 and Uzit were printed "simultaneously" the fronts would match.

[tedzan]

You are misconstrueing the intent of this thread. It is standard printer's practice to do press runs of several jobs with a given color of ink.

Different sheets of pre-printed fronts would be run thru the press to print the backs whose color was the same....in this situation, BLUE.

Incidently, the PIEDMONT 460/42 and UZIT cards have 28 fronts in common from the 350/460 series.

And, 8 fronts in common from the 460-only series (which to date there are only 12 subjects known with the PIEDMONT 460/42 back).


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Incidently, the PIEDMONT 460/42 and UZIT cards have 28 fronts in common from the 350/460 series.

And, 8 fronts in common from the 460-only series (which to date there are only 12 subjects known with the PIEDMONT 460/42 back).

TED Z

While it is true some of fronts are shared by both Piedmont 42 and Uzit, not enough are to show concurrent printings. However there are enough that don't match to show they were not concurrent printings.

Breaking these two groups into subsets is not the proper way to analyze how these two backs were printed and can only lead to false conclusions. It's interesting to think about 350/460 and 460 separately but it isn't how the cards were being printed at that time.

I know it's just my opinion but I haven't seen anything to date that would lead me to believe there are two different shades of blue Uzits.

[wonkaticket]

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/net54shared/websize/Untitled-1.jpg

First off I’m not going to speculate on what standard printers practice was 100+ years ago because that is all it will be at the end of the day, speculation.

I will say from experience as an owner of a company that specializes in premium giveaways and retail products. There will always be manufacturing variances, the reasons behind such variances are many but often carry a common reason as to why. Most of the time it’s the most obvious reason FWIW.

From my experience collecting T206’s for 25+ years I can say that these cards have all sorts of little nuances that go missed. Many of which simply boil down to saturation of ink applied or missed ink all together.

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/net54shared/websize/wagnerper20nored.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/net54shared/websize/niles.jpg

There are dozens of little goofy things in this set that advanced collectors have privately chased for years under wraps to keep folks from looking for them to drive them up. Seriously it’s the magicians guild god help you if you are told something and tell someone else about that missing dot card…no kidding. :)

Example the cards below can be found with all sorts of degrees of clouds, glove colors, redness in cheeks etc. i.e. Ritchey/Doves.

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/net54shared/giant/scan0002.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/net54shared/websize/mcquillian.jpg

Most all of them are simply cosmetic subtle changes that only by handling many of one card would you be aware of or notice. Some to most all have no real value either. Then there are those true cards with real visible striking differences which command premiums due to rarity.

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/net54shared/giant/scan00072.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/net54shared/websize/brownom.jpg

There are also tons of faded backs I have a few Tolstoi’s in which the ink has been so lightly applied they look grey or brown…they are of course black.

IMO “True” color differences in backs are really stand out and not too subtle and also carry some common attributes in terms of series or subjects. A common rule of thumb is if you have to ask it’s most likely a faded version of its normal counterpart.

This from a guy who likes differences in backs and actively collects such anomalies and or variations; I see no differences in the Uzit brand.

I have been fortunate to handle and see quite a few from other collectors collections as well as own examples and I just don’t see it. In fact I have a few Uzits on hand now from a board member and like Tim posted above with the SC 649 there can be subtle differences but no night and day print difference.

Cheers,

John

[tedzan]

While it is true some of fronts are shared by both Piedmont 42 and Uzit, not enough are to show concurrent printings. However there are enough that don't match to show they were not concurrent printings.

Breaking these two groups into subsets is not the proper way to analyze how these two backs were printed and can only lead to false conclusions. It's interesting to think about 350/460 and 460 separately but it isn't how the cards were being printed at that time.

Tim

I fully understand that the subjects in the 350/460 series and the 460-only series were not distinct entities back in 1911 when American Litho. was printing these cards.
Consider this, I have identified 28 subjects from what we now refer to as the "350/460 series".....and, 8 subjects from the "460-only series".....that are common to both
the P460/42 and UZIT brands. And, there is a good likelihood that these 36 subjects may have been on one 36-card sheet.


