How many T206s to a row? (revisited I'm sure)

[t206hound]

I've been trying to figure out this row size thing for a while. There has to be some explanation why the 17 card scenario fits well for some issues, but seems forced for others. There are a few back subsets that are relatively small, in which all of the subjects have been confirmed that lead me to a theory.

The Brown Hindu subset size of 136 which includes 34 Southern Leaguers definitely leads one to believe that the row size was 17. The "Sheet Mystique" article (http://t206resource.com/Article-T206Resource-Sheet-mystique-34.html) on T206Resource.com speculates that each image could have been repeated vertically three times for a total of 102 cards on a sheet (17 cards per row; 6 rows per sheet). The entire subset could be printed on four sheets. I can't find any reason to believe that this isn't the case for this print run.

But the Old Mill Southern League back has a series of 48 cards. According to Scot Reader in Inside T206,
"the 150/350 SL subjects and 350-only SL subjects are available in similar quantities with the Old Mill Southern back, which is a 350 series back type. This suggests that both the 150/350 SL group and the 350-only SL group completed a full print with the Old Mill Southern back."

If the 48 cards with OMSL backs were distributed in equal numbers, how could the row size be 17? I think the explanation may be staring us in the face. Based on the subset size of 48, is it POSSIBLE that ATC decided to go to 16 cards per row (just leaving a little extra space on each side of the sheet)? And maybe they only repeated each player twice vertically rather than three times? If that is possible, then all 48 players could have been on a single sheet, thus guaranteeing equal distribution.

I'll also look at the Sovereign 460 subset. It's comprised of 46 regular cards and six super prints for a total of 52 cards in the series. How can this possibly fit into the 16 or 17 cards per row scenarios? While we can speculate that there must have been some cards short printed, there does not appear to be a consensus on exactly which cards they were.

Some believe that the super prints are much tougher to find in this series, so let's assume (for the sake of argument) that they WERE short printed. Note that you can choose any six cards, but it's simpler to choose these six. If that's the case, then we are potentially looking at 16 cards per row again, with six rows per sheet. Thus, each sheet would contain all 46 of the regular cards and 2 of the super prints. Repeat twice to substitute in the remaining four super prints. This yields a three-to-one ratio of regular cards to super prints. This is obviously pure speculation, and I don't have hard facts to prove any card is a 3-1 short print. It's just a guess.

Is it POSSIBLE that the earlier print runs with the various backs were 17 cards per row, and that for some reason (based perhaps solely on the number of subjects to be printed), they switched to 16 cards? For me, at least right now, based on what I know (which granted isn't much), changing from 17 cards to 16 cards seems to be a reasonable theory. Did it really HAVE to be the EXACT SAME number of cards per row very EVERY print run?

Thoughts?

[Abravefan11]

Great post Erick with a lot of interesting questions. I think there are a number of possible variables that would effect the numbers.

One possibility I find highly likely is there were multiple sheet configurations with some subjects on say two sheets and others on only one. These different sheets could be created at the same time, or when the same back was printed at different times.

I don't think we can rule out different sheet configurations. For example let's say a sheet was 34 subjects, two rows of 17, with each repeated three times vertically for a total of 102. It's possible when needed the sheet configuration was changed to three rows of 17, with each subject repeated two times. This would result in 51 subjects per sheet totaling 102 cards. You could have a sheet of 34 and a sheet of 51 for a total of 85. This would also create a different ratio of one group of subjects to another within the same subset.

This is all just speculation, but fun to think about.

[atx840]

Interesting Erick. There is definitely a pattern and logical layout used, a known sheet size or uncut strip/partial sheets would really help.

We have yet to see a front miscut t206 with the same card/player side by side, the few examples known are always different.
We have yet to see a front "ghost" or offset with the same player repeated twice, the many examples known are always different.
We have yet to see a front miscut with four parts of either two or four players/cards.

