Hey folks....reprising my case for the "12 factor" in the T206 structure

[tedzan]

Some of you have heard all this before......but, to others of you this is new information. In any event, I think this is worth repeating in order to clarify.

In 2005, I became a member of Net54. As in nowadays, the T206's dominated the discussions on this forum. At that time, I had put together 2 "near"
complete sets.....1st, a 521-card (incl. Magie) set.....2nd, a 520-card set.

Furthermore, as a dealer, I had bought, sold, and traded 10's of 1000's of T206 cards (during 1981 - 2005). So, I figured I would offer my "2-cents" to
some of the ongoing Net54 discussions regarding certain aspects of the T206's.....and especially the printing of the T206 set.

It has been (and still is) my contention, that American Lithographic printed T206's, T205's, T213's, and T215's on sheets configured in columns of 12
cards by N number of rows of cards down the length of the sheet.

For example, here is my hypothetical 96-card sheet of the 12 subjects I refer to as the "Exclusive 12" in the 460-only series. For more details on these
12 guys, check out this thread......EXCLUSIVE 12 (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949&
highlight=exclusive+12)


..v..................................... 19" wide x 24" long sheet .....................................v
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/Ex12sheet96cards50x.jpg


I did not "invent" this factor of 12. The structure of the T206 series (and sub-series) speak for themselves. For instance, the first group of T206's
that were printed comprise of 12 subjects; and, we refer to them as the 150-only series. The following lists the structural make-up of the various
T206 series............

Subjects
________

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

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

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

66 ........... 350/460 Series

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

48 ........... Southern League Series


It does not require "rocket science" to see that a factor of 12 is in play here in the formation of these various series. It was not a random process,
it was by design (most likely dictated by the size of the printing press and the size of the standard cardboard sheet).

Also, a common denominator of 6 is a significant factor in the various sub-sets (e.g. 6 Super-Prints, 6 horizontal cards, 6 Texas Leaguer's, etc).

Furthermore, this 12 factor is evident in the T205 structure....e.g. the 12 - Minor League subjects.

And, in the T213-1 issue, where there are 48 - Major League subjects.

In the T215-1 issue which comprises of 96 subjects.


If I have not convinced you of my argument with all this data, then please post your ideas here on how these various tobacco cards were printed,
otherwise.


Pardon me guys, but my engineering mind has a great appreciation for numbers....and so far, I cannot accept any of the explanations that have
been presented in the past (or currently)....as they do not mathematically jive with the established structural numbers of the T206 set.



TED Z
.

[t206hound]

I'll start off by saying I don't know how many cards there were to a row or a sheet. But the idea that I might be able to figure it out does motivate me.

So what I do is look for clues that might help tell the story. Do subsets that are multiples of 6 or 12 mean that the row size was 12? Maybe. What about those that are multiples of 17? Is that the magic number? Maybe. Could both be right? Maybe. Could neither be right? Maybe.

Numbers are only one part of the answer, because there is no way to know if cards were evenly distributed in sheets. It's easy to say that this card is a short print or that card is a double print to make nearly any number fit.

The Lash's Bitters cards are very intriguing. They, along with the Piedmont 460 overprint scraps give insight into cards that were actually adjacent (directly or indirectly). Unfortunately, there are still many missing pieces of the puzzle. I'm still working on the horizontal pieces to make sure they fit.

So, I will end as I started. I have no idea the sheet composition or size. I won't say anyone is right or anyone is wrong. I will certainly make hypotheses along the way that are wrong. I'm no expert. If someone else presents a theory, I will ask questions... And hopefully learn something. But I know that I will continue to look for clues. Hopefully we can work together as a community to figure this out.

[tedzan]

American Lithographic introduced the 350/460 series in the printing of the SOVEREIGN "apple green" cards during 1910. This series comprise of 66 subjects.

Depicted here is my simulated 72-card sheet (6 rows of 12 cards) of this series. I don't think same-name cards of any of these 60 subjects with SOVEREIGN
backs (not including 6 super-prints) have been reported; therefore, I tend to think that this 72-card format simulates a representative press run. If a same-
name card of any of these 60 surfaces, then it would suggest that a 144-card sheet (12 x 12 format) was printed.


