T206 Print Groups-A Quick Overview

[Abravefan11]

This information is a little deeper than some collectors wish to go, but I thought I would start this thread for those that may wish to discuss this topic. For the time being I’ll try and keep it general and we can break anything specific down into more detail if anyone would like to.

The six print groups that make up the T206 set are the foundation for understanding how the set was produced and which subjects are possible with which backs.

There are four main print groups.

Print Group 1
Originally 150 subjects
5 subjects were added during production of this group.
3 subjects had a team change during this groups production. (Brown, Dahlen,Elberfeld)
1 error (Magie) was corrected.

This group was used to print all of the 150 Series backs. After the printing of that series was completed, the same group was printed with 350 Series backs. This group was then discontinued and printing for the next group began.

Print Group 2
Originally 200 subjects
2 subjects had a team change during this groups production. (Demmitt,O’Hara)

This group completed the expansion of the set to the advertised 350 subjects. At the conclusion of their production, this group was discontinued and printing of the next group began.

Print Group 3
Originally 60 subjects
2 subjects had a team change during this groups production. (Klienow, F. Smith)
1 error (Doyle N.Y. Nat’l) was corrected.

This group was the beginning of the expansion to the sets advertised 460 subjects. However, prior to the other 460 subjects being added, this group was printed with 350 series backs. After these 350 series printings the next group was added for the sets final expansion.

Print group 4
46 subjects
No errors or team changes.

This group was added with group 3 and together printed with 460 Series backs. This completed the sets expansion to the advertised 460 subjects.

There are two groups that are classified as supplemental. This because a close look shows that they are groups in their own right and don’t follow the series progression like the other four groups.

Print Group 5
6 subjects

This is a group of six subjects referred to as the super prints. They were first printed with print group 2 and continued being supplements for the remainder of the set with groups 3 and 4.

Print Group 6
48 subjects

This is the group known as the southern leaguers. This group was printed during the production of group 1, but not part of that print group.

Again, this is just a general overview, if anyone would like to discuss something in more detail it would be great.

[Leon]

Nice thread Tim. While I am not a specific T206 Collector I have been going through 500 or so T206s the last few days. I have seen quite a few Southern Leaguers. I have a couple questions, and the first one might be stupid.

1. Is the Southern Association the same thing as the Southern League? (I know, stupid question)

2. How scarce are the SL'ers in relation to other players? I think in this 500'ish grouping there is an inordinately high percentage. I don't know what that is right now but it seems like there are quite a few. Any thoughts?

And btw, most of the grouping is Piedmont (around 300), Old Mill (around 120), Hindu (around 20), Red Hindu (1) Sweep Caporal (around 20), EPDG 3-4......as well as there are around 50 T210s (almost all from series 3 but some from 2) and about 30-40 T205s......I think all with Piedmont backs. These were found in Irving TX....

[sdkammeyer]

Nice thread Tim. While I am not a specific T206 Collector I have been going through 500 or so T206s the last few days. I have seen quite a few Southern Leaguers. I have a couple questions, and the first one might be stupid.

1. Is the Southern Association the same thing as the Southern League? (I know, stupid question)

2. How scarce are the SL'ers in relation to other players? I think in this 500'ish grouping there is an inordinately high percentage. I don't know what that is right now but it seems like there are quite a few. Any thoughts?

And btw, most of the grouping is Piedmont (around 300), Old Mill (around 120), Hindu (around 20), Red Hindu (1) Sweep Caporal (around 20), EPDG 3-4......as well as there are around 50 T210s (almost all from series 3 but some from 2) and about 30-40 T205s......I think all with Piedmont backs. These were found in Irving TX....

shall i get my checkbook out now or is this going to be strictly a cash transaction?? :)

great thread. i have it bookmarked. i'm sure there will be tons of other good info added as well.

[MVSNYC]

Great post, Tim! can you attach some dates to the various print groups?

Leon, i am sure Tim will jump in here, but SLers are definitely rarer then commons and even most HOFers. they were simply printed over a much shorter period of time, and available only regionally (the south). i am sure the high number of SLers in your group is due to where they were found (Texas).

[Abravefan11]

Leon-

The southern league subjects were from four leagues.

Southern Association
Virginia League
South Atlantic League
Texas League

And Mike answered your second question in the post above.

[Abravefan11]

Great post, Tim! can you attach some dates to the various print groups?

Definitive dates of when one group stopped and another began aren't known. Below is a general timeline based on what we do know, but it's by no means meant to be exact.

[t206blogcom]

Tim - Great post, thanks.

Leon - Keep me in mind if you have T206 Southern Leaguers for sale, especially Hindu backs! :)

[sb1]

These will all be offered in the next auction. lots of SL's and many of them are Hindu backs, Stay tuned for details.

[dealme]

Nice summary Tim. This helped answer some of my questions after my first time through Inside T206

[MVSNYC]

Tim, that chart really paints a clear picture, awesome, thanks!

[sreader3]

Tim,

As I have written elsewhere, I would split the southern leaguers into two print groups: the 34 that are available with Hindu (150/350) and the 14 that are not (350-only). As Jamie Hull discovered, 34 southern league subjects have essentially equivalent back distribution split between Hindu, Piedmont 350 and Old Mill Southern and the other 14 have essentially equivalent back distribution split between only Piedmont 350 and Old Mill Southern. (Footnote: I miss Jamie Hull--he was a truly great T206 researcher).

Scot

[mrvster]

Great input...I love the summation Tim!!:)
I have always wondered about the super prints with sov 460 backs since i'm attempting the sub- set...the general "rarity" is disputed amongst collectors, but I have trouble finding these super prints...I know there are other sov 460 combos just as tuf, but the superprints in this paticuliar sub set seem to get alot of attention in regard to the apparent rarity...any thoughts on this?? the rarity of the super-prints in sov 460???:confused:

Scot!!- Where has Jamie BEEN??!!! :confused: I love his Ford Tolstoi Scrap and the split front top to bottom different player Phillipe and engle:confused:

[sreader3]

mrvster,

I know Ted is of the view that the six superprints are harder to find with Sovereign 460 than the 460-only subjects are to find with that back. I'm not inclined to question that--especially since Ted is the only person I know to have put together a complete Sovereign-only T206 set.

Jamie was a very cool and humble guy and extremely knowledgeable about T206. He was an asset to the hobby and I hope he returns to this board some day.

Scot

[Abravefan11]

Scot - Each of the print groups, with exception to the super prints, can be broken down into additional subsets. But when looking at the sets composition, all 48 of the southern league subjects fit into a single print group. Had it not been for something unforeseen, all 48 would have been printed and distributed with Hindu backs as ATC intended. And population variances, that demonstrate subsets within a print group for the same back, is something we see throughout the set.

Johnny-Some Sovereign 460's are much easier to find than others. There is a definitive difference in the numbers between two subsets printed with that back. But the six super prints do not stand alone as being the toughest. Yes they are tough, but there are a number of other Sovereign 460's I believe are just as tough.

[Leon]

Jamie was a very cool and humble guy and extremely knowledgeable about T206. He was an asset to the hobby and I hope he returns to this board some day.

Scot

He was on the board 3 weeks ago and posted a couple months ago. Did something happen to him?

[sreader3]

Tim,

You and I can agree to disagree about the southern leaguer breakdown.

I don't think the 14 southern leaguers that weren't printed with Hindu were "ready for print" at the time of the summer-fall 1909 Hindu printing--and even if they were "ready for print" the fact remains that they were not printed with Hindu.

I will continue to regard these 14 as a distinct 350-only southern league print group until proof to the contrary is presented (e.g., 1909 advertising).

Scot

Footnote: What is the "something unforeseen" that you are referring to?

[sreader3]

He was on the board 3 weeks ago and posted a couple months ago. Did something happen to him?

That's good to hear, Leon. Maybe it's me who needs to frequent the board more often.:)

[Abravefan11]

Scot - I'm always up for agreeing to disagree but I'll continue to make my case as long as you would like to discuss it.

All 48 southern league subjects were planned with Hindu backs. The 1909 Hindu advertisements included the Texas league in its description, but none were printed.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-7WxQ0A8E6Jw/TCwGfpQJrpI/AAAAAAAAGK8/rAnYFxXtS8I/s512/Hindu%2520Ad.pdf%2520-%2520Adobe%2520Reader%25206302010%2520110352%2520P M.bmp.jpg

The important thing the print groups do is to place the right subjects, into the proper production timelines. All 48 southern league subjects began production at the same time, and were discontinued at the same time. This is what makes them a single print group.

The fact that 14 southern league subjects were absent from the printing of a certain back isn't reason enough to split them into two separate groups. Within other print groups we see many subjects printed with backs others in the same group were not.

[sreader3]

Tim,

Have to disagree. The 34 SLers that were printed with Hindu are tougher with Pied 350 than the 14 SLers that were not printed with Hindu, just as the 150/350 major leaguers are tougher with Pied 350 than the 350-only major leaguers. It is in fact a paradox that the 34 SLers that are possible with THREE backs (Hindu, Pied 350, OMS) are more difficult than the 14 SLers that are only possible with TWO backs (Pied 350, OMS). The explanation for this seeming paradox is that the 14 are, like the 350-only major leaguers, much more plentiful with Pied 350 and this trumps the small Hindu production from which the 14 were excluded.

The 14 SLers that are not possible with Hindu were launched with the 350-only major leaguers and comprise a separate print group in my opinion. Not sure what your Hindu ad proves as we both know the Texas leaguers were not printed with Hindu.

Scot

[Abravefan11]

Scot - Is it your opinion that the 14 southern league subjects, not printed with Hindu, were printed with the print group 2 subjects?

I'm just trying to get on the same page.

[Abravefan11]

Not sure what your Hindu ad proves as we both know the Texas leaguers were not printed with Hindu.

Scot

The ad shows that ATC intended for them to be printed with Hindu. They included the Texas League in the advertisements, but for whatever reason they weren't printed. Still part of the same print group in my opinion.

The same thing happened with the major-league subjects. The Hindu ads stated 150 Subjects would be included, but only 102 were. The subjects that were not printed don't belong in a different print group, they just were not printed with this back.

