Original 12-card horizontal E91 strip may reveal 1909 printing format

[tedzan]

This 12-card strip may be a cut from an uncut sheet of American Caramel (E91) cards. Since this group of 12 cards includes Athletics, New York, and Chicago it re-
presents the 1st series which was issued in 1908-09. Each of the 3 series (issued 1908-1909-1910) in the E91 set comprises of 33 subjects.

The American Caramel printers most likely employed a printing press with a 19-inch track width, which was a standard press (1908-1919) for lithographic printing
of multi-color, small-image jobs. My research shows a similar 19-inch printing press was employed by American Lithographic to print the T205, T206, T209, T210,
T211, T213, T214, and T215 cards.


v................................................. .................................... 19" wide .................................................. ...................................v

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/E91horizontal12cardStrip.jpg



I would guess that the fundamental sheet arrangement was 12 by N-number of rows with one (or 2, or 3) multi-prints on each of the rows of cards.

In my opinion this 12-card strip is a great find....in that is provides us insight into a baseline of how the sheets were formatted in the printing process. Not only the
Candy cards of that era, but also the Tobacco cards of that era.

Questions, inputs, or whatever regarding this subject would be greatly appreciated......thanks.


TED Z
.

[Econteachert205]

Hi Ted, I was curious if there are any double name cards from this series to hint at a top to bottom sheet construction, similar to what we've seen from the t206s?

[DaveW]

Interesting. Is it my imagination (or poor resolution on my screen) but aren't all 12 cards on this sheet double printed? The two cards on the left are the same and then there are two identical groups of five - so six different subjects.

[tedzan]

The E91-A-B-C set totaling 99 subjects is a strange set.

It appears that American Caramel had a limited number of images. So, the same image can be two different players.

If I recall correctly, the Honus Wagner image is limited to only him.

The Walter Johnson image depicts him as a southpaw pitcher.

Like I said....it is a strange set.

I suggest you check out ebay listing of E91 cards and you will see what I'm saying.



TED Z
.

[Zach Wheat]

Ted,

What are your thoughts in regards to the T201 set?

Z wheat

[ZachS]

Dave is right... every card is double printed.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/E91horizontal12cardStrip.jpg

........1..............1.............2............ 3.............4............5.............6........ ...2.............3.............4.............5.... .........6

[tedzan]

The E91-A-B-C set totaling 99 subjects is a strange set.

It appears that American Caramel had a limited number of images. So, the same image can be two different players.

If I recall correctly, the Honus Wagner image is limited to only him.

The Walter Johnson image depicts him as a southpaw pitcher.

Like I said....it is a strange set.

I suggest you check out ebay listing of E91 cards and you will see what I'm saying.



TED Z
.

I have already addressed Dave's question in this post.

What you cannot discern from my scan (sorry about its fuzziness) are the names of the Double-Printed images. As I stated (and this is well known)......
in the E91 set the same image was printed with 2 (or 3) different players.


TED Z
.

[tedzan]

Hey Zach


Here are 3 examples of the same image with 3 different players from E91 listings on ebay......

Murphy
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E91-American-Caramel-Set-B-Dan-Murphy-PSA-2-/400849593852?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5d547f65fc

Seybold
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E91A-American-Caramel-RALPH-SEYBOLD-Athletics-VGEX-/321724244372?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ae8426194


Unglaub
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1910-E91-C-American-Caramel-Robert-Unglaub-PSA-2-/311332261833?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item487cd94fc9



TED Z
.

[ZachS]

Ted, I realize that the names are too fuzzy to read but some of them definitely look similar to me.

These 2 for example... looks like the same lettering:

http://i61.tinypic.com/2jd3tz5.jpg

[brianp-beme]

Hi Ted,

If it is Honus Wagner pictured in the strip, then this strip should just be cards from the E91C series, and thus what is seen on the strip is two examples of each of six players.

The E91A and E91B featured players from the Philadelphia A's, New York Giants and Chicago Cubs, while the E91C features players from the Washington Senators, Boston Red Sox, and the Pittsburgh Pirates.

