Simulated T206 sheets....check them out....plus, new find of 350/460 series DRUM card

[tedzan]

http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/1stquadrant350onlySheet25x_zps502ee3d8.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/2ndquadrant350onlySheet25x2_zpsa49c7209.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/4thquadrant350onlySheet25x2_zpsd4b87430.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/3rdquadrant350onlySheet25x_zps7c5569c5.jpg


The complexity of the various series in the T206 set makes it difficult to form an accurate arrangement of how a given sheet was printed. The 350 series press run of the
Southern Leaguer's (SL) suggests that a 48-card sheet was printed. Or perhaps a 96-card sheet of them was printed, if all 48 - SL subjects were Double-Printed (as the
"same-name" miscut SL cards indicate). Furthermore, Jantz's excellent thread....One T206, Two Names....shows us that the placement of images on a T206 sheet varied
from one press run to another. Therefore, trying to formulate a sheet arrangement from this data can be very puzzling.

The closest predictable example that I've found in formulating a possible sheet is the group of Major League subjects in the 1910 COUPON set. It comprises of 48 subjects
from the 350-only series (at the time of printing....circa Spring/Summer 1910). I choose this example because 45 ** (of these 48) subjects were printed with the pattern
that I refer to as the "QUINTUPLICATE" stylistic back design (see my 2008 Net54 thread).
http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/at206quintuplicatedesign.jpg
Furthermore, 39 of these subjects are POLAR BEAR no-prints. This fact provides us a window into a timeline when this group of cards were printed. And, when the POLAR
BEAR press runs occurred regarding the cards in the 350-only series.
The 9 subjects in this group printed with the POLAR BEAR back are Engle, LaPorte, Willett, and the six Super-Prints.


** Note
Byrne and Mowery were in transitional trades at the time of this printing; and, Rossman's career ended. Therefore, these 3 subjects were not printed with the AMERICAN
BEAUTY....BROAD LEAF....CYCLE....DRUM backs.

Any meaningful discussions are welcomed.

TED Z

[tedzan]

An interesting feature of this simulated sheet is that it includes the "Super-Prints" **. Assuming this sheet represents the inital printing of these six Super-Prints (S-P),
at this phase in the printing game, these S-P cards were "350-only" subjects.

The S-P were printed with as many as 25 different T206 backs. Furthermore, from 4 - 6 of the S-P were also included in the T213-2, T213-3, T214, and T215 sets.

I do not understand why American Lithographic selected two Hal Chase cards. The Blue portrait is certainly a good choice. Perhaps, Tinker would have been another.
Tinker-Evers-Chance....along with Chase, Cobb, and Mathewson make a popular group (circa 1910).



Super-Prints .................................................. .................................................. ....................................\/...........................\/
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/1stquadrant350onlySheet25x_zps502ee3d8.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/2ndquadrant350onlySheet25x2_zpsa49c7209.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/4thquadrant350onlySheet25x2_zpsd4b87430.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/3rdquadrant350onlySheet25x_zps7c5569c5.jpg
Super-Prints .................................................. ../\.........................../\................................................. .............................../\................................................. .................................................. ............................................/\



**Note

Scot Reader, in his landmark book titled "INSIDE T206" (2006), identified these six T206's as "Super-Prints" (S-P). These S-P are usually referred to as 350/460 subjects.
However, the S-P's are actually quite unique, in that they are in a T206 class of their own by being both 350-only series subjects and 460-only series subjects (as Scot
Reader so aptly described them). For those of you on this forum, who are new to the T206 world, I highly recommend Scot Reader's book.


TED Z

[Craig M]

WOW, that is cool Ted!

Thanks for all of your hard labor in putting this together.

In your best estimation when the first series (150) cards were ran after ALC made the corrections to the sheet, who was the player below Honus Wagner?

Craig

[Leon]

Great work Ted. One small mistake. Coupon is T213. If you need a copy of the ACC let me know. :) Otherwise, great job and thanks for sharing.

[Ladder7]

Great work.

[cfc1909]

I think its cool to try and figure out a t206 sheet, but I also think

34 Sweet Caporal 649
34 Hindu south
34 Broad Leaf 460 possible
the 68 Coupon 1 could be two 34 card sheets
the 102 major league Hindus could be three 34 card sheets

and there are plenty more times 34 comes up when you really analyze the set
I believe 34 is to strong to ignore but just like what you have printed above there is no proof.

Another possibility it could be a couple different sizes. Hopefully one or more sheets show up one day. That would really be cool.

As for Readers book, I would also ad The Monster and The Mysteries of T206 along with several other hobby publications as a must read and all can be found here

http://t206resource.com/Publications.html

[Runscott]

I saw today that someone is selling copies of Heitman's booklet on ebay, obviously new copies, and Bill Heitman told me that it is copyrighted. I'm wondering why there are so many new copies floating around, if that's the case. Even though some of it is outdated, seems like it is still popular enough that it would be worth printing professionally, perhaps with a color card-stock cover. I'd buy it.

Also, "The Encyclopedia of Baseball Cards" is still one of my favorite hobby reads.

[tedzan]

WOW, that is cool Ted!

Thanks for all of your hard labor in putting this together.

In your best estimation when the first series (150) cards were ran after ALC made the corrections to the sheet, who was the player below Honus Wagner?

Craig

Cannot tell you who was printed beneath Wagner; its been reported that Plnk was near by.

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


TED Z

[Craig M]

Ted,

The reason why I ask is possibly if WAGNER was miscut and there was a player below him, there may be cards out there with a glimpse of the lettering WAGNER, PITTSBURG at the top of that card.

I guess finding a card like that would be the next best thing to owning the WAGNER. It would be a card linked to WAGNER.

Any thoughts?

Craig

[tedzan]

Here's the bigger picture regarding the T206 structure....if anyone is interested.


Subjects........Series

..12..............150-only (12 x 1 row)

144..............150/350 (12 x 12)

204..............350-only (12 x 17)

..60..............350/460 (12 x 5)

..46..............460-only (+ 2 double-prints) (12 x 4)

..48..............Southern Leaguers (12 x 4)

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

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



Proof of this 12-card row theory is evident in the structure of the various Series in the T206 set......where the common factor = 12.
Therefore, it is logical to conclude that sheets of T206's (and T205's) consisting of 36, 48, 60, 72, or 96 cards were printed.


A number like "34" does not mathematically jive with the Series structure of the T206 set.

Furthermoe, to say that the 1910 COUPON set comprises of "two 34-card" sheets implies that Major League subjects were intermixed
with Southern Association subjects.

Where is the proof of this ?

There is none....it never happened !


TED Z

[MVSNYC]

The recent T206 "sheet" discussions have been compelling. Even though i've collected T206 for 20 years, i never gave it a strong thought (how many cards might have been printed per sheet). i will certainly defer to the likes of Ted, Jim, Tim, Scot, etc...i will say this however, i always assumed it was a larger sheet, say 24" x 36"+; furthermore, i also assumed the larger sheet size (whatever that may be) was what actually dictated the number of cards per sheet, NOT the other way around (meaning not the number of cards dictating the sheet size). maybe some of printers can jump in here (Joe D)? to me, a smaller amount of cards per sheet (34, 48, etc) seem not very efficient in the printing world, i also imagined the sheets were big because the series' & set were massive, so they would've been rather cost effective & efficient as possible in the printing process. my 2 cents.

[tedzan]

In my research of American Lithographic, I came across a description which stated that large sheets in the art of lithographic printing resulted
in lower quality prints. Especially, when 6 to 7 color processes are involved (such as was the casebin the printing of these tobacco cards).

Consider this trade-off......smaller sheets (e.g., 36, 48, 72, etc. cards) resulted in a higher yield of quality prints than larger sheets would. So,
many more usable cards were produced.


Best regards,

TED Z

[MVSNYC]

Hi Ted- ok, gotcha, makes sense. very interesting discussion. i think we'd all love to stumble upon a full uncut sheet tucked away in some little antique shop somewhere. ;)

how much would that fetch? $50-100K? i guess also depends who's on the sheet.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Has anybody here tried to reach out to this guy to find out if The Card was cut from a sheet? If it was then be has probably has a lot of these answers.

[T205 GB]

So if what Jim is saying is correct that the sheets were of 34 ct then not only could there not be DP players but there would have been a lot of boarder material to make the sheet fit the press or a different press all together. Please correct me if I misunderstood the 34 ct thing.

[atx840]

Jim is referencing this possible layout. Article (http://www.t206resource.com/Article-T206Resource-Sheet-mystique-34.html)

[tedzan]

So if what Jim is saying is correct that the sheets were of 34 ct then not only could there not be DP players but there would have been a lot of boarder material to make the sheet fit the press or a different press all together. Please correct me if I misunderstood the 34 ct thing.

Let them think what they may....however, the T206 structural numbers do not in any way jive with their so-called "magic 34" contention.



.

Subjects........Series

..12..............150-only (12 x 1 row)

144..............150/350 (12 x 12)

204..............350-only (12 x 17)

..60..............350/460 (12 x 5)

..46..............460-only (+ 2 double-prints) (12 x 4)

..48..............Southern Leaguers (12 x 4)

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

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



Proof of this 12-card row theory is evident in the structure of the various Series in the T206 set......where the common factor = 12.

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that sheets of T206's (and T205's) consisting of 36, 48, 60, 72, or 96 cards were printed.






TED Z

[Jantz]

Some questions I have.

If the ALC was a printing company, did they receive their paper stock to print their cards on from another company? (Paging Steve B.)

If so, then maybe researching the paper manufacturers of the time could yield some clues as to the sheet size via financial records or invoices.

I know its a long shot, but we've got some good researchers here, so maybe.

One other question I have is.

Would I be crazy to think that maybe sheet sizes varied from print run to print run?

Your thoughts and imput are always welcome.


Jantz

[T205 GB]

Some questions I have.

If the ALC was a printing company, did they receive their paper stock to print their cards on from another company? (Paging Steve B.)

If so, then maybe researching the paper manufacturers of the time could yield some clues as to the sheet size via financial records or invoices.

I know its a long shot, but we've got some good researchers here, so maybe.

One other question I have is.

Would I be crazy to think that maybe sheet sizes varied from print run to print run?

Your thoughts and imput are always welcome.


Jantz

Jantz what going on buddy. Been a while since we chatted. Hope to see you at nationals this yr.

I do believe that the presses were a specific size thus allowing Ted to determine possible sheet size. He has info in regards to that. It is very possible to print a smaller sheet but a larger sheet may not work. In actuality we can guess and speculate but may all be wrong.

Although I'm not a 206 collector I follow this in regards to the 205's and connecting possibilities.

[tedzan]

Has anybody here tried to reach out to this guy to find out if The Card was cut from a sheet? If it was then be has probably has a lot of these answers.

Having been at the Willow Grove Show back in the mid-1980's when this PIEDMONT Wagner was being "shopped around", I recall that it was rumored to have
come from a partial sheet which also included Eddie Plank.

This rumor proved to be true when Charlie Conlon's collection was in auction in 2009 which included this PIEDMONT Plank (that Charlie acquired from Mastro).


TED Z

[tedzan]

Some questions I have.


One other question I have is.

Would I be crazy to think that maybe sheet sizes varied from print run to print run?

Your thoughts and imput are always welcome.


Jantz


Jantz

One of the important specifics of a printing press is its "track width". This characteristic tells us how WIDE a paper or cardboard sheet can be printed on it.

Research shows that American Litho employed printing presses (circa 1909 - 1919) whose width = 19 inches for printing their 6-color lithographic smaller projects.

Therefore, a 19-inch wide cardboard sheet accommodates 12 - T206 (or T205, T213, T214, T215) size cards across its width. The length of this cardboard sheet
is a variable.....which, can be as short as one comprising of 36 cards (12 x 3 rows). Or, as long a sheet that comprises of 96 cards (12 x 8 rows), or even larger.


Now, fast-forward to 1952 for comparison ............
TOPPS used a 54-inch wide printing press to produce their 1952 BB set. They printed cardboard sheets comprising of 2 adjacent 100-card (10 x 10) arrangements
for each of their Series.
In the printing of their famous Hi # series of 97 subjects, they Double-Printed Mickey Mantle, Jackie Robinson and Bobby Thomson in order to fill out their 100-card
arrangement. Double-Printing is a practice that dates back to 19th Century lithography....when the number of subjects falls short of the size of the press.

Another example is the 1953 BOWMAN BB set which was printed using a 43-inch wide press. They printed 2 adjacent 32-card (8 x 4) arrangements on their sheets.


My point here is.....that you can speculate all you want as to the size of a sheet.....but, if you do not know the track width of the printing press it was printed on,
your thinking is just a "crap shoot".


Hey Steve B....please chime in here.


TED Z

[t206hound]

Therefore, a 19-inch wide cardboard sheet accommodates 12 - T206 (or T205, T213, T214, T215) size cards across its width. The length of this cardboard sheet
is a variable.....which, can be as short as one comprising of 36 cards (12 x 3 rows). Or, as long a sheet that comprises of 96 cards (12 x 8 rows), or even larger.

Ted, what is the maximum length of the sheet that would fit on the press? My terminologies are certainly wrong, but was there one "press" per color per sheet? (i.e. they weren't pressing rows were they?)

[steve B]

There are standard paper sizes. US standard and international standard are a bit different.

ALC certainly bought paper from a paper company. I can't recall ever hearing of a place that did their own.

Track width is important, but here's where I'll waffle a bit.

Most presses can print on narrower paper.
I'm pretty sure we could have run 8 1/2x 11 on the 35 inch Heidelbergs. But that would have required some dire circumstance. Generally you want to keep close to full size. I know for sure we ran some undersize stuff. Maybe 24x17?

I'm also fairly sure ALC would have had a variety of press sizes. Running a couple thousand business cards on a press with a 19" track would be very wasteful.
The press is chosen based on the job, both the image size of the entire item- like a sheet, AND the quantity needed.

So if you wanted say 100 posters that were 30x20 they would have to be made on the 35 inch press.
If you wanted the same 100 but only 20x20 it would be on the 24 inch press.

Now, reduce the size to 15x12? It can't go on the little press, so it's got to be on one of the bigger ones. If it's only 100 the question becomes wether it's more expensive to make 100 passes through the 24 inch press OR fit two on a sheet and run it through 50 times.
As the quantity goes up, the press used will change.

Small items like T206 would be a challenge. But there's usually a formula that accounts for the costs. Speed would have mattered too. If time was short they may have run smaller sheets to have something to deliver quickly. They could have laid out the plates faster doing only a few subjects as the art and masters were finished.

Later, if there was more lead time and a larger order a bigger sheet may have made more sense.

Going by groups and how many are in a group will only get partway there. Obviously a sheet of 34 subjects doesn't make any sense with groups of cards like the ones that only come with a 150 back.

As Ted has pointed out there are a lot of groupings that are divisible by 6.
(Although even exactly which the 150 onlys are gets confusing, as it's debatable which ones count. )

But there are also groups that don't fit easily with a sheet of subjects divisible by 6.

There's even a card or two where the available backs would lead me to think they may have been partly done on a special sheet with just the one card.
Powers is the only one that only has 150 series backs but also has a factory 649 back.
So it's its own special puzzle.
Done on a special sheet for the 649 series?
On a 649 series sheet natuarally as part of a complex layout involving small sheets with some players short printed and others on multiple sheets?
On a big sheet that got the 649 op but not any of the 350 backs?
All of those are possible.
In fact, all of those could be how it was actually done! I wouldn't think it likely since it's a somewhat tough card, but it's possible.

Another is Magie vs Magee. Magie only has one back. At one point I thought it may have been just one out of however many magie/magees were on a sheet. So I found as many scans as I could find. Pretty quickly I realized that couldn't be the case. There are at least 4 readily identifiable Magies. And the individual fronts always have the same flaws on the back.

I think the sheet layouts varied between the different series, and maybe by league and brand.

I really have to post about some of what I'm looking at and what I've found. Some fascinating stuff, and that's only from a little bit of looking.

What I'm aiming at is some solid proof of certain ideas. If the cards lead towards proving my theories wrong that's ok, that's how science works. (And science it is figuring even a bit of this out)

Steve B

Steve B

[Jantz]

@ndrew - Its going well. Good to hear from you. National for sure!

Ted - Great information and thanks for answering my question.

Steve B. - Great information also! Thank you for taking the time to post all that.

One of these days I'm going to have to sit down with my friend and discuss all of this with him. He worked for 34 years with a printing company here in my hometown. Maybe he has some further information.

I know one time we were working together and I was asking him some questions about printing processes. He mentioned that the factory here in my hometown still has some very old printing related machines (presses & cutters) sitting around in the back of the factory. I then asked him why they still had them sitting around. His reply was.."No one has built a better mouse trap".


Jantz

[Runscott]

Let them think what they may....however, the T206 structural numbers do not in any way jive with their so-called "magic 34" contention.

TED Z

Ted, people have been finding magical qualities in numbers for centuries. It's really amazing what you can 'see' in numbers. I don't think Jim and Tim are doing it any more than anyone else, yourself included. You could be right - they could be right - you both might be wrong.

But the discussion is fun. I like that Steve B is wrapping some experience around all the theories.

[obcmac]

I'm probably a fly in the ointment here, but isn't the idea of a t206 sheet a myth? 95-99% of the double names we see show the same player above and below. So it seems that rows should be reconstructed, not sheets.

Rows with 12 cards make sense...allows for 6 to be repeated too.

What about those different name t/b cards? They're clearly the exception...is there a pattern as to series/back on those? I guess they could be the dividing line between two groups on a big sheet. If 1 in 8 double names were different, that would suggest two groupings of 4x12 rows...with only the 4th (out of 8) row possible with different names.

Mac

[t206hound]

I'm probably a fly in the ointment here, but isn't the idea of a t206 sheet a myth? 95-99% of the double names we see show the same player above and below. So it seems that rows should be reconstructed, not sheets.


The question is how many cards to a row. Yes, we know that multiple identical rows were on a sheet stacked vertically. And with the two name cards, at least two different sets of rows on a sheet.

My still unanswered question (which I will rephrase):
Were sheets pressed? Or were individual rows pressed?

Edited to add: from the "plate scratch" thread we can assume the backs were pressed per sheet (not per row). To press per sheet for the fronts means multiple plate copies of the same player pose existed for each color pass.

[steve B]

To press per sheet for the fronts means multiple plate copies of the same player pose existed for each color pass.

Exactly.

The differences on the fronts are smaller, but they're there.

Here's Batch showing different layout marks at the top edge.

Steve B

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=4528

[teetwoohsix]

Some questions I have.

If the ALC was a printing company, did they receive their paper stock to print their cards on from another company? (Paging Steve B.)

If so, then maybe researching the paper manufacturers of the time could yield some clues as to the sheet size via financial records or invoices.

I know its a long shot, but we've got some good researchers here, so maybe.

One other question I have is.

Would I be crazy to think that maybe sheet sizes varied from print run to print run?

Your thoughts and imput are always welcome.


Jantz

Great idea Jantz- researching the paper manufacturers that supplied the ALC and possibly finding old invoices, records, packing slips, etc. may be a way to figure it out.

And you bring up an excellent question about the possibility of varied sheet sizes from print run to print run-I had asked in another thread about whether or not the track size (width) was adjustable because I was wondering about this too. I didn't get a response, but maybe my question didn't make sense.

This topic can be confusing for me as I've never dealt with printing before. It's easier for me to comprehend the # of 34 subjects, when associating them with the print groups as Tim and Jim have explained. I don't picture a sheet with only 34 subjects, but more like 68 (2x34 same subjects) or 102 (3x34 same subjects).

Not to dismiss Ted Z's theory, I understand where he's basing this opinion from~ 12 across and a 19 inch track width , 12x3 rows up to 12x 8 rows. But the confusing thing about this ^^ how it fits with the print groups.

So, may I pose this question to the experts: how much room around the sides and tops of the sheets would there be (edges, top, bottom)~ I guess we could call it "the borders" :D~ with the 19 inch width "non" adjustable track? As you can see from some T206's, with oversized borders or miscut backs that there is room to play. And, like the Obak sheet, there was a lot of border space. As you can see with this miscut back, there is quite a bit of space, and there had to be "more" cut off. I hope I'm making sense.

With Ted Z's simulated sheet~ is that the full 19 inches across, or is there room for borders?

Great topic, I'm trying to follow both sides of this. Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

[t206hound]

Exactly.

The differences on the fronts are smaller, but they're there.

Here's Batch showing different layout marks at the top edge.

Steve B

Thanks Steve. If we assume the track was 19" wide (with a 17+" print width)... What was the maximum length?