Note
The 6 super-print cards are shown Double-Printed (D-P) on this sheet. Several large T206 surveys have indicated that these 6 super-print subjects were D-P
relative to the other 60 subjects on this sheet.



v................................................. ....... Six super-prints ............................................v
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/AT206superprints12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/AmeBakBenCobConDav12x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/AT206superprints12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/BurDonDooJDoyLDoyElb12x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/BerBraBroCraDouDow12xx.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/GrifJennJenJosLajLak12x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/ManJohnMagMcQMurpNich12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/KleJorKonLeaMcInMul12x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/LeifOLeOvePelPfeReul11x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/RhoSmitRucSeySnoSta11x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/WagWilSweStrCYoSte12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/WilhTinWillWilWillWhi12x.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/SixSovereignApplegreenB12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/SixSovereignApplegreenB12x.jpg




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

SHECKARD (glove)
.

[tedzan]

Here again are the Exclusive 12 with SWEET CAPORAL 460, Factory #42 back advertisements.

These 12 are the only subjects in the 460-only series printed with this SWEET CAP back......proving that American Litho
formatted configurations with 12 cards across the sheet.

Stay tuned......there are more such examples that will be presented which reinforce the 12 factor premise.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1stEx12gpSC460x42x25x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/2ndEx12gpSC460x42x25x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1stEx12gpSC460x42x25b.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1stEx12gpSC460x42x25b.jpg



TED Z
.

[t206hound]

American Lithographic introduced the 350/460 series in the printing of the SOVEREIGN "apple green" cards during 1910. This series comprise of 66 subjects.

Depicted here is my simulated 72-card sheet (6 rows of 12 cards) of this series. I don't think same-name cards of any of these 60 subjects with SOVEREIGN backs (not including 6 super-prints) have been reported;


I don't recall having seen any S350AG miscuts at all... definitely don't have any scans; Doug (Phillies*phan) has a vast collection of double-namers. I've asked him if he has (or has seen) any.

Here again are the Exclusive 12 with SWEET CAPORAL 460, Factory #42 back advertisements.

These 12 are the only subjects in the 460-only series printed with this SWEET CAP back......proving that American Litho
formatted configurations with 12 cards across the sheet.


There is actual proof that some of those cards appeared together; scraps presumably from the same sheet(s) Piedmont 350-460 factory 25. Some of them can be proven to be adjacent. All of the scrap pictured (eight subjects) are from the Exclusive 12. This image is from Chris Browne posted in a separate thread (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=192935).
http://i.imgur.com/YE2sHAk.jpg

So, the fact that there is proof from scrap that many of those appeared together, and the exclusivity mentioned above would give credence to the probability of those 12 appearing on the same sheet.

I would not say, however, that this is proof of a 12 card row. A theory? Sure. Proof? Nope. Reality? Maybe. There could have been single prints... or double prints... or an eight card row (ABCDEFGH, EFGHIJKL, IJKLABCD)... or an eighteen card row (ABCDEFGHIJKLABCD, EFGHIJKLABCDEFGH, IJKLABCDEFGHIJKL). Maybe some or all of the super prints appeared on the sheet with those 12.

I'm not saying that SC460-42 was not printed in 12 card rows, I'm just saying that the acceptance of 12 cards appearing together doesn't prove it.

[tedzan]

It's not only the T206 issue, but also the "12 Factor" is evident in the T205 printing format. There are twelve Minor League subjects in the T205 issue. These 12 guys where printed at the tail-end
of the T205 press runs (circa late 1911). How do we know this......because the bio info on the backs of 8 of these cards reveal this timeline.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/T205adkdunleeneecadfri.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/T205mcahanbatmerphecol.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/T205adkdunleeneecadfriB.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/T205mcahanbatmerphecolBx.jpg


Furthermore, some of our resident Net54 T205 experts have told me that the T205 structure lends itself to formatted sheets printed in columns of 12.



TED Z
.