By the way, the E91C Honus Wagner card utilizes the same image as is seen in the E91A and E91B sets as Joe Tinker, and the image seen on the E91C Walter Johnson card was originally identified as Rube Waddell in the E91A set, and as Harry Krause in the E91B set.

The makers of these sets utilized actual player.s (facial) images in creating the E91A set, and any of the E91B images that maintain the same player identification should be considered accurate (if perhaps Kewpie like) representations of the player. Any E91B card that does not maintain the same player designation, and all of the E91C set, should not be considered accurate player likenesses.

Brian

[brianp-beme]

Eww...I just looked at the strip closer, and it has to be either from the E91A or E91B sets, based upon the New York, Chicago and Philadelphia designations on their uniforms, and thus does not picture two Honus Wagners, but instead two Joe Tinkers.

Brian

[tedzan]

Eww...I just looked at the strip closer, and it has to be either from the E91A or E91B sets, based upon the New York, Chicago and Philadelphia designations on their uniforms, and thus does not picture two Honus Wagners, but instead two Joe Tinkers.

Brian


I stand corrected.....your observation is better than mine.

The A's and New York Giants were not in the "C" series. However, I thought the "Wagner" image looked like Pittsburg was on the uniform.....my mistake.

So, this is strip is a 1909 issue. I'll correct that,

Thanks again.


TED Z
.

[ZachS]

This should be John McGraw:

http://i61.tinypic.com/2jd3tz5.jpg

Unless I'm mistaken the only other player with this pose is Harry Hooper (Boston). So unless there is another New York player with this same pose, then the Wagner/Tinker card wouldn't be the only double print.

I'm fairly certain that there are other double printed cards on that strip.

[tedzan]

You are correct, it is McGraw and his card is Double-Printed.

I'm sure that thru out a large sheet of 72 cards (or more) of this series of 33 subjects there are many Double-Printed cards.

Thanx for your input.


TED Z
.

[brianp-beme]

To review: because this strip contains players from the A's, Giants and Cubs, it would have to be either from the E91A issue or the E91B issue. The players from this strip are listed below, first as how the image would be identified as if it were from the E91A set, and second the identification as if it were from the E91B set.

Listed from left to right (players names spelled exactly as on front of card):

Set E91A Set E91B

Frederick L. Hartsel / Frederick L. Hartsel
Frederick L. Hartsel / Frederick L. Hartsel
Daniel F. Murphy (2b) / Edw. Collins
Harry Davis / Harry Davis
Joseph F. Tinker / Joseph F. Tinker
John J. McGraw / John J. McGraw
Ralph O. Seybold / Dan Murphy (RF)
Daniel F. Murphy (2b) / Edw. Collins
Harry Davis / Harry Davis
Joseph F. Tinker / Joseph F. Tinker
John J. McGraw / John J. McGraw
Ralph O. Seybold / Dan Murphy (RF)

As can be seen, there are two basic differences in the lists: the 3rd and 8th player from the left are identified as Daniel F. Murphy in the E91A set, and as Edw. Collins in the E91B set, and the 7th from left as well as the last player are identified as Ralph O. Seybold in the E91A set, and as Dan Murphy in the E91B set.

Despite the blurry name designations as seen in the scan (are these guys in the witness protection program, or what? Perhaps they are, or feel they need to be, since they are included in the widely--but wrongly--despised E91 sets), I think it is fairly obvious, due to the spacing of the above mentioned player's names and inclusion of middle initial, that this strip is from the E91A issue.

By the way, the 12 card wide theory is interesting for this set. Perhaps the sheet was 12 cards wide by 11 high, thus making it a 132 card sheet, which could possibly indicate that each of the 33 cards of the E91A set were printed 4 times per sheet.

Brian

[tedzan]

By the way, the 12 card wide theory is interesting for this set. Perhaps the sheet was 12 cards wide by 11 high, thus making it a 132 card sheet, which could possibly indicate that each of the 33 cards of the E91A set were printed 4 times per sheet.

Brian


Brian

I appreciate your keen analysis of the E91 set. And, I agree that these 12 cards on this horizontal strip are representative of the E91-A series.