[tedzan]

With Ted Z's simulated sheet~ is that the full 19 inches across, or is there room for borders?

Sincerely, Clayton


Clayton

Given, the width of a typical T206 is 1 7/16 inches.

Total cards' width....... 12 x 1 7/16 inches = 17 1/4 inches

Assumong these 12 cards were printed on a 19-inch wide cardboard sheet, then that leaves a border....19 - 17 1/4 = 1 3/4 inches

Which, if printed cards are centered on this cardboard sheet, results in a 7/8 inch wide border on each side.


TED Z

[steve B]

Thanks Steve. If we assume the track was 19" wide (with a 17+" print width)... What was the maximum length?

It would depend on the diameter of the press cylinder. Modern ones are usually fed with the long side towards the press, so the maximim size would be 19x less than 19.

The pictures of the presses of the era look like the cylinder is rather large, so they could have done it differently. 19x24 is a traditional paper size.
If you can stand toread through it there's a good look at paper standardization here
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/dunn-papersizes.pdf

Looks like the sizes weren't standardized much until after WWI and serious standardization not till after WWII.

Steve B

[t206hound]

Thanks again, Steve. I've been asking these questions because I keep hearing that 17 cards (as an example) cannot fit on a sheet that is 19 inches wide.

One of the standard paper sizes referenced in that PDF is 17x28. Imagine if the sheets were pressed as below (image from T206Resource.com rotated 90 degrees). Six cards could fit in the "row" (2.625*6 = 15.75) and you could have 17 cards in each "column" (1.4375*17 = 24.4375).

Perhaps that's too much "waste" at the top and bottom (~1.75 inches each), but 17 cards would definitely fit, right?

[steve B]

Thanks again, Steve. I've been asking these questions because I keep hearing that 17 cards (as an example) cannot fit on a sheet that is 19 inches wide.

One of the standard paper sizes referenced in that PDF is 17x28. Imagine if the sheets were pressed as below (image from T206Resource.com rotated 90 degrees). Six cards could fit in the "row" (2.625*6 = 15.75) and you could have 17 cards in each "column" (1.4375*17 = 24.4375).

Perhaps that's too much "waste" at the top and bottom (~1.75 inches each), but 17 cards would definitely fit, right?

That would fit, and it would account for both the 17/34 theory AND the 6 theory.

It might still be difficult to figure some groups, like the 14 Sl cards without Hindu. And the 150 onlys are more than just a simple group even being small.

It also assumes running a sheet through a 19" press the long way. I'm not certain that was possible or good practice.

Of course then I'm assuming a maximum press size of 19".

You see how the reasoning can get very circular.

And I haven't even floated the idea of a very complex layout, which is suggested by the plate scratch. Some of the cards may not have been in square blocks, but in diagonal rows. Two of the blocks I've pieced together might go together like that.

That's why I decided to look for something like the plate scratch. It will eventually provide some concrete evidence of sheet minimum size. If I'm lucky it will lead to a complete sheet, but it may not.

At least with Stamps there are usually pairs and blocks to build from, and the records about sheet size still exist.

Steve B

[teetwoohsix]

Clayton

Given, the width of a typical T206 is 1 7/16 inches.

Total cards' width....... 12 x 1 7/16 inches = 17 1/4 inches

Assumong these 12 cards were printed on a 19-inch wide cardboard sheet, then that leaves a border....19 - 17 1/4 = 1 3/4 inches

Which, if printed cards are centered on this cardboard sheet, results in a 7/8 inch wide border on each side.


TED Z

Thanks Ted for the response.

Thanks for the great discussion everyone.

Sincerely, Clayton

[t206hound]

It might still be difficult to figure some groups, like the 14 Sl cards without Hindu.

Regarding the Hindu, I can see it as 14 SL cards being added to make the run 136 (17*8).

Of course, these are all guesses, not absolutes. I don't think anything yet has disproved the 17 or the 6 card row hypotheses... or that the numbers didn't change on different print groups or press runs.

[tedzan]

That would fit, and it would account for both the 17/34 theory AND the 6 theory.

It might still be difficult to figure some groups, like the 14 Sl cards without Hindu. And the 150 onlys are more than just a simple group even being small.

It also assumes running a sheet through a 19" press the long way. I'm not certain that was possible or good practice.

Of course then I'm assuming a maximum press size of 19".

You see how the reasoning can get very circular.
And I haven't even floated the idea of a very complex layout, which is suggested by the plate scratch. Some of the cards may not have been in square blocks, but in diagonal rows. Two of the blocks I've pieced together might go together like that.

That's why I decided to look for something like the plate scratch. It will eventually provide some concrete evidence of sheet minimum size. If I'm lucky it will lead to a complete sheet, but it may not.

At least with Stamps there are usually pairs and blocks to build from, and the records about sheet size still exist.

Steve B


Steve

I definitely agree with you on these two comments of yours......

1st...... "19x24 is a traditional paper size."

I have seen American Litho. (ALC) Tobacco advertising posters and other types of lithographic artwork of ALC on exactly 19" x 24" size cardboard. Medium size printing presses
were designed to accomodate this standard paper (cardboard) width of 19 inches.

2nd...... "It also assumes running a sheet through a 19" press the long way. I'm not certain that was possible or good practice."

A NO-NO. Rotating the so-called "34-card" sheet 90 degrees (as shown in above post #33) and printing it in this manner is impractical, and is an inefficient waste of cardboard.
As, the width of such an arrangement is only 15 3/4 inches (leaving 3 1/4 inches of the 19-inch cardboard blank).


Here is the simple solution for those who claim that ALC printed T206's on a "34-card" sheet......

Simulated basic sheet of 36 cards of the 34 subjects (Factory #649 overprints), of which Powers and Matty (white cap) were Double-Printed. This sheet can be extrapolated
to comprise of 2 arrangements of this format (72-card sheet), or 3 arrangements of this format (108-card sheet).

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/1stpanel12xT206sheetB.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/2ndpanel12xt206sheet.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/3rdpanel12xT206sheet.jpg
DOUBLE-PRINTS............................................ .................................................. .................................................. ............ Powers .................. Matty


FYI......regarding the practice of Double-Printing during the 20th Century of the major BB card issues. On display in this thread are quite a number of pictures of uncut sheets
of BB cards, check it out........

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=151780



TED Z

[steve B]

Steve

I definitely agree with you on these two comments of yours......

1st...... "19x24 is a traditional paper size."

I have seen American Litho. (ALC) Tobacco advertising posters and other types of lithographic artwork of ALC on exactly 19" x 24" size cardboard. Medium size printing presses
were designed to accomodate this standard paper (cardboard) width of 19 inches.

2nd...... "It also assumes running a sheet through a 19" press the long way. I'm not certain that was possible or good practice."

A NO-NO. Rotating the so-called "34-card" sheet 90 degrees (as shown in above post #33) and printing it in this manner is impractical, and is an inefficient waste of cardboard.
As, the width of such an arrangement is only 15 3/4 inches (leaving 3 1/4 inches of the 19-inch cardboard blank).


Here is the simple solution for those who claim that ALC printed T206's on a "34-card" sheet......

Simulated basic sheet of 36 cards of the 34 subjects (Factory #649 overprints), of which Powers and Matty (white cap) were Double-Printed. This sheet can be extrapolated
to comprise of 2 arrangements of this format (72-card sheet), or 3 arrangements of this format (108-card sheet).

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/1stpanel12xT206sheetB.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/2ndpanel12xt206sheet.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/3rdpanel12xT206sheet.jpg
DOUBLE-PRINTS............................................ .................................................. .................................................. ............ Powers .................. Matty


FYI......regarding the practice of Double-Printing during the 20th Century of the major BB card issues. On display in this thread are quite a number of pictures of uncut sheets
of BB cards, check it out........

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=151780



TED Z


Points 1 and 2 combined argue against the cards being done on a 19 inch press. To run 19x24 that means the other pieces would have been run with the narrow end going in first. That's what I'm unsure of.
But if they had some 24 inch presses the 19x24 could be run normally - wide end pointing in. I should check the old printing book I found to see what the practice was at that time. The presses printing from stones are different enough from ones made even 20 years later that the details of operating may have been different.
Our little press ran stuff through the long way. the 35 and 24 inch ones ran it through the short way. I suppose they could have done smaller stuff differently but never saw it done.

Margins around 1.75 would be wasteful, but aren't absurdly large. A few jobs we did had margins around that size. I took some of the cutoffs from a label job home and had sticker materials enough to last for years just in 8x2 inch strips with a bar of color along one side:D

Steve B

The point about doubleprints is a good one. There are plenty of layouts that would allow that with nearly any size sheet. It's certain there were multiples of most cards on the sheet, but how many of each and wether that was constant for all cards is uncertain.

[tedzan]

The point about doubleprints is a good one. There are plenty of layouts that would allow that with nearly any size sheet. It's certain there were multiples of most
cards on the sheet,but how many of each and wether that was constant for all cards is uncertain.


Steve

Thanks for your support of the argument that I've been making with respect to the Double-Printing of certain T206 subjects in order to fill out a 36-card, or 48-card,
or a 108-card (19" x 24") printer's sheet.

I see this not only in the SWEET CAP 150 (Factory #649 overprint) sub-set; but, also in the brown HINDU series, and in the 460-only series (as I've noted above in that
thread that I provided a link to).


TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Erick, I think you may be on to something here. Like Steve said, it could account for the 17 and the 6,,,,, interesting.

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Steve B and guys

The math does not jive regarding a sheet with 17 cards per row, no matter how you try to finagle this on a standard 19-inch x 24-inch sheet of cardboard (as Steve noted).

17 x 1 7/16 inch wide T206 = 24 1/4 inches


Meanwhile, a 12 cards per row arrangement works very neatly on a 19-inch x 24-inch (or an 18-inch x 24-inch) sheet of cardboard to produce 108 - T206 cards.

For example, consider the standard 19" x 24" cardboard sheet, the original 12 - 150-only subjects were most likely repeatedly printed in a 108-card arrangement such as this:


http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyABBBDDx25X_zpsd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyEPPRPlankWagner25XXX_zps006d5347.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyABBBDDx25X_zpsd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyEPPRPlankWagner25XXX_zps006d5347.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyABBBDDx25X_zpsd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyEPPRPlankWagner25XXX_zps006d5347.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyABBBDDx25X_zpsd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyEPPRPlankWagner25XXX_zps006d5347.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyABBBDDx25X_zpsd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyEPPRPlankWagner25XXX_zps006d5347.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyABBBDDx25X_zpsd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyEPPRPlankWagner25XXX_zps006d5347.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyABBBDDx25X_zpsd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyEPPRPlankWagner25XXX_zps006d5347.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyABBBDDx25X_zpsd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyEPPRPlankWagner25XXX_zps006d5347.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyABBBDDx25X_zpsd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/150onlyEPPRPlankWagner25XXX_zps006d5347.jpg


TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Well, I don't know about that example of a sheet configuration Ted, you have the same player all the way down the sheet. How would you explain the 1 card 2 name thing? Different name at the top of the card than the name of the player depicted on the card. Like the ones Erick is collecting.

On a side note- could the Wagner strip show where he may have been on the sheet? It seems to me that (possibly) the ATC would have just cut that strip from a sheet, rather than print a strip? It seems logical to print the sheet, and cut the sample strip right from the sheet. What do you guys think?

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Since the Wagner strip is a proof it should be taken as a unique item.

It's possible that it was taken from a set of nearly ready plates. But it's just as likely to have been taken from the master, or from a set of plates assembled strictly for proofing.

As I've seen more from the P150 plate scratch, I've become less certain about plate layout. What's been seen so far argues for a higher number of individual cards vertically, probably 5-6. Horizontally I'm just not sure.

I am fairly certain that my initial thought of a small sheet with only 6-7 subjects is probably wrong. I'm not 100% ready to give up the idea, but what I've seen so far isn't encouraging.

12x9 seems possible, as does a 17 wide sheet. I'm leaning towards a group of complex 12x9 sheets because the fit on a standard sheet of paper is better.
The two name cards could be a result of a singleprints/doubleprints arrangement.

Hopefully I'll get a bit more time to work on stuff. The 2 year old has kept me running crazy all week and I still have to reply to some pms and Emails as well as try to arrange some new scans and try to add in the double name cards and the ones known to be pairs from miscuts.

Steve B

[tedzan]

Well, I don't know about that example of a sheet configuration Ted, you have the same player all the way down the sheet. How would you explain the 1 card 2 name thing? Different name at the top of the card than the name of the player depicted on the card. Like the ones Erick is collecting.

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton

Realize that the 12 cards I have posted in that 108-card simulated sheet are 150-only subjects. As best we know, this series of T206's were the first printed T206's
in the set. And, were not intermixed with 150/350 series, or 350 series, or 460 series cards.

Therefore, if my 108-card simulated sheet is valid, if any of these 12 - 150-only cards are found with 2 names....I expect that they will be the "same-name" version.

I have never seen any of these cards with 2 different names. I will be very surprised if any of them show up with 2 different names.

Check out Jantz's excellent thread....I welcome you to prove me wrong.



On a side note- could the Wagner strip show where he may have been on the sheet? It seems to me that (possibly) the ATC would have just cut that strip from a sheet, rather than print a strip? It seems logical to print the sheet, and cut the sample strip right from the sheet. What do you guys think?

Sincerely, Clayton

In my opinion, that 5-card Wagner strip was not cut from a regular production sheet. I say this because the two following reasons......

1....The colors on the various cards are incomplete, although the Wagner looks like its colors are all there. Furthermore, the captions are in BLACK ink, rather than the
normal BROWN ink.

2....Wagner is a 150-only subject....the other cards on this strip (M.Brown, Bowerman, CYoung, and Kling) are 150/350 subjects.



TED Z

[rainier2004]

You guys are hardcore....

Ill probably never get into t206s but its great to see all this knowledge and constructive debate.

[MVSNYC]

Ted- is the above layout pictured correctly? seems like i very long & narrow sheet...if so, it creates an awkward proportion for a sheet. i also think the cards would be oriented in the other direction, not vertically with the length of the sheet.

[Abravefan11]

Clayton

Realize that the 12 cards I have posted in that 108-card simulated sheet are 150-only subjects. As best we know, this series of T206's were the first printed T206's
in the set. And, were not intermixed with 150/350 series, or 350 series, or 460 series cards.

Therefore, if my 108-card simulated sheet is valid, if any of these 12 - 150-only cards are found with 2 names....I expect that they will be the "same-name" version.

TED Z

A few points to consider regarding the above quote.

-Plank is not a 150 Only subject.
-Some of these cards were printed with Sovereign 150 and some were not.
-Almost all Plank 150 Sweet Cap are Fac. 30, and almost all Wagner Sweet Cap 150 are Fac. 25. If they were Sweet Cap sheet mates the numbers wouldn't be so drastically different.
-If all of the cards pictured above were sheet mates, printed for the same amount of time, all be as relatively scarce as Wagner and Plank with Sweet Caporal 150 backs.

The common thread is when these subjects were discontinued. Prior to that, every indication is they were printed on sheets like any other subject from group 1. It's certainly possible when a double name of a 150 only subject is found that the second subject may also be a 150 only. However, I also find it highly likey that it could also be any other subject from print group 1.

Lastly, I don't believe Wagner and Plank were included with the first cards printed in the set. There were three intital printings:

Piedmont 150
Sweet Caporal 150
Sovereign 150

First being Piedmont which included Magie that was corrected. After Piedmont but in this early distribution Sovereign 150 were printed. It included exactly 150 subjects, as advertised, but not Plank and Wagner. I believe they were added after and included in later Piedmont and Sweet Caporal printings.

Just my two cents. All the best.

[teetwoohsix]

Clayton

Realize that the 12 cards I have posted in that 108-card simulated sheet are 150-only subjects. As best we know, this series of T206's were the first printed T206's
in the set. And, were not intermixed with 150/350 series, or 350 series, or 460 series cards.

Therefore, if my 108-card simulated sheet is valid, if any of these 12 - 150-only cards are found with 2 names....I expect that they will be the "same-name" version.

I have never seen any of these cards with 2 different names. I will be very surprised if any of them show up with 2 different names.

Check out Jantz's excellent thread....I welcome you to prove me wrong.




In my opinion, that 5-card Wagner strip was not cut from a regular production sheet. I say this because the two following reasons......

1....The colors on the various cards are incomplete, although the Wagner looks like its colors are all there. Furthermore, the captions are in BLACK ink, rather than the
normal BROWN ink.

2....Wagner is a 150-only subject....the other cards on this strip (M.Brown, Bowerman, CYoung, and Kling) are 150/350 subjects.



TED Z

Ted-

I see. So you're saying there's no double (two different names) cards of THESE cards you've posted as a simulated sheet above.

Here's Jantz's thread I believe you are referencing (awesome thread BTW Jantz): http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=142480&highlight=one+T206%2C+two+names

But, here's where I'm confused: Confirmed cards with two different names~ all of these are Piedmont 150:

Bradley-Bender
Killian (pitching)-Chance
Lindaman-Bresnahan
Spade-Cicotte
Lundgren(Cubs)-Doolin
Bender(port)-Delahanty(Wash)
M.Brown(port)-Magee

All of the above cards are from Print Group 1:

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


I know you are going to say these are not ONLY 150 subjects~ but they are 150 subjects. So, I'm not following still.....

As far as the Wagner strip,,,,so you don't think they printed a sheet out and cut the strip from that? I'm not saying it was a regular production sheet, but just figuring it would be printed on a sheet "the size" of a regular production sheet. I'm trying to follow the 19 inch wide track thing, and understand how if they didn't use the regular presses to do this strip, what did they use?

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

A few points to consider regarding the above quote.

-Plank is not a 150 Only subject.
-Some of these cards were printed with Sovereign 150 and some were not.
-Almost all Plank 150 Sweet Cap are Fac. 30, and almost all Wagner Sweet Cap 150 are Fac. 25. If they were Sweet Cap sheet mates the numbers wouldn't be so drastically different.
-If all of the cards pictured above were sheet mates, printed for the same amount of time, all be as relatively scarce as Wagner and Plank with Sweet Caporal 150 backs.

The common thread is when these subjects were discontinued. Prior to that, every indication is they were printed on sheets like any other subject from group 1. It's certainly possible when a double name of a 150 only subject is found that the second subject may also be a 150 only. However, I also find it highly likey that it could also be any other subject from print group 1.

Lastly, I don't believe Wagner and Plank were included with the first cards printed in the set. There were three intital printings:

Piedmont 150
Sweet Caporal 150
Sovereign 150

First being Piedmont which included Magie that was corrected. After Piedmont but in this early distribution Sovereign 150 were printed. It included exactly 150 subjects, as advertised, but not Plank and Wagner. I believe they were added after and included in later Piedmont and Sweet Caporal printings.

Just my two cents. All the best.

Thanks Tim, that makes sense. Great post !!

Sincerely, Clayton

[Abravefan11]

I am fairly certain that my initial thought of a small sheet with only 6-7 subjects is probably wrong. I'm not 100% ready to give up the idea, but what I've seen so far isn't encouraging.

Steve B

Hi Steve - We know a good number of subjects that were printed side by side in vertical rows. Most are just small groups of two or three, but the largest group is 8 subjects side by side. From this we can conclude that the vertical rows were 8 subjects or larger, unless you believe two different size sheets were used at times.

To me, two different size sheets doesn't seem logical, but I certainly can't disprove it and would consider anything put forward supporting the idea.

[steve B]

Ted-

I see. So you're saying there's no double (two different names) cards of THESE cards you've posted as a simulated sheet above.

Here's Jantz's thread I believe you are referencing (awesome thread BTW Jantz): http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=142480&highlight=one+T206%2C+two+names

But, here's where I'm confused: Confirmed cards with two different names~ all of these are Piedmont 150:

Bradley-Bender
Killian (pitching)-Chance
Lindaman-Bresnahan
Spade-Cicotte
Lundgren(Cubs)-Doolin
Bender(port)-Delahanty(Wash)
M.Brown(port)-Magee

All of the above cards are from Print Group 1:

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


I know you are going to say these are not ONLY 150 subjects~ but they are 150 subjects. So, I'm not following still.....

As far as the Wagner strip,,,,so you don't think they printed a sheet out and cut the strip from that? I'm not saying it was a regular production sheet, but just figuring it would be printed on a sheet "the size" of a regular production sheet. I'm trying to follow the 19 inch wide track thing, and understand how if they didn't use the regular presses to do this strip, what did they use?

Sincerely, Clayton

The ones Ted showed are a subset of print group 1. None of them are also found with any 350 back or with factory 649 (Except for Plank, and If I recall it right all the 350 Planks are hand cut?)