[sreader3]

Tim,

I'm still struggling to come to grips with your nomenclature but if by "print group 2" you mean 350-only subjects then I think so.

In essence, the 34 SLers that were printed with Hindu were printed WITH THE PIED 350 BACK in similar numbers to the 150/350 major league subjects whereas the other 14 SLers that were not printed with Hindu were printed WITH THE PIED 350 BACK in similar numbers to the 350-only major league subjects. This, combined with the fact that Hindu is a 150 series back, suggests to me that the 14 SLers comprise a distinct 350-only southern league print group. This is Jamie Hull's discovery circa 2009 but convinced me.

A corollary is that the scarcity of the 34 SLers relative to 150/350 major leaguers is attributable to the former's unavailability with Pied 150 as well as the Sweet Caporal, Sovereign and EPDG brands whereas the scarcity of the remaining 14 SLers relative to the 350-only major (and minor) leaguers is attributable to the former's unavailability with Sweet Caporal, Sovereign and other brands with which 350-only major (and minor) league subjects were printed. Of course, this scarcity is offset somewhat by the Old Mill Southern printing.

Scot

[Abravefan11]

OK, I understand what you're saying and we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think that any of the southern league subjects were extended into the print group 2 (350 Only) production. I believe based on everything I have seen that the 48 southern league subjects were printed during the production of print group 1 (150/350) as one supplemental group. I believe all 48 were discontinued prior to print group 2 (350 Only) beginning.

The variances in numbers of some subjects with a given back does not imply to me that they were printed at different times. As I stated before, we see this in other print groups with certain backs.

[sreader3]

Tim,

At least we have clarity as to the reasons for our disagreement. That is progress.:)

Scot

[Abravefan11]

Scot - Anything positive is good.

So let's look at it this way. Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) and Elberfeld (Washington) are only possible with 350 backs. But a close look at the confirmed backs of these subjects show they are not part of print group 2 (350 Only) but continuations of their print group 1 subject. A team change was made during the production of print group 1 and combing the backs of the two variations shows this to be true.

[sreader3]

Except the 14 southern leaguers not printed with Hindu were not team variation cards. They were new subjects.

[Abravefan11]

No they were not new team variatiosn and forgive me for further confusioning the issue.

They were part of the 48 subject group at the time of the Hindu printing, they just weren't printed at that time.

[atx840]

Tim. Takes some time to wrap your head around these groupings.

Do you think they printed the P150 with 150 subjects with one being the Magie, then this was fixed and a print of the Sov 150 series was run and discontinued? then a second new P150 and introduction SC150s series with the 3 additions (Plank, Wagner, Crawford) printed?

Lots of questions around why add these three then, why pull Wagner after a short run? Why was Plank pulled before any other 350 series backs were printed other then SC f30..we may never know the answers.

What I am interested in is could Planks sheet mates have been reduced in production numbers on, say, sc350f25 by having the entire sheet thrown out vs replacing his plate? Do we see any scarce f25 backed players out there like Plank?

Thoughts on the elite eight/nine and why they only have a P350 series back? Sheetmates for a wrongly printed back and pulled early?

Fun stuff..thanks for sharing!

[E93]

Tim and Scot,
It is great to be a fly on the wall of this conversation. Thank you for all your hard work in trying to make sense of this set(s).
JimB

[cfc1909]

Tim,

34 southern league subjects have essentially equivalent back distribution split between Hindu, Piedmont 350 and Old Mill Southern

Scot


This is not true. The 34 southern subjects that come with Hindu are much tougher than any Piedmont or Old Mill subject, the same 34 or the other 14.

My belief is the reason it is 34 is that is the number of subjects that compose a sheet.

There are 102 major league subjects printed with Hindu and to put 14 subjects in their own group you would have to put the 102 in their own group. That is not the case.

For some unknown reason they stopped printing Hindu. That is clear by the ads. Dooin and Waddell and Nicholls are pictured on ads and do not exist with Hindu.

[DixieBaseball]

I have seen quite a few Southern Leaguers. I have a couple questions, and the first one might be stupid.

1. Is the Southern Association the same thing as the Southern League? (I know, stupid question)

Leon - Definitely not a stupid question-actually a very good question. The answer is yes and no. I think the reverse of the Old Mill T206 SL card is the reason for the confusion. It cleary states on the reverse of any of the T206 SLer card "Baseball Series Selection from Texas, South Atlantic, Virginia, and Southern Leagues." The Southern League started in 1885 and ended around 1900, and the Southern Association was officially formed around 1900. Essentially many of the same Southern cities/teams were represented in both leagues, and this is where the confusion comes in.... Although they are referred to as Southern Leaguer's (1909-11 time frame), they are technically Southern Association players/teams. Due to verbiage on the reverse of the OM card, and the ease of the words Southern Leaguer as opposed to Southern Association player, we collector's call them Southern Leaguer's, but technically they are Southern Associationer's ! (See 1908 Southern Association Champions PC which includes Harry Bay, Bill Bernhard, and Hub Perdue, 3 of the "SLer's" from the T206 OM group) - So, technically they are not SLer's, but this is what the collecting universe calls them.

[Leon]

I have seen quite a few Southern Leaguers. I have a couple questions, and the first one might be stupid.

1. Is the Southern Association the same thing as the Southern League? (I know, stupid question)

Leon - Definitely not a stupid question-actually a very good question.


Thanks Jeremy. I have seen the 2 names used almost interchangeably and that is why I asked. It was a question that sounded like I should have known though :). I appreciate your very good explanation. And I should mention, I also appreciate the very in depth discussion of something I happen to be sorting through at this moment (Piedmonts, Hindu's, SL'ers, T210s etc...)

[Abravefan11]

Tim. Takes some time to wrap your head around these groupings.

It does take time. I've had the pleasure of discussing these groups at length with several long time collectors of the set. It wasn't something that made sense to them right away, but once everything was understood I believe the sets composition became easier to understand.

Do you think they printed the P150 with 150 subjects with one being the Magie, then this was fixed and a print of the Sov 150 series was run and discontinued? then a second new P150 and introduction SC150s series with the 3 additions (Plank, Wagner, Crawford) printed?

Yes. The Magie error was corrected during the first printing of the Piedmont 150 backs, prior to the printing of the Sovereign 150. The Sovereign 150 back was only printed with the original 150 subjects that began the set. The five subjects that were added later were not printed with Sovereign 150, but were included with later printings of either Piedmont, Sweet Caporal or both.

[steve B]

This is not true. The 34 southern subjects that come with Hindu are much tougher than any Piedmont or Old Mill subject, the same 34 or the other 14.

My belief is the reason it is 34 is that is the number of subjects that compose a sheet.

There are 102 major league subjects printed with Hindu and to put 14 subjects in their own group you would have to put the 102 in their own group. That is not the case.

For some unknown reason they stopped printing Hindu. That is clear by the ads. Dooin and Waddell and Nicholls are pictured on ads and do not exist with Hindu.

34 Is almost certainly not the number of subjects on a sheet. That there are 34 with Hindu and 14 without is an extremely strong argument against 34 being the number of subjects.

If there were 34 on a sheet then there would have to have been some way of having the 14 that weren't printed with Hindu as part of another sheet.
And that wouldn't work unless you picture them as part of an old mill sheet that had 14 SL and 20 regular cards. OR that ALC had two color presses and was able to print multiple backs in one pass.

I just don't see either scenario as being likely. And so far there's no eveidence of either. No miscuts with both SL and regualr cards on the same card, nor anything I can see that would indicate the use of multi color presses. One of the principal partners did invent the multi color press, but I haven't found a date yet.

There are several other groups of cards that indicate fewer than 34 subjects on a sheet, with a number closer to 12 or 14 possibly as small as 6 more likely.

Steve B

[cfc1909]

Steve

I do not have 100% proof that a sheet consisted of 34 subjects, it is just my belief after studying the set for many years. 102 could also be 3 sheets of 34.

There may even be a couple different number of subjects per sheet. Hopefully a sheet shows up and we can learn from it.

There were different configurations of subjects on sheets. The Lundgren with a miscut with 2 different names at top proves that. The 34 number appears so many times when studying the sets composition it has led me to believe that is the number of subjects per sheet but certainly you are entitled to your conclusions/beliefs.

[g_vezina_c55]

cool thread:)

[teetwoohsix]

Excellent thread !!!

Great breakdown Tim, thank you.

I've always wondered why the only corrected errors were Magie to Magee (print group 1) and Doyle N.Y. Nat'l to Doyle N.Y. (print group 3) when there were other spelling errors. Any theories on this?

Also, I believe they caught the Magie error pretty quick into the first print run due to the low population of the error cards, but is there any way to guage how early~ like, by how many Piedmont 150 Magee cards are out there? I know population reports by TPG's don't cover all cards out there, but is there any known ratio other than the population reports?

Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

[g_vezina_c55]

how many magee or magie ?

[teetwoohsix]

how many magee or magie ?

Yes :D I guess that would've been an easier way to say it ;):)

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

34 Is almost certainly not the number of subjects on a sheet. That there are 34 with Hindu and 14 without is an extremely strong argument against 34 being the number of subjects.

If there were 34 on a sheet then there would have to have been some way of having the 14 that weren't printed with Hindu as part of another sheet.
And that wouldn't work unless you picture them as part of an old mill sheet that had 14 SL and 20 regular cards. OR that ALC had two color presses and was able to print multiple backs in one pass.

I just don't see either scenario as being likely. And so far there's no eveidence of either. No miscuts with both SL and regualr cards on the same card, nor anything I can see that would indicate the use of multi color presses. One of the principal partners did invent the multi color press, but I haven't found a date yet.

There are several other groups of cards that indicate fewer than 34 subjects on a sheet, with a number closer to 12 or 14 possibly as small as 6 more likely.

Steve B


Hey Steve

Don't waste your time arguing this subject. They have only 2 examples that makes them think that "34" is the sheet size. When you inform them (and you are certainly
informed in printing practices) that 34 subjects were printed on a 36-card sheet which included 2 double-prints....they scoff at you.