This does not necessarily prove that the sheets did not have multiples of the same column configuration repeated across the sheet. There could have been a repeated row of 12341234123412341 for certain key players or 1231231231231234. There might have been columns with only one player, or maybe 3+. The fact that we see thousands of miscut double namers but only 30-40 two namers is puzzling. Maybe 34 is correct but the spread is not two equal rows of seventeen :(

I think tracking the plate scratches on the early P150 cards is definitely worth putting effort into, same with print marks per layer. I like the 34 theory for a starting point, some of the smaller subsets with non 34 divisible numbers should be looked into further.

[tedzan]

Erick

Research into the type of printing presses that American Litho. used to print their lithographic advertising posters, artwork, ATC cigarette packs, T205's & T206's, etc.
indicates that the press(s) had a 19-inch wide tracks. And, a 19-inch cardboard sheet neatly accommodates 12 - T206 cards across a row.

Although, we have not seen such a sheet of T206's, there exists an uncut cardboard sheet (19-inch by 33-inch) of PIEDMONT cigarette packs that lends credence to
the press track width of 19 inches.

Therefore, American Lithographic printed sheets of T206's (and T205's) consisting of 36, 48, 60, 72, or 96 cards.

Further proof of this 12-card row theory is in the make-up of the various Series in the T206 set......where the common factor = 12

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


TED Z

[tedzan]

Erick

An example that illustrates what I am saying......

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/150onlyABBBDDx25.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/150onlyEPPRPlaWag25x.jpg


TED Z

[atx840]

there exists an uncut cardboard sheet (19-inch by 33-inch) of PIEDMONT cigarette packs that lends credence to the press track width of 19 inches.

TED Z

Neat Ted, have a scan or link?


Therefore, American Lithographic printed sheets of T206's (and T205's) consisting of 36, 48, 60, 72, or 96 cards.

TED Z

I love hearing every theory, but I'd avoid stating absolutes......unless you have an uncut sheet tucked away someplace :)

[tedzan]

Chris

I have a link of the photo of the uncut sheet of PIEDMONT cigarette packs somewhere in my archives.

I will search for it tomorrow and post it here.

It's past this old dinosaur's bedtime :)


T-Rex TED

[wonkaticket]

Think Ted is talking about this.....could be wrong.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=66557

[teetwoohsix]

Nice thread Erick !!

You all bring up some great points.

Ted- are the 19 inch wide tracks adjustable on those presses? I'm just wondering about the printers having to be creative enough (not that they weren't) to have to print the T206 sheets and the tobacco packs all within the same 19 inch width.

I'm sure Steve would know the answer, but I can't help but think that they could adjust the width of the tracks. Maybe I'm wrong.

Great stuff guys !!

Sincerely, Clayton

[t206hound]

Two quick questions, and once answered I may have some more...

There could have been a repeated row of 12341234123412341 for certain key players or 1231231231231234. There might have been columns with only one player, or maybe 3+.

What is the feasibility that there were multiple stones/plates for each player as Chris is suggesting? There would have to be multiples for each color pass, obviously. Honestly, I don't even know how they are made (acid?).

Erick
Although, we have not seen such a sheet of T206's, there exists an uncut cardboard sheet (19-inch by 33-inch) of PIEDMONT cigarette packs that lends credence to
the press track width of 19 inches.

The article that Wonka linked to stated that the sheet was 17x33... is this the one you are referring to Ted?

[tedzan]

The article that Wonka linked to stated that the sheet was 17x33... is this the one you are referring to Ted?

Erick

That is the picture I was referring to....Thanks John for posting the link to it.

If you examine the top border of this PIEDMONT cigarette pack sheet, it has been hand cut. The cigarette packs along that edge of
this sheet are cut short approx. 2 inches.

I conclude that this sheet was 19 inches wide, based on an original cardboard print of a PIEDMONT advertising poster on display at
an Antique shop in Paradise, Pennsylvania (that I saw several years ago).

This poster's dimensions were exactly 19 inches x 22 inches (it was a factory cut piece). Unfortunately, it had been sold, otherwise
I would have bought it.

Furthermore, I have seen some original American Lithographic colorful lithographic advertising posters (non-sports) of varying sizes.
Invariably, a common aspect of these posters is a dimension that is 19 inches.