Schulte front view should be included. There is a P350 that just turned up but I believe it's not a normal production card, most likely a wrongback(150 series sheet given a 350 back, either using up leftovers or as a makeready sheet that got cut and distributed.)

Magie should also be included. (Since at least one master and plate would have had to be reworked to fix Magie I consider Magie and Magee to be different cards Magie 150 only Magee 150/350)


Leaving out Plank and including Schulte, Wagner and Magie This group breaks into two groups, one slightly tougher than the other. With three exception Brown Cubs which isn't all that tough, and Wagner and Magie which are.

My theory had been that 5 of them had been on a sheet with Wagner, the other 5 on a sheet with Magie, and that both sheets had been withdrawn and the plates redone either partly or completely with Brown replacing both Wagner and Magie.

The other outlier card is Powers. No 350 backs, but he is found with factory 649. That one is interesting. Either they handled the sheets oddly to print the 649 overprints or Powers was on more than one sheet. Figuring that out would require looking at the tiny front differences to see if some are only found with 649 and some only with 150 backs. That's a whole project on its own.

Keep in mind that the sheet layout/size could have easily been different for 150 and 350 The 150s were a somewhat more limited release, 4-5 brands. While 350 had all 16. Printing larger sheets or sheets with more subjects to a sheet would have made more sense for 350.

For that reason I think it makes sense to look at sheet layouts by series or if you must, by print group.

Some of the cards on Teds sheet show the P150 plate scratches, so they must have been printed well into the later part of 150 printings.

One attraction of Teds layout is that it would explain a number of things. In production, extracting the Wagners, Planks and Magies would have been simply a matter of cutting off the edge if it was on the edge and discarding it, or cutting into strips and discarding the appropriate strip. Cutting into strips isn't good practice, because handling the long strips in the cutter makes diamond cuts much more likely.

Another issue is the scrap of the log from the packing plant clearly stating "other than philadelphia area" Which probably means that there was a different sheet to produce the mix of cards intended for at the very least the Philadelphia area. Sorting stuff by player and where each was intended to go just doesn't work for packing/distribution there's just way too much manual labor and thought invloved unless there's a major difference in the cards themselves (Like the red bordered paralells sold in Topps product exclusively in Target. Simple to add in while packaging their order since the look is very different.)

All in all a highly complex problem.

Steve B

[steve B]

Ted-

I see. So you're saying there's no double (two different names) cards of THESE cards you've posted as a simulated sheet above.

Here's Jantz's thread I believe you are referencing (awesome thread BTW Jantz): http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=142480&highlight=one+T206%2C+two+names

But, here's where I'm confused: Confirmed cards with two different names~ all of these are Piedmont 150:

Bradley-Bender
Killian (pitching)-Chance
Lindaman-Bresnahan
Spade-Cicotte
Lundgren(Cubs)-Doolin
Bender(port)-Delahanty(Wash)
M.Brown(port)-Magee

All of the above cards are from Print Group 1:

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


I know you are going to say these are not ONLY 150 subjects~ but they are 150 subjects. So, I'm not following still.....

As far as the Wagner strip,,,,so you don't think they printed a sheet out and cut the strip from that? I'm not saying it was a regular production sheet, but just figuring it would be printed on a sheet "the size" of a regular production sheet. I'm trying to follow the 19 inch wide track thing, and understand how if they didn't use the regular presses to do this strip, what did they use?

Sincerely, Clayton

Now for the Wagner strip answer.

The transfers that would be used to lay out the plates and probably any proofs would have been printed on small manually operated proofing presses.

Those can be very small, tabletop size. And are designed to produce one print at a time. The proofs are examined for both design, and to see if all the color elements are in the right place. An example of something that should have been caught in proofing is Magie, and Doyle. There are others that simply weren't fixed until much later. Ganzel has part of the background extending into his hat. That was fixed, but isn't at all rare. But it should have been caught in proofing.

If the Wagner strip was specially printed to try to convince him, it could have been laid out and one copy made. Or they could have used an existing set of proofs. The registration is very precise, better than some other proofs. In looking at the scans I have yesterday it also occured to me that it has a background color making the borders tan rather than white.

Steve B

[tedzan]

Ted- is the above layout pictured correctly? seems like i very long & narrow sheet...if so, it creates an awkward proportion for a sheet. i also think the cards would be oriented in the other direction, not vertically with the length of the sheet.


Mike

Given......The typical width of a T206 is 1 7/16 inches

I contend that American Lithographic (ALC) printed T206's (and T205's) formatted in rows of 12 cards each.

Therefore, 12 x 1 7/16 inches = 17 1/4 inches. Now, it has come to our attention (from Steve B) that the standard size sheet (or cardboard) during the
T206 printing era) is 19" x 24".

Recently, a nearby neighbor of mine, who was in the printing business for 45 years (and is also an artist), told me that a standard size sheet is 18" x 24".

In any event, my 12-card per row theory (17 1/4 inches wide) fits very neatly with either of these size sheets.

Also, my research indicates that ALC operated 19" track (width) printing presses to produce these types of lithographic jobs (advertising posters, cigar-
ette premiums, etc.).


Furthermore, the big picture regarding the T206 structure makes a compelling argument in favor of my 12-card per row theory......check out this math.

Subjects........Series

..12..............150-only (12 x 1 row)

144..............150/350 (12 x 12)

204..............350-only (12 x 17)

..60..............350/460 (12 x 5)

..46..............460-only (+ 2 double-prints) (12 x 4)

..48..............Southern Leaguers (12 x 4)

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

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



Best regards,

TED Z

[tedzan]

A few points to consider regarding the above quote.

-Plank is not a 150 Only subject.
-Almost all Plank 150 Sweet Cap are Fac. 30, and almost all Wagner Sweet Cap 150 are Fac. 25. If they were Sweet Cap sheet mates the numbers wouldn't be so drastically different.

Plank for all practical purposes is a "150-only" subject (just like Wagner). They both didn't want to be associated with cigarette cards. Wagner went "public", while Plank
was silent and most likely issued a cease & desist order to ATC. However, ALC did not desist; but, continued printing Plank in their early 350 series press runs of SWEET
CAP cards. And, isn't it interesting that they avoided Factory #25. Plank's 350 card was shipped only to Factory #30. In my opinion, this was deliberately done to avoid
the Philadelphia market....which was served by Factory #25 tobacco products. Factory #30 cigarettes were distributed in the New York and New England regions.



-If all of the cards pictured above were sheet mates, printed for the same amount of time, all be as relatively scarce as Wagner and Plank with Sweet Caporal 150 backs.

We have factual evidence that Wagner and Plank were on the same sheet. The "Gretzky Wagner" and Charlie Conlon's Plank were cut from same PIEDMONT sheet.
This I recall from my experience when Mastro was first shopping around the Wagner at the Willow Grove Show in the mid-1980's. This is an undeniable fact.

And, since we know that the fronts were pre-printed....followed by the printing of the advertising backs, it does not make any difference whether we are referring
to PIEDMONT cards or SWEET CAP cards.

We will never know how many Wagner and Plank cards were originally printed. Then discarded, after ALC was informed to desist. Meanwhile, the printing & shipping
of the other 10 subjects on my simulated sheet of 150-only series cards continued. The discarding of the Wagner and Plank in no way affects the numbers of the
other 10 subjects.

With all due respect, I don't get what you are saying here.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

With all due respect, I don't get what you are saying here.

TED Z

Unless I misunderstand you, based on your mock sheet and your arguments for it, you're contention is that the cards only found with 150 series backs and Plank were printed on every sheet together.

Is this accurate?

Edit to add: I am aware that Plank and Wagner were on the same Piedmont 150 sheets. Do you believe the same to be true with Sweet Caporal 150?

I think the pithier the discussion, the more likely we are to understand each other and maybe make some progress.

[Brian Weisner]

Plank for all practical purposes is a "150-only" subject (just like Wagner). They both didn't want to be associated with cigarette cards. Wagner went "public", while Plank
was silent and most likely issued a cease & desist order to ATC. However, ALC did not desist; but, continued printing Plank in their early 350 series press runs of SWEET
CAP cards. And, isn't it interesting that they avoided Factory #25. Plank's 350 card was shipped only to Factory #30. In my opinion, this was deliberately done to avoid
the Philadelphia market....which was served by Factory #25 tobacco products. Factory #30 cigarettes were distributed in the New York and New England regions.



We have factual evidence that Wagner and Plank were on the same sheet. The "Gretzky Wagner" and Charlie Conlon's Plank were cut from same PIEDMONT sheet.
This I recall from my experience when Mastro was first shopping around the Wagner at the Willow Grove Show in the mid-1980's. This is an undeniable fact.

And, since we know that the fronts were pre-printed....followed by the printing of the advertising backs, it does not make any difference whether we are referring
to PIEDMONT cards or SWEET CAP cards.

We will never know how many Wagner and Plank cards were originally printed. Then discarded, after ALC was informed to desist. Meanwhile, the printing & shipping
of the other 10 subjects on my simulated sheet of 150-only series cards continued. The discarding of the Wagner and Plank in no way affects the numbers of the
other 10 subjects.

With all due respect, I don't get what you are saying here.


TED Z

Hi Ted,
I don't understand how Plank is a "150 only" card.... We have have twice as many known SwCap 350 Planks as we do Plank SwCap 150's.... That leads me to agree with Tim, that Plank was added late in the first print group and continued over into the 350's... I also believe that Wagner and Plank were most likely on the same Piedmont sheet, but not on the Sweet Caps....
Hope you are well Brian

[teetwoohsix]

Thanks for the reply Steve, I appreciate it.

I'm mucking things up in this discussion by bringing up the strip. I guess it's best to stay more on topic. Now, I don't know how to quote a certain section of a post, so I copied and pasted this :o:

"Keep in mind that the sheet layout/size could have easily been different for 150 and 350 The 150s were a somewhat more limited release, 4-5 brands. While 350 had all 16. Printing larger sheets or sheets with more subjects to a sheet would have made more sense for 350."

This is something I've been wondering about. I notice on a lot of the 150 series cards, the brown writing (player name & team designation) will be a thicker, bolder brown. And, on a good majority of the 350 series, the brown writing will be thinner and lighter. I wonder if that has to do with the volume they were printing?

I know that in the end we can only come up with theories about who was on a sheet, how many subjects per sheet, how many in a row, whether they ran the sheet horizontal or vertical, etc.~ unless a sheet pops up or someone who has seen one comes forward- but, I think Tim and Jim's website provides a deeper understanding of the set and presents a more probable scenario with the print groups and also Tim's article about the #34,,,,,Ted, you should check that article out if you haven't.


Thanks for the great discussion and information, my brain gets a great work out from these type of threads :D:p

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Hi Ted,
I don't understand how Plank is a "150 only" card.... We have have twice as many known SwCap 350 Planks as we do Plank SwCap 150's.... That leads me to agree with Tim, that Plank was added late in the first print group and continued over into the 350's... I also believe that Wagner and Plank were most likely on the same Piedmont sheet, but not on the Sweet Caps....
Hope you are well Brian


Brian

At least you agree with me that Wagner and Plank were printed on the same sheet.

We all appear to agree on....that the fronts were pre-printed....and, the backs were printed subsequently on these pre-printed (fronts) sheets as the orders
for the various T-brands came into American Litho (ALC).

Therefore, there appears to be a contradiction here, in that you guys are saying Plank was printed on another sheet ? ?
This does not jive with what we know.

OK, this may appeal to the conspiracy buffs....given that the majority of SWEET CAP 150 cards of Plank are Factory #30; and, the SWEET CAP 350 cards of
Plank are ONLY Factory #30....my theory is that ALC continued to print Plank (although he had informed ATC that he did not want his image associated with
tobacco) and shipped the cards to Factory #30 (NY). This was a deliberate move to continue issuing Plank's card, since Factory 30 distributed SWEET CAP
cigarettes to the New York and the New England markets.
Factory #25 distributed to the Southern States and as North as the Philadelphia area.

This is not as far-fetched as it might sound....recall that we have an ALC ledger notation informing the jobber......

"not to ship certain SWEET CAP cards to the Philadelphia region" (paraphrased)

Take care,

TED Z

[tedzan]

Here's an example of a possible Double-Printed 48-subject arrangement printed on a 19' X 24" sheet. Leaving a 1 1/2 inch border (top & bottom) if the printed cards were centered
on the sheet.


http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/1stquadrant350onlySheet25x_zps502ee3d8.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/2ndquadrant350onlySheet25x2_zpsa49c7209.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/4thquadrant350onlySheet25x2_zpsd4b87430.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/3rdquadrant350onlySheet25x_zps7c5569c5.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/1stquadrant350onlySheet25x_zps502ee3d8.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/2ndquadrant350onlySheet25x2_zpsa49c7209.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/4thquadrant350onlySheet25x2_zpsd4b87430.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/3rdquadrant350onlySheet25x_zps7c5569c5.jpg


TED Z

[tedzan]

Another example of a possible 108-card sheet printed during the 150 Series press runs. These 34 subjects and two Double-Prints ** were printed with PIEDMONT 150....
SOVEREIGN 150....SWEET CAPORAL 150 [Factory's #25, #30 & #649 (overprint)]....and, Brown HINDU backs.


Johnson .................................................. ......Possible DOUBLE-PRINTS............................................ ..... Davis
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/1stpanel12xT206sheetB.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/2ndpanel12xt206sheet.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/3rdpanel12xT206sheet.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/1stpanel12xT206sheetB.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/2ndpanel12xt206sheet.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/3rdpanel12xT206sheet.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/1stpanel12xT206sheetB.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/2ndpanel12xt206sheet.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/3rdpanel12xT206sheet.jpg
DOUBLE-PRINTS............................................ .................................................. .................................................. ............ Powers .................. Matty (Possible DOUBLE-PRINT)


** Double-Prints (D-P)
My selection of Powers, and the 2nd D-P (either Davis, Matty, or Johnson) is based NOT on POP reports....but, two T206 surveys totalling 16,000 cards, which I have.


TED Z

[cfc1909]

when the SC 649 set and the southern brown Hindu sets subjects were chosen, there were plenty other subjects available if 36 were needed. No reason to double print 2 subjects.



As for a survey of 16,000 t206s, that is a drop in a 55 gallon bucket of what is out there . In 1998 there were a half million t206s surveyed by AM and we have done at least that many more since.

Sweet Cap 649 subjects and southern brown Hindu subjects were printed in equal numbers.

[teetwoohsix]

Great cards Ted !!

Here's what I don't get about these two simulated sheets you just posted.
The only chance for a possible "double name card" (same name top and bottom) is the Powers and Matty cards. The double name/same name shows up enough to see that they must have (like in Chris Browne's simulated sheet) been in columns of likely 3 of the same player down (in order to find these double name/same name).

Then, you have the double name/different name top, which also makes sense if you look at Chris's simulated sheet. The sheets you posted could give you a ton of double name/different name at top (which are way less common to find) and basically 2 possibilities for a double name/ same name (which are way more common).

How does this make sense, when factoring in these double named cards (which I think are a key factor in figuring out a sheet layout)?

Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Clayton

The simulated sheet I posted (post #41) consists of 12 subjects in the 150-ONLY Series.

The simulated sheet I posted (post #60) consists of 34 subjects in the 150/350 Series.

The simulated sheet I posted (post #59) consists of 48 subjects in the 350 Series.

This is your 2nd post on this thread in which your comments indicate that you have the T206 series confused.

The traditional classification (by Bill Heitman, Scot Reader, and long-time T206 collectors) is as follows......

150-only series

150/350 series

350-only series

350/460 series

460-only series

Southern Leaguer series

Demmitt and O'Hara (St. Louis variations)

Joe Doyle N.Y. Nat'l and Sherry Magie (error)


Any other manner of classifying these series is subject to confusion.


TED Z

[Brian Weisner]

Brian

At least you agree with me that Wagner and Plank were printed on the same sheet.

We all appear to agree on....that the fronts were pre-printed....and, the backs were printed subsequently on these pre-printed (fronts) sheets as the orders
for the various T-brands came into American Litho (ALC).

Therefore, there appears to be a contradiction here, in that you guys are saying Plank was printed on another sheet ? ?
This does not jive with what we know.

Take care,

TED Z

Hey Ted,
The only thing I agree with in the above post is that Plank and Wagner were “most likely” printed on the same “Piedmont” sheet given the existing examples, as well as the story behind “The Card”….
Otherwise, as Tim as shown in multiple posts like the one below… “What we know” suggest otherwise….

Originally Posted by Abravefan11
A few points to consider regarding the above quote.

-Plank is not a 150 Only subject.
-Some of these cards were printed with Sovereign 150 and some were not.
-Almost all Plank 150 Sweet Cap are Fac. 30, and almost all Wagner Sweet Cap 150 are Fac. 25. If they were Sweet Cap sheet mates the numbers wouldn't be so drastically different.
-If all of the cards pictured above were sheet mates, printed for the same amount of time, all be as relatively scarce as Wagner and Plank with Sweet Caporal 150 backs.
Be well Brian

[teetwoohsix]

Clayton

The simulated sheet I posted (post #41) consists of 12 subjects in the 150-ONLY Series.

The simulated sheet I posted (post #60) consists of 34 subjects in the 150/350 Series.

The simulated sheet I posted (post #59) consists of 48 subjects in the 350 Series.

This is your 2nd post on this thread in which your comments indicate that you have the T206 series confused.

The traditional classification (by Bill Heitman, Scot Reader, and long-time T206 collectors) is as follows......

150-only series

150/350 series

350-only series

350/460 series

460-only series

Southern Leaguer series

Demmitt and O'Hara (St. Louis variations)

Joe Doyle N.Y. Nat'l and Sherry Magie (error)


Any other manner of classifying these series is subject to confusion.


TED Z

Ted- I am not confused about the T206 series one bit. I am confused about your sheet layouts. You also dodged my questions. Rather than explain what series the players consist of, I was hoping you would adress my last post with something that makes sense. Please re-read my last post, it's not that confusing.

Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Hey Ted,
The only thing I agree with in the above post is that Plank and Wagner were “most likely” printed on the same “Piedmont” sheet given the existing examples, as well as the story behind “The Card”….

Be well Brian

Brian

The point I'm trying to make is that Plank was originally intended to be a 150-only subject. My premise here is based on these two supporting facts....

......PIEDMONT backs were printed FIRST onto the T206 fronts

......The Gretzky Wagner and Charlie Conlon's Plank were on the same PIEDMONT sheet


What transpired subsequent to the initial PIEDMONT printing of Wagner and Plank regarding the SWEET CAPORAL cards is anyone's guess. None of us
have concrete evidence of what actually transpired.

I have offered a theory or two....and, you guys have speculated as to what followed the PIEDMONT printing of Wagner and Plank.

But, as of today, we have no proof to back up our contentions regarding the SWEET CAP press runs. Perhaps, some one smarter than us, or lucky to
discover positive proof will arrive at the scene in the future.


TED Z

[wolf441]

This may be a dumb question (sorry if it is :)), but has there ever been a confirmed report (or even a second hand story originally told by someone who was purchasing cigarette packs in 1909) of a Plank or a Wagner actually being pulled from a period cigarette pack? My point being, is it possible that NO Wagners and Planks ever made it into packs and that workers at the distribution site (sorry, not sure who actually did the cutting of the sheets - ALC or the actual factories) were told to destroy all of these cards (perhaps due to threatened litigation), but instead decided to take some home, being that these guys were two of the biggest stars of the day?

[Abravefan11]

Concerning the consistency of sheet sizes throughout the T206 set and different series I'll offer up the following for thought.

The number 34 wasn't a random number that we found in a couple places within the set and have since tried to configure every other subset to fit it. It stands on its own as the smallest number of any group printed at a given time within the set. This is of the utmost importance. It doesn't require double prints, subsets, or any other adjustments to arrive at the total. It is 34 confirmed subjects that we know were printed at a very specific time in the set. Here are some examples:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 = 34
Hindu Southern League = 34
Print Group 3 (350/460) Drum 350 = 34
Broad Leaf 460 = 34

I used these four to show that small runs are consistent throughout the entire set, and all equal 34. While I can't prove that during other larger runs that a sheet size couldn't have been different, it's my current belief that they stayed consistent.

Once you go beyond 34 a lot of variables can change the total number of cards produced with a given back. Multiple sheet configurations, multiple printings of the same back at different times with the same subjects, and on and on.

There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards. This is how we categorize them and not evidence of how they were printed. When it comes to the actual production of the cards, you can not reduce a group printed at a specific time to a number smaller than 34.