For example, the 36-card sheet in which the SWEET CAP 150 factory #649 (overprint) group of 34 subjects were printed on included Powers; and either the Davis, or
Johnson , or Mathewson cards were double-printed.

Furthermore, the 46 subjects in the 460-only Series were printed on a 48-card sheet which included double prints of Duffy and Ford.

Why these two guys....Duffy was popular since he became Manager of the White Sox for the 1910 season. And, Russ Ford was a rookie sensation in New York in 1910,
winning 26 games while losing only 6 games.

Thru out the T206 series subject construction, the numbers are invariably factors of 6 or 12. It does not take a math major to understand this. American Lithographic's
printing presses for this type of litho printing were designed to accommodated sheets of cards that were 36, 48, 72, etc. (12 cards horizontally x N number of rows
vertically).


T-Rex TED

[tedzan]

tim,

have to disagree. The 34 slers that were printed with hindu are tougher with pied 350 than the 14 slers that were not printed with hindu, just as the 150/350 major leaguers are tougher with pied 350 than the 350-only major leaguers. It is in fact a paradox that the 34 slers that are possible with three backs (hindu, pied 350, oms) are more difficult than the 14 slers that are only possible with two backs (pied 350, oms). The explanation for this seeming paradox is that the 14 are, like the 350-only major leaguers, much more plentiful with pied 350 and this trumps the small hindu production from which the 14 were excluded.

The 14 slers that are not possible with hindu were launched with the 350-only major leaguers and comprise a separate print group in my opinion. Not sure what your hindu ad proves as we both know the texas leaguers were not printed with hindu.

Scot

furthermore............

tim,

i'm still struggling to come to grips with your nomenclature but if by "print group 2" you mean 350-only subjects then i think so.

In essence, the 34 slers that were printed with hindu were printed with the pied 350 back in similar numbers to the 150/350 major league subjects whereas the
other 14 slers that were not printed with hindu were printed with the pied 350 back in similar numbers to the 350-only major league subjects. This, combined with the fact that hindu is a 150 series back, suggests to me that the 14 slers comprise a distinct 350-only southern league print group. This is jamie hull's discovery circa 2009 but convinced me.

A corollary is that the scarcity of the 34 slers relative to 150/350 major leaguers is attributable to the former's unavailability with the sweet caporal, sovereign and epdg brands whereas the scarcity of the remaining 14 slers relative to the 350-only major (and minor) leaguers is attributable to the former's unavailability with sweet caporal, sovereign and other brands with which 350-only major (and minor) league subjects were printed. Of course, this scarcity is offset somewhat by the old mill southern printing.

Scot

Hey Scot

Although somewhat anecdotal, the following real data supports your thesis......

The Russell collection has 22 - T206 Southern Leaguer's (SL) with OLD MILL backs. This includes 12 of the 14 No-HINDU subjects. And, only 10 of the 34 HINDU subjects.

I started in the 1980's to complete my first (521 cards) T206 set (hybrid backs). Certain SL cards were considerably tougher (Foster, Hickman, Paige, Shaughnessy, etc.),
while other SL cards were easily found in multiples (either Hart, King, Thebo, Westlake, etc.). The later subjects being in the No-HINDU group.

DITTO goes for my 2nd set (hybrid backs) of T206's (520 cards) that I completed in 2005.

In 2006, I broke up my 2nd set in order to put together an all-PIEDMONT set. I completed this challenge in 11 months. Most challenging in this undertaking was acquiring
all the SL cards with PIEDMONT 350 backs. And again, the toughest were in the group of the 34 subjects that were originally printed with the HINDU backs (my records indicate that guys like Foster, Hickman, Manion, Paige, Shaughnessy were some of the last cards I acquired).

Finally, as a dealer, I have been selling T206's since the mid-1980's; and, I've seen many collector's wantlists at the Willow Grove, Ft. Washington, and National Shows.
And, in most cases T206 collectors needed the SL subjects that were printed in the HINDU group of 34 cards to complete their T206 sets.

Scot....your analysis is right on.


T-Rex TED

[tonyo]

Print Group 1
Originally 150 subjects
5 subjects were added during production of this group.
3 subjects had a team change during this groups production. (Brown, Dahlen,Elberfeld)
1 error (Magie) was corrected.



Tim,

Which 5 subjects were added to the first 150 during production?

Tony

[Abravefan11]

Tim,

Which 5 subjects were added to the first 150 during production?

Tony

Wagner
Plank
Crawford (Throwing)
Jennings (Portrait)
Lundgren (Chicago)

[Abravefan11]

I think this point is getting lost in the southern league group discussion.

Just because some subjects might be more difficult with a certain back, does not necessarily mean they were in a different print group. The Sovereign 460 subset is a perfect example of that.

[White Borders]

Number of Subjects in Print Group 2 with Polar Bear backs = 136

136 / 4 = 34 :cool:

Best Regards and Happy Collecting :)
Craig

[g_vezina_c55]

Wagner
Plank
Crawford (Throwing)
Jennings (Portrait)
Lundgren (Chicago)

Any other informations about the adition os these 5 subject?

Why these specific 5?

[cfc1909]

The point here is to get the cards in their correct group. Putting the 14 southern league subjects in the 350 only or a second group from the other 34 southern league subjects is one way of looking at it.

Just try to look at it where the 48 southern league subjects are in print group 6.

Try to look at it where the team changes that only have a 350 back are in print group 1.

Putting these subjects into print groups the way ATC distributed them will help understand the composition of this set.

Double prints, sheet numbers aside for now, just try to get the subjects into the proper print groups

[tedzan]

Number of Subjects in Print Group 2 with Polar Bear backs = 136

136 / 4 = 34 :cool:

Best Regards and Happy Collecting :)
Craig


Hey Craig......try looking at the big picture


Subjects........Series

..12..............150-only

144..............150/350

204..............350-only

..60..............350/460

..46..............460-only (+ 2 double-prints)

..48..............Southern Lgrs.

...6...............Super-Prints

...2...............Demmitt and O'Hara St Louis variations
____
522 = total subjects


T-Rex TED

[White Borders]

how many magee or magie ?

I'm still in the early stages of attempting to calculate estimated populations for all T206, T206 Backs, and each T206 Subject. For what it's worth, my very preliminary calcs for these are:

T206 Magee Portrait: 700 in circulation*

T206 Magie Error: 240 in circulation*

* I define in circulation as the # of PSA graded + the # of SGC graded + the # of raw and other third party graded that occasional show up on ebay, bst, auction houses, shows. It does not include the # of raw that are in long time collections that never show up for sale.

Keep in mind that these are very preliminary population estimates and I am still collecting data and refining calculations. I do not yet have enough information to determine statistical confidence intervals (which could show my estimates to be statistically worthless). Also, my population calculation of the Magie Error is probably skewed high because, in my opinion, the ratio of raw to graded for Magie Error is probably lower than for the average T206 subject due to it being a rare card and more likely to be graded. I have not yet gotten to the point of taking this factor into account.

Best Regards and Happy Collecting :)
Craig

[Abravefan11]

Any other informations about the adition os these 5 subject?

Why these specific 5?

There have been a lot of theories proposed, more so for Wagner and Plank, but no one knows for certain.

[teetwoohsix]

I'm still in the early stages of attempting to calculate estimated populations for all T206, T206 Backs, and each T206 Subject. For what it's worth, my very preliminary calcs for these are:

T206 Magee Portrait: 700 in circulation*

T206 Magie Error: 240 in circulation*

* I define in circulation as the # of PSA graded + the # of SGC graded + the # of raw and other third party graded that occasional show up on ebay, bst, auction houses, shows. It does not include the # of raw that are in long time collections that never show up for sale.

Keep in mind that these are very preliminary population estimates and I am still collecting data and refining calculations. I do not yet have enough information to determine statistical confidence intervals (which could show my estimates to be statistically worthless). Also, my population calculation of the Magie Error is probably skewed high because, in my opinion, the ratio of raw to graded for Magie Error is probably lower than for the average T206 subject due to it being a rare card and more likely to be graded. I have not yet gotten to the point of taking this factor into account.

Best Regards and Happy Collecting :)
Craig

Thanks Craig, great information & research !!!

I have to admit I'm a bit confused at why it wouldn't make sense for the # to be 34 when you review the print groups, but then again, I'm no printing expert. Craig makes a great point about print group 2 with PB backs~~ 136 / 4= 34. Either way, it's great to have a rational discussion :)

Sincerely, Clayton

[Abravefan11]

I think looking at the print group numbers all together helps bring them into perspective.

A couple of thoughts to go along with this information:

-ATC knew in 1909 that there would be at least two series. They selected PG1 and PG2 in early 1909. The original PG1 and PG2 total 350 subjects as advertised.

-I do not believe ATC/ALC considered error corrections or team updates new subjects. We as collectors checklist them that way. Examples: Magie/Magee and Dahlen Boston/Brooklyn were a single corrected or updated subject. Not two as we classify them.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/--oxJY9WYCcs/UQiEGPa5QxI/AAAAAAAAH5g/YgJRYkN-7FQ/s360/PG.jpg

[steve B]

I don't believe the number is 34 because.

There are small groups that don't work for 34 subject sheets.
The 14 Sl that aren't on Hindu.
The group that's only on P150,SC150, Sov150,and Hindu.
A few very small groups that are very odd and don't really fit any pattern.

If the number of subjects on a sheet was 34 there should not be smaller groups.

Would it make any sense to print a sheet of 34 southern league subjects, and use those for Piedmont, OM and Hindu backs then print a sheet of 14 subjects for only Piedmont and Old Mill?
The Old Mill backs are the key here, since they're different between the southern league subjects and Major/minor league subjects.
So those 14 couldn't have been included on a sheet with other Old Mill backs.

And would it make sense to make a sheet of 34 that included 20 of the previous SL subjects and only 14 new ones? Especially when there were more being worked on and nearly done?

another way of looking at it is
14 +14 +6 =34

Assuming a more complex sheet layout with a subject appearing on more than one sheet or more than one place on a sheet 3 sheets of 14 with 8 double prints makes more sense and easily accounts for the 14 that don't have Hindu backs.