TED Z

[Craig M]

For example a max sheet size of 26 x 32 would have a max print size of 21 x 27.

Next:

27 x 39 - 22 x 34
29 x 43 - 24 x 38

and so forth

[White Borders]

Think Ted is talking about this.....could be wrong.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=66557


I can't make out the smaller lettering on these. Is there anything on them positively identifying that they were printed by American Lithographic Company?

Best Regards,
Craig

[Craig M]

First line reads:

Factory 240 1st Dist of Pxxx

I cannot read the xxx, is it PENN?

[Abravefan11]

Craig - Yes, it's PENN.

Here's the auction description when they sold in 2007:

Two pages of uncut Piedmont Cigarettes paper packs
This cardboard paper was found in a house that was built in 1901. I found it under 3 layers of antique linoleum, on an old heart pine varnished floor. It has some faint residue on the back. This paper comes from the PA Factory no. 240. I looked on the internet to see if I could find anything close to this and I couldn't. This would be a great addition to any antique Tobacciana collection.

I have two pages with 33 sets on each page. Both are uncut and in Excellent condition. One page does have a bend on it, but it doesn't take away from the paper. No tears at all. A little bit of staining, but just from natural paper staining. I am guessing that this cardboard paper is at least from the 1910 era. The measurements of the two pieces are 33 x17
If you have any questions I will try my best to answer them. Thank you for looking and happy bidding.

Edit: The auction description says they are "at least from the 1910 era", but as Jamie noted in his post they are Liggett & Myers boxes. This shows that they are 1912 or later, after the break up of the ATC.

[Craig M]

Does anyone have any pics of workers running the presses inside (ALC)?

If we can see what type of press was being used, we then can determine the make and model of the press and therefore knowing the exact max sheet size and max print area that particular machine was using.

So my question is:

Is it a press that was made in the USA or one that was made in England, Germany or France?

[Abravefan11]

Craig - Check out this post (http://www.net54baseball.com/showpost.php?p=842773&postcount=9).

[Craig M]

NICE Tim!

In the pic of the press, do you see at the bottom - there are two rows - one is max sheet size and max print area?

33 x 17 is not there...

I will dig for black and white pics of ALC presses to see a make and model.

[steve B]

I haven't found a picture of ALC, and few showing Hoe presses other than the large web fed presses used for books and newspapers.

Here's another catalog or ad for Hoe,

http://www.librarycompany.org/pos/exhibition/images/2.8.jpg

The description says up to about 1000 sheets/hour.

And here's a nice pic of another big litho company from 1905 using a different companys preses, but very similar.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/File:The_Miehle_P.P._and_Mfg._Co..png

Most lithographic shops have a variety of press sizes. The one I was at had a little one, maybe 10"? Two 35 inch and a 24 inch. They later added a 35 inch two color press.

Most presses can be adjusted to run smaller paper sizes, but it's not usual to do that. For any particular job there's an optimal press size, and that's what's used.

ALC was huge, and the floor layout shows just one floor. They probably had another 2-3 floors with different size presses.

A sheet 17x6 would be an odd arrangement. The image area would be just under 24.43 x 15.75. On the number 1 press it would be too large and on the number 2 size it would fit ok in 22x30, but with huge margins that would probably lead to too much waste. 17x8 would work, but with wide side margins, not bad but still not great. (24.43x21)
18x8 gives 25.86x 21. half inch margins top and bottom, and just over 2 inches on each side.(plus the built in margins of paper size vs image size shown in the ad)
Not bad......And with complex layouts using doubleprints and/or superprints it easily accomodates both the groups that fit well with 6 or 12 subjects as well as those with 17.

Hmmmm......that may make the most sense so far.

Although they could have easily gone to 20x8, the 18x8 layout could conceivably also have been done as 3 small sheets of 6x8, allowing a bit more flexibility with the back printing. That might also explain the cutting guidelines on the reverse where they don't make much sense.

Steve B

[White Borders]

Steve,

Just to clarify, are you saying that ALC probably had an assortment of press sizes, and depending upon the T206 job as well as other jobs they may have had going on, the T206 could have been printed on different size presses, with anywhere from 6 cards wide up to 17 cards wide?