[Abravefan11]

This may be a dumb question (sorry if it is :)), but has there ever been a confirmed report (or even a second hand story originally told by someone who was purchasing cigarette packs in 1909) of a Plank or a Wagner actually being pulled from a period cigarette pack?

From an August 1909 newspaper articele:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-eInp3s0Byx0/USE3cj-CpgI/AAAAAAAAIAU/R3F043CJqgM/s433/Wag1909.jpg

[teetwoohsix]

OK, I'll try it a different way.

Let's take Rossman. In this sheet layout, how would there ever be a Rossman card with the name Rossman also at the top of the card (miscut)? I'm just using this card as an example of what I was getting at with my question.

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Concerning the consistency of sheet sizes throughout the T206 set and different series I'll offer up the following for thought.

The number 34 wasn't a random number that we found in a couple places within the set and have since tried to configure every other subset to fit it. It stands on its own as the smallest number of any group printed at a given time within the set. This is of the utmost importance. It doesn't require double prints, subsets, or any other adjustments to arrive at the total. It is 34 confirmed subjects that we know were printed at a very specific time in the set. Here are some examples:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 = 34
Hindu Southern League = 34
Print Group 3 (350/460) Drum 350 = 34
Broad Leaf 460 = 34

I used these four to show that small runs are consistent throughout the entire set, and all equal 34. While I can't prove that during other larger runs that a sheet size couldn't have been different, it's my current belief that they stayed consistent.

Once you go beyond 34 a lot of variables can change the total number of cards produced with a given back. Multiple sheet configurations, multiple printings of the same back at different times with the same subjects, and on and on.

There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards. This is how we categorize them and not evidence of how they were printed. When it comes to the actual production of the cards, you can not reduce a group printed at a specific time to a number smaller than 34.

The part I changed to red above cannot be true.

14 Souther leaguers not printed with Hindu.
13 Printed with ONLY 150 backs and not with SC150/649.
1 printed with Only 150 Backs AND SC150/649

Is there some explanation for how these would have been printed on the same sheet as cards that recieved a different selection of backs? (I've proposed a few before, all of which I consider unlikely and for which there is no existing proof.)

The print groups do make sense, and are excellent for explaining thedistribution of the set.
But those groups are only a start towards understanding the production of the set.

I have a few other objections to 34 being the key. But none of them are something concrete.
For instance, it's not a number that most people would be comfortable with. People tend to select numbers that are either multiples of 10 or are readily divisible. 100, 150, 50, 25,75 All common choices. Ask yourself how many cards you'd put in a set? Hardly anyone would choose 34. How many of something would you put on a sheet? again, 34 isn't a number most people would choose. And none of the bigger numbers 150,350,460 can be made from 34. To be entirely fair, only 150 can be made from 6, so it's only marginally better.

And yes, I know the counter argument is pretty much any Topps set. Odd numbers made from sheets of 100, entire sets based on being multiples of 11...Quite a mess.

Steve B

[wolf441]

From an August 1909 newspaper articele:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-eInp3s0Byx0/USE3cj-CpgI/AAAAAAAAIAU/R3F043CJqgM/s433/Wag1909.jpg

Thanks Tim!!

It's odd that they would mention Cobb as being a rare example in early packs along with Wagner, and also that "multiple" Wagners were found when the new shipment arrived. Great source material. The expertise and time spent in researching shown by you and the other veterans on this board is greatly appreciated.

Thanks again,

Steve

[Runscott]

From an August 1909 newspaper articele:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-eInp3s0Byx0/USE3cj-CpgI/AAAAAAAAIAU/R3F043CJqgM/s433/Wag1909.jpg

It's curious that the author of the above refers to 'photographs'. I wonder if he didn't confuse some other facts as well? (like player names). If he knew that a 'recent' shipment contained Cobb and Wagner, it's doubtful he found that out by digging through packs himself - probably quizzed the kids and couldn't they have been talking about cards other than T206's and the author got confused?

Also, August is late in the year. If they began printing in May, does that mean that they waited until months later to begin printing Wagners?

[Abravefan11]

Steve - With all do respect you misunderstand me.

Every one of the three groups you referenced I was referring to with this in my post: "There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards."

Yes, 14 southern league cards were not printed with Hindu, but when they were printed with Old Mill, the actual number printed is 48. Same with Piedmont 350. The fact that 14 were not printed with Hindu is not evidence that less than 34 were printed later.

You can classify the 150 only cards as you like, but none were printed with a back subset less than 34.

Excluding Wagner and Magie let's look at the regular 150 Only subjects.

All were printed with the following backs:

Piedmont 150
Sweet Caporal 150 No.25
Sweet Caporal 150 No.30
Sovereign 150
Hindu

All were no-prints with:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 (Powers is the lone exception*)

Up until the point they were discontinued, 67 subjects in the set followed that exact pattern of distribution. Nothing about them was unique except for when they were discontinued. Again this isn't evidence of any special treatment during production.

I hope this clears up the point I was trying to make but please ask me any followups.

Edit* Of the 150 only group Powers was printed with SC150/649, but like the others this does not make how he was printed unique. Until being discontinued his card followed the same distribution as 33 other group 1 subjects.

[Abravefan11]

Also, August is late in the year. If they began printing in May, does that mean that they waited until months later to begin printing Wagners?

Yes. We believe that the exclusion from Sovereign 150 shows that Wagner was not one of the original 150 subjects and added later in production.

[steve B]

Steve - With all do respect you misunderstand me.

Every one of the three groups you referenced I was referring to with this in my post: "There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards."

Yes, 14 southern league cards were not printed with Hindu, but when they were printed with Old Mill, the actual number printed is 48. Same with Piedmont 350. The fact that 14 were not printed with Hindu is not evidence that less than 34 were printed later.

You can classify the 150 only cards as you like, but none were printed with a back subset less than 34.

Excluding Wagner and Magie let's look at the regular 150 Only subjects.

All were printed with the following backs:

Piedmont 150
Sweet Caporal 150 No.25
Sweet Caporal 150 No.30
Sovereign 150
Hindu

All were no-prints with:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 (Powers is the lone exception*)

Up until the point they were discontinued, 67 subjects in the set followed that exact pattern of distribution. Nothing about them was unique except for when they were discontinued. Again this isn't evidence of any special treatment during production.

I hope this clears up the point I was trying to make but please ask me any followups.

Edit* Of the 150 only group Powers was printed with SC150/649, but like the others this does not make how he was printed unique. Until being discontinued his card followed the same distribution as 33 other group 1 subjects.

The key to my earlier post was that 34 seems to work for distribution But not always for production The two are not necessarily linked. looking at the overall print groups 34 does turn up often. But so does 6.
From a production standpoint the overall print group doesn't matter except in a general sense. When looking at what an individual sheet might look like it's necessary to look at more detailed groups.

For me, we're right at the point where the math and logic fail to support 34 without doubleprints in all series.

The 14 non-Hindu Sl cards *might* have been included on a sheet with regular Old Mill subjects. But so far there are no cards indicating that -No SL/regular double name. No SL/regular side miscut. No SL/regular shifted ghost image.

The options for having 14 out of 48 cards not printed with a particular back are limited.
Either
A)The sheet including those 14 had mixed SL and normal OM backs.
B)The sheet included ONLY those 14 subjects in some quantity.
C)The sheet was very complex, perhaps a very large sheet that included 2 or more smaller blocks that were then cut and the backs printed.
D)The sheet contained 34 subjects. 14 new and 20 held over from an earlier sheet. In other words doubleprints. But the first sheet must have still been in use since all the SL subjects come with P350 and OMSL.
E)24 sheets of 34 subjects is divisible by 48. Which would leave no doubleprints, but from a manufacturing standpoint is more than a bit crazy.


I don't see any realistic way of getting 48 cards on 34 subject sheets without either doubleprints or a sheet that does not contain 34 subjects. There's no indication that A or C happened. And E just isn't at all likely. (Although I might believe it for non SL P350s there's enough of them out there.) So B and D are the only logical choices.

Yes, the 150 only cards could have simply been discontinued before any 649overprint or 350 backs were printed. The question would be why they were discontinued when so many others were carried over into the 350 backs.
That's interesting. Looking at the players, there's a few from that group that there's a good reason to discontinue. What's odd is discontinuing 11 out of 34 subjects while only having a good reason for about half of them. 4 of them were reworked, Magie before the 350s and Brown(e) Brown and Evers between 150 and 350. I could maybe see there being one sheet that just had nothing but problems. Magie, Wagner,Plank, plus a required team change and at least two players who were out of the majors before 1909 began. (Pattee and Donlin) Going through making a new brown plate to fix Magie/Magee pulling Wagner, pulling Plank maybe /sort of. Yeah, a royal pain. My inclination would be to abandon the whole bunch. Three of the 4 reworks make sense. Brown(e) doesn't make much sense. He doesn't look like a star from his numbers. And they still got his name wrong the second time around.

That could lead somewhere! if the sheet had 34 subjects it's possible the other 23 were reworked between 150 and 350 as well. I'm sure some were, but haven't looked at that enough.

Powers is a very odd subject. If he was on the sheet with the other 150 onlys there shouldn't be a 649OP. If he was on any other sheet there should be 350 backs. The logical thing is that he was on two sheets, both discontinued before the 350 series one that got the overprint, the other that didn't. That would lead me to think the 649 sheet was actually a special sheet for fact. 649. But if it was why do it as an overprint? They had to make a plate for the overprinting anyway.

Even the lists of confirmed and possible back/front combinations rarely add up to a number divisible by 34, both on the master spreadsheet at T206 resource and the superset spreadsheet.

So to me-
34 subjects- possible/probable for some parts of some print groups. 649OP looks good without doubleprints, and fits both the 34 theory and the divisible by 6 theory if a couple subjects are printed twice. But 34 is a perfect fit.

Some number divisible by 6 or 12 ---Possible for some parts of most groups. Sovereign 350 lt green 66 subjects. 6 works, backing out the 6 superprints 12 works.

Some number we haven't yet considered. - Also possible for some groups. Sov 460. 52 subjects all confirmed with none shown as unconfirmed. 34? nope. 52/6...Nope. Backing out the 6 superprints? still no.
So either Sov 460 was a complex set of sheets with doubleprints. OR some number we haven't considered, OR there are at least two subjects still unknown. Or some of the confirmed ones are errors that shouldn't have that back.

Lots more thoughts on all of this, but I've redone this about 5 times and it's getting late....

Steve B

[teetwoohsix]

The key to my earlier post was that 34 seems to work for distribution But not always for production The two are not necessarily linked. looking at the overall print groups 34 does turn up often. But so does 6.
From a production standpoint the overall print group doesn't matter except in a general sense. When looking at what an individual sheet might look like it's necessary to look at more detailed groups.

For me, we're right at the point where the math and logic fail to support 34 without doubleprints in all series.

The 14 non-Hindu Sl cards *might* have been included on a sheet with regular Old Mill subjects. But so far there are no cards indicating that -No SL/regular double name. No SL/regular side miscut. No SL/regular shifted ghost image.

The options for having 14 out of 48 cards not printed with a particular back are limited.
Either
A)The sheet including those 14 had mixed SL and normal OM backs.
B)The sheet included ONLY those 14 subjects in some quantity.
C)The sheet was very complex, perhaps a very large sheet that included 2 or more smaller blocks that were then cut and the backs printed.
D)The sheet contained 34 subjects. 14 new and 20 held over from an earlier sheet. In other words doubleprints. But the first sheet must have still been in use since all the SL subjects come with P350 and OMSL.
E)24 sheets of 34 subjects is divisible by 48. Which would leave no doubleprints, but from a manufacturing standpoint is more than a bit crazy.


I don't see any realistic way of getting 48 cards on 34 subject sheets without either doubleprints or a sheet that does not contain 34 subjects. There's no indication that A or C happened. And E just isn't at all likely. (Although I might believe it for non SL P350s there's enough of them out there.) So B and D are the only logical choices.

Yes, the 150 only cards could have simply been discontinued before any 649overprint or 350 backs were printed. The question would be why they were discontinued when so many others were carried over into the 350 backs.
That's interesting. Looking at the players, there's a few from that group that there's a good reason to discontinue. What's odd is discontinuing 11 out of 34 subjects while only having a good reason for about half of them. 4 of them were reworked, Magie before the 350s and Brown(e) Brown and Evers between 150 and 350. I could maybe see there being one sheet that just had nothing but problems. Magie, Wagner,Plank, plus a required team change and at least two players who were out of the majors before 1909 began. (Pattee and Donlin) Going through making a new brown plate to fix Magie/Magee pulling Wagner, pulling Plank maybe /sort of. Yeah, a royal pain. My inclination would be to abandon the whole bunch. Three of the 4 reworks make sense. Brown(e) doesn't make much sense. He doesn't look like a star from his numbers. And they still got his name wrong the second time around.

That could lead somewhere! if the sheet had 34 subjects it's possible the other 23 were reworked between 150 and 350 as well. I'm sure some were, but haven't looked at that enough.

Powers is a very odd subject. If he was on the sheet with the other 150 onlys there shouldn't be a 649OP. If he was on any other sheet there should be 350 backs. The logical thing is that he was on two sheets, both discontinued before the 350 series one that got the overprint, the other that didn't. That would lead me to think the 649 sheet was actually a special sheet for fact. 649. But if it was why do it as an overprint? They had to make a plate for the overprinting anyway.

Even the lists of confirmed and possible back/front combinations rarely add up to a number divisible by 34, both on the master spreadsheet at T206 resource and the superset spreadsheet.

So to me-
34 subjects- possible/probable for some parts of some print groups. 649OP looks good without doubleprints, and fits both the 34 theory and the divisible by 6 theory if a couple subjects are printed twice. But 34 is a perfect fit.

Some number divisible by 6 or 12 ---Possible for some parts of most groups. Sovereign 350 lt green 66 subjects. 6 works, backing out the 6 superprints 12 works.

Some number we haven't yet considered. - Also possible for some groups. Sov 460. 52 subjects all confirmed with none shown as unconfirmed. 34? nope. 52/6...Nope. Backing out the 6 superprints? still no.
So either Sov 460 was a complex set of sheets with doubleprints. OR some number we haven't considered, OR there are at least two subjects still unknown. Or some of the confirmed ones are errors that shouldn't have that back.

Lots more thoughts on all of this, but I've redone this about 5 times and it's getting late....

Steve B

Hi Steve-

I want some of whatever type of coffee you are drinking :D;) it must be the good stuff :p

It sounds to me like the only thing hanging you up on the #34 really is the 14 non Hindu S/L'ers. Other than that, I think it (the #34) makes sense to you. It seems like you go back and forth with this, and those 14 subjects are where you hit the brick wall. This is just an observation, and I may be wrong.

Regardless, at least you are willing to look at both theories without prejudice and that is awesome. I can tell you put a lot of thought into this, and it's this type of focus that I believe gets us all closer to nailing it down. Thanks for having an open minded approach.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Abravefan11]

Steve,

I'd like to second what Clayton posted. Whether we ultimately agree or disagree, actually having a discussion is good for everyone and helps foster ideas. This used to happen a lot on the board and I hope this is a rebirth of that. I know it may come across at times like I've come to a definite conclusion but I'm open to other ideas. In the same vein I'm glad to have anyone question my ideas because it's good for them to be tested.

You addressed a lot in your post and I'll speak to a few things. I'm not ignoring the others but think we need to take things a few at the time to avoid overlapping and confusing different issues.

The key to my earlier post was that 34 seems to work for distribution But not always for production The two are not necessarily linked. looking at the overall print groups 34 does turn up often. But so does 6.

You're correct, they're is a difference between distribution and production and here's a great example. We know based on the advertisements that ATC/ALC planned to distribute all 48 southern league subjects with Hindu cigarettes, but they only produced 34 southern league subjects. So this links 34 to production which is the important aspect of determining a sheet.

Again I'll emphasize that 34 is the smallest production number we can reduce any back set to. I know it's an odd number, but to me that is what makes it more compelling. It can only be divided by 17 and 2. It's human nature to want to make things even or easily divisible. It's also human nature to see false patterns in large groups of numbers, especially if you allow yourself to make unfounded adjustments when the numbers fall a few short. Ultimately 34 may not be the number of subjects on a sheet, but the number needs no tweaking in the smallest known production sets. It just is and occurs again and again throughout the set.

Let's consider the idea of six subjects to a sheet for a moment. First, we know of a horizontal strip of 8 subjects, so right off we would have to believe there were two different size sheets for this to be plausible. If we do that these are the questions I would ask. If there were six or twelve subjects to a sheet and ALC intended on printing all 48 southern league subjects, doesn't it make the most sense that there would be 36 Hindu subjects? Why would they take the time to double print two southern league subjects when they were falling short of their intended distribution? Why would they do the same for every 34 card subset seen throughout the set? Following Occam's razor I believe 34 was the number of subjects ALC could fit on a sheet with their given printing parameters.


Yes, the 150 only cards could have simply been discontinued before any 649overprint or 350 backs were printed. The question would be why they were discontinued when so many others were carried over into the 350 backs.

Why this group was discontinued is a good question. I have speculative theories, but they're just that. What's important to note is that discontinuing subjects isn't unusual in the set. Not long after the 150 only subjects were pulled a second group was discontinued. This was a group of about 12 that were printed with Piedmont 350 and EPDG backs then pulled. Subjects were discontinued from their groups throughout the set, but I haven't seen anything that indicates their early exits had an effect on how they were included during production.

Powers is a very odd subject. If he was on the sheet with the other 150 onlys there shouldn't be a 649OP. If he was on any other sheet there should be 350 backs. The logical thing is that he was on two sheets, both discontinued before the 350 series one that got the overprint, the other that didn't. That would lead me to think the 649 sheet was actually a special sheet for fact. 649. But if it was why do it as an overprint? They had to make a plate for the overprinting anyway.

Powers is a good example of a few things.

1) The 150 only were not a group unto themselves, but rather part of the larger group 1 during production. Their only definitive connection is when they discontinued.

2) Subjects were not locked into a single sheet configuration. Throughout a print groups production different combinations of front subjects were created. Lundgren in the Two Name thread is a good example.


Even the lists of confirmed and possible back/front combinations rarely add up to a number divisible by 34, both on the master spreadsheet at T206 resource and the superset spreadsheet.

Once we move past a single sheet, whatever the number, then the amount of variables increase. These variables are what results in many different total numbers. For this reason I have focused on the small subsets. The more variables you can remove the better. With that said 34 is found in larger groups, but for the time I'm trying to keep things as simple as possible.

Again Steve, thanks for the discussion and consideration.

[tedzan]

Concerning the consistency of sheet sizes throughout the T206 set and different series I'll offer up the following for thought.

The number 34 wasn't a random number that we found in a couple places within the set and have since tried to configure every other subset to fit it. It stands on its own as the smallest number of any group printed at a given time within the set. This is of the utmost importance. It doesn't require double prints, subsets, or any other adjustments to arrive at the total. It is 34 confirmed subjects that we know were printed at a very specific time in the set. Here are some examples:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 = 34
Hindu Southern League = 34
Print Group 3 (350/460) Drum 350 = 34
Broad Leaf 460 = 34

I used these four to show that small runs are consistent throughout the entire set, and all equal 34. While I can't prove that during other larger runs that a sheet size couldn't have been different, it's my current belief that they stayed consistent.

1st..your "350/460 Drum 350 = 34" is not accurate. The 350/460 series DRUM cards and the 350/460 AMERICAN BEAUTY 350 (no frame) cards were both printed on same
pre-printed sheets of 37 - T206 subjects. Three of these subjects (Conroy....Mullin....Stahl) of these 37 have yet to be confirmed with DRUM backs. Eventually, these 3
subjects will be discovered with the DRUM backs.

Scratch your DRUM number of 34....the number is actually 37.

2nd..Regarding your "Broad Leaf 460 = 34"....this is wishful thinking on your part. There are too many unconfirmed guys. We don't know for certain the real number of the
BROAD LEAF 460 cards.

That narrows it down to just 2 examples (HINDU and SC 150/649) from which you have based your "magic 34" sheet hypothesis. Tim, you are stuck in your "magic 34" rut.
And therefore, you are unwilling to consider any other hypothesis that Steve, or I, or others have presented on this forum.

Fine, that's your take. But, with all due respect to you.....your speculation is flawed.

The press track width required to print your 17 cards across a row must be = or > than 24 1/4 inches. Lithographic printing press track widths of 25 (or 26) inches were
not used by ALC to print these cards. Furthermore, we have two independent sources that have stated that the standard paper or cardboard sheet size for such jobs is
19" x 24". This information is consistent with research that indicates that 19" wide presses were used (circa 1909-1919) to print the tobacco cards, advertising posters,
medium size lithographic art, etc.