[tedzan]

Further proof of the "12 Factor" in the printing of these T206 cards is evident in these 12 subjects in the 460-only series, which I refer to as the "Exclusive 12".
Only these 12 guys in this series of 48 subjects were printed with the rare red HINDU back. For more detailed information regarding these T206 cards, check out
this link......EXCLUSIVE 12 (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949&
highlight=exclusive+12)



http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/crandevdufforgangeyRHx25.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/HumMcGPfeSheTanWheRHx25a.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/redHINDUbk25xa.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/redHINDUbk25xa.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/redHINDUbk25xa.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/redHINDUbk25xa.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/redHINDUbk25xa.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/redHINDUbk25xa.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/redHINDUbk25xa.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/redHINDUbk25xa.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/redHINDUbk25xa.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/redHINDUbk25xa.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/redHINDUbk25xa.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/redHINDUbk25xa.jpg





TED Z
.

[t206hound]

Please refer to Post #5 (http://www.net54baseball.com/showpost.php?p=1315366&postcount=5) as to why a list of 12 cards (in fact, the same list) is not "proof" that there were twelve card rows. Could there have been? Certainly. Is this proof? Nope.

[Howe’s Hunter]

– common thought believed to be true in 1492.

And then something new came along and changed all those old thoughts....

[tedzan]

Double post

[tedzan]

Your "broken record" replies are becoming boring (if not tedious). These comments of yours indicate that you do not understand the significance of
the Exclusive 12 series of either the T206 issue or the T205 issue.

Furthermore, it appears that you don't understand the significance of the 12 subjects in the 150-only series, or Elite 12 group of rare PIEDMONT 350
cards, or other T206 sub-sets.
.

But, then I may be misjudging you ......for perhaps you do understand these factors. However, your mindset is so stuck in this "17 or 34 myth" that
you are incapable of accepting facts regarding the T206 set's structures which have been established for years. You're bent on trying to "re-invent"
the T206 structure.

Look, I didn't "invent" this 12 Factor. It was inherent in the T206's structure. The numbers are there; and, they do not lie. Any logically thinking mind
realizes the mathematics of the various series in the T206 structure....and, that translates to printing formats which strongly suggest columns of 12
cards on a sheet.


Your latest thread.."Proof? T206 were printed in rows of more than twelve"..is so misleading that it is laughable. You have PROVED nothing with your
"SMOKE and MIRRORS" diagrams.

Much less claiming you have proof that the printed sheets were not formatted in rows of 12 cards.


Please do us both a favor.....do not respond anymore to my threads on the subject of printed sheet sizes and configurations....and, I'll refrain from
responding to your's.


T-Rex TED

[abothebear]

Hey Ted,

I enjoy your posts. And I know almost nothing about T206s, especially compared to you. But I don't understand your tone in your replies. You keep using "proof" for your 12 theory, and if you merely mean that there is proof that the subjects are in multiples of 12, then there is no problem... and no drama, because no one would deny that. But several of your claims sound like you should be using "evidence" instead of "proof." As in - evidence that seems to support your theory.

I think that other guy (sorry other guy for forgetting your name while typing this) is merely pointing out that your claims using "proof" (if I am reading your claim correctly) are bigger than the logic supports. I don't see what the big deal is. Following different lines of speculation can only help the quest to find out something more definitive in the long run.

(In my best Rodney King voice) "Can't we all just get along?"

George

[Brian Weisner]

Hey Ted,
Your lack of respect for other posters is ridiculous....As well as your insistence that everyone that post in your threads must agree or not post.
I guess you just want to continue to post your absolutes as fact, and bump them to the top everyday.... No one knows for sure how the T206's were printed, but it's a lot of fun for most of us to research and speculate ..

Be well Brian

[tedzan]

Brian W

You want to know what is "RIDICULOUS" ?

The following wise-ass comments by Erick........


On Thur 8/14....I reply to Erick's question........
As I noted above, Erick.

This is not new news, it has been previously discussed. The arrangement of the 48 subjects that I have displayed here is by no means a singular grouping of these subjects.

The 6 super-prints certainly exemplify this fact. They are repeated on subsequent series sheets (e.g. they are included again in the 66-subject Sovereign apple green sheet, also, T213, T214, T215 issues).
TED Z


Thur 8/14....Erick replies to my above response to him
I'm really confused... how can you assert that the 48 absolutely appeared together on a Piedmont 350 sheet when you also acknowledge that there were instances when they didn't appear together on a Piedmont 350 sheet? That's like saying I have a lot of money in my wallet, except when I don't.