Also, I think your comment about this 12-card x 11 rows sheet structure certainly makes practical sense to me. For years now on this forum, I have proposed
this format (12-card wide sheet) for the T205 & T206 cards. But, I have been met with a number of naysayers. Whatever, they are entitled to their opinions.

But now, this 12-card strip may be a significant discovery, for it is the first real evidence that these advertising premiums (Tobacco or Candy) whose width is
approx. 1 1/2 inches were printed on sheets in rows of 12 cards. This fact certainly reinforces my confidence that my theory is also valid for T205's & T206's.

Illustrated here is an example of my theory as applied to T206's. It's my simulated sheet of the 12 subjects in the 460-series I refer to as the "Exclusive 12".
This arrangement of 96 cards was most likely printed on a 19" x 24" sheet diagramed here....which was a standard size cardboard sheet (circa 1908-1919).


.... v................................................. ............................................... 19" wide .................................................. ..............................................v
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/Ex12sheet96cards38x.jpg




TED Z
.

[scooter729]

Not sure if it adds much, but attached here is my 13-card strip of E91s. It follows the same layout pattern as the strip shown already, except with 3 copies of the first card at the left end.

[ZachS]

13-card strip of E91s

And the plot thickens...

I really like watching these threads unfold. It's fun reading all the different perspectives.

[DaveW]

Not sure if it adds much, ...

Wow. It certainly adds lots of questions to the mix. Did they print them in 2 or more different widths (12, 13, more)? Did they just use whatever width paper they had on hand and repeat groups of 5 and fill in another player on the left as many times as needed? It's interesting that Hartsel is the fill in player on both strips. It certainly seems that every player is double printed if every row follows this pattern. Very interesting.

[scooter729]

Ha - apologies for the naive "not sure if it'll add much" comment!

I just poked around - another 13 card strip of different cards was on eBay back in January. Followed the same pattern as mine, with 3 repeating cards on the left end.

eBay link to 13 card strip (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1908-1910-E91-AMERICAN-CARAMEL-CO-RARE-UNCUT-STRIP-OF-13-CARDS-/321611047849?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item4ae18323a9&nma=true&si=nmBBwk6fNQMpJHDDJVZuVCk1izA%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557)

[Pat R]

Not sure if it adds much, but attached here is my 13-card strip of E91s. It follows the same layout pattern as the strip shown already, except with 3 copies of the first card at the left end.

What does your 13 card strip measure Scott?


Patrick

[tedzan]

There are many examples of the "12 Factor" in the printing of the T206's. And, here is an example of the 12 Factor in play in the printing of T205's............


v................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .......... 19-inch track width press .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...........v

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



TED Z
.

[scooter729]

What does your 13 card strip measure Scott?


Patrick

I have had it framed but to the best I can tell, it measures about 19.75 inches in length.

Scott

[Pat R]

Thanks Scott Cool piece. Mile High had this 13 card strip in one of their
auctions.

[canjond]

From the looks of things, I wonder if the strip Ted posted was actually a 13 card strip, and one card was trimmed off the left border. I see how wide the other strips are on the boarder, compared to the one Ted posted. Plus, the 13 card strips start with the first 3 cards being the same, Teds starts with the first 2 being the same (hence why I'm speculating it may be one card short on the left).

[Griffins]

Not sure if this helps at all, but here are my strips. Not too close a shot, but here who is pictured:
Top strip 16 cards

Slagle, Schreckengost, Nichols, Slagle, Schreckengost, Nichols, Shulte, Collins, Slagle, Schreckengost, Nicholls, Shulte, Collins, Slagle, Schreckengost, Nichols

Bottom strip 12 cards
Overall, Overall, Evers, Bridwell, Steinfeldt, Taylor, Plank, Evers, Bridwell, Steinfelt, Taylor, Plank

http://photos.imageevent.com/griffins/companionpieces/uncutsheets/uncutsheets/large/E91.jpg

[Pat R]

Very nice Anthony, They look really sharp framed.

It looks like they were all over the place with the layouts and possibly
the size of the sheets with these.