Finally, the prevailing math regarding the various T206 series structures is invariably a factor of 12......not of "17". It is quite puzzling that you do not comprehend this
obvious fact ?



There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards. This is how we categorize them and not evidence of how they were printed. When it comes to the actual production of the cards, you can not reduce a group printed at a specific time to a number smaller than 34.

Absolutely wrong !

A series of 12 subjects were initially printed. This has been established even prior to Bill Heitman's 1980 book, "The Monster". These 12 subjects were most likely Triple-
Printed on a 36-card sheet (in ALC's start-up of the T206 set in the Spring/Summer of 1909). Or perhaps, Ninefold-Printed on a standard 19" x 24" sheet comprising of
108 cards.

Tim.....I suggest that you go back to your drawing board and come up with a more realistic sheet arrangement to include in your website. Prior to doing this, I suggest
that you brush up on some early 20th Century standard printing practices and the machinery employed in the production process. These are important elements of this
scenario that you appear to have ignored.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Ted-

It is my belief that the print group 3 Drum subset is complete at 34. I do not believe at this time that the three cards you mentioned will be confirmed. If one is, I will gladly change my opinion and expect the other two to be confirmed as well. Here we will have to agree to disagree.

The Broad Leaf 460 group currently has 27 confirmed of what I believe is a group of 34. I do not believe any cards outside of this group of 34 will be confirmed with this back. This isn't based solely on the number 34, but rather trends in the production of the 460 series. Again we will have to agree to disagree.

I will try to write this as politely as possible, nothing you have presented about press sizes, track widths, or paper sizes do I feel is solid evidence to draw any conclusions from. To me it is all very speculative and unsupported by actual evidence that can be linked directly to the T206 cards. I would love to see something verifiable presented that can be tied directly to the cards rather than information about other products printed by such a large firm. Until then I would not take such leaps of faith. Others are free to speculate this way, it's just not in my nature or how I work.

I have not ignored the theories presented that sheets were groups of 12 or any other ideas. I give them all consideration and state specifically the areas where I find them flawed or implausible. You can find post from years ago on this board were I thought the 12 subject sheet may have some validity. Eventually though I came to different conclusion and at this time all of the evidence I've seen supports it. This does not stop me from considering opposing theories. I not only give them their due, I constantly check and recheck my own ideas.

This is the crux of the matter. You can not reduce a point in the T206 production to a number smaller than 34. To make this number anything else requires adjusting the number with no supporting evidence to do so.

[tedzan]

1st..your "350/460 Drum 350 = 34" is not accurate. The 350/460 series DRUM cards and the 350/460 AMERICAN BEAUTY 350 (no frame) cards were both printed
on same pre-printed sheets of 37 - T206 subjects. Three of these subjects (Conroy....Mullin....Stahl) of these 37 subjects have yet to be confirmed with DRUM
backs.

Eventually, these 3 subjects will be discovered with the DRUM backs.

TED Z


Well guys, as I had predicted a year ago regarding "Conroy....Mullin....Stahl" in this post, a DRUM Conroy (batting) was discovered recently in a 500+ card find.

This T206 find raises my expectations that of the other two 350/460 subjects mentioned above, either Mullin or Stahl (or both) will eventually be discovered.




2nd..Regarding your "Broad Leaf 460 = 34"....this is wishful thinking on your part. There are too many unconfirmed guys. We don't know for certain the real number
of the BROAD LEAF 460 cards.

TED Z


Furthermore, regarding the BROAD LEAF 460 cards....I also have expectations that either Conroy (batting) or Mullin (bat) [or both] will eventually be discovered
with the BROAD LEAF 460 back.


TED Z

[cfc1909]

actually in Post #24 in this thread you clearly state

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=125269&highlight=conroy+drum



Conroy & Mullin both were also printed with the AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 back. Therefore, due to my "mutually exclusive" rule, I do not expect these 2 subjects to be
found with the BL 460 back....consequently there is a slim (or no) chance that they were printed with a DRUM back.

[tedzan]

I contradicted my [AB 460.....BL 460] mutually exclusive rule. Thanks for reminding me. Therefore, we should not expect Conroy and Mullin
to be found with BL 460 backs.

Thanks Jim

I spent most of the day clearing snow and removing a fallen tree off the roof of my barn....so, I'm not surprised that I overlooked that one.

TED Z

[hshrimps]

"a DRUM Conroy (batting) was discovered recently in a 500+ card find"

Where can I read about this new finds?

[atx840]

"a DRUM Conroy (batting) was discovered recently in a 500+ card find"

Where can I read about this new finds?

T206Resource article (http://www.t206resource.com/Article-T206Resource-Drumming-up-another-confirmation.html)

[atx840]

I don't think Nichols (batting) is a 350/460 card.

Cards were likely swapped out during the print process so some sheets may be identical in configuration but for one or two cards, giving different/odd brand numbers. Below is a basic example of this.

If you had a sheet of 34 (including Nichols) used for the 350 series you would get 34 Drums.

Then Nichols gets swapped out for a new card (Downey Batting) and that new sheet is still used for the 350 & 460 series. We would then have the original 34 Drums + 1 new Drum (Downey) giving 35 Drums.

Now for the 460 series the new sheet of 34 with Downey could have been used for Cycles, giving us different counts (35 Drums & 34 Cycles) which makes solving sheet layouts quite difficult.

[sreader3]

I am a little tardy to this discussion so apologies if I am missing your point. Nichols is available with Sovereign 350 Apple Green (not Forest Green) and American Beauty 350 No Frame (not With Frame). He is also short-printed like, for example, Rhoades (Right Arm Extended). So while Nichols is technically speaking a 350-only subject ("technically" in the sense that he is not available with any 460 back), there is some pretty compelling evidence he was destined to be a 350/460 regular print subject but was pulled from production early.

[tedzan]

Scot is correct....Simon Nicholls Major League career ended at the start of the 1910 season, just as American Lithographic (ALC) had selected
the 66 subjects for their 350/460 series.

There is no doubt in my mind that the T206 Nicholls (with bat) card was destined for the 350/460 series. This is why ALC printed his card with
an AB 350 No Frame back.

Nicholls was a farmer from Maryland. Playing for Connie Mack's A's was convenient for him traveling from his farm. He was very unhappy when
Connie Mack traded him to Cleveland in Dec. 1909. He played in only 3 games with Cleveland in 1910 and called it quits.....which explains why
his card never was printed with 460 series backs.


TED Z

[sreader3]

Ted,

Props to you on predicting the eventual discovery of Conroy (Bat) with Drum.

I have no idea what, if anything, this discovery means for the sheet compostion debate.

But credit where credit is due.

Scot

Edited to add: Having read this thread in its entirety for the first time, I find it interesting that it now seems be the official position of T206 Resource that Piedmont was printed first in the 150 print run. When that site was launched, I seem to recall some fairly emphatic table-pounding about Sovereign being first. This is all well and good--mistakes are inevitable in this type of research and I have certainly made my share.

[Leon]

Ted,

Props to you on predicting the eventual discovery of Conroy (Bat) with Drum.

I have no idea what, if anything, this discovery means for the sheet compostion debate.

But credit where credit is due.

Scot

Edited to add: Having read this thread in its entirety for the first time, I find it interesting that it now seems be the official position of T206 Resource that Piedmont was printed first in the 150 print run. When that site was launched, I seem to recall some fairly emphatic table-pounding about Sovereign being first. This is all well and good--mistakes are inevitable in this type of research and I have certainly made my share.


I find it very interesting that we are still learning, and correcting what we already know, at this stage in collecting. Good job guys!!

[Abravefan11]

Edited to add: Having read this thread in its entirety for the first time, I find it interesting that it now seems be the official position of T206 Resource that Piedmont was printed first in the 150 print run. When that site was launched, I seem to recall some fairly emphatic table-pounding about Sovereign being first. This is all well and good--mistakes are inevitable in this type of research and I have certainly made my share.

Since the day T206Resource.com was launched we have not wavered regarding the order in which we believe the original 150 Subjects were printed.

The original 150 Subjects were printed first with Piedmont 150, next Sweet Caporal 150 and then Sovereign 150.

After these print runs other cards were added to the 150 Series (Print Group 1) including Wagner, Plank, Crawford, Lundgren and Jennings.

These later print runs included backs for Piedmont 150 and Sweet Caporal 150, but did not include Sovereign 150.

The early Sovereign group shows clearly the original 150 Subjects designated for the set.

That was our position on day 1 and continues to be today.

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

[teetwoohsix]

Mike

Given......The typical width of a T206 is 1 7/16 inches

I contend that American Lithographic (ALC) printed T206's (and T205's) formatted in rows of 12 cards each.

Therefore, 12 x 1 7/16 inches = 17 1/4 inches. Now, it has come to our attention (from Steve B) that the standard size sheet (or cardboard) during the
T206 printing era) is 19" x 24".

Recently, a nearby neighbor of mine, who was in the printing business for 45 years (and is also an artist), told me that a standard size sheet is 18" x 24".

In any event, my 12-card per row theory (17 1/4 inches wide) fits very neatly with either of these size sheets.

Also, my research indicates that ALC operated 19" track (width) printing presses to produce these types of lithographic jobs (advertising posters, cigar-
ette premiums, etc.).


Furthermore, the big picture regarding the T206 structure makes a compelling argument in favor of my 12-card per row theory......check out this math.

Subjects........Series

..12..............150-only (12 x 1 row)

144..............150/350 (12 x 12)

204..............350-only (12 x 17)

..60..............350/460 (12 x 5)

..46..............460-only (+ 2 double-prints) (12 x 4)

..48..............Southern Leaguers (12 x 4)

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

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



Best regards,

TED Z

Hi Ted,

Congrats on the prediction! Credit given where credit is due.

Now, my questions go back to the size of the presses used by the ALC. The 19" track width. I am wondering where the proof of this is at, because I have spent a ton of time trying to confirm this, and I can't. Not saying it's not true, just that I haven't been able to find concrete proof of this. Do you have any information that I can use in my research about this, like who manufactured the presses, etc.?

A very nice lady at the Library of Congress sent me some information, and the information regarding the size of some of the larger prints in their collection (from the ALC) are 22x28. She also believed that they probably used a variety of different sized presses. Any information would be appreciated.

Another thing that has me wondering-and I know these cards are completely different and there is no relation to T206- is this image of a Goodwin sheet. As you can see in this scan, there is a huge amount of space around the whole outer border of the cards. Just wondering if the T206's could have also been printed to have room like this on the sheets, around the outer borders.

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.19675/

Anyhow, I'm just trying to confirm information- thanks in advance for any help.

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

1st....my research that American Litho (ALC) employed printing presses (circa 1909) whose width = 19 inches for printing their 6-color lithographic smaller projects
dates back to the 1980's. It was from a library book, which I don't recall anymore. But, my memory for numbers is very keen.

Furthermore, Steve B. (our printing expert) has informed us that the standard size of printing paper (cardboard) available circa 1909-1912) was 18" (or 19") x 24".
These dimensions are consistent with my contention of how ALC printing these cards. For example on an 18" x 24" sheet of cardboard, I depict a theoretical sheet
of the "Exclusive 12" subjects formatted as a multiple printed 108-card sheet (12 across by 8 rows). If you haven't seen it, Clayton, check-it-out............
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949&page=4......Post #38


2nd....your GOODWIN example of 6 cards across this sheet essentially supports my theory. I have also considered that ALC printed the T206's formatted 6 cards
across the sheet (instead of 12).

The factor 6 is the fundamental denominator in the entire series structure of the T206 set......as, is evident in the following structural numbers.

Subjects.........Series

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

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

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

..66..............350/460......includes the 6 Super-Prints

..48..............460-only

..48..............Southern Leaguers
____
522 = total subjects


Furthermore, your GOODWIN sheet was most likely printed by the George Harris & Sons Lithographers (the American Lithographic Co. did not exist in the 1880's).



TED Z
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
LOOKING for this T206 guy to complete my EXCLUSIVE 12 red HINDU sub-set (12 subjects)

SHECKARD (glove)
.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

It blows my mind how little is know about this printing process given that the cards were produced so recently. I think there will come a time when someone will find a sheet or at least a schematic of one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sreader3]

Since the day T206Resource.com was launched we have not wavered regarding the order in which we believe the original 150 Subjects were printed.

The original 150 Subjects were printed first with Piedmont 150, next Sweet Caporal 150 and then Sovereign 150.

After these print runs other cards were added to the 150 Series (Print Group 1) including Wagner, Plank, Crawford, Lundgren and Jennings.

These later print runs included backs for Piedmont 150 and Sweet Caporal 150, but did not include Sovereign 150.

The early Sovereign group shows clearly the original 150 Subjects designated for the set.

That was our position on day 1 and continues to be today.

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

Hi Tim, Thanks for your reply. I hope you don't mind fielding a couple of follow-ups.

1. Your site states that the Sovereign 150 checklist is the "original" 150 series checklist. Agreed?

2. By "original" you mean that it was the first checklist produced by ALC (or ATC) and thus includes the original 150 subjects. Agreed?

3. Your site further states that Wagner (Pittsburg) was not on that checklist. Agreed?

4. So if that's the case, how do you account for the fact that the Piedmont 150 and Sweet Caporal 150 print runs began before the Sovereign 150 print run? Stated differently, why would ALC start the Piedmont 150 and Sweet Caporal 150 print runs using an expanded checklist before starting the Sovereign 150 print run using the "original" checklist?

5. Aside from the fact that it gets you to the magic 150 number, what is your evidence that the Sovereign 150 checklist is the "original" one?

6. If Wagner (Pittsburg) was not on the "original" checklist, why does he appear along with numerous subjects who ARE on that checklist in the Sporting Life ads that ran from August 21, 1909 - September 18, 1909 and which discuss Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign? Isn't it more likely that these ads reflect ATC's bona fide original intention to print Wagner (Pittsburg) with the full complement of Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign than an intention to deceive the public?

7. Why is 150 so "magical" anyway? Isn't it just as likely that ALC (or ATC) rounded to a nearby 10 when coming up with the "150", "350" and "460" designations? (i.e. couldn't it be that their original checklist had, say, 155 subjects and they designated it as "150" for marketing purposes?)

8. Finally, what do you see as a possible motivation for excluding Wagner, arguably the game's most popular player, from the "original" 150 series checklist (and also excluding other stars such as Plank, Crawford and Jennings), while including over 100 lesser players--especially given the uncertainty at the time the "original" checklist was created whether the cards would be a hit and there would be later series?

Link to Wagner/Sovereign Sporting Life ad posted on your fine site: http://www.t206resource.com/Sporting%20Life%20Ads.html

Thanks Tim.

Scot

Edited a few times to (1) clarify the queries; (2) add link to the Wagner/Sovereign Sporting Life ad; and (3) add seventh and eighth queries.

[atx840]

I have broken down each back brand by similar groupings cards across the entire set, as well as separate spreadsheets per series. The full set view is quite extensive, making it tricky to find a common denominator/sheet number.

Many possible combinations could be removed if no confirmations for that back are known for an entire group. Total combination based on this is @ 5837.

From this view you can quickly see certain card/front/back combinations stick out from the rest. Groups 11, 29 & 36 make up the Elite P350 groupings.

http://i.imgur.com/MBhA9rG.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/I4w4mHa.jpg

From the 150 series

http://i.imgur.com/BJyJzPI.jpg

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Damn. I am constantly amazed by the research.

[sreader3]

Let me posit an alternative to the Sovereign-checklisted-first-but-printed-third theory proposed by T206 Resource. I am not suggesting it happened this way; only showing that there are plausible alternatives.

In early 1909, ALC developed an "original" checklist having 155 subjects [the 150 who would eventually be printed with Sovereign plus Wagner (Pittsburg), Plank, Lundgren (Chicago), Crawford (Throwing) and Jennings (Portrait)]. The plan was to commence printing of these 155 subjects first with Piedmont, then Sweet Caporal and finally Sovereign, in that order. The Piedmont brand was chosen to go "online" first due to its popularity, followed by the slightly less popular Sweet Caporal and the far less popular Sovereign. Naturally, there would be overlap in the printing process. That is to say, printing with Piedmont would continue after printing with Sweet Caporal and even Sovereign started--there being a greater demand for Piedmont cigarettes.

The employee who created the checklist took it to the design folks, who started dutifully preparing the card fronts and backs, and also the marketing folks who said, "Let's just call it '150 subjects.' 155 is too exacting." (They would later use the same "rounding down" logic to reach "350" and "460" subjects, respectively).

By spring, the printer had made preparations to start printing the 155 subjects on several different sheets, starting with Piedmont, while the marketing folks placed ads for "Base Ball Subjects in Packs of Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign Cigarettes" in Sporting Life magazine, illustrating several of the checklisted subjects--including Wagner (Pittsburg).

As the summer wore on, ALC management noticed that several star players--Wagner, Plank, Crawford and Jennings--had not returned their written authorizations. Word was out that Wagner objected to a lack of compensation and was going to get his lawyer involved. Lundgren, who had been demoted to the minors after just two early season appearances, never got his authorization request and it made no sense to send him one now.

The printer was notified to take their five subjects out of production. At that point, the sheets containing Crawford (Throwing), Jennings (Portrait) and Lundgren (Chicago) had already undergone a complete print run with Piedmont 150. The sheet having Crawford (Throwing) had also experienced substantial printing with Sweet Caporal 150. And a few early production sheets containing Wagner (Pittsburg) and Plank with Piedmont 150 and Sweet Caporal 150 had left the factory too. Moreover, since the cards were being so well received by the public, a few "test" sheets containing Plank had even been printed with Sweet Caporal 350. However, the Sovereign 150 print run had not yet started.

Fortunately, the written authorizations of Crawford and Jennings arrived in the fall--just in time for the 350 series print run--and their subjects were returned to production. But the written authorizations of Wagner and Plank would never arrive.

(Okay--this doesn't explain Lundgren Piedmont 350 or EPDG, but I really don't want to rewrite that part of the story!)

[teetwoohsix]

1st....my research that American Litho (ALC) employed printing presses (circa 1909) whose width = 19 inches for printing their 6-color lithographic smaller projects
dates back to the 1980's. It was from a library book, which I don't recall anymore. But, my memory for numbers is very keen.

Furthermore, Steve B. (our printing expert) has informed us that the standard size of printing paper (cardboard) available circa 1909-1912) was 18" (or 19") x 24".
These dimensions are consistent with my contention of how ALC printing these cards. For example on an 18" x 24" sheet of cardboard, I depict a theoretical sheet
of the "Exclusive 12" subjects formatted as a multiple printed 108-card sheet (12 across by 8 rows). If you haven't seen it, Clayton, check-it-out............
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949&page=4......Post #38


2nd....your GOODWIN example of 6 cards across this sheet essentially supports my theory. I have also considered that ALC printed the T206's formatted 6 cards
across the sheet (instead of 12).

The factor 6 is the fundamental denominator in the entire series structure of the T206 set......as, is evident in the following structural numbers.

Subjects.........Series

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

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

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

..66..............350/460......includes the 6 Super-Prints

..48..............460-only

..48..............Southern Leaguers
____
522 = total subjects


Furthermore, your GOODWIN sheet was most likely printed by the George Harris & Sons Lithographers (the American Lithographic Co. did not exist in the 1880's).


TED Z
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
LOOKING for this T206 guy to complete my EXCLUSIVE 12 red HINDU sub-set (12 subjects)

SHECKARD (glove)
.

Thanks for the reply Ted.

I posted the link to the LOC's Goodwin sheet just as an example of how much excess border space these printers would leave available. Earlier in this thread, using your 19" track theory, you had said (according to your sheet configuration and theory) that there would be a remaining 7/8" border space-which seems a bit tight to me. Not saying you are wrong- we are all speculating- but that just seems like too little room for error.

Someone recently posted a Cy Young portrait miscut top to bottom, and it had a huge border space at the top. It made me wonder about how much border space was actually above that, before the card was cut to size. The Goodwin sheet, with all of it's open border space made me wonder once again about the 19" track width, and if this is correct.

On top of that, we do know the ALC was printing larger advertising lithographs that could not be printed with a 19" track. I understand your sheet theory is partially based on this track width, but I really (after reading back through this thread) don't see any definitive proof that this is fact.

I have to reiterate that I am not saying you are wrong or right. Imagine I am a student-these are questions I would pose to the teacher :).

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Clayton

I'm reprising these two statements of mine from my prior post......because you apparently overlooked them, or they did not register with you.