It also works for the other smaller groups.

All this is complicated by the reworking of many subjects between the 150 and 350 groups.

All in all a very complex puzzle.

Steve B

[teetwoohsix]

Yeah, this is a lot for me to wrap my brain around :o

It seems to make more sense to me that all 48 SL'ers would be in the same print group. For a minute, while pondering the idea that the 14 subjects not printed with Hindu were printed in the second print group (350 series), I thought of the 14+14+6 (like Steve mentioned above) and wondered "well, a double-print on the 14 subjects and maybe the 6 super-prints?",,,,,but the OM on these 14 subjects kills that idea. It would only work if you were talking Piedmont.

I really wish someone would find an intact sheet :D Maybe Mastro has the answer :p The Obak sheet comes to mind (I know, Obak's weren't printed by the ALC).

I love this type of discussion, thanks !!!

Sincerely, Clayton

[Abravefan11]

Clayton - The 48 southern league subjects were all printed with an Old Mill back that was used only for these subjects. The ledger page below shows the dates ALC began packing the Old Mill cards and shipping them to the factory. These dates are in the late summer of 1909. Also there is a hand written not that says: "Southern Leagues discontinued later part 1909." I think this unique back is fairly solid evidence of all 48 cards being printed at the same time during the PG1 production.

Group 1 subjects began being printed with Piedmont 350 backs in 1909. So it seems logical to me that all 48 SL subjects, who were in production at the time, were being printed with Piedmont 350 as well. In order for the 14 to be printed with PG2 subjects, ATC would have had to shelve them from late 1909 until several months into 1910, and then print just the 14 as was proposed.

http://t206resource.com/Images/OMledger.jpg

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Very cool thread

[teetwoohsix]

Clayton - The 48 southern league subjects were all printed with an Old Mill back that was used only for these subjects. The ledger page below shows the dates ALC began packing the Old Mill cards and shipping them to the factory. These dates are in the late summer of 1909. Also there is a hand written not that says: "Southern Leagues discontinued later part 1909." I think this unique back is fairly solid evidence of all 48 cards being printed at the same time during the PG1 production.

Group 1 subjects began being printed with Piedmont 350 backs in 1909. So it seems logical to me that all 48 SL subjects, who were in production at the time, were being printed with Piedmont 350 as well. In order for the 14 to be printed with PG2 subjects, ATC would have had to shelve them from late 1909 until several months into 1910, and then print just the 14 as was proposed.

http://t206resource.com/Images/OMledger.jpg

Excellent !!! Great work, as usual Tim. Makes sense to me, and that ledger page is amazing. How do you find these things? :eek:

Thanks again for sharing information like this-I appreciate it !!!

Sincerely, Clayton

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

I really wish someone would find an intact sheet :D Maybe Mastro has the answer :p The Obak sheet comes to mind (I know, Obak's weren't printed by the ALC).

I love this type of discussion, thanks !!!

Sincerely, Clayton

Mastro has the most info about this if you believe that the Wagner was cut from a sheet. It would follow that the other cards he bought that day were also from a sheet. He could've put them together like a puzzle.

[teetwoohsix]

Mastro has the most info about this if you believe that the Wagner was cut from a sheet. It would follow that the other cards he bought that day were also from a sheet. He could've put them together like a puzzle.

I know, after reading "The Card" I realized that Mastro may really have the information we all need. Whether or not he will give the info, well, time will tell I guess. I would just love to know who was on that sheet.

I've also wondered if maybe it could've been a strip? Like the one found in Wagner's old uniform. Many board members are doing a great job at trying to piece together a sheet using top/bottom names and I enjoy looking at that (great job Chris).

Sincerely, Clayton

[Drew]

Wagner
Plank
Crawford (Throwing)
Jennings (Portrait)
Lundgren (Chicago)

Tim
Any theories why Jennings and Lundgren were only printed with a P150 back?
No SC150 or Sov 150 backs.
drew

[tedzan]

Hi Drew......long time, no see ?

Carl Lungren's Major League career ended April 23, 1909. Therefore, his Cubs card was initially printed with the PIEDMONT 150 back.....since American
Lithographic printed the PIEDMONT backs first.

Furthermore, they included Lundgren (Cubs) when they started printing the PIEDMONT 350 backs. At the same time they also printed the EPDG backs
on certain cards. Both these two backs are quite rare on this Lundgren card.


http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/alundgren4versions.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/blundgren4versions.jpg

Best regards,

TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Tim
Any theories why Jennings and Lundgren were only printed with a P150 back?
No SC150 or Sov 150 backs.
drew

We believe they were added to the set during the last of the 150 Series printings. Their absence from the first printings of Piedmont and Sweet Caporal are supported by their not being printed with a Sovereign 150 back.

One popular misconception is that there were only single printings of backs like Piedmont and Sweet Caporal. However this doesn't seem to be the case. Piedmont and Sweet Caporal cards are believed to have been printed multiple times during the different series and print groups productions.

The Lundgren (Chicago) cards late entry and early exit from the set accounts for this card being printed with so few backs.

Jennings (Portrait) was added late like the Lundgren (Chicago), but wasn't pulled early and can be found with more of the PG1 350 Series backs.

[tedzan]

Tim

Your conjecture that SOVEREIGN backs were printed first in the process does not wash.

This LUNDGREN card, along with the MAGIE error card, the PLANK card, the WAGNER card, and the JOE DOYLE (Nat'l) error card.....and,
even the JOE DOYLE (remnant) printer's mark card.....all disprove your contention.

American Lithographic's (ALC) initial press runs for the 150 and 350 Series printed the PIEDMONT backs first on the T206's. Followed by
the SWEET CAPORAL backs and the brown HINDU backs. In between the latter two press runs ALC printed the SOVEREIGN backs.

The above mentioned 6 subjects are the closest evidence we have that is consistent with my "PIEDMONT first" theory.

And, how do you explain the PIEDMONT 350 backs on the T206's that I refer to as the "Elite Eight" ? According to your thinking, these
8 cards should have been printed with SOVEREIGN 350 backs ?


There is NO evidence whatsoever to support your conjecture that SOVEREIGN was printed first. SOVEREIGN was at best a 3rd tier brand
in the ATC tobacco hierarchy.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Ted - I know this is complex information, but it would be a big help if you make an effort to understand my points before dismissing them. If you truly have an interest in my thoughts I'll be happy to discuss them. If my ideas or thoughts are wrong before I post them, we should just both move on.

I would never say that Sovereign was the first back printed. We always say that Piedmont 150 was the first printed and we know this because of the Magie error card. What we do believe is that after the Piedmont 150 there was a printing for Sweet Caporal and Sovereign 150. We believe these printings included only the original 150 subjects.

We believe Plank, Wagner, Crawford, Lundgren and Jennings were not included in these early printings and added later.

[Abravefan11]

And, how do you explain the PIEDMONT 350 backs on the T206's that I refer to as the "Elite Eight" ? According to your thinking, these 8 cards should have been printed with SOVEREIGN 350 backs ?

TED Z

This is another incidence where you're not following me so I'll try and clarify.

I would not say that the print group 1 subjects discontinued early in the 350 series should be found with Sovereign 350 backs. I believe the exact opposite of that.

This is how I would explain those cards. - There are a number of print group 1 subjects that were either discontinued or had their team designation changed after the first two printings of the 350 series. These first two printings were Piedmont 350 and EPDG backs. These subjects will not be found with any other 350 series back or Old Mill.

[steve B]

I suppose I may as well go against the grain here as well.

Assuming Scot Readers estimate of 370 million produced and the larger sheet of 34 subjects X 5 of each for a 170 card sheet that's nearly 2.2 million impressions. At 1000 sheets an hour that's about 54 weeks of work per color just to print the cards. Or about 7-9 Years of labor depending on how many colors you think were used including backs.

In other words ALC must have been running the T206s on multiple presses at the same time.
Even assuming a large sheet.
Even cutting the estimated production in half it still would have required multiple presses operating simultaneously.

So while they were packed and distributed based on some known dates the printing most likely was ongoing with multiple backs being printed at the same time.


Steve B
PS: I know, the time required to print is another solid argument for a larger sheet. There's also a technical issue of balancing the time to print against the time to cut and package. Larger sheets of small things require a lot of cutting time. But small sheets take more printing time. Someday I'll have to ask someone I know if threre's a formula.

[White Borders]

PS: I know, the time required to print is another solid argument for a larger sheet. There's also a technical issue of balancing the time to print against the time to cut and package. Larger sheets of small things require a lot of cutting time. But small sheets take more printing time. Someday I'll have to ask someone I know if threre's a formula.

Steve,

Thinking outside the box, I've always assumed that each sheet ALC printed carried the same back for all the different fronts on that sheet (such as P350 #25 as all the backs on a sheet, or SC350 #30 as all the backs on a sheet, but never a mix of different backs on a sheet). With this assumption, is it possible that instead of cutting the sheets at ALC, the entire sheets were shipped to the appropriate ATC factory where they were then cut into the individual cards and packaged with the tobacco? Is there any proof one way or another?

Best Regards,
Craig

[Abravefan11]

Craig-I don't know that anyone can prove where the sheets were cut for certain, but to me (just my 2 cents) it's most logical that they were cut at ALC. Cutting the cards was part of creating a finished product. That is something the print house would be responsible for. Just as they would with business cards, posters, box labels, or just about any other printed product.

One of the brothers who printed the E222 set was a "cutter" for A. Hoen, a large lithography company in Richmond, prior to starting Fulton Press.

[Abravefan11]

These videos show two examples of cutters used in printing facilities.

The first is for a manual cutter that more than likely predated the T206 set.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0JJajMda3w

The second is for a cutter run by an electric motor that is closer to what ALC would have been using.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ABCCeZ8Wo

[White Borders]

This is confusing:

First Drew asks why Jennings and Ludgren were printed with a P150 back, but not SC150 or Sov150 .