Patrick

[tedzan]

No printed sheets of E91 cards were produced.

The E91 series were American Caramel's first venture into BB card premiums. My take on these E91's is....that they were crudely produced STRIP cards.

Consider this.... if these strips (which are quite available) were cut from sheets, we would have also seen some sheets by now. Or, at least some panels
cut from 2-dimensional sheets.


Anthony

Thanks, I think your two strips have solved this mystery.



TED Z
.

[atx840]

Great thread. Fun to figure this stuff out.

http://i.imgur.com/ujGFpM1.jpg

[tedzan]

Double post

[tedzan]

Great thread. Fun to figure this stuff out.

http://i.imgur.com/ujGFpM1.jpg


That is one sweet looking strip....thanks for posting it.

And, cut out Mr. Chase and kindly sell (or trade) it to me :)


TED Z
.

[tedzan]

Double post

[tedzan]

Ted,

What are your thoughts in regards to the T201 set?

Z wheat


Sorry for the delay in responding.

The same 19-inch printing press used for printing T205's, T206's, etc., etc., was most likely used to print the T201 cards. As I show here, 8 cards
across the sheet fit quite easily.


v................................................. ......................................... 17-inches .................................................. ........................................v

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/T201EversCollinsRuckerSpeaker9.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/T201HugginsLeachWheatFord10.jpg




TED Z
.

[steve B]

Interesting stuff. Here's a few thoughts.

The E91s would have been in sheets while being made. It's possible they were issued as strips, but wouldn't have been printed as strips. Especially if you go with a 19" press, I can't imagine the challenge of running a 19 wide by 2-5 inch high strip into a press.

Do we know the E91s were done at ALC?

Which is related to

ALC is known to have used several hoe #5 presses, which were 19 inch. But that comes from a Scientific American article about their converting to electric power and is from a shop floor layout drawing showing only one floor and possibly only one room of the overall shop.

They would have had several different size presses, anywhere from small proofing presses that would fit on an end table to really large ones much larger than 19 inches wide.


The strips shown, even the 16 card strip have no right margin. Typically a margin is used all around the printed area because the press usually doesn't print well towards the edges of the sheet. So it's not certain the sheet was only 16 cards wide. It's certain it was at least 16 wide. A fine but important distinction.
I have seen a couple cards that might indicate ALC running without a margin on one side, the one that comes to mind right off is a T201 with a diamond miscut and showing part of the left margin.

The 16 card strip doesn't preclude a 19 inch press, as it would be possible to run a sheet about 19 x 24+ the long way. That's not typical, but could be done. Modern presses aren't set up to feed a sheet in narrow end first unless you're using a larger press than the width. (It's all about the diameter of the blanket cylinder) But the old ones have a very large cylinder.
That's actually a fairly close fit for the set. it would be a 16x6 card sheet, or 96 cards -2.9 sets/sheet with one card slightly short printed. That would also work on a press a bit larger, around 25-26 wide.

Steve B

[tedzan]

Interesting stuff. Here's a few thoughts.

Do we know the E91s were done at ALC?


The 16 card strip doesn't preclude a 19 inch press, as it would be possible to run a sheet about 19 x 24+ the long way. That's not typical, but could be done.
Steve B


Thanks for chiming in here. I appreciate your expertise on printing matters.

1st....E91's (and most Candy cards) were printed in the greater Philadelphia (or York, PA) area. I have been unable to find out what printing firm produced them. Also, printed at
this same unknown Pennsy printing firm were the T216 tobacco cards (KOTTON, MINO, VIRGINIA EXTRA).

2nd....turning the printing plates 90 degrees to print a 16-card wide strip (or sheet) long-wise on a standard 19" x 24" sheet of cardboard is absolutely impractical and inefficient.

Sorry to disagree with you.


TED Z
.

[Pat R]

Mile High also had an 18 card strip in one of their auctions.

[Rob D.]

Mile High also had an 18 card strip in one of their auctions.

Take us to DEFCON 3.

[tedzan]

No printed sheets of E91 cards were produced.