1st....my research that American Litho (ALC) employed printing presses (circa 1909) whose width = 19 inches for printing their 6-color lithographic smaller projects
dates back to the 1980's. It was from a library book, which I don't recall anymore. But, my memory for numbers is very keen.

Furthermore, Steve B. (our printing expert) has informed us that the standard size of printing paper (cardboard) available circa 1909-1912) was 18" (or 19") x 24".
These dimensions are consistent with my contention of how ALC printing these cards. For example on an 18" x 24" sheet of cardboard, I depict a theoretical sheet
of the "Exclusive 12" subjects formatted as a multiple printed 108-card sheet (12 across by 8 rows). If you haven't seen it, Clayton, check-it-out............
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949&page=4......Post #38



Note, that I qualified that the T206 project was considered by ALC as a...." 6-color lithographic smaller project ". Therefore, a 19" (track width) press was employed
to print these cards (1 7/16" x 2 5/8") in a format of up to 108 (my guess) cards on a sheet.

Of course, ALC had larger track width presses for their larger projects (art works, advertisements, posters, etc.). But, anyone who is familiar with lithographic printing
of that era will tell you that the quality and the yield of the printed product is inversely proportional its size. Thus, ALC chose to use their smaller track width press to
improve the yield. This is important when you are cranking-out 10 MILLION cards. That's my guesstimate as to how many T206 cards were produced from 1909-1911.

I will reiterate the information that Steve B. provide us regarding the standard size sheets for this type of printing having been either 18" x 24" (or 19" x 24"). The 18",
or 19" sheet width is consistent with the 19'" track width of the press.

Sorry, but your concern about wide borders on a sheet is laughable. Assuming my number of 10 Million printed cards is true, then any good printer would efficiently fill
out a sheet of cardboard with just a little border area sufficient enough to clip onto to for hanging the sheets so that the ink can dry.


TED Z

[tedzan]

Let me posit an alternative to the Sovereign-checklisted-first-but-printed-third theory proposed by T206 Resource. I am not suggesting it happened this way; only showing that there are plausible alternatives.

In early 1909, ALC developed an "original" checklist having 155 subjects [the 150 who would eventually be printed with Sovereign plus Wagner (Pittsburg), Plank, Lundgren (Chicago), Crawford (Throwing) and Jennings (Portrait)]. The plan was to commence printing of these 155 subjects first with Piedmont, then Sweet Caporal and finally Sovereign, in that order. The Piedmont brand was chosen to go "online" first due to its popularity, followed by the slightly less popular Sweet Caporal and the far less popular Sovereign. Naturally, there would be overlap in the printing process. That is to say, printing with Piedmont would continue after printing with Sweet Caporal and even Sovereign started--there being a greater demand for Piedmont cigarettes.

The employee who created the checklist took it to the design folks, who started dutifully preparing the card fronts and backs, and also the marketing folks who said, "Let's just call it '150 subjects.' 155 is too exacting." (They would later use the same "rounding down" logic to reach "350" and "460" subjects, respectively).

By spring, the printer had made preparations to start printing the 155 subjects on several different sheets, starting with Piedmont, while the marketing folks placed ads for "Base Ball Subjects in Packs of Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign Cigarettes" in Sporting Life magazine, illustrating several of the checklisted subjects--including Wagner (Pittsburg).

As the summer wore on, ALC management noticed that several star players--Wagner, Plank, Crawford and Jennings--had not returned their written authorizations. Word was out that Wagner objected to a lack of compensation and was going to get his lawyer involved. Lundgren, who had been demoted to the minors after just two early season appearances, never got his authorization request and it made no sense to send him one now.

The printer was notified to take their five subjects out of production. At that point, the sheets containing Crawford (Throwing), Jennings (Portrait) and Lundgren (Chicago) had already undergone a complete print run with Piedmont 150. The sheet having Crawford (Throwing) had also experienced substantial printing with Sweet Caporal 150. And a few early production sheets containing Wagner (Pittsburg) and Plank with Piedmont 150 and Sweet Caporal 150 had left the factory too. Moreover, since the cards were being so well received by the public, a few "test" sheets containing Plank had even been printed with Sweet Caporal 350. However, the Sovereign 150 print run had not yet started.

Fortunately, the written authorizations of Crawford and Jennings arrived in the fall--just in time for the 350 series print run--and their subjects were returned to production. But the written authorizations of Wagner and Plank would never arrive.

(Okay--this doesn't explain Lundgren Piedmont 350 or EPDG, but I really don't want to rewrite that part of the story!)


Furthermore, the fact that the MAGIE error exists only with the PIEDMONT 150 back unquestionably proves to us that PIEDMONT backs were printed first in the initial
T206 press runs. Otherwise, this error card would only have been printed with the SOVEREIGN 150 back......if the SOVEREIGN printing preceded the PIEDMONT printing.

And, if that doesn't convince some....then the fact that the Joe DOYLE (Nat'l) error exists only with the PIEDMONT 350 back in the initial 350 Series press runs should
provide the final proof.

Indeed, American Litho printed the PIEDMONT backs first on the T206's in both the 150/350 series and the 350-only series press runs.

No big mystery here....since the PIEDMONT brand was the "flagship" tobacco product of the American Tobacco Company (circa 1909 - 1911).


TED Z

[MVSNYC]

Hi Ted- if you think they made 10 million cards (i tend to agree with your estimate), how many do you think survive today, and approx how many of each player (on average)? there was a thread recently where some people suggested there were 3000-5000 of each player still...i think it's less...what do you think?

thanks!
M

[tedzan]

I'm not going to venture a guess as to how many T206's have survived over these 100+ years. However, if my memory serves me, I do recall that Scot Reader
said in his "Inside T206" book that he estimated that some where between 1.6 to 2 Million T206's are in circulation nowadays.

I think that is a fair estimate......therefore, that suggests to us that on the average 3000 - 4000 of each T206 subject is in circulation (independent of backs).
And, of course these numbers don't apply when you factor in some of the rare backs.


Take care, my friend

TED Z

[steve B]

Lots of interesting stuff here as usual.

I'm still learning things about printing in the 1910 era, as well as what practices might have been followed at ALC.


So here's a bunch of info and opinions some old, some new.

The Goodwin sheet really can't be applied to T206. It's not printed, but is a photographic sheet of OJs applied to a backing similar to a cabinet photo. So it actually doesn't have a border, and isn't printed.

T206 fronts are more than 6 colors. More like 8 for many of them.

The work Chris has done breaking down the smaller groups within the overall series is excellent. I'm not really in the "34" camp, but have worked with his breakdown of the 460s, comparing it to available pop reports (which are admittedly flawed, but the best hard data we have right now) and his groups held up very well. Maybe one or two subjects that could be moved between groups, but not provably.

150 and 350 are far more complex.

I've now seen a picture of a 1910 era press in operation, and producing a sheet that's about half as wide as the press track!

The 19" width comes from -If I remember it correctly- a floorplan in an article on ALC running their plant electrically. That floorplan specified Hoe #5 presses which were that size.

ALC being huge would have had a wide variety of presses available.

And they would probably have used different presses based on the size of the individual order. Based on the sheets/hour the presses could manage Piedmont was probably in nearly constant production. Hindu probably wasn't.

Since F649 packed for "other than Philadelphia" and presumably "Philadelphia" there would probably have been different sheets for the different distribution.
That's backed up somewhat by the Powers card, which is the only subject that has both no 350 series AND a F649 op.

It's entirely likely that piedmont was produced on a larger sheet than Hindu.

It's also likely that production was simultaneous. Piedmont being produced on one press while Sovereign was printed on another.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the fronts are specific to a brand. So there will be tiny differences between say a Piedmont 150 Ewing and an SC150 Ewing. This may or may not transfer to the 350's and tougher backs, but I believe it will.

The 150 series was produced in multiple stages. There are a few cards with at least three obvious design changes within their 150 production. (Tinker being the most obvious)

The subjects that were carried over from 150 to 350 were reworked. Conroy with the striped/non-striped cap, Ritchey, probably others. it's unclear yet if there were many transitional cards produced -Meaning 150 fronts but with a 350 back, or less likely a 350 variety with a 150 back.

That Wagner would be shown in an ad for a brand his card wasn't included in is not unusual. The leadtimes for publication were long enough that the ad was probably sent to newspapers before the card was pulled from production. Whether the reason for the pull was over payment or Honus not wanting to be on a tobacco card wouldn't have mattered. And ATC either slipped the ads through or was allowed to let them run since the cost of recalling them would have been high.

While decent margins are good practice even today, I've seen some evidence that ALC ran tight margins on at least one side of a sheet. That doesn't match with the factory numbers in the margins of SC150 sheets, but could still be what was done.

Getting farther afield,

ALC was pretty tight with the Hoe press company.

And Hoe produced some very advanced stuff.
Two color presses. - Picture two presses back to back so they print two colors in one pass.
And web fed presses, which print from a roll of paper rather than sheets.
If T206s were produced on a web press that would change everything.

There's some indication that two color presses may have been used for the T206s for at least some of the production.

Supposedly Cutteich was the first company to produce color postcards on an offset press in 1910. I think the article actually refers to the more modern CMYK four color process, rather than offset itself, but it also gives some insight to the overall process at Curtteich.
http://teicharchives.blogspot.com/2012/07/curt-teich-company-part-2.html
The press shown is a Miehle, but would be very similar to a Hoe press.

Postcards in production shown here, the rest of the site is a very good overview of different processes.
http://www.metropostcard.com/techniques3.html

An 1879 Hoe press is shown here. Probably not much different from those used in 1910.
http://www.howardironworks.org/collection/sp-r-hoe-stonepress-1879.html

Steve B

[teetwoohsix]

Clayton

I'm reprising these two statements of mine from my prior post......because you apparently overlooked them, or they did not register with you.





Note, that I qualified that the T206 project was considered by ALC as a...." 6-color lithographic smaller project ". Therefore, a 19" (track width) press was employed
to print these cards (1 7/16" x 2 5/8") in a format of up to 108 (my guess) cards on a sheet.

Of course, ALC had larger track width presses for their larger projects (art works, advertisements, posters, etc.). But, anyone who is familiar with lithographic printing
of that era will tell you that the quality and the yield of the printed product is inversely proportional its size. Thus, ALC chose to use their smaller track width press to
improve the yield. This is important when you are cranking-out 10 MILLION cards. That's my guesstimate as to how many T206 cards were produced from 1909-1911.

I will reiterate the information that Steve B. provide us regarding the standard size sheets for this type of printing having been either 18" x 24" (or 19" x 24"). The 18",
or 19" sheet width is consistent with the 19'" track width of the press.

Sorry, but your concern about wide borders on a sheet is laughable. Assuming my number of 10 Million printed cards is true, then any good printer would efficiently fill
out a sheet of cardboard with just a little border area sufficient enough to clip onto to for hanging the sheets so that the ink can dry.


TED Z

Hi Ted,

I didn't overlook anything you posted, like I said in my last post I even went back to read through this whole thread again.

I can see that you still get defensive, and become condescending when I question what you say, even though I feel I was being cordial. You can think my concern about wide borders on a sheet is laughable- just like I think it's laughable that you have to be right about everything at any cost, even when we are talking about something that can't yet be proven.

Have a good one-

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Lots of interesting stuff here as usual.

I'm still learning things about printing in the 1910 era, as well as what practices might have been followed at ALC.


So here's a bunch of info and opinions some old, some new.

The Goodwin sheet really can't be applied to T206. It's not printed, but is a photographic sheet of OJs applied to a backing similar to a cabinet photo. So it actually doesn't have a border, and isn't printed.

T206 fronts are more than 6 colors. More like 8 for many of them.

The work Chris has done breaking down the smaller groups within the overall series is excellent. I'm not really in the "34" camp, but have worked with his breakdown of the 460s, comparing it to available pop reports (which are admittedly flawed, but the best hard data we have right now) and his groups held up very well. Maybe one or two subjects that could be moved between groups, but not provably.

150 and 350 are far more complex.

I've now seen a picture of a 1910 era press in operation, and producing a sheet that's about half as wide as the press track!

The 19" width comes from -If I remember it correctly- a floorplan in an article on ALC running their plant electrically. That floorplan specified Hoe #5 presses which were that size.

ALC being huge would have had a wide variety of presses available.

And they would probably have used different presses based on the size of the individual order. Based on the sheets/hour the presses could manage Piedmont was probably in nearly constant production. Hindu probably wasn't.

Since F649 packed for "other than Philadelphia" and presumably "Philadelphia" there would probably have been different sheets for the different distribution.
That's backed up somewhat by the Powers card, which is the only subject that has both no 350 series AND a F649 op.

It's entirely likely that piedmont was produced on a larger sheet than Hindu.

It's also likely that production was simultaneous. Piedmont being produced on one press while Sovereign was printed on another.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the fronts are specific to a brand. So there will be tiny differences between say a Piedmont 150 Ewing and an SC150 Ewing. This may or may not transfer to the 350's and tougher backs, but I believe it will.

The 150 series was produced in multiple stages. There are a few cards with at least three obvious design changes within their 150 production. (Tinker being the most obvious)

The subjects that were carried over from 150 to 350 were reworked. Conroy with the striped/non-striped cap, Ritchey, probably others. it's unclear yet if there were many transitional cards produced -Meaning 150 fronts but with a 350 back, or less likely a 350 variety with a 150 back.

That Wagner would be shown in an ad for a brand his card wasn't included in is not unusual. The leadtimes for publication were long enough that the ad was probably sent to newspapers before the card was pulled from production. Whether the reason for the pull was over payment or Honus not wanting to be on a tobacco card wouldn't have mattered. And ATC either slipped the ads through or was allowed to let them run since the cost of recalling them would have been high.

While decent margins are good practice even today, I've seen some evidence that ALC ran tight margins on at least one side of a sheet. That doesn't match with the factory numbers in the margins of SC150 sheets, but could still be what was done.

Getting farther afield,

ALC was pretty tight with the Hoe press company.

And Hoe produced some very advanced stuff.
Two color presses. - Picture two presses back to back so they print two colors in one pass.
And web fed presses, which print from a roll of paper rather than sheets.
If T206s were produced on a web press that would change everything.

There's some indication that two color presses may have been used for the T206s for at least some of the production.

Supposedly Cutteich was the first company to produce color postcards on an offset press in 1910. I think the article actually refers to the more modern CMYK four color process, rather than offset itself, but it also gives some insight to the overall process at Curtteich.
http://teicharchives.blogspot.com/2012/07/curt-teich-company-part-2.html
The press shown is a Miehle, but would be very similar to a Hoe press.

Postcards in production shown here, the rest of the site is a very good overview of different processes.
http://www.metropostcard.com/techniques3.html

An 1879 Hoe press is shown here. Probably not much different from those used in 1910.
http://www.howardironworks.org/collection/sp-r-hoe-stonepress-1879.html

Steve B

Hi Steve,

Thanks for all of the information, this is more what I was looking for, and I appreciate it. It's interesting that you said you have seen a 1910 press in operation printing a sheet that's half as wide as the track. I had asked a few times (in the past) if the "track width" can be adjusted, and this is why I was asking- basically, to find out if they could print multiple sized sheets (or works) on the same press.

I also found during searching around on the web a site about movie posters, and they had some very interesting information-printing huge lithographed posters.

Thanks again for the information-

Sincerely, Clayton

[atx840]

Clayton, there are a few examples that show really fat top borders.....I believe the Young and Stahl are likely close to what the top border would look like. I also think the bottom border may be different width then the top as when the upside down backs are found they appear to be almost always miscut. This could be caused by the sheet being flipped and not aligned properly with the front.

Got to study this one in person, likely off of a sheet where other front miscuts are from. We would get one fat top border, several front miscuts of same player and one miscut of two players per column.

http://i.imgur.com/dkpFrOR.jpg

[teetwoohsix]

Clayton, there are a few examples that show really fat top borders.....I believe the Young and Stahl are likely close to what the top border would look like. I also think the bottom border may be different width then the top as when the upside down backs are found they appear to be almost always miscut. This could be caused by the sheet being flipped and not aligned properly with the front.

Got to study this one in person, likely off of a sheet where other front miscuts are from. We would get one fat top border, several front miscuts of same player and one miscut of two players per column.

http://i.imgur.com/dkpFrOR.jpg

Thanks Chris!

Nice card. What you say makes sense. My thinking was along the lines of a printer leaving a decent area of border, and trimming off the excess after the sheet was printed-leaving room for error (alignment). Like, that there would be additional space above where the top border is cut off, before being cut to size.

My first real job, as a kid, was building gazebo panels. All of the lattice was always longer than was needed. After laying the wood down and stapling it in place, we would cut off the the excess around the edges before sending it to be sprayed (waterproofed). We never used a piece of wood that measured exactly right, and as a kid I didn't understand why-but as I got older, I realized it was done this way to leave room for error. I know this has nothing to do with printing sheets of cards, but my thoughts were along these lines.

Thanks for the response-

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for all of the information, this is more what I was looking for, and I appreciate it. It's interesting that you said you have seen a 1910 press in operation printing a sheet that's half as wide as the track. I had asked a few times (in the past) if the "track width" can be adjusted, and this is why I was asking- basically, to find out if they could print multiple sized sheets (or works) on the same press.

I also found during searching around on the web a site about movie posters, and they had some very interesting information-printing huge lithographed posters.

Thanks again for the information-

Sincerely, Clayton

The more modern press I ran briefly in 1981 could print narrower than the usual 35 inches, but as far as I know our shop never ran it that way. They had two 35s, a 24 and a small one, 12"? Later they bought a 35" two color press.

I was pretty sure the old ones could also run narrower, but hadn't seen any proof of it. The sizes in some ads are shown as maximum stone size, and maximum print size.

Steve B

[MVSNYC]

Chris- here's a miscut example with a fat bottom border. not sure it helps in the discussion, but maybe it might.

Clayton- recognize this card? ;)

[Jantz]

For me, the Young and Stahl cards hold some interesting clues to sheet size.

It appears to me that the third cut (or miscut) made along the bottom of the sheet produced these two miscut cards and the fourth cut along the top of the sheet was never performed.

Am I out in left field with this line of thought?


Jantz

[atx840]

I figured the miscuts were created something like this, the borders on my sheet are not at all correct.

http://i.imgur.com/LYrVFNS.jpg

[the 'stache]

Damn. I am constantly amazed by the research.

+1 this sentiment.

A very enthusiastic "subscribe" to this discussion, guys. Bravo. It is precisely topics like these that represent the very best of what our hobby can be. This is real passion, and meticulous attention to detail, pouring out.

[tedzan]

Shown here is my concept of a 96-card press run of T206's printed on a standard 19" x 24" sheet**. For illustration, I depict the 12 subjects in the 460-only series, of
which I refer to as the "Exclusive 12". For more info on these 12 cards, check-out this thread..... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949


Assuming the printing of these cards was centered as depicted on this sheet, then the side borders are is 7/8" each. And, the top and bottom borders are 1 1/2" each.


.........V........................................ .................................................. .......................... 19" wide sheet .................................................. .................................................. ....................V
^http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/Ex12sheet96cards50x.jpg
^
^
^......24" long sheet


** Note this standard sheet size was provided by Steve B. The 19" width is consistent with early 20th Century lithographic printing presses. The length of the sheet
can be a variable, depending on the number of cards being printed..


TED Z

[tedzan]

For me, the Young and Stahl cards hold some interesting clues to sheet size.

It appears to me that the third cut (or miscut) made along the bottom of the sheet produced these two miscut cards and the fourth cut along the top of the sheet was never performed.

Am I out in left field with this line of thought?


Jantz


I'm curious....what interesting clues do the miscut Young and Stahl cards suggest to you regarding the sheet size ?

Also, what are your thoughts of how the T206's were printed ?


TED Z

[steve B]

Shown here is my concept of a 96-card press run of T206's printed on a standard 19" x 24" sheet**. For illustration, I depict the 12 subjects in the 460-only series, of
which I refer to as the "Exclusive 12". For more info on these 12 cards, check-out this thread..... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949


Assuming the printing of these cards was centered as depicted on this sheet, then the side borders are is 7/8" each. And, the top and bottom borders are 1 1/2" each.


...... V................................................. .................................................. ....................... 19 inches .................................................. .................................................. ......................V
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/Ex12sheet96cards50x.jpg



** Note this standard sheet size was provided by Steve B. The 19" width is consistent with early 20th Century lithographic printing presses. The length of the sheet
can be a variable, depending on the number of cards being printed..



TED Z

For those cards that's an entirely plausible sheet.

But it's also a nice example of cross-brand complexity.