Tim
Any theories why Jennings and Lundgren were only printed with a P150 back?
No SC150 or Sov 150 backs.
drew

Ted replies that ALC initially printed Lundgren with P150 back "since American Lithographic printed the PIEDMONT backs first." That is correct. But what Ted doesn't state is the possibility of additional P150 print runs later in the 150 series printings. I believe P150 was the first print run for the T206, but Lundgren Chi was not in this run. SC150s, Hindus, Sov150s were then printed. Then another run of P150's was printed to finish off the 150 series, and this run included Lundgren Chi. The final part of Ted's reply about starting the 350 series printing with Piedmont 350 and EPDG backs I also believe is correct and included the Lundgren Chi. Lundgren Chi was soon pulled, which is why it is difficult to find with these two backs.

Hi Drew......long time, no see ?
Carl Lungren's Major League career ended April 23, 1909. Therefore, his Cubs card was initially printed with the PIEDMONT 150 back.....since American
Lithographic printed the PIEDMONT backs first.
Furthermore, they included Lundgren (Cubs) when they started printing the PIEDMONT 350 backs. At the same time they also printed the EPDG backs
on certain cards. Both these two backs are quite rare on this Lundgren card.
Best regards,
TED Z

Then Tim's statement implies that Sov 150 was most likely printed after several othe backs were printed in the 150 series. Because Lundgren Chi and Jennings Port are not found with Sov150, then they would not have been printed in the first P150 run or SC150 run. That only leaves the possiblity that they were printed in a final P150 run at the end of the 150 series.

We believe they were added to the set during the last of the 150 Series printings. Their absence from the first printings of Piedmont and Sweet Caporal are supported by their not being printed with a Sovereign 150 back.
One popular misconception is that there were only single printings of backs like Piedmont and Sweet Caporal. However this doesn't seem to be the case. Piedmont and Sweet Caporal cards are believed to have been printed multiple times during the different series and print groups productions.
The Lundgren (Chicago) cards late entry and early exit from the set accounts for this card being printed with so few backs.
Jennings (Portrait) was added late like the Lundgren (Chicago), but wasn't pulled early and can be found with more of the PG1 350 Series backs.

From all this, I'm not sure how Ted interpreted Tim's post to mean that Sov backs were printed first in the process - Probably just misread Tim's post. No where that I'm aware of has Tim ever stated Sovereigns were printed first. Piedmont 150's have long been assumed to be printed first in the 150 series and Piedmont 350's have long been assumed to be printed first in the 350 series. What Tim is trying to show is that there were most likely 2 or more Piedmont print runs while the series was being printed, with the Piedmont runs being separated with other backs' print runs, and some subjects added and some deleted.

Tim

Your conjecture that SOVEREIGN backs were printed first in the process does not wash.
This LUNDGREN card, along with the MAGIE error card, the PLANK card, the WAGNER card, and the JOE DOYLE (Nat'l) error card.....and,
even the JOE DOYLE (remnant) printer's mark card.....all disprove your contention.
American Lithographic's (ALC) initial press runs for the 150 and 350 Series printed the PIEDMONT backs first on the T206's. Followed by
the SWEET CAPORAL backs and the brown HINDU backs. In between the latter two press runs ALC printed the SOVEREIGN backs.
The above mentioned 6 subjects are the closest evidence we have that is consistent with my "PIEDMONT first" theory.
And, how do you explain the PIEDMONT 350 backs on the T206's that I refer to as the "Elite Eight" ? According to your thinking, these
8 cards should have been printed with SOVEREIGN 350 backs ?
There is NO evidence whatsoever to support your conjecture that SOVEREIGN was printed first. SOVEREIGN was at best a 3rd tier brand
in the ATC tobacco hierarchy.
TED Z

Hope this clarifies a few things.

Best Regards and Happy Collecting :)
Craig

[steve B]

These videos show two examples of cutters used in printing facilities.

The first is for a manual cutter that more than likely predated the T206 set.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0JJajMda3w

The second is for a cutter run by an electric motor that is closer to what ALC would have been using.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ABCCeZ8Wo

Those are some cool videos.

I ran a corner rounding machine a couple times that was made in 1910. Basically a much smaller version with a foot pedal.

The machines hadn't changed much by the late 1970's. Bigger, hydraulic power for both the holddown plate and blade, and the the strip the blade went into was plastic instead of wood. A few other modern things like two buttons to actuate the blade so you couldn't put your hand under the blade.

Typical practice was to trim the borders, then make cuts that cut the sheets into mor manageable blocks. So a 10x 10 sheet got cut into 4 5x5 partial sheets before finally getting cut down. The blade would have been adjusted for each cut. Then the whole stack cut, sometimes 20,000 sheets. Adjust for the next cut, repeat.....

I'm with Tim on the cutting. ALC delivering completely finished cut to size cards is the most likely scenario.

There would be maybe a couple reasons to have done it differently.
If the plants were using automated packing machinery that used strips of cards and cut them during the packing/inserting process. But I'd call that unlikely. I'd expect to see a number of cards factory cut on two sides, as well as a few uncut strips.
The other would be if ATC wanted the sheets sent uncut. There would be less expense in packing, but then they would have to pay someone to do the cutting. Probably not worth doing since they'd have to buy the equipment and hire people to run it.


I don't think either of those happened, but that whole era was one of massive advances in manufacturing machinery. Lithography was changing from stones to metal plates, more stuff was being run by electricity, stuff like that.

Steve B

[Craig M]

Nice thread Tim!

Can someone please give me the small list of players that can be found only with 150 Series backs in the (Group 1) printing?

Thanks

[Abravefan11]

Nice thread Tim!

Can someone please give me the small list of players that can be found only with 150 Series backs in the (Group 1) printing?

Thanks

http://t206resource.com/Print%20Group%201%20Checklist.html

[Abravefan11]

What Tim is trying to show is that there were most likely 2 or more Piedmont print runs while the series was being printed, with the Piedmont runs being separated with other backs' print runs, and some subjects added and some deleted.


That's exactly right.

There also appears to have been two or more Piedmont 350 printings of the group 1 subjects. Dahlen (Boston) was printed during the first Piedmont 350 print run and the updated Dahlen (Brooklyn) during a later Piedmont 350 print run. The same is true for Elberfeld (New York) and the updated Elberfeld (Washington).

I think these multiple printings for Piedmont and Sweet Caporal happened throughout the set.

[White Borders]

If anybody reading this post is able to time travel someday, then you must agree to travel back to American Lithographic Company in 1909 - 1910 and take photos of uncut sheets of T206 and the equipment they were printed with. You must then travel to a point in time of 6:16 pm Central Time, Jan 31, 2013 and post your photos so we will know definitively the size of the T206 sheets.

PS, pick up a couple of Wagners for me while you are there. :D

Best Regards and Good Luck,
Craig

[White Borders]

If anybody reading this post is able to time travel someday, then you must agree to travel back to American Lithographic Company in 1909 - 1910 and take photos of uncut sheets of T206 and the equipment they were printed with. You must then travel to a point in time of 6:16 pm Central Time, Jan 31, 2013 and post your photos so we will know definitively the size of the T206 sheets.

PS, pick up a couple of Wagners for me while you are there. :D

Best Regards and Good Luck,
Craig


Well, it is now 6:22 and I'm very disappointed :(

[sreader3]

I have been away from this thread for a couple of days to deal with pending business but would like to offer a couple of hypotheticals on the topic of whether the SLers should be characterized as (a) one print group of 48 or (b) two print groups—a 150/350 print group of 34 subjects and a 350-only print group of 14 subjects.

First, I think we all agree that Brown Hindu is a 150 series back. If you do not agree with that, please exit the station here.

Now, for those of you who are still on the train, let’s imagine a universe where the Brown Hindu back reads “150 Subjects” akin to the Piedmont 150 back. In that event, would anyone still be arguing that the 14 SL subjects who are only printed with Piedmont 350 and Old Mill Southern are part of the same print group as the 34 subjects who are printed with Hindu 150, Piedmont 350 and Old Mill Southern?

And if your answer to the first question is “yes,” then why do you consider the 150-only major league subjects a separate print group from the 150/350 subjects? Aren’t the former just 150/350 major league subjects that were discontinued early (akin to the 14 350-only SL subjects that were added late)?

And where the heck is Jamie Hull on this?

Scot

[Abravefan11]

And if your answer to the first question is “yes,” then why do you consider the 150-only major league subjects a separate print group from the 150/350 subjects? Aren’t the former just 150/350 major league subjects that were discontinued early?

Scot

I do not consider the 150 Only subjects to be a separate print group. I do believe they were print group 1 subjects. They were part of the original 150 subjects and printed like other print group 1 subjects. The only difference was they were discontinued early.

So back to the original question, I do not believe that the absence of the 14 from the Hindu printing is reason to categorize them separately. I believe they were printed as the same supplemental group.

I hope that is easy to follow, but let me know if something isn't clear and I'll be happy to answer a follow up.

[sreader3]

Tim,

I guess we just have a fundamentally different understanding of what constitutes a print group. My sense is that if Subject A is printed in Series 1 and Series 2 and Subject B is printed in Series 2 but NOT printed in Series 1 then Subject A and Subject B are in different print groups. You must have a different understanding--and that is fine. We can agree to disagree. :)

Scot

[t206hound]

moved to a new thread

[Abravefan11]

Scot - Analyzing the backs that each subject was printed with and grouping them accordingly is how we arrived at these print groups.

Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) and Elberfeld (Washington) are good examples of why this is important. These three can only be found with 350 Series backs. But looking at the backs that they were printed with shows that they are continuations after a team change of their print group 1 counterpart. They were printed with the other group 1 subjects and discontinued before group 2.

Does this make sense?

[sreader3]

Tim,

We have two areas of dispute that I don't think we should conflate.

The first is whether, in the abstract, subjects that ATC intended to print in both Series A and Series B with essentially the same back profile but in fact did not print AT ALL in one of Series A or B are part of the same print group. I am conflicted but I think probably not. You seem to disagree.

The second is whether, on the specific question of SLers, ATC intended to print all 48 with BH, P350 and OMS with essentially the same back distribution but for some reason lost to history failed. This would seem to be a viable theory based on the Hindu ad mentioning Texas leaguers but I don't think the theory holds when one considers that the 34 that were printed with Hindu were printed with the P350 back in quantities similar to the 150/350 major league subjects whereas the other 14 that were not printed with Hindu were printed with the P350 back in quantities similar to the 350-only major (and minor) league subjects.