The E91 series were American Caramel's first venture into BB card premiums. My take on these E91's is....that they were crudely produced STRIP cards.

Consider this.... if these strips (which are quite available) were cut from sheets, we would have also seen some sheets by now. Or, at least some panels
cut from 2-dimensional sheets.


TED Z
.


Neat looking strip. And, perhaps if we continue searching for these strips we may even find an E91 strip of 100 cards :)


So, thanks for making my point here......the E91's were printed and issued in strip form.


TED Z
.

[abothebear]

I'm confused. Is your point that the 12 card strip proves a common printing layout to your t206 theory AND that any other strip number proves a completely different one strip only layout?

I'm having trouble following with all the back and forth.

[tedzan]

I started this thread with the only E91 strip, I was aware of. And, I thought these 12-cards were representative of an actual 2-dimensional printed sheet.

As things developed here, it became obvious that my 12-card strip had been cut down from a larger printed strip. Especially, when Anthony displayed his
16-card strip.

At that point, I think it is fair to conclude that the E91 cards were printed in strip form, rather than sheet form. And, consider this.....if these strips (which
are quite available) were cut from sheets, we would have also seen some sheets by now. Or, at least some panels cut from 2-dimensional sheets.

I have enough factory-cut E91 cards to say that they were issued individually. But, it very interesting to see this many intact strips have survived 116 yrs.

In any event, I'm really glad I started this thread. From the responses here, I would say we have gained more knowledge about this not-so-popular set of
cards.



TED Z
.

[abothebear]

I agree. It is fascinating. Thanks for starting the thread!

[Pat R]

Neat looking strip. And, perhaps if we continue searching for these strips we may even find an E91 strip of 100 cards :)


So, thanks for making my point here......the E91's were printed and issued in strip form.


TED Z
.


Or perhaps we may even find a strip of Simon Nicholls SC 649 T206's:)

[tedzan]

What I find quite interesting is that we have on display here 6 strips; and, all of them appear to be from the 1st series....E91-A.

Are there any strips representing the 3rd series E91-C (Boston-AL, Pittsburg, Washington) ?


http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/honuswagnere91.jpg



TED Z
.

[Pat R]

Ted,

It looks like all of the strips in this thread plus a few more originated from
the same consigner in a mile high auction.

With the uneven cuts on some of the sides, tops, and bottoms it seems
possible they could have been cut from the same sheet.

http://www.milehighcardco.com/1908_E91_American_Caramel_Uncut_Sheet_of__18__Card-LOT8796.aspx

http://www.milehighcardco.com/Category/Baseball_1900_1919-4.html

[tedzan]

Patrick R.

Thanks for the links to this auction regarding the E91-A strips.....very interesting.

I have to differ with your referring to these (varying length) strips having been cut from (2-dimensional) sheets. This original find of 9 strips would have also included some form
of a partial (or complete) uncut sheet if these cards were indeed printed in sheet form by the Maryland Printing Co.


Now, it may be that the E91-B and E91-C series were printed in sheet form. However, no sheets (or strips) have surfaced from these two issues.


This 8-card strip of the 1943 M. P. & Co. issue is an example of BB cards printed and issued strictly in strip form. The M. P. & Co. issued a similar 8-card strip in 1949 that I recall
as a kid which were sold at candy stores as intact strips of 8 cards.
Just thought I'd bring this up so collectors can appreciate the fact that (on occasion) cards were printed and marketed strictly in strip form.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1943MedwickReeseMPx12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1943DanningDiMaggioMPx12x.jpg



TED Z
.

[Jayworld]

I've been following this post and conversation for some time with great interest, both from the conjecture side of what may/may not make up an early 20th century era printing sheet, and also the wealth of E91, T206, early 20th century cards information.

As a graphic designer with over 25 years in the design/print field, I am especially interested in the print side of the conversation, so much so, that I have inquired within the print field to those with 50+ years of print experience and knowledge into early printing processes. I found it interesting that printers agree that cards of this era would NOT have been printed as strips, but rather on sheets and then those sheets cut into strips. Printing on strips would have been unfeasible for many reasons, including the most important: registration. The smaller a sheet is, the more movement can occur in the printing process. Those that collect T206 (or other) scrap are well aware of the movement of the sheets between printing of plates. Just because a sheet of E91 cards does not exist (as of yet) does not mean that sheets were NOT printed. T206 sheets (as far as we know) no longer exist (or have yet to be found), but that does not mean that the T206 cards were not printed on sheets.