When the pop report numbers are looked at some interesting things come up

A couple notes first

There are obvious known problems with population report numbers. Crossovers, crack and resubmit, both skew the numbers. For now they're the best numbers we have.

HOF or high demand players/poses typically run about double the population of commons. That seems to hold true across ALL T206s, and maybe other sets too.

The McGraw numbers are even less exact than usual for pop report numbers. Many were done without noting the pose so I had to adjust the numbers for by splitting the unknown poses by the ratio for the brand.

And - the McGraw missing from cycle 460 is no error, apparently SGC hasn't handled one. It is a verified card though. (Congrats to whoever has it, it appear to be a really tough one.

SC Pied Sov AB Cycle
Devore 38 68 12 12 1
Duffy 75 115 26 13 5
Ford 41 54 37 11 5
Gandil 76 89 25 6 2
Hummell 48 67 16 6 2
McGraw 66* 113 20 3
Pfeffer 40 65 14 6 4
Tannehill 43 67 40 4 2
Wheat 77 126 19 6 2
Crandall 54 70 23 11 1
Geyer 53 65 21 7 3
Sheckard 50 81 18 12 2


Looking at these numbers things stay ok with Piedmont and SC. The players expected are not quite double the commons, and there are no surprises - All the Piedmonts are more common than the SCs. (SGC doesn't show factories, something I'd love to see done. )

Sovereign we start to see "problems" Most are in the mid teens to low 20's in population. Except Tannehill and Ford at 40 and 37. And the players I'd expect to be in that range aren't. There could be a few reasons for that. Maybe more Sov 460 HOFers were graded before SGC, so the numbers are skewed. That's still not really explaining why Ford and Tannehill are so common. Both very nearly as common as the SC version.

Moving on to AB I'd expect to see the same pattern. That's generally true, except Tannehill is one of the toughest. And three other commons seem to be "too common" And ALL the higher demand cards are tougher.

Cycles appear to get back to a more normal pattern. But except Duffy the higher demand cards still seem underpopulated. Especially McGraw.

The different patterns make me think the sheet layouts were different for the less popular brands. The Superprints aren't a good fit as potential sheet mates on A Sovereign sheet, are almost entirely excluded for AB - The popreport shows a single Chase. I think that's probably a mistake. They barely fit with Cycle. but would require an unbalanced sheet, for instance one or two superprints replacing cards in the column of 8

The sample size for Cycle is probably too small for the numbers to have much meaning.

The possibility is still there that a lot of the Sov, AB, Cycle high demand cards were graded before SGC came along, which would make the numbers more sensible.

PSA doesn't indicate the series, and I haven't run the PSA numbers for these 460 only cards.

I've done some of the 150 series, and none of the 350's the 150's seem remarkably consistent, aside from the rarities there are only one or two odd looking numbers.

Steve B

[steve B]

Darn, all the spaces got stripped out of the grid of pop report numbers.

I'll have to do a graphic or scan of some sort. :(

Steve b

[sreader3]

That Wagner would be shown in an ad for a brand his card wasn't included in is not unusual. The leadtimes for publication were long enough that the ad was probably sent to newspapers before the card was pulled from production. Whether the reason for the pull was over payment or Honus not wanting to be on a tobacco card wouldn't have mattered.

I agree Steve. Hence (among several other reasons set forth in my as of yet unanswered queries) my view that Wags was on the original 150 series checklist, not an "add-on" as theorized by T206 Resource.

But hey, these are all just theories and it's perfectly acceptable for rational people to use some introspection and give credit where due, admitting error where appropriate.

Edited to add: By the way, this is perhaps OT, but i want to give T206 Resource credit for discovering, without much fanfare as far as I can tell, that Schaefer (Detroit) and Spencer are (at least probable) Sweet Cap 350 and Sovereign 350 no-prints--and thus are (at least likely) part of what was once called the "elite eight" 150/350 subjects who are not possible with either of those backs but has over time grown to a larger group. Good job on that one--probably worthy of a short article.

[tedzan]

My selection of the 12 guys from 460-only series that I refer to as the "Exclusive 12" is not based on any POP reports. These 12 subjects are sort of "unique" with respect
to the other 36 subjects that were printed with only 460 series backs.

I've tracked these 12 for the past 6 years while in the process of completing my all-SOVEREIGN set, and the following T206 sub-sets....AMERICAN BEAUTY 460, red HINDU,
and SWEET CAPORAL 460, Factory 42.

If you haven't read my thread regarding these 12 - T206's and why they are special, take some time to do so....http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949


TED Z
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
LOOKING for this T206 guy to complete my EXCLUSIVE 12 red HINDU sub-set (12 subjects)

SHECKARD (glove)
.

[teetwoohsix]

Chris- here's a miscut example with a fat bottom border. not sure it helps in the discussion, but maybe it might.

Clayton- recognize this card? ;)

:D Why yes, it does look a bit familiar to me :D

Great scan of it-thanks for posting it ;) I'm glad Simon found a good home. Hope all is well with you!

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

I figured the miscuts were created something like this, the borders on my sheet are not at all correct.

http://i.imgur.com/LYrVFNS.jpg

Nice work, as usual!! :)

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Shown here is my concept of a 96-card press run of T206's printed on a standard 19" x 24" sheet**. For illustration, I depict the 12 subjects in the 460-only series, of
which I refer to as the "Exclusive 12". For more info on these 12 cards, check-out this thread..... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949


Assuming the printing of these cards was centered as depicted on this sheet, then the side borders are is 7/8" each. And, the top and bottom borders are 1 1/2" each.


.........V........................................ .................................................. .......................... 19" wide sheet .................................................. .................................................. ....................V
^http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/Ex12sheet96cards50x.jpg
^
^
^......24" long sheet


** Note this standard sheet size was provided by Steve B. The 19" width is consistent with early 20th Century lithographic printing presses. The length of the sheet
can be a variable, depending on the number of cards being printed..


TED Z

Hi Ted,

Just curious as to how one of these would look using different subjects, other than the exclusive twelve. As an example, what would be another plausible group put together on a sheet this size? Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

My selection of the 12 guys from 460-only series that I refer to as the "Exclusive 12" is not based on any POP reports. These 12 subjects are sort of "unique" with respect
to the other 36 subjects that were printed with only 460 series backs.

I've tracked these 12 for the past 6 years while in the process of completing my all-SOVEREIGN set, and the following T206 sub-sets....AMERICAN BEAUTY 460, red HINDU,
and SWEET CAPORAL 460, Factory 42.

If you haven't read my thread regarding these 12 - T206's and why they are special, take some time to do so....http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949


TED Z
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
LOOKING for this T206 guy to complete my EXCLUSIVE 12 red HINDU sub-set (12 subjects)

SHECKARD (glove)
.

I just reread the opening, and it's another part of the same point.

Those 12 are the only 460 onlys with Red Hindu.

That makes the sheet as you've shown it something I'd think of as probably correct.

The point I was making with the pop report numbers doesn't change that, at least as far as RH, SC and Piedmont. But for other brands the numbers indicate a different layout is likely, either with different players added, OR with an unbalanced layout including more of some players and less of others.

This particular group is a good one to illustrate the idea that the layouts may have varied between brands.

There's a lot of room in the theory to be wrong, and a lot of potential upside if it's right.

It's entirely possible that both the 17/34 theory and the 6/12 theory are correct. Smaller sheets make sense for Brands like Hindu and BL, larger sheets make more sense for SC and Piedmont.

When I started getting into this I looked for small groups that had some feature that would easily set them aside from the other 524 cards.

This is one, the 150 onlys are another.

All the rare cards are also good to look at since they were likely only printed from one set of plates.

My long term insane project is tracking tiny front differences like the alignment marks and matching them to identifying marks on the backs. I've tested it with some of the rare cards and it looks promising.

I believe eventually it will be possible to prove or disprove a set of plates being used for multiple brands or different plates for different brands.

And that will be a big step forward towards figuring out plate layouts.

What's really great to me is that there's so much access to a variety of ideas and experience. None of this would be manageable without the work done by people like Scot R and Ted who had/have access to a lot of cards. Heck, when I started collecting everyone I knew figured the series were simply additive 150 issued, then another 200 or so, then another 110. And that all most of the cards would come with all the backs.
The Superset spreadsheet has been a big help, and T206 resource has gone a bit further. The mix of newer ideas is going to push the envelope a bit further. It's too early to tell just how far, but I think combining the available ideas and information will let us "see" things a bit better.

While I haven't read Heitman, I have Read Scot Rs book. And I'm still quite impressed by both. Making sense of the volume of information to break things down into the currently accepted print groups is an impressive achievement. Sometimes we forget the challenges that existed before the internet became such an everyday thing.


Steve B

[tedzan]

Hi Ted,

Just curious as to how one of these would look using different subjects, other than the exclusive twelve. As an example, what would be another plausible group put together on a sheet this size? Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton


My research indicates that these 48 subjects from a 350 series design were arranged on the same sheet. And, were Double-Printed in order to fill out a standard
19" x 24" sheet (96-cards).

I do not claim that the arrangement of these cards is exactly as American Litho placed them on this sheet. But, I placed same color cards together, since I have
seen this printing practice on certain uncut Sportscard sheets that I have in my collection.


Note that the same borders are on this sheet as the sheet with the Exclusive 12 cards..... 7/8" margins on each side..... 1 1/2" margins top and bottom.



v................................................. ..................... 19" wide x 24" long sheet .................................................. .....................v

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
|
|
|
|
|
. http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1stQuad350seriesSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/2ndQuad350seriesSheet12xxx.jpg
. http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/3rdQuad350seriesSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/4thQuad350serieSheet12xx.jpg
. http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1stQuad350seriesSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/2ndQuad350seriesSheet12xxx.jpg
. http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/3rdQuad350seriesSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/4thQuad350serieSheet12xx.jpg
|
|
|
|
L_________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________|



Stay tuned....I will try to post another sheet from another series with different cards.



TED Z
.

[tedzan]

That would fit, and it would account for both the 17/34 theory AND the 6 theory.

It also assumes running a sheet through a 19" press the long way. I'm not certain that was possible or good practice.

Of course then I'm assuming a maximum press size of 19".


Steve B


Earlier in this thread you appear to be in agreement with someone's suggestion of printing a "34-card" format the "long way" on a 19" x 24" sheet of cardboard.

I agree that this is not good practice....but more significantly, it is mathematically impossible to print a complete sheet of 34 cards on this sheet in this manner.

When you do the math (17 x 1 7/16" = 24 7/16") it exceeds the length of the 24" cardboard sheet.


TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

My research indicates that these 48 subjects from a 350 series design were arranged on the same sheet. And, were Double-Printed in order to fill out a standard
19" x 24" sheet (96-cards).

I do not claim that the arrangement of these cards is exactly as American Litho placed them on this sheet. But, I placed same color cards together, since I have
seen this printing practice on certain uncut Sportscard sheets that I have in my collection.


Note that the same borders are on this sheet as the sheet with the Exclusive 12 cards..... 7/8" margins on each side..... 1 1/2" margins top and bottom.



v................................................. ..................... 19" wide x 24" long sheet .................................................. .....................v

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
!
!



. http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1stQuad350seriesSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/2ndQuad350seriesSheet12xxx.jpg
. http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/3rdQuad350seriesSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/4thQuad350serieSheet12xx.jpg
. http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/1stQuad350seriesSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/2ndQuad350seriesSheet12xxx.jpg
. http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/3rdQuad350seriesSheet12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/4thQuad350serieSheet12xx.jpg



!
L_________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________!



Stay tuned....I will try to post another sheet from another series with different cards.



TED Z
.

Interesting, thanks.

I'm just trying to follow your theory Ted, if I question anything you say it's only me trying to make sense of it. Now, going off of this sheet, I'm wondering about the card placement. I know you didn't say this is the exact card placement-but, if they knew they would be placing the same 48 subjects, printed twice, wouldn't they (possibly) double print the same card twice vertically? Like Cobb portrait with another Cobb portrait right below it, Marquard portrait with another Marquard portrait below it, etc.?

I bring this up because we've seen the vertical miscuts and the amount of same name same card miscuts(top and bottom) ratio compared to different name same card(top and bottom). With this layout, every card would have the possibility to have a same card different name miscut(top and bottom).

Looking forward to your next example, thanks for taking the time to lay this out.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Oooops^^^^ looks like my quoting the sheet layout messed it up :o

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Earlier in this thread you appear to be in agreement with someone's suggestion of printing a "34-card" format the "long way" on a 19" x 24" sheet of cardboard.

I agree that this is not good practice....but more significantly, it is mathematically impossible to print a complete sheet of 34 cards on this sheet in this manner.

When you do the math (17 x 1 7/16" = 24 7/16") it exceeds the length of the 24" cardboard sheet.


TED Z

I think this post just made me realize why I'm coming up with so many questions for you Ted. You are making your theory fit this 19"x24" cardboard sheet and the 19" track width to the point of blocking out any other possibilities-which stifles the discussion. Let's be open minded here, as none of us were around then and we honestly are not sure of the exact sheet size or the exact press size. You may be exactly right.......but you also may be totally wrong. You also may be partially right and partially wrong. I find your placing of subjects on a sheet more compelling WITHOUT trying to factor in this cardboard sheet size and track width.

I understand you said this was considered a "smaller job" but without business records, invoices, etc. this is (in my opinion) an assumption. We know they ran larger presses- it's not hard for me to imagine that they would print sheets on a press that would take a "slightly" larger sheet-just sayin' :)

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

You repeatedly seem to have a problem with my reference to American Litho's use of 19" track width presses. I have presented this theory for the past 7 years on this
forum.
So, I want you to tell us......why you have not questioned Steve B when he speaks of the same 19" track width presses used by ALC to print these cards ?

Furthermore, I will remind you that it was Steve who informed us that ALC most likely printed a lot of their stuff on the standard size 19" x 24" cardboard stock.
Again, I ask you to tell us......why you have not questioned Steve about his information ?

Lots of interesting stuff here as usual.

I'm still learning things about printing in the 1910 era, as well as what practices might have been followed at ALC.


So here's a bunch of info and opinions some old, some new.

The Goodwin sheet really can't be applied to T206. It's not printed, but is a photographic sheet of OJs applied to a backing similar to a cabinet photo. So it actually doesn't have a border, and isn't printed.

T206 fronts are more than 6 colors. More like 8 for many of them.

The work Chris has done breaking down the smaller groups within the overall series is excellent. I'm not really in the "34" camp, but have worked with his breakdown of the 460s, comparing it to available pop reports (which are admittedly flawed, but the best hard data we have right now) and his groups held up very well. Maybe one or two subjects that could be moved between groups, but not provably.

I've now seen a picture of a 1910 era press in operation, and producing a sheet that's about half as wide as the press track!

The 19" width comes from -If I remember it correctly- a floorplan in an article on ALC running their plant electrically. That floorplan specified Hoe #5 presses which were that size.

ALC being huge would have had a wide variety of presses available.

Steve B

Clayton......at least Steve and I have provided some meaningful information based on our research to support my theory of 36, 48, 60, 72, 96, or 108-card sheets using
a 19" press to print these cards on sheets whose size varies up to 19" x 24".

Furthermore, the structures of the various Series in the T206 set mathematically lend themselves to factors of 6 and 12. I have not wavered from my thinking regarding
this since the early 1980's when I first started collecting T206's and T205's.


On the other hand, you are "stuck" on the "34 card" sheet myth. And, anyone who challenges that myth "bugs" you.

Anyhow, I have an idea why you repeatedly question my comments on this subject in the past (and here in this thread). But, not when Steve B. talks about 19" presses
and sheet sizes of 19" x 24".

But, for now I'll keep my suspicion on this to myself.


TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

You repeatedly seem to have a problem with my reference to American Litho's use of 19" track width presses. I have presented this theory for the past 7 years on this
forum.
So, I want you to tell us......why you have not questioned Steve B when he speaks of the same 19" track width presses used by ALC to print these cards ?

Furthermore, I will remind you that it was Steve who informed us that ALC most likely printed a lot of their stuff on the standard size 19" x 24" cardboard stock.
Again, I ask you to tell us......why you have not questioned Steve about his information ?



Clayton......at least Steve and I have provided some meaningful information based on our research to support my theory of 36, 48, 60, 72, 96, or 108-card sheets using
a 19" press to print these cards on sheets whose size varies up to 19" x 24".

Furthermore, the structures of the various Series in the T206 set mathematically lend themselves to factors of 6 and 12. I have not wavered from my thinking regarding
this since the early 1980's when I first started collecting T206's and T205's.


On the other hand, you are "stuck" on the "34 card" sheet myth. And, anyone who challenges that myth "bugs" you.

Anyhow, I have an idea why you repeatedly question my comments on this subject in the past (and here in this thread). But, not when Steve B. talks about 19" presses
and sheet sizes of 19" x 24".

But, for now I'll keep my suspicion on this to myself.


TED Z

Well Ted, I probably question you (and not Steve "specifically") because Steve has shown that he is willing to at least "consider" other theories. You, on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't support your theory-which is fine. We are all entitled to our own opinions. But, you stick to this 19" thing as though it is entire reason we should "look no further",,,,,


When I say I am not sure we can "unequivocally" say these cards were printed on a 19"x24" sheet, on a press that only uses a 19" track width, I am saying that to EVERYONE (yes, Steve also Ted) that I am not convinced that this should be stated AS FACT unless we have PROOF. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also thought I remembered Steve saying he believed that the ALC did use different sized presses.

In my recent posts, I did not mention the #34. I have been trying to be open minded to what you present, but you get too bent out of shape when I question you or state my opinion (if it doesn't jive with your theory)- and I thought I was being polite enough not to make you feel "attacked".

Yes, it is easier for me to understand the #34, because it is based on print groups and not cemented in track width and sheet size. And, it's always presented as a theory (and a very good one), and not fact-although they always provide very convincing evidence.

There is no conspiracy here Ted, so speak your mind freely. I don't want you to feel suspicious about me- no one has put me up to questioning you :confused:

If an uncut sheet of T206's shows up and it's 19"x"24", you, Steve, and anyone else who has a problem with me questioning this will be THE FIRST people I will publicly apologize to, right here on Net54 ;):D

Until then, carry on and I'll just sit on the sidelines.

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

34 subjects of which two of these subjects have been Double-Printed in order to fill out a 36 card format. I chose Powers because T206 surveys indicate that this card with
the SWEET CAPORAL 150 Factory #649 (overprint) is approx. twice as available with respect to most others with this back. And, I chose the Matty (white cap) for the same
reason. Furthermore, the Davis, Griffith, Johnson, and Marquard cards are about twice as available with respect to most others with this back. Therefore, any one of these 4
may be substituted for Matty.

Shown here are two 36 card arrangements printed on a hypothetical 19" x 20" sheet of cardboard. If these 72 cards were centered, then the resulting side margins are each
7/8" wide. And, the top & bottom margins are each 2" wide.


v................................................. .................................................. .... 19" wide x 20" long sheet .................................................. .................................................. ...............................................v
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
........http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SCfact649LeftPanel25x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SCfact649MidPanel25x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SCfact649RtPanel25x.jpg
........http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SCfact649LeftPanel25x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SCfact649MidPanel25x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SCfact649RtPanel25x.jpg......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L_________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________________



Triple-Printing (108-card sheet) of these 36-card formats is possible on a standard 19" x 24" sheet. This would be more efficient use of the cardboard (printers do not like to
waste paper). However, it would be a tight squeeze.


TED Z

[steve B]

Earlier in this thread you appear to be in agreement with someone's suggestion of printing a "34-card" format the "long way" on a 19" x 24" sheet of cardboard.

I agree that this is not good practice....but more significantly, it is mathematically impossible to print a complete sheet of 34 cards on this sheet in this manner.

When you do the math (17 x 1 7/16" = 24 7/16") it exceeds the length of the 24" cardboard sheet.


TED Z

That's probably from seeing the breakdowns Chris has done splitting the 460s into smaller groups. His groups are based more on the 34 theory but with substitutions making up smaller groups. Obviously the sheet would have to be either on a larger piece of stock, or have a less regular and unbalanced arrangement.

I lean more towards your theory of 12 subject sheets and tried to use the pop report numbers to disprove his groups. And as far as I'm concerned his groups held up very well. At some point I hope he shares what he's come up with more widely, but that's up to him.

The Hoe #5 did have a 19" track, and the floorplan shown in the old article did show several hoe #5 presses at ALC. I believe the article was in scientific American but their archive is behind a paywall now and I can't find the copy I thought I'd saved. I also couldn't find the Hoe press ad I'd seen.