I know it's just my opinion but I haven't seen anything to date that would lead me to believe there are two different shades of blue Uzits.

I just bumped up my current "UZIT" thread. Observe the backs of my Herzog and Schaefer cards. Then tell me that there is not a stark difference in their blue colors ?

DITTO goes for Jim B's Willis vs Mike S's Mullin.

I have seen enough of these cards in my 30+ years of collecting T206's, that I can say with certainty that there is a noticeable difference in the blue coloring of some
UZIT's vs other UZIT's.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

And, there is a good likelihood that these 36 subjects may have been on one 36-card sheet.

With a high degree of certainty I can say that is likely not true.


I just bumped up my current "UZIT" thread. Observe the backs of my Herzog and Schaefer cards. Then tell me that there is not a stark difference in their blue colors ?

There is no stark difference in the blue inks between the Herzog back and Schaefer, but simply a difference in the amount of ink applied.


I have seen enough of these cards in my 30+ years of collecting T206's, that I can say with certainty that there is a noticeable difference in the blue coloring of some UZIT's vs other UZIT's.

I readily admit I haven't been collecting T206's for 30 years but I can say with certainty as well that there is a noticeable difference in the backs of some Uzits but it's not due to a change in the ink color.

I'm not trying to be contrarian but just like sharing what I know or think about the set with people that are open to discussing it. By all means you are free to have your opinion in spite of what I've presented. Happy collecting.

[terjung]

I certainly haven't studied the set for years and have owned exactly 1 T206 in my lifetime, so take that into consideration. I have done a significant amount of screen printing, however. I know it is not identical, but the resultant "ink on the medium" show similar characteristics.

Having looked at both threads and all the different examples of UZIT backs, it's tough to see the argument for a second (lighter) colored back. If the lighter colored UZITs didn't all have the paper showing through them, I think an argument for a second color would be much stronger. Looks to me like an ink application variation. If a lighter ink color UZIT back were printed, I'd think you would see examples of it without any of the background medium showing through it - a bold lighter blue back, for example. In the screen printing world, you'd look at the lighter colored ones and say, "It needs another pass."

[wonkaticket]

I just bumped up my current "UZIT" thread. Observe the backs of my Herzog and Schaefer cards. Then tell me that there is not a stark difference in their blue colors ? TED Z

There is not a major difference just saturation differences which can be found on almost all brands of backs from EPDG to AB. I see no new variation of Uzit here.

John

[tedzan]

I'm not proposing a "new variation" here. That was not the purpose of why I initiated this subject.

The primary motivation for this thread has been my long-term curiousity regarding the PIEDMONT 460 Factory #42 backs,
of which the greater majority of them are a lighter blue than all other PIEDMONT series backs.

With the UZIT backs there is no denying it, there are some whose backs are a lighter shade of blue than others. But, not
as pronouced a difference as the PIEDMONT 460/42 backs.

That's it.....this is no more complicated than that. I threw this out there to stimulate some thought-provoking discussion.

And, I appreciate the many interesting comments that have been posted here.


TED Z

[wonkaticket]

Ted I understand what you are saying but the same can be said for a lot of brands. I have cards with dark purple Drum and light purple Drum, same for other brands and fronts for that matter.

It’s really a question of saturation as Tim pointed out nothing more IMO. I also tried to illustrate above with images. How much ink is applied to a card can have a significant change on the cards appearance. Layout 10 examples of any back or same front and you will see subtle differences and some are actually really neat and very noticeable. BTW this goes for lots of card sets not just T206.

In regards to T206 there are certain cards that distinct differences are very clear. I regards to backs I think for sure Lenox brown and OM Southern brown fall under this category and possibly Piedmont 42.

Will we find other shades of EPDG, or AB who knows perhaps? The set is enormous and while we know a bunch and figure out more each day we should never think we have it licked as new stuff will continue to come to market that will turn today’s thinking upside down.

We are far from seeing all this set has to offer.

John

[steve B]

Man that's a tough one to read.

I don't have a drum yet,(or a Uzit) and you have them with darker or lighter backs!

I'm glad there are collections like that, and collection owners willing to discuss differences in the rare stuff.:D

Steve B