A typical print press sheet of today measures 28" x 40." Larger print shops/companies can run even larger sheets. Presses were not as large as 28" x 40" in the early 20th century, and offset printing was first manual, then automatic later with the proliferation of electricity, etc.

The T206 cards were printed in 6 colors. I am amazed as to the quality control of these cards, over 100 years later, as the majority are registered extremely well, all things considered.

[steve B]

Presses in the 1910 era were often just as large as the ones we have today. They were slower, but only when comparing types.

Here's a Hoe company press from 1879 that has a max image area of 35.25 x 24. http://www.howardironworks.org/collection/sp-r-hoe-stonepress-1879.html

This article - Page 62 if the link doesn't go directly to the page- Give details of Hoe company display at the St Louis worlds fair in 1904. They mention a Hoe #3 Lithographic press that's got a 31 1/2 x 43 bed.

https://books.google.com/books?id=iskpAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA8-PA62&lpg=RA8-PA62&dq=Hoe+lithographic+press&source=bl&ots=9bbHIw57iy&sig=YdlXL4C_2gr-JX2bOG5sEyo-TW8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Awc5VcvqCsvXsAWplICADw&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Hoe%20lithographic%20press&f=false


I'll post pics later of some other articles from about then, one an ad showing the stone size of a Hoe number 5 as 40x60 the other a brief mention of ALC installing a Hoe two color litho press in about 1897.

Steve B

[steve B]

Thanks for chiming in here. I appreciate your expertise on printing matters.

1st....E91's (and most Candy cards) were printed in the greater Philadelphia (or York, PA) area. I have been unable to find out what printing firm produced them. Also, printed at
this same unknown Pennsy printing firm were the T216 tobacco cards (KOTTON, MINO, VIRGINIA EXTRA).

2nd....turning the printing plates 90 degrees to print a 16-card wide strip (or sheet) long-wise on a standard 19" x 24" sheet of cardboard is absolutely impractical and inefficient.

Sorry to disagree with you.


TED Z
.


Thanks Ted,

1 - That makes sense, the packing was more local than ATCs multiple plants. It would be interesting to see what the company used if we ever find out the company name. A good search of old printing magazines should turn up a few possibilities.

2 - Yes, impractical, inefficient, so unlikely. But probably possible. Possible as I use it is in the technical sense, with no implication as to whether it's either likely or a good idea. (Like it's possible I could hit a major league fastball, but extremely unlikely.:) )

As I've looked for more info, I've found that Hoe company made presses ranging from number 1 through at least number 5 maybe 6 with a few half sizes. They also numbered their letterpress presses with the same numbers. Some stuff I've just seen indicates the Hoe #5 Litho press was far larger than 19" And even the #3 was a big one.

Steve B

[steve B]

From "national lithographer" vol 28 an ad showing the maximum stone size of the Hoe number 5 and 3 lithographic presses.


http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=18100

From "aluminum world" volumes 4-6 --vol 6 number 3 December 1899. A brief mention of a two color litho press using aluminum plates being installed at ALC. The first mention I've seen of ALC actually having a two color press, which I've suspected they might have had and used for some of the card issues.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=18101

So there were a lot of big presses out there.

Steve B

[Paul S]

...

I found it interesting that printers agree that cards of this era would NOT have been printed as strips, but rather on sheets and then those sheets cut into strips. Printing on strips would have been unfeasible for many reasons, including the most important: registration...

Which would be the reason why I used to own the below example (and many other M. P. & Co. cards) that look just like this:

[tedzan]

From "national lithographer" vol 28 an ad showing the maximum stone size of the Hoe number 5 and 3 lithographic presses.


http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=18100

From "aluminum world" volumes 4-6 --vol 6 number 3 December 1899. A brief mention of a two color litho press using aluminum plates being installed at ALC. The first mention I've seen of ALC actually having a two color press, which I've suspected they might have had and used for some of the card issues.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=18101

So there were a lot of big presses out there.