Scot

[Abravefan11]

Scot - So let's focus then on just the quantity printed with Piedmont 350. I don't think this is a viable reason to categorize the cards into two groups.

The 14 subjects not printed with brown Hindu can be found about or slightly less than 2:1 to those that were.

In the Sovereign 460 subset at least 8 of the 46 group 4 (460 Only) subjects can be found in greater than 2:1 ratios to the others.

I don't think you would disagree that the Sovereign 460 subjects all belong in the same print group. So if the logic wouldn't apply to the Sovereign 460's, I don't believe it applies to the Piedmont southern league subjects.

We actually have seen these types of population variations in other back subsets. I can only speculate as to what in the printing process caused them.

[Abravefan11]

The first is whether, in the abstract, subjects that ATC intended to print in both Series A and Series B with essentially the same back profile but in fact did not print AT ALL in one of Series A or B are part of the same print group. I am conflicted but I think probably not. You seem to disagree.

Scot

Let's try and look at it this way. ATC had a group of cards that were printed from June of 1909 to February 1910*. At the conclusion of printing that group they discontinued them. Then they began printing the next group in March 1910.

We agree that the first group was printed with 150 Series backs and then with 350 Series backs. Some cards from this group were discontinued early. This resulted in these subjects only being printed with 150 Series backs. Others had their team designation changed after the 350 Series backs were being printed. Therefore these updated cards can only be found with 350 Series backs. The important thing is that based on the backs they were printed with, all of these cards were printed from June 1909 to February 1910.

*These dates are used to help illustrate a point and not meant to be exact.

[sreader3]

Tim,

if print timing is your polestar I don't see how it supports your print group breakdown. Yes you can say that the 150-onlys and 150/350s were both printed between July 1909 and February 1910 so what difference does it make but my response would be that the 150-onlys were printed from July 1909 to November 1909 whereas the 150/350s were printed between July 1909 and February 1910 so it makes all the difference in the world. (Dates are approximate). The same logic applies for the SLers--while there is overlap in print timing there is not identity. Thanks for the discussion. Need to sign off.

Scot

[Abravefan11]

Scot - The time frame of each print group is what shows us the cards were a group. This is fundamental in understanding how the set was produced.

These time frames prevent us from mistakenly classifying cards from print group 1 that were printed with only 350 series backs, with cards from group 2 that were printed with only 350 series backs.

We can identify many different subsets within the major print groups like the 150 only. We can do this by different parameters such as when they were discontinued, or what backs they were or were not printed with during a groups production. However the series subjects were all part of one of the four major print groups.

It's been my experience with longtime knowledgeable collector's that it takes some time, effort and openness for the print groups to make sense. Once it clicks though it really simplifies how the set was put together in my opinion and based on the feedback I've received from others.

Tim

[steve B]

Scot - Analyzing the backs that each subject was printed with and grouping them accordingly is how we arrived at these print groups.

Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) and Elberfeld (Washington) are good examples of why this is important. These three can only be found with 350 Series backs. But looking at the backs that they were printed with shows that they are continuations after a team change of their print group 1 counterpart. They were printed with the other group 1 subjects and discontinued before group 2.

Does this make sense?

To me it does not make sense.

The change required at the very least a new master for one color and a new plate for that color. Possibly more than one.

I'd place them with the 350 only subjects.

I'd place the 14 Sl cards without Hindu with 350 only as well.

I'd also do this with the other reworked cards that were a more direct carryover from the 150-350 series. I have it on the list to look into how many were reworked. If the number of reworked subjects is fairly small that would be some help towards a sheet size.


Steve B

[tedzan]

DITTO....to what you just said Steve.

The Browne (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn), and Elberfeld (Washington) are indeed 350-only distinct subjects.


George Browne waivered over to Washington May 21, 1909.

Bill Dahlen is signed as a Free Agent with the Brooklyn (becomes their MGR. for the 1910 season).

Kid Elberfeld was purchased by Washington December 14, 1909, which would place his T206 card into the 350-only timeframe press run.


This "print group" numbering is unnecessary. Traditional T206 thinking has established the various Series (150, 350, 350/460, 460....and,
the 150 series SL press run, followed by the 350 series SL press run.

Why is it necessary to "re-invent the wheel" ?


TED Z

[cfc1909]

Studying this set has always been difficult and mainly because we have put cards like Browne (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn), and Elberfeld (Washington) in the wrong category. Putting these cards in print group 1 makes the numbers in the 150 and 350 accurate.

The set originally had 150 subjects issued. During the printing of this group their were 5 additions, 3 team changes and 1 error corrected but the initial 150 subjects are there. Then 200 subjects were added and you have your 350 subjects. Demmitt and O'hara had team changes but when you count them each as a subject you have an even 200 instead of 202. Putting the set into these print groups makes it much easier to understand.


It took me some time to change the way I looked at the set. I had to go over the print groups several times before I got it. Its hard to change the way you look at the set for more than 15 years but the more I read over these groups the the easier it was the understand and the 150 and 200 subjects finally made sense.

[Abravefan11]

Why is it necessary to "re-invent the wheel" ?

TED Z

What if we could re-invent the wheel? Shouldn't we be so bold as to try, rather than blindly accept that things are as good as they could be.

These print groups are not meant to be a slight to anyone or anything previous. It's the information that I believe to be correct. It has been vetted by some of the best T206 guys in the hobby and so I put it forward for the consideration of others. At the end of the day no one is trying to force anyone to believe something they don't.

[g_vezina_c55]

Edit.

[Abravefan11]

Hopefully this chart will help better illustrate the three print group 1 team changes.

Print Group 1 subjects could have been printed with up to 12 different backs.

-Brown (Chicago) was the first team change. It was changed to the Brown (Washington) variation after the PG1 cards concluded the 150 Series printing and began being printed with 350 Series backs.

-Dahlen (Boston) was the second team change. It was changed to the Dahlen (Brooklyn) variation after the first two backs of the 350 Series were printed. These two backs were Piedmont 350 and EPDG.

-Elberfeld (New York) was the last team change of the three. It was changed to Elberfeld (Washington) in the later stages of the PG1 subjects being printed with 350 Series backs.

-I added Bresnahan (Portrait) on the bottom to show a comparison of the three team changes to a regular PG1 subject.

-It's important to point out that in some cases both variations are possible with Piedmont 350 and Sweet Caporal 350 backs. As stated earlier in this thread these backs were printed multiple times during a print groups production.

If you look at the two team variations for each of these cards as one subject, I believe it shows they were printed like the other print group 1 subjects. They just had a team change along the way.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-1W5sdOKUY2U/UQxpC-s0tpI/AAAAAAAAH7s/t8I9806TUIs/s1180/TC.jpg

[rebelsart]

Tim, Thanks for posting this thread on the T206 print groups. As always these T206 threads attract very passionate responses.
When I was first introduced to Tim's print groups I was very confused. The concept is difficult for me to grasp, but if you really look at the information it makes sense.
Many other T206 lovers have done great work on this set as well (Ted Z. and Scott Reader come to mind) and everyone has their beliefs.
This set is truly a monster.
Art M.

[Pat R]

Bumping this older thread on the print groups and how they break down the set beyond the different series for the newer members/T206 collectors.

[parkerj33]

Thanks Pat, i forgot about this thread. Could you summarize where this is controversial or in conflict with scott Readers or ted z's work?

[steve B]

As a bit of a heretic when it comes to the current print group thinking, I'll take a try at that.

The first and most important point is that for the most part, we all respect each others work and ideas. None of the current or future things we believe or know about the cards production would be possible without all those people laying the groundwork, and or adding information. That's not to say we don't occasionally have some serious disagreements, but that's the nature of things.

To me, the current print groups are sort of like a good intro to the complexity of the set. It's complex enough to be a bit of a challenge, but not so complex that most people can't grasp it.
One of my favorite catalogues in a different hobby is set up where for complex sets they show the basic set with the truly major varieties. Then there's a listing that lists different papers, gums etc along with a usually extensive listing of plate flaws that are collectible. And on occasion, they follow that up with a note that's polite but should read "if you're truly insane and have to know literally every small detail of this set you should buy this book by someone crazier"
That gives the collector a framework of how far to specialize.

In that way, the print groups are a solid foundation for further investigation. As well as a good framework for a collector to decide when to stop.

Where it breaks down is perhaps well into crazy land.
Within the current framework-
I would call the dozen or so 150 only cards print group 1.
And the rest of the 150s as either print group 2 or maybe 1A

Within the 150 group, there were at least three individual printings. As maybe the most obvious example, the Tinker hands on knees comes at least three different ways, each would have required a change to the original art, and new masters/transfers/etc.
Chicago partly visible behind Cubs
Chicago semi removed
Chicago not there at all

So that makes it at a minimum
Group 1 - 150 only, and potential sheetmates which may or may not be identifiable or have even existed at all.
Group 2- 150 but from the sheet that produced the Tinker with clear Chicago
Group 2A - 150 from sheets that produced tinker with partly removed Chicago
group 2B- 150 from sheets that produced correct cards with fewer design flaws.

And here's where there's a major branching
I consider 350s to be an entirely new set.
There are a few cards that show design changes between 150 and 350. Most are very minor. But also would have required new masters etc.

And within the 350's?
At least three more divisions.
If you want a "missing red" card, just find a Dygert without lipstick. They're common enough that I don't believe they're errors. They're readily available both with and without. And have a few cards with the same stuff going on but less obvious.

Hopefully the 350-460s and 460 only groups have fewer divisions, but I'm expecting them to be at least two each.


The other big branching spot is
were the same sheets used for all backs? Or did individual brands use their own sheet layouts and player selection?

UGH...... Since there's a couple team variations in the 350's that are only on PB, it can be pretty much assumed that at least partly brands may have had different sheet layouts and even different sheet sizes. That's both good and bad. On the bad side, it makes things 15x as complicated.
On the good side, it explains reasonably well why groups of 12 or groups of 17/34 both exist.