But that was only a diagram of one floor of a very large firm. Most large printing plants have several sizes, unless they're doing huge volume of only one sort of item. A newspaper would only have one very large fast press, but a general business would have at least a few different sizes.


There is a lot of small detail that leads me towards believing a far more complex situation for the sheets.

1) There are groups that work perfectly with a 12 subject sheet.
BUT there are also groups that Just don't and many of those either are or are much closer to 17/34

2) The fragment of packing log that specifies "other than philadelphia area" implies a different group of cards for that area. The easy way is to make a different sheet so there's no concern about mixing up which players went where. (Alternately they could have pulled the players they didn't want to send to phillly, OR perhaps ALC packed them in stacks of one player. Short of some miracle, we'll probably never know. A sheet turning up is more likely than an intact boxful sent from ALC to any of the factories) *

3) There's a lot of evidence for each of the current groups being sent to press multiple times for the same brand even within a series.
Examples
Tinker hands on knees - Normal, with traces of Chicago showing underneath cubs, and with Chicago showing clearly. At least two distinct runs, probably three.

Dygert - Comes both with and without red lips. In roughly equal quantities, so it's not a missing color or fading.

Obviously the Demmitt and Ohara show that the sheets were redone at the very least for Polar Bear.

Conroy fielding and Ritchey - Both have differences that split clearly between 150 and 350 backs.

Wilson - Orange or yellow sky. They're actually quite different, and it ought to be a more recognized variation. Certainly it's more of a different plate situation than Nodgrass or Dopner.

There's more, most of it much less obvious.

4) If we assume a simple sheet with a straightforward layout, and the same sheet used for all brands those subjects were available with then the pop report numbers should have roughly the same distribution across brands. This is generally true for Piedmont and Sweet Caporal, but breaks down for the other brands. So either there are some odd patterns to what cards get sent in, or the sheets for some brands were entirely different.

5) Hoe made 2 color presses, and I see some indication that some T206s may have been printed on a 2 color press. Quite often when there's a small color shift two colors are shifted equally. The Hoe#5 wasn't two color.

6) The number of dual name cards compared to simple miscuts showing two of the same name I think supports at least some sheets having an unbalanced arrangement.

So I suppose both the 12 subject guys and the 17/34 subject guys can call me a heretic. I think what's likely is that for brands like Hindu the sheets were 12 subjects. And for Piedmont they were probably 17/34 maybe more.
So both camps are probably both right and wrong all at the same time. Confused yet :D

That's why I like the wide range of efforts. Tracking the double name cards, the plate scratches, the factory numbers in the margins, the cutting marks (Why the Heck are they on the back when the cutting was done from the front?!) All that and more will eventually give us a much better picture of the production.

I also think we need to redefine the print groups. (Sorry Scot) And to look at each brand and series as its own set. At the level of the basic subjects there's a lot of overlap, but when the small details are looked at there's probably a lot less, possibly none.(So a common subject front will probably have small but identifiable details with no crossover between brands. )

To me it's more about what's possible, what would make sense in a manufacturing context, and what part of that can be proven.
I know my own theories are pretty far out there, and may not be something I can prove or disprove within my lifetime. (There are people who have done the same thing for stamps and taken decades to chart a handful of plates for one stamp. And that's comparatively "easy" since the sheet size is known and usually there are blocks of stamps available)

Steve B
* But damn, can you imagine one of the packers or loading dock guys or even a janitor liberating an entire boxful of Wagners or Planks before it hit the dumpster? :eek:

[Jantz]

Some of this information may seem obvious to most, but I'm going to include it anyway for some of our new board members.

I believe that the printing of T206 sheets was very compact and not much border was left to be trimmed. As Ted said in post #131, "printers do not like to waste paper". And I agree with him.

If the sheet borders were more spacious, we probably wouldn't see sheet numbers or crop lines on the backs of T206s. One could expect to see a sheet number or crop line on a T206 if it had huge borders, but actually its the opposite. T206s that have sheet numbers and crop lines are usually standard size T206s.

I do believe the Young and Stahl cards may lend us some clues to sheet size.

As far as sheet dimensions, I can't really add any information since I've done no research on that matter. I also have no idea how the sheets were cut, so I'm just theorizing with what I post below.

I think its safe to say the Young and Stahl cards were at the top of the sheet/column. If they were in the middle of the column and miscut that bad, they would look like the Phillippe/Engle card. (see below)

Also the Young and Stahl cards show no major print defects. Neither have a ghost print or a color shift and since both have a back advertisement, one could conclude that they we "finished product" waiting to be cut from the sheet.

I think the third cut that was performed along the bottom of these cards was the cut that ruined the card's appearance, but it also lends us a glimpse at how much sheet border remained above the player's image.

I boxed the Stahl card (see below) as to where the top border should have been cut. So is the excess paper above my red line remnants of the sheet border that would have been removed on the final cut?

Keep in mind the Young card is not oversized. I will post a comparison scan below courtesy of Dan M. I have not seen the Stahl card other than the scan posted earlier in this thread, so I'm not sure of it's measurements.

If a person were to measure either of these cards, I think we could get an idea as to how much of a sheet border actually existed before the final cut was made.

One last thing I would like to add. I have to agree with Ted Z. in the fact that the 12 players he refers to as the "Exclusive 12" were on a sheet together. I posted a thread back in 2010 about these same players being on a sheet together and have seen no evidence since to make me think otherwise.

Jantz

[teetwoohsix]

That's probably from seeing the breakdowns Chris has done splitting the 460s into smaller groups. His groups are based more on the 34 theory but with substitutions making up smaller groups. Obviously the sheet would have to be either on a larger piece of stock, or have a less regular and unbalanced arrangement.

I lean more towards your theory of 12 subject sheets and tried to use the pop report numbers to disprove his groups. And as far as I'm concerned his groups held up very well. At some point I hope he shares what he's come up with more widely, but that's up to him.

The Hoe #5 did have a 19" track, and the floorplan shown in the old article did show several hoe #5 presses at ALC. I believe the article was in scientific American but their archive is behind a paywall now and I can't find the copy I thought I'd saved. I also couldn't find the Hoe press ad I'd seen.

But that was only a diagram of one floor of a very large firm. Most large printing plants have several sizes, unless they're doing huge volume of only one sort of item. A newspaper would only have one very large fast press, but a general business would have at least a few different sizes.


There is a lot of small detail that leads me towards believing a far more complex situation for the sheets.

1) There are groups that work perfectly with a 12 subject sheet.
BUT there are also groups that Just don't and many of those either are or are much closer to 17/34

2) The fragment of packing log that specifies "other than philadelphia area" implies a different group of cards for that area. The easy way is to make a different sheet so there's no concern about mixing up which players went where. (Alternately they could have pulled the players they didn't want to send to phillly, OR perhaps ALC packed them in stacks of one player. Short of some miracle, we'll probably never know. A sheet turning up is more likely than an intact boxful sent from ALC to any of the factories) *

3) There's a lot of evidence for each of the current groups being sent to press multiple times for the same brand even within a series.
Examples
Tinker hands on knees - Normal, with traces of Chicago showing underneath cubs, and with Chicago showing clearly. At least two distinct runs, probably three.

Dygert - Comes both with and without red lips. In roughly equal quantities, so it's not a missing color or fading.

Obviously the Demmitt and Ohara show that the sheets were redone at the very least for Polar Bear.

Conroy fielding and Ritchey - Both have differences that split clearly between 150 and 350 backs.

Wilson - Orange or yellow sky. They're actually quite different, and it ought to be a more recognized variation. Certainly it's more of a different plate situation than Nodgrass or Dopner.

There's more, most of it much less obvious.

4) If we assume a simple sheet with a straightforward layout, and the same sheet used for all brands those subjects were available with then the pop report numbers should have roughly the same distribution across brands. This is generally true for Piedmont and Sweet Caporal, but breaks down for the other brands. So either there are some odd patterns to what cards get sent in, or the sheets for some brands were entirely different.

5) Hoe made 2 color presses, and I see some indication that some T206s may have been printed on a 2 color press. Quite often when there's a small color shift two colors are shifted equally. The Hoe#5 wasn't two color.

6) The number of dual name cards compared to simple miscuts showing two of the same name I think supports at least some sheets having an unbalanced arrangement.

So I suppose both the 12 subject guys and the 17/34 subject guys can call me a heretic. I think what's likely is that for brands like Hindu the sheets were 12 subjects. And for Piedmont they were probably 17/34 maybe more.
So both camps are probably both right and wrong all at the same time. Confused yet :D

That's why I like the wide range of efforts. Tracking the double name cards, the plate scratches, the factory numbers in the margins, the cutting marks (Why the Heck are they on the back when the cutting was done from the front?!) All that and more will eventually give us a much better picture of the production.

I also think we need to redefine the print groups. (Sorry Scot) And to look at each brand and series as its own set. At the level of the basic subjects there's a lot of overlap, but when the small details are looked at there's probably a lot less, possibly none.(So a common subject front will probably have small but identifiable details with no crossover between brands. )

To me it's more about what's possible, what would make sense in a manufacturing context, and what part of that can be proven.
I know my own theories are pretty far out there, and may not be something I can prove or disprove within my lifetime. (There are people who have done the same thing for stamps and taken decades to chart a handful of plates for one stamp. And that's comparatively "easy" since the sheet size is known and usually there are blocks of stamps available)

Steve B
* But damn, can you imagine one of the packers or loading dock guys or even a janitor liberating an entire boxful of Wagners or Planks before it hit the dumpster? :eek:

This is an excellent post, thank you Steve.

You actually made the point I was trying to make earlier when you said the following:

"The Hoe #5 did have a 19" track, and the floorplan shown in the old article did show Hoe#5 presses at ALC. I believe the article was in Scientific American but their article is behind a paywall and I can't find the copy I thought I'd saved. I also couldn't find the Hoe press add I'd seen.

But that was only a diagram of one floor of a very large firm. Most large printing plants have several sizes, unless they're doing huge volume of only one sort of item. A newspaper would have only one very large fast press, but a general business would have at least a few different sizes."

The point I was trying to make, simply, was that the ALC ran different sized presses. I confirmed through the Library of Congress that they have ALC lithograph advertising posters measuring 22"x28" from the same timeframe. These dimensions are NOT that much larger than "19x24". We are talking 3" one way and 4" another. So, no argument that they ran Hoe #5's with a 19" track- just that they also ran presses that could do pieces slightly bigger. And, since we don't have an actual sheet of T206's, *my opinion* is that we shouldn't be letting the dimensions "19x24" be the guiding light end all is all.

With that being said-IF the ALC only ran one size press- you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me about this.

Also, I am not saying anyone is wrong when it comes to the numbers 6, 12, or even 48 subjects to a sheet doubled. I am intrigued by this, just as I am by 34 subjects with a horizontal row of 17. Most members have been to T206Resource, but to those new members who haven't, Tim wrote a great article about "Sheet Mystique", and I recommend everyone who loves T206's to check it out: http://t206resource.com/Article-T206Resource-Sheet-mystique-34.html

Steve- I appreciate you being open minded and I really enjoy reading your posts.

Jantz- Same goes for you, I always enjoy your posts as well, and I agree that the Young and Stahl cards could have some of the clues we are looking for. Thanks for posting those :)

So much for the sidelines :o

Sincerely, Clayton

[Pat R]

Jantz, I was curious about the size of the Stahl card that Chris posted
also, so yesterday I took some measurements of the scan on my laptop screen. I measured from the top blue border line to the bottom of the
S in subjects which was 9/16 and on an in hand card it measures 19/32
so the scan on my screen is just a fraction smaller than actual size.

On my screen the card measures 2 1/2 inches so I think it is a normal
size card.

The top border measures 9/16 so when you allow for a normal
card border that would leave a shy 1/2 inch of excess boarder at the top.

A question I have for Steve B and the other knowledgeable printing
guys is: would the bottom of the sheet have the same excess or
just the top to eliminate an extra cut?

Patrick

[atx840]

Comparison prior to being slabbed.

http://i.imgur.com/r0ZuQGL.jpg

[Pat R]

Really Nice card Chris!!!! ( I didn't know it was yours I thought it was a scan you had).

Patrick

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Clayton - Why do you quote the entire post when responding, instead of just the relevant portion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve B]

A question I have for Steve B and the other knowledgeable printing
guys is: would the bottom of the sheet have the same excess or
just the top to eliminate an extra cut?

Patrick

Typically a border is left all the way around. It doesn't have to be equal on all sides. Printing right to the edge of a sheet is just too difficult. Plus, those margins usually have a lot of stuff like marks to check registration and Sometimes identification of what's being printed. Like the factory ID numbers.

Steve B

[steve B]

The exception is stuff printed on a web press, which prints onto a continuous roll rather than individual sheets. Then the upper and lower borders aren't absolutely necessary. Although they're often there anyway.

[tedzan]

Some of this information may seem obvious to most, but I'm going to include it anyway for some of our new board members.

I believe that the printing of T206 sheets was very compact and not much border was left to be trimmed. As Ted said in post #131, "printers do not like to waste paper". And I agree with him.

If the sheet borders were more spacious, we probably wouldn't see sheet numbers or crop lines on the backs of T206s. One could expect to see a sheet number or crop line on a T206 if it had huge borders, but actually its the opposite. T206s that have sheet numbers and crop lines are usually standard size T206s.

I do believe the Young and Stahl cards may lend us some clues to sheet size.

As far as sheet dimensions, I can't really add any information since I've done no research on that matter. I also have no idea how the sheets were cut, so I'm just theorizing with what I post below.

I think its safe to say the Young and Stahl cards were at the top of the sheet/column. If they were in the middle of the column and miscut that bad, they would look like the Phillippe/Engle card. (see below)

Also the Young and Stahl cards show no major print defects. Neither have a ghost print or a color shift and since both have a back advertisement, one could conclude that they we "finished product" waiting to be cut from the sheet.

I think the third cut that was performed along the bottom of these cards was the cut that ruined the card's appearance, but it also lends us a glimpse at how much sheet border remained above the player's image.

I boxed the Stahl card (see below) as to where the top border should have been cut. So is the excess paper above my red line remnants of the sheet border that would have been removed on the final cut?

Keep in mind the Young card is not oversized. I will post a comparison scan below courtesy of Dan M. I have not seen the Stahl card other than the scan posted earlier in this thread, so I'm not sure of it's measurements.

If a person were to measure either of these cards, I think we could get an idea as to how much of a sheet border actually existed before the final cut was made.

One last thing I would like to add. I have to agree with Ted Z. in the fact that the 12 players he refers to as the "Exclusive 12" were on a sheet together. I posted a thread back in 2010 about these same players being on a sheet together and have seen no evidence since to make me think otherwise.

Jantz


1st.....it's good to hear that some here agrees with my statement that printers are not likely to "waste much paper" in their jobs. Shown below is a hypothetical example
of the efficient use of paper with respect to this printing practice.

2nd....the miscut Stahl & Young cards suggest to us (as you well stated) were indeed top row cards on their respective sheets. It appears that both these two different
sheets were printed with a top border of approx. 1/2" each. I would think that most would agree with this observation.

3rd....the Exclusive 12 (as I like to refer to them) in the 460-only series provide us true insight into how ALC formatted the printing of certain T206's. These 12 subjects,
based on the availability of their various tougher T-brand backs, without a doubt show us that they were printed separately from the other 36 subjects that were printed
with only 460 backs. Therefore, we have a valid example to consider in our search for how other T206's were printed.


And I might add, that the 12 - T205 Minor League subjects also provide us a clue as to how these cards were formatted. It would not surprise me to find out that these
12 subjects were printed on a sheet separate from all the other T205 cards.


A tightly printed 108-card sheet with 7/8" margin on each side and 3/16" margin on top and bottom.


v................................................. .................................................. .... 19" wide x 24" long sheet .................................................. .................................................. ...............................................v
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________________

........http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SCfact649LeftPanel25x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SCfact649MidPanel25x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SCfact649RtPanel25x.jpg
........http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SCfact649LeftPanel25x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SCfact649MidPanel25x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SCfact649RtPanel25x.jpg......
........http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SCfact649LeftPanel25x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SCfact649MidPanel25x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SCfact649RtPanel25x.jpg......
L_________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________________




TED Z
.

[atx840]

Hey Pat, wish it was mine....got to study it at the National, great card.

[tedzan]

3rd....the Exclusive 12 (as I like to refer to them) in the 460-only series provide us true insight into how ALC formatted the printing of certain T206's. These 12 subjects,
based on the availability of their various tougher T-brand backs, without a doubt show us that they were printed separately from the other 36 subjects that were printed
with only 460 backs. Therefore, we have a valid example to consider in our search for how other T206's were printed.


And I might add, that the 12 - T205 Minor League subjects also provide us a clue as to how these cards were formatted. It would not surprise me to discover
that these 12 subjects were printed on a sheet separate from all the other T205 cards.


TED Z.


Hey guys,

Here is that recurring 12 factor again......it is found throughout the various white-bordered sets (T206's, T213's, T215's, etc.); and, gold-bordered (T205) set (1909-1919).

The artistic designs of these 12 Minor Leaguers (ML) are unlike the other T205 designs. All 12 of these guys represent teams in the Eastern League. They were printed only
with two T-brand backs: HASSAN Factory #649 or POLAR BEAR. The bios on the backs of these cards suggest that these 12 ML were printed at the tail end of the T205
press run (perhaps in 1912). I would venture to say that these 12 subjects were printed on a separate sheet of their own (without any of the T205 Major Leaguers on it).


Illustrated here is a theoretical 48-card sheet of the T205 Minor Leaguers (may have also been printed as a 96-card sheet).

http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/T205adkdunleeneecadfri_zpscfdc1d32.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/T205mcahanbatmerphecol_zps4227030d.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/T205adkdunleeneecadfri_zpscfdc1d32.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/T205mcahanbatmerphecol_zps4227030d.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/T205adkdunleeneecadfri_zpscfdc1d32.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/T205mcahanbatmerphecol_zps4227030d.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/T205adkdunleeneecadfri_zpscfdc1d32.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/T205mcahanbatmerphecol_zps4227030d.jpg

http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/T205adkdunleeneecadfriB_zps45044fae.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/T205mcahanbatmerphecolBx_zps33d8cfb3.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/T205adkdunleeneecadfriB_zps45044fae.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/T205mcahanbatmerphecolBx_zps33d8cfb3.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/T205adkdunleeneecadfriB_zps45044fae.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/T205mcahanbatmerphecolBx_zps33d8cfb3.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/T205adkdunleeneecadfriB_zps45044fae.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/T205mcahanbatmerphecolBx_zps33d8cfb3.jpg



Examples like this ML group of 12 - T205's.....and the Exclusive 12 of the T206 (460-only) series.....and the 12 subjects in the T206 150-only series.....and the similar examples
in the T213's, and T215's where it is obvious that the cards were printed in columns of 12 is certainly enough evidence in my logical thinking mind that indeed this pattern was
American Lithographic's printing format.



TED Z
.

[sreader3]

While I haven't read Heitman, I have Read Scot Rs book. And I'm still quite impressed by both. Making sense of the volume of information to break things down into the currently accepted print groups is an impressive achievement. Sometimes we forget the challenges that existed before the internet became such an everyday thing.
Steve B

Thanks Steve. I'm always gratified to hear that someone read and enjoyed my ebook.

And while I have issues with some of their theories and nomenclature, and their unwillingness to engage, T206 Resource is nonetheless a great site and has advanced the ball in terms of the master checklist. Tim and his team deserve credit for that.

[teetwoohsix]

One thing that is hard to ignore when discussing sheet size is the uncut sheet of 1911 T212 Obak tobacco cards. I understand these were printed in San Francisco, and not New York-but the sheet itself is 31"x23 1/2". And I know these are a separate issue unrelated to T206's. Just something to think about-

http://sep10.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-bin/showitem.pl?itemid=25005



Sincerely, Clayton

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

One thing that is hard to ignore when discussing sheet size is the uncut sheet of 1911 T212 Obak tobacco cards. I understand these were printed in San Francisco, and not New York-but the sheet itself is 31"x23 1/2". And I know these are a separate issue unrelated to T206's. Just something to think about-



http://sep10.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-bin/showitem.pl?itemid=25005







Sincerely, Clayton


Any evidence that t206 were ever printed sideways like on the Obaks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[teetwoohsix]

Any evidence that t206 were ever printed sideways like on the Obaks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, not that I'm aware of. Just to be clear, I'm not saying this is what a sheet of T206's looked like- just pointing out the size of the sheet. And, in my opinion, it doesn't seem like the size of the sheet affected the detail of the cards.

Sincerely, Clayton