Steve B


Of course American Lithographic operated presses of varying sizes. The large presses listed here were primarily employed for large advertising posters, artworks, murals, etc.

Anyhow, its my understanding that for small-size, 6-color jobs (i.e., T205's, T206's, T209's, T213's, etc.), 19" presses were optimum for producing higher quality resolution
plus greater product yields.

And I will remind you, that you were the one who originally informed us that the standard size sheets available (circa 1909-1911) were 19" x 24".

Look, I'm not the experienced printer as you are, but I have read a lot about printing practices. And, I don't see T206's having been printed on any of those large size presses
listed here which were limited to a 2-color printing process.


TED Z
.

[Jayworld]

Just surmising here, but with the amount of work and time that Ted and others have put in towards discovering how turn-of-the-century cards were printed, and in light of the fact that (to my small knowledge) that whole sheets have yet to turn up, is it possible, based upon the large number of T-206 collectors on this form, and with all the incredible knowledge that you all have, to actually reconstruct a "dummy" print sheet of T-206 cards, or similar? I know in several past posts there have been an incredibly array of knowledge and scans brought forth about matching up hypothetical printed sheet sections based upon, but not limited to, the following:

1. Calculated random print marks on the backs of certain tobacco cards that line up correctly when the cards are arranged correctly
2. Mis-cuts resulting in cards with portions of other cards contained therein
3. "Two-name" cards due to printer mis-cut

Just wondering, and as always, I bow to the incredible knowledge that so many of you have regarding our wonderful hobby.

[steve B]

My comments in blue

[QUOTE=tedzan;1404412]Of course American Lithographic operated presses of varying sizes. The large presses listed here were primarily employed for large advertising posters, artworks, murals, etc.

Anyhow, its my understanding that for small-size, 6-color jobs (i.e., T205's, T206's, T209's, T213's, etc.), 19" presses were optimum for producing higher quality resolution
plus greater product yields.

One of the limits to production is how many sheets could be fed per day. That limit was the same for most presses, both large and small. I've finally seen a hard stat on that and the manually fed presses were limited by the human feeder to 12-15 thousand sheets a day. Unless the individual items were a full sheet, higher yields come from larger sheets. I'd done some math in the past based on Scot Readers estimates of production, and with a 19x24 sheet they wouldn't have enough hours in three years to print all the cards from one press, and even two would have been a stretch. Doubling the size to 38x48 would allow them to produce four times as many cards. Quality would be the same. Most of the large posters of the time have few problems with quality.

And I will remind you, that you were the one who originally informed us that the standard size sheets available (circa 1909-1911) were 19" x 24".

That was one standard size, based on the assumed 19 inch width. And, as you've said running it through narrow end first was bad practice. I'm becoming less convinced that a 19 inch press was used based on calculating how many hours the overall job would take. Halving Scots upper estimate and going with six colors plus the back the time would be a bit over 128 weeks just in running time for a 96 card sheet. I'm not sure how much to add for setup, I cant think that moving the stones was any sort of quick process. So figure two presses being used, which still puts it at probably around two years nonstop. They probably didn't run a 7 day week. About 29% less production, Add two more colors like on many of the cards, and that's another 20%+ reduction. I guess it would have taken four presses that size dedicated to nothing but T206s for the entire time between 1909 and 1911. ALC could have done it, but a job that size would make more sense on a larger press.


Look, I'm not the experienced printer as you are, but I have read a lot about printing practices. And, I don't see T206's having been printed on any of those large size presses
listed here which were limited to a 2-color printing process.

The presses listed here were not limited to a 2 color process. The Hoe #5 and #3 lithographic presses were nearly identical to the one in the pictures I linked to. They could print one color at a time. So even going with the normally accepted 6 colors, plus a back, producing a complete sheet would have taken seven individual runs.
The two color press in the article shown was capable of printing two colors simultaneously And I believe it's somewhat likely a similar press was used for some of the cards.