[Edited] Just so that I make sure that we are discussing the same thing... I fully understand that between different series P350 vs S460 (superprints for example) that the layouts were different. Are you are saying that within a series (Piedmont 350 in this instance) that the layouts did or did not change?


Friday AM.....My wife and go on vacation to Cape May, NJ for 3 days


Meanwhile, Erick posts the following snide remarks to my non-response while I'm on vacation.

Fri 8/15..... still curious
Curious as to the answer to my questions...

Sat 8/16..... even more curious
Still waiting...

Sun 8/17..... well
Well, my beer is gone. I waited all weekend and no discussion.

Furthermore, upon my return I try to answer his question(s) and try to have a reasonable discussion with him regarding T206's.

But, all he keeps repeating is...."he's confused".



So, pardon me if I am quite ticked-off with his attitude.

Look, I don't expect that people agree with my theories. I present my ideas in order to stimulate some meaningful thoughts and discussion.

And, you damn well know this from our interactions in past years....when I considered you a great friend and had a lot of respect for you.



TED Z
..

[Runscott]

Ted, you know I've almost always got your back on this stuff, but...

I'm not seeing anything other than a difference of opinion. You seem really offended that others won't simply accept your theory as fact. Your theory does seem as good as any, and Erick is admitting that you could be right. But he's also showing how you could be wrong. I see no problem with that.

[t206hound]

So, pardon me if I am quite ticked-off with his attitude.


Hey Ted, I thought I had apologized for those posts, but looking back at the thread it appears I did not. So I'll do it now...

I apologize, Ted, for those snarky comments while you were on vacation. They were uncalled for; I was being impatient. With all sincerity, I'm sorry.

Note, that I thought that we did have a nice conversation at the end of that thread (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=192308&page=7).

Anyway, since you don't want me to post any more in your threads, I'll respect your wishes, and this will be the last. Feel free to comment in any of mine, however.

[Howe’s Hunter]

In post 14 above, Ted lists several comments from another thread (not this one, or the one started by Erick that seems to have Ted so ticked) involving discussion about numbers of rows or columns in the T206 printing process.

Was there another thread about numbers of cards in the possible printing schematics of the T206s? That would almost make all this seem like a broken record. Becoming boring, if not tedious.

Maybe new thoughts are a good thing.

[Jantz]

I agree with Ted that the 12 factor applies to these 2 backs.

Sweet Caporal 350-460 factory #42
Red Hindu

These two backs mirror each other.

As far as the 12 factor with other backs, I haven't had a chance to do enough research to comment on them. The same with sheet size and subject count/position. I haven't done enough research to comment on them either.

Also agree with Ted that the Exclusive 12 players were on a sheet together.

I went out on a limb back in 2010 and started a thread about these 12 players being sheet partners and since then haven't seen any evidence/proof to make me think otherwise.

[Tao_Moko]

Until a sheet is discovered or recreated there can only be theory. I don't have any issue with the factor of 12 because it's seemingly evident. I also like Erick's approach and use of technology using scraps and miscuts to create a sheet. I may be late to the game but can you combine both efforts? Trying to prove the other right may be the way we get to the bottom of this.

Maybe we should start a thread where this community makes an effort to provide scans of all of our miscuts, scrap, printers marks and print defects? A resource for sheet builders to access.

[wolf441]

Maybe we should start a thread where this community makes an effort to provide scans of all of our miscuts, scrap, printers marks and print defects? A resource for sheet builders to access.

+1. Or a subcategory/place on the site where members can upload pictures of any of these oddball cards. I also think it would be a good place for anyone who owns/owned one of the rarest backs (Drum, Broadleaf 460, Uzit) to post scans. If we had enough scans of cards with Drum backs for example, it might be possible to try to work them together, jigsaw style. After all, there couldn't have been too many Drum sheets printed back in 1910.

[tedzan]

Until a sheet is discovered or recreated there can only be theory. I don't have any issue with the factor of 12 because it's seemingly evident. I also like Erick's approach and use of technology using scraps and miscuts to create a sheet. I may be late to the game but can you combine both efforts? Trying to prove the other right may be the way we get to the bottom of this.