Confused yet? :D:D

Yes, for the vast majority of collectors, print groups as we currently explain them are just about right. And we have a few people who did some great work with access to lots of cards over several years to thank for that semi comfortable station we can stop or rest at before transferring to the crazy train lines. :D

[parkerj33]

Thanks Steve! I am always fascinated by this, so call me crazy, but I also think the healthy dialogue that occurs really helps to move our total understanding forward.

I think I am interpreting your response to mean that you believe that print groups help to explain things superficially, but when digging deeper it presents a too simplistic theory to account for all the actual evidence.

Edited to add: I don't yet understand the supposition that to replace a player/pose/team/artwork, they would have had to create an entire new sheet. I guess i envision a press made up a set of individual stones that get inked and pressed against the paper. so an array of 12x12, or 17x4, or whatever....but each of those individual "cells" in the array could be reomved and replaced indpendently.

so, magie is found...his stone removed, and replaced with magee stone, and resume cranking the presses.

[Pat R]

Thanks Pat, i forgot about this thread. Could you summarize where this is controversial or in conflict with scott Readers or ted z's work?

There are good points made in this thread but some people are confusing the print groups with print runs of that group. As Tim pointed out there were multiple printings of some backs within a print group. With some subjects you can get an idea of when they were printed by the backs they are found on.



We believe they were added to the set during the last of the 150 Series printings. Their absence from the first printings of Piedmont and Sweet Caporal are supported by their not being printed with a Sovereign 150 back.

One popular misconception is that there were only single printings of backs like Piedmont and Sweet Caporal. However this doesn't seem to be the case. Piedmont and Sweet Caporal cards are believed to have been printed multiple times during the different series and print groups productions.

The Lundgren (Chicago) cards late entry and early exit from the set accounts for this card being printed with so few backs.

Jennings (Portrait) was added late like the Lundgren (Chicago), but wasn't pulled early and can be found with more of the PG1 350 Series backs.


Lundgren Chicago and Jennings portrait were printed in Group 1.

Lundgren Chicago was printed with

Piedmont 150
EPDG
Piedmont 350

Jennings portrait was printed with

Piedmont 150
EPDG
Piedmont 350
Old Mill
Sweet Caporal 350/25 & 30
Sovereign 350

using Tim's chart you can get a general Idea when the printing started and stopped for those two subjects in the print group 1 printing.

502186

[Pat R]

As a bit of a heretic when it comes to the current print group thinking, I'll take a try at that.

The first and most important point is that for the most part, we all respect each others work and ideas. None of the current or future things we believe or know about the cards production would be possible without all those people laying the groundwork, and or adding information. That's not to say we don't occasionally have some serious disagreements, but that's the nature of things.

To me, the current print groups are sort of like a good intro to the complexity of the set. It's complex enough to be a bit of a challenge, but not so complex that most people can't grasp it.
One of my favorite catalogues in a different hobby is set up where for complex sets they show the basic set with the truly major varieties. Then there's a listing that lists different papers, gums etc along with a usually extensive listing of plate flaws that are collectible. And on occasion, they follow that up with a note that's polite but should read "if you're truly insane and have to know literally every small detail of this set you should buy this book by someone crazier"
That gives the collector a framework of how far to specialize.

In that way, the print groups are a solid foundation for further investigation. As well as a good framework for a collector to decide when to stop.

Where it breaks down is perhaps well into crazy land.
Within the current framework-
I would call the dozen or so 150 only cards print group 1.
And the rest of the 150s as either print group 2 or maybe 1A

Within the 150 group, there were at least three individual printings. As maybe the most obvious example, the Tinker hands on knees comes at least three different ways, each would have required a change to the original art, and new masters/transfers/etc.
Chicago partly visible behind Cubs
Chicago semi removed
Chicago not there at all

So that makes it at a minimum
Group 1 - 150 only, and potential sheetmates which may or may not be identifiable or have even existed at all.
Group 2- 150 but from the sheet that produced the Tinker with clear Chicago
Group 2A - 150 from sheets that produced tinker with partly removed Chicago
group 2B- 150 from sheets that produced correct cards with fewer design flaws.

And here's where there's a major branching
I consider 350s to be an entirely new set.
There are a few cards that show design changes between 150 and 350. Most are very minor. But also would have required new masters etc.

And within the 350's?
At least three more divisions.
If you want a "missing red" card, just find a Dygert without lipstick. They're common enough that I don't believe they're errors. They're readily available both with and without. And have a few cards with the same stuff going on but less obvious.

Hopefully the 350-460s and 460 only groups have fewer divisions, but I'm expecting them to be at least two each.


The other big branching spot is
were the same sheets used for all backs? Or did individual brands use their own sheet layouts and player selection?

UGH...... Since there's a couple team variations in the 350's that are only on PB, it can be pretty much assumed that at least partly brands may have had different sheet layouts and even different sheet sizes. That's both good and bad. On the bad side, it makes things 15x as complicated.
On the good side, it explains reasonably well why groups of 12 or groups of 17/34 both exist.

Confused yet? :D:D

Yes, for the vast majority of collectors, print groups as we currently explain them are just about right. And we have a few people who did some great work with access to lots of cards over several years to thank for that semi comfortable station we can stop or rest at before transferring to the crazy train lines. :D

As Tim pointed out the 150 only subjects were printed with other print group 1 subjects they were just discontinued early for reasons we don't know.
We also now know from the plate scratch sheets that all twelve of them weren't on the same sheet and they were also on sheets with other subjects from print group 1.


I do not consider the 150 Only subjects to be a separate print group. I do believe they were print group 1 subjects. They were part of the original 150 subjects and printed like other print group 1 subjects. The only difference was they were discontinued early.

[Pat R]

You can get an idea of the different print runs within the print groups by the print defects found on some of the subjects in the same print group.

Here are the stats on a few print group 1 subjects that have front print defects that are found with 350 backs. None of these defects are found with a 150 series back.

I put the EPDG's in to show that they were printed with the 150 backs and not the 350 backs you can also get an idea of what backs were probably printed together in a print run.

503685

503679

503680

503681

503682

503683

503684

I would guess that there were 2 or 3 print runs of the PD350's and 1 or 2 print runs for the rest of the 350 print group 1 backs. The stats show that the Old Mills and SC350/25's were most likely printed together but not with the Sov 350's.

[t206fix]

Pat - what are the print errors in the above groupings of cards?

thx

[Pat R]

Pat - what are the print errors in the above groupings of cards?

thx

They're not really errors Tony, they all have recurring print defects.

The Fred Clarke that I posted has a Red spot under the G on his uniform that is found on three different backs, here is an example of each back that it is found on.

503776

503777

503778

[chriskim]

I wonder there's any explanation/theory of Ted's Lungren missing colors error that has the P150 back. That's quite cool looking.


Hi Drew......long time, no see ?

Carl Lungren's Major League career ended April 23, 1909. Therefore, his Cubs card was initially printed with the PIEDMONT 150 back.....since American
Lithographic printed the PIEDMONT backs first.

Furthermore, they included Lundgren (Cubs) when they started printing the PIEDMONT 350 backs. At the same time they also printed the EPDG backs
on certain cards. Both these two backs are quite rare on this Lundgren card.


http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/alundgren4versions.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/blundgren4versions.jpg

Best regards,

TED Z

[tedzan]

I wonder there's any explanation/theory of Ted's Lungren missing colors error that has the P150 back. That's quite cool looking.


Hi Chris

In the 6-color process that American Litho used to print the fronts of these cards, Red was usually the last ink pass. However, in the printing of this Lundgren (Cubs),
Blue must have been the last ink pass (which was omitted).

I was pleasantly surprised when I acquired a 255-card T206 collection 12 years ago to find this Lundgren (missing blue ink) in it.


The Carl Lundgren (Cubs) cards is a favorite of mine for several reasons. Especially, since it was the first T206 subject of which
I completed its back Run (only 3 cards needed). I included the color-error (missing blue ink) of Lundgren to accent this display.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/alundgren4versions.jpg

.http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/blundgren4versions.jpg




TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Pat R]

I wonder there's any explanation/theory of Ted's Lungren missing colors error that has the P150 back. That's quite cool looking.

Scrap Piedmont 150 sheet. These have been called Yellow/Brown but they also have one of the Red passes on them. The Bradley has a Yellow shift that's similar to Ted's Lundgren.

503781

503782

[Pat R]

Hi Chris

The 6-color process that American Litho used to print the fronts of these cards, Red was the last ink pass. However, since Lundgren (Cubs) has no Red color, Blue was the last ink pass.

I was pleasantly surprised when I acquired a 255-card T206 collection 12 years ago to find this Lundgren (missing blue ink) in it.





TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

I'm not sure what the order of all the color passes were but there were more than six and one of the Red passes was before the end.

503784

[chriskim]

It could be just me.... I can't see/load any pics Pat R. posts on his messages. :confused:

[Pat R]

It could be just me.... I can't see/load any pics Pat R. posts on his messages. :confused:

PM sent Chris. Does this image show up for you?

https://photos.imageevent.com/patrickr/bstforsale/large/Downey.jpg

[steve B]

As Tim pointed out the 150 only subjects were printed with other print group 1 subjects they were just discontinued early for reasons we don't know.
We also now know from the plate scratch sheets that all twelve of them weren't on the same sheet and they were also on sheets with other subjects from print group 1.

My belief is that there will be differences between the non 150 only subjects on those sheets and the same subject from different 150 sheets.

I've done some work on stuff like that, but a lack of quality scans makes it difficult. At least there's a couple sources for excellent scans, LOC and the MET. Although the met won't give access to good scans for HOFers.

[steve B]

On most subjects it's 8 colors. Blue and light blue were usually paired, as were pink and red.

Here's a corner of Batch showing the blue and light blue. Also not how the light blue has a vertical spike on the corner on one but not the other. A small difference that most likely indicates two different positions on the same sheet but may indicate a very minor change to the master. Both are the same common back.

https://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=5834

[chriskim]

Hi Pat,

yes! this one shows up ok!