Best Regards,
Craig

[steve B]

Does anyone have any pics of workers running the presses inside (ALC)?

If we can see what type of press was being used, we then can determine the make and model of the press and therefore knowing the exact max sheet size and max print area that particular machine was using.

So my question is:

Is it a press that was made in the USA or one that was made in England, Germany or France?

Hoe presses were made in the US. And in NYC.

Steve B

[steve B]

Steve,

Just to clarify, are you saying that ALC probably had an assortment of press sizes, and depending upon the T206 job as well as other jobs they may have had going on, the T206 could have been printed on different size presses, with anywhere from 6 cards wide up to 17 cards wide?

Best Regards,
Craig

They would have had a variety of presses.

Wether the T 206s were printed on different presses would depend on how ATC was ordering them. A big part of profitability in printing is using the right size equipment for the job. I'm sure there's a formula but I don't know it.

Ordering say 1000 book covers might get done on a 24 inch press. But 20,000 of the same item might be better done on a larger press.
There's labor to mount the plates and adjust,
time to print
washdown between colors.
Time to cut.
packing/shipping.

Pretty complex. The only parts of the operation they didn't end up cross training me in was the sales/office stuff and actually doing the cutting.


My comment about 34 wide vs 6 wide sheets was that an 18 card wide sheet with decent margins could either be done as one sheet 18 wide OR done as a large sheet with 3 smaller sheets that after separation could be printed with different backs

Or graphically
18 wide one row
abcdefghijklmnopqr

3x6 one row
abcdef ghijkl mnopqr

Both would fit the image size for a hoe number 2

Actually doing either would depend on what was ordered and when delivery was expected as well as quantity.

I can see 34 southern leaguers with a few double prints being done as one sheet. especially for a fairly small quantity.

I can also see an ongoing need for major league subjects being done a few at a time as the art was approved and done in smaller sheets so they could ship different backs simultaneously and in decent quantity.

I wish there were some records remaining from either company.:(
For stamps the US postal museum has the actual books the orders were logged in so a nearly exact quantity printed/ordered is know or can be researched.

Steve B

[Craig M]

Looking at the Press Gallery Index shows that there were a good number of presses being used in the late 1800's to early 1900's. This site gives perspective and specs on max sheet size and max print area. I am positive there are still more presses not listed. Still digging for photo's of the inside of ALC.

http://letterpressprinting.com.au/page33.htm

[atx840]

Here is the ALC print showroom
http://i.imgur.com/3Zq0C8T.jpg

[steve B]

Looking at the Press Gallery Index shows that there were a good number of presses being used in the late 1800's to early 1900's. This site gives perspective and specs on max sheet size and max print area. I am positive there are still more presses not listed. Still digging for photo's of the inside of ALC.

http://letterpressprinting.com.au/page33.htm

Only a few of those if any are lithographic presses. All the ones I looked at on that page use type of some sort rather than a plate.

Steve B

[tedzan]

Here is the ALC print showroom
http://i.imgur.com/3Zq0C8T.jpg



Hey Chris ...... Kool picture

Unfortunately, the "AMERICAN LITHOGRAPHIC CO." inscription on the lintel above the entrance is the only remaining memory of this once great printing firm.
Inside this building are numerous professional offices.....and, a "big bad dude" guard, who doesn't waste any time showing you the exit door.


http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/americanlithographicbldg.jpg


TED Z

[Ronnie73]

Remember that cards don't always have to be printed in the same direction. Just look at the T212 Obak sheet. Also, how important do you think it was in 1909-1911 to evenly print the same number of cards? As soon as I come up with a theory, I remember about all 38 or so different backs and three different printing years. Its interesting to read a new theory that someone has because one day the theory of someones will actually be reality but we just won't know it.

http://www.ronaldkornacki.com/obaksheet.jpg

[teetwoohsix]

Thanks for posting the Obak sheet Ron.

I know, different printing co. but still cool to look at while pondering :D

Sincerely, Clayton

[Runscott]

And if anyone finds this freak, I would like it.