Eric S

I like your term "seemingly evident" to describe my "12 factor".

One of the problems I have with Erick's approach is that the dimensions of the Lash p/c have not been stated, which would provide a frame of reference.

It appears to me to be the size of a 3" x 5" card, but I'm not sure of this.

Another problem is that the various layouts in the diagrams presented are of an arbitrary nature. It's just guesswork as to how many of these Lash p/c's
overlayed the hypothetical T206 scrap sheet.




TED Z
.

[tedzan]

I agree with Ted that the 12 factor applies to these 2 backs.

Sweet Caporal 350-460 factory #42
Red Hindu

These two backs mirror each other.

As far as the 12 factor with other backs, I haven't had a chance to do enough research to comment on them. The same with sheet size and subject count/position. I haven't done enough research to comment on them either.

Also agree with Ted that the Exclusive 12 players were on a sheet together.

I went out on a limb back in 2010 and started a thread about these 12 players being sheet partners and since then haven't seen any evidence/proof to make me think otherwise.


I really appreciate your comments. You appear to be the lone voice here with anything meaningful to add to this thread.

I've been collecting this "Exclusive 12" sub-set since 2004, when I acquired an AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 Wheat; and, a red HINDU Tannehill.

I now have completed (or near completed) these 12 subjects with the following T206 back runs......

AMERICAN BEAUTY 460
El PRINCIPE de GALES....need 4 more
red HINDU......................need Sheckard

LENOX (does not exist)

OLD MILL (extremely rare......still looking for any)

PIEDMONT 460, Factory #42 (does not exist)


PIEDMONT 460, Factory #25
POLAR BEAR
SOVEREIGN 460
SWEET CAPORAL 460, Factory #30
SWEET CAPORAL 460, Factory #42
SWEET CAPORAL 460, Factory #42 (overprint)....need 6 more

UZIT (extremely rare......still looking for any)



http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/ABgandufshetanpfegey25x_zpsde4f5982.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/ABwhecrafordevmcghum25xa_zps9075c421.jpg

http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/AB460back25x_zpse7fbc4a7.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/AB460back25x_zpse7fbc4a7.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/AB460back25x_zpse7fbc4a7.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/AB460back25x_zpse7fbc4a7.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/AB460back25xx_zpsd9aaa81f.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/AB460back25xx_zpsd9aaa81f.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/AB460back25xx_zpsd9aaa81f.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/AB460back25x_zpse7fbc4a7.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/AB460back25x_zpse7fbc4a7.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/AB460back25x_zpse7fbc4a7.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/AB460back25x_zpse7fbc4a7.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/AB460back25x_zpse7fbc4a7.jpg



And yes, there are many other aspects of the T206 series structure that conform to factors of 12. I have listed the various series numbers
in the introductory post here for anyone willing to consider.


It was great seeing you and talking with you at the National. Take care good buddy.


TED Z
.

[Tao_Moko]

Eric S



One of the problems I have with Erick's approach is that the dimensions of the Lash p/c have not been stated, which would provide a frame of reference.

It appears to me to be the size of a 3" x 5" card, but I'm not sure of this.

Another problem is that the various layouts in the diagrams presented are of an arbitrary nature. It's just guesswork as to how many of these Lash p/c's
overlayed the hypothetical T206 scrap sheet.




TED Z
.

Totally agree. The overlay is arbitrary if the Lash p/c dimensions are not known and even if they are it doesn't solve the problem on it's own. The p/c may not hold any value to sheet size at the end of the day but it does give some reference. It's truly an irrelevant concern in life but more exciting to read about than hair follicles in the printing process. T206 is the most over analyzed set in existence right? Premiums given to printing flaws in a 105 year old process is kind of funny.

[Jantz]

Thank you Ted.

It was good talking to you at the National too.

Its always one of my highlights of the National talking T206s with you.


Jantz

[tedzan]

I may have asked you this before......
Do you have (or have seen) any of the T206 cards in the 350/460 series with two different names (top & bottom) on them ?

Also, I've asked Doug Bacon this same question, and he does not have any of these from the 350/460 series in his collection.


TED Z
.

[Jantz]

Hi Ted

By my records, there hasn't been any two different name T206s with a 350/460 back found yet.



Jantz