PM sent Chris. Does this image show up for you?

https://photos.imageevent.com/patrickr/bstforsale/large/Downey.jpg

[Pat R]

My belief is that there will be differences between the non 150 only subjects on those sheets and the same subject from different 150 sheets.

I've done some work on stuff like that, but a lack of quality scans makes it difficult. At least there's a couple sources for excellent scans, LOC and the MET. Although the met won't give access to good scans for HOFers.


Steve, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying there are differences in the non 150 only subjects but there are no differences in the 150 only subjects? If so can you post examples of the differences that you're talking about.

[steve B]

Steve, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying there are differences in the non 150 only subjects but there are no differences in the 150 only subjects? If so can you post examples of the differences that you're talking about.

That's pretty close.
It's one thing to feel sure something exists, and another entirely to prove it exists.
A lack of excellent scans hinders the search, as I believe most differences will be very minor.

I know for sure that at least Tinker fielding had three different identifiable printings within the 150 series.
The couple with Chicago visible on the uniform
The ones with Chicago mostly removed
And ones where it's not there at all.

Conroy has differences that are divided by 150/350, And also comes at least 3 different ways. Putting three good scans near each other makes it like one of those "spot the differences " puzzles.
https://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=32804

The upper one has partial stripes and no gray shading at the back of the cap
The middle one has strong stripes and gray shading
The last has no stripes and does have gray shading.

There are plenty of other differences

The lack of stripes is usually a 350 thing, but the middle one has both stripes and the shading of the no stripes.
Except for that shading I'd think the middle one was earliest, as the proof has solid lines between the head/back and the background.

I did a couple experiments at organizing the visuals for a couple things and for T206 I'm going to have to learn database stuff.
Even finding good scans is slow going, since the places like LOC don't organize their cards the way any of us would, making a search a bit painful.

[steve B]

I think it's possible the 150 only subjects were only printed once, maybe twice.
If they were only printed once, they shouldn't have differences. If twice they may have differences.

[chriskim]

Conroy has differences that are divided by 150/350, And also comes at least 3 different ways. Putting three good scans near each other makes it like one of those "spot the differences " puzzles.
https://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=32804

The upper one has partial stripes and no gray shading at the back of the cap
The middle one has strong stripes and gray shading
The last has no stripes and does have gray shading.




Is it just me? I don't see any pics.... :(

[tiger8mush]

Is it just me? I don't see any pics.... :(

yeah, i see pics

[Pat R]

That's pretty close.
It's one thing to feel sure something exists, and another entirely to prove it exists.
A lack of excellent scans hinders the search, as I believe most differences will be very minor.

I know for sure that at least Tinker fielding had three different identifiable printings within the 150 series.
The couple with Chicago visible on the uniform
The ones with Chicago mostly removed
And ones where it's not there at all.

Conroy has differences that are divided by 150/350, And also comes at least 3 different ways. Putting three good scans near each other makes it like one of those "spot the differences " puzzles.
https://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=32804

The upper one has partial stripes and no gray shading at the back of the cap
The middle one has strong stripes and gray shading
The last has no stripes and does have gray shading.

There are plenty of other differences

The lack of stripes is usually a 350 thing, but the middle one has both stripes and the shading of the no stripes.
Except for that shading I'd think the middle one was earliest, as the proof has solid lines between the head/back and the background.

I did a couple experiments at organizing the visuals for a couple things and for T206 I'm going to have to learn database stuff.
Even finding good scans is slow going, since the places like LOC don't organize their cards the way any of us would, making a search a bit painful.

If you're talking about small differences like the ones on Conroy's hat there are similar differences on these Ames each pair also have a distinctly different blue background.

This is four different Ames cards I have, both Ames on the left are from a plate scratch sheet and the two on the right are caption flaws.

504387

504388

504389


There is also a difference in some Schulte cards that is similar to the Tinker hands on knees.

I don't know if it's letters but you can see it clearly on the Schulte on the left but it's barely visible on the one on the rignt.

504390

[steve B]

Exactly the sort of thing I'd be looking for.

The process wasn't precise, and both Ames have a similar enough dot pattern on black that they probably came from the same master.

But the blue is slightly different, and less or more noticable, the plate scratch ones have a gray layer in the hat, while on the caption varieties it's closer to peach.
To me that along with the Schulte differences (as well as the right side of the bat having an extra line if it's not a different color shifted) would confirm two different press runs.

The next steps would be comparing different brands, and comparing ones that we know are sheetmates from the plate scratch sheets that did carry over into the 350 series to see if there are differences there.

It's entirely possible there are transitional ones too, where front sheets for Piedmont and SC 150 were used to print Piedmont and SC 350.

[Pat R]

Exactly the sort of thing I'd be looking for.

The process wasn't precise, and both Ames have a similar enough dot pattern on black that they probably came from the same master.

But the blue is slightly different, and less or more noticable, the plate scratch ones have a gray layer in the hat, while on the caption varieties it's closer to peach.
To me that along with the Schulte differences (as well as the right side of the bat having an extra line if it's not a different color shifted) would confirm two different press runs.

The next steps would be comparing different brands, and comparing ones that we know are sheetmates from the plate scratch sheets that did carry over into the 350 series to see if there are differences there.

It's entirely possible there are transitional ones too, where front sheets for Piedmont and SC 150 were used to print Piedmont and SC 350.

Really interesting information Steve. I scanned ten of my Conroy's with different backs at 1200 dpi's (boy does that eat up your computer memory).
You can clearly see the difference in the 350 backs and 460 backs.

The 350 backs have a lot of peach color around the Washington logo while the 460 backs has very little. You can see other differences in the two series with the large scans but the heavy peach on the 350's is what stands out the most.

What's nice is you can tell which series the assorted backs were printed with for instance the EPDG was printed with the 350 backs and the Polar Bear and Tolstoi were printed with the 460 backs.
I didn't scan the Old Mill but that was also printed with the 460 backs so the EPDG was the only assorted back that was printed in one of the 350 print runs.

https://photos.imageevent.com/patrickr/conroybackrun/Black%20Background%20-%20Copy%20_2_%20-%20Copy.jpg

[steve B]

Plus the 350's seem to have the peach at the front of the hat in a blotchy pattern while the 460's have a gray halftone there. Except... the AB 350 has 460 shading at the front of the hat.

That could be an example of a transitional type between the 350s and 460's, as it has traits of both.
Both gray and peach should have been fairly early colors.
I'm thinking the transitions between series were somewhat chaotic.
Like for this one, they still needed to produce some AB350's but had the gray plate for the 460 series finished and just switched to it early.

If those transitional types ever get properly identified and cataloged I believe there will be some real rarities.

I'm very glad there's someone like you with a big enough collection to make those comparisons and the interest to do the scans.

The spreadsheet I did showing the different groups of 49 Leaf took months of saving photos from various sources - mostly ebay. And that's a pretty small set with far fewer complications.

[chriskim]

Pat,
Thx for sharing your Conroy pics. I could see those images this time! It is amazing to see those Conroy images side by side, their background colors do look very diff.

[Pat R]

Steve, I thought this would be a good pair to compare.
Two different Randall's that were printed in the same position but most likely in different print runs.

504812
504813

https://photos.imageevent.com/patrickr/bstforsale/img662%20-%20Copy.jpg

Is the heavier Red/Peach stippling on the caption flaw version evidence of a change or is it just due to different ink levels?

I also checked all the other examples of each version and with the ones that the scans were big enough to tell the alignment mark near the top inside the border is on all the caption flaw examples but not the no flaw examples.

[jggames]

I always thought my Randall looked funny because of the heavy blue, it's really interesting to see these others up close

[steve B]

Steve, I thought this would be a good pair to compare.
Two different Randall's that were printed in the same position but most likely in different print runs.

504812
504813

https://photos.imageevent.com/patrickr/bstforsale/img662%20-%20Copy.jpg

Is the heavier Red/Peach stippling on the caption flaw version evidence of a change or is it just due to different ink levels?

I also checked all the other examples of each version and with the ones that the scans were big enough to tell the alignment mark near the top inside the border is on all the caption flaw examples but not the no flaw examples.

I think the red may be just a difference in inking. Heavier or lighter, and the exact colors were mixed by hand, to a formula that isn't always precise.

One thing I look at is if the color is in one place on one card, but not there on another example.
Or, if the halftone dot pattern is very different.

On these, I'm seeing a couple areas where the black could be different, but it's also a difference that could be from normal plate wear. Or it could be a more heavily printed transfer from the same master.

One thing that's done in stamps is to require a confirming copy of a variety.* With the Conroys that's there for sure. With these Randalls, finding multiples of the very small differences in black would go a long way towards confirming if it's a different transfer from the same master.



The stuff below is off topic, but explains in part why seeing clear scans of differences is so much fun and excitement for me.


* which is at times so very frustating! In the series I specialize in there are a few listed varieties that are currently not known to exist, and were only mentioned in an era when printing pictures of stamps was mostly illegal (and the writers were often more interested in revealing new varieties based on hearing about them than actually owning or seeing them)
I have three "maybe" stamps for listed but not seen since the 30's if ever varieties that may have happened very late in production. Going on about 10 years looking for a second copy of any of them. :(

[Pat R]

509750


I think we can move print group 1 back a month or two if the information in this newspaper clip I found about the court proceedings is accurate.

509751

[jason.1969]

Definitive dates of when one group stopped and another began aren't known. Below is a general timeline based on what we do know, but it's by no means meant to be exact.


The Harry McIntyre BKN/CHI card in Group 2 could not have been printed until at least April 1910 since his trade to the Cubs occurred on April 13.

Of course knowing N54 collectors, I suspect one of you will flash me a BKN-only version to prove me wrong.

[Pat R]

The Harry McIntyre BKN/CHI card in Group 2 could not have been printed until at least April 1910 since his trade to the Cubs occurred on April 13.

Of course knowing N54 collectors, I suspect one of you will flash me a BKN-only version to prove me wrong.

Jason, Harry McIntyre (BKN/CHI) is print group 3.

[jason.1969]

Jason, Harry McIntyre (BKN/CHI) is print group 3.


Indeed! Brain fart on my part. [emoji100]


Jason
Twitter: @heavyj28