Either way, we've drifted away from E91s, and missed the point of the 18 card strip which has a left margin, but no right margin. Meaning either the PA printer didn't run with a margin on one side, or it's still not "complete" at 18 cards.
Were they printed as strips? I can't imagine they were. Strips cut from sheets seems more likely.
Were they issued as strips? The back of the card says "one of which is wrapped with every piece of baseball caramel. " Barring some sort of promotion like saving so many wrappers to get a strip or the strips being used as a part of a store display I have to go with what the cards say.

I must say I admire the work you've put into all these sets. Without it there would be a lot more confusion. I do wish there'd be a bit more open mindedness, but if sticking with groups of 12 and 19 inches eliminates confusion for you that's probably best. I'm still on the fence about both, as you've found some very convincing groups that seem to work well. I wish for the same things from the 17 camp, so don't take it as just you. :)

Steve B

[tedzan]

My comments in blue

One of the limits to production is how many sheets could be fed per day. That limit was the same for most presses, both large and small. I've finally seen a hard stat on that and the manually fed presses were limited by the human feeder to 12-15 thousand sheets a day. Unless the individual items were a full sheet, higher yields come from larger sheets. I'd done some math in the past based on Scot Readers estimates of production, and with a 19x24 sheet they wouldn't have enough hours in three years to print all the cards from one press, and even two would have been a stretch. Doubling the size to 38x48 would allow them to produce four times as many cards. Quality would be the same. Most of the large posters of the time have few problems with quality.

And I will remind you, that you were the one who originally informed us that the standard size sheets available (circa 1909-1911) were 19" x 24".


Steve

Scot Reader in his book "Inside T206" estimated 10 Million T206's were produced between 1909 to the Spring of 1911. I think that number is pretty well in the "ball park".
I'll start with my Exclusive 12 example of a simulated sheet of 96 cards. For simplicity of numbers, I will round off this figure to a 100-card sheet. So, let's do the math.....

10,000,000 / 100 card sheet = 100K sheets

Spring 1909 >> Spring 1911 = 400 working days x 24 hours (3 shifts) = 9.6K hours

100K sheets / 9.6K hours = 10.4 sheets production per hour

I am sure that American Lithographic ran several 19" lithographic presses simultaneously in this operation. And, allowing for intervals of the 6-color process to dry, would
result in a rate of printing several T206 sheets per day per press. Therefore, production of 10 Million T206 cards over a period of 24 months was very workable.


.... v................................................. ................................. 19" wide x 24" long sheet .................................................. .................................v
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/Ex12sheet96cards38x.jpg




I must say I admire the work you've put into all these sets. Without it there would be a lot more confusion. I do wish there'd be a bit more open mindedness, but if sticking with groups of 12 and 19 inches eliminates confusion for you that's probably best. I'm still on the fence about both, as you've found some very convincing groups that seem to work well. I wish for the same things from the 17 camp, so don't take it as just you. :)




Steve

I truly appreciate these kind words of your's. As you know, I'm an Electronics Engineer, and I have to see mathematical congruence in these studies. And, the factor of 12
is replete within the various series that make up the T206 structure. Alternative proposed printing formats suggested by others on this forum fail to mathematically map in
to the T206 structure.
Furthermore, the 12 factor also fits into certain structures of the T205's. Example....the 12 subjects in the Minor League group. My T205 study is still a work in progress.


TED Z
.

[steve B]

From the centennial edition. Page 26-27 http://www.oldcardboard.com/t/t206/insidet206-centennial-edition.pdf

"Using the one billion production number for Piedmont cigarettes in 1910 as a marker, one can extrapolate a T206 circulation in the neighborhood of 370 million. In particular, it is known that there were 10 cigarettes in a Piedmont pack, and that a typical Piedmont pack contained one T206 card. Assuming pack-only distribution of Piedmont cigarettes, and further assuming every Piedmont pack had a T206 card, the number of Piedmont-backed T206 cards produced in 1910 is estimable at about 100 million. Furthermore, it is known that approximately half of all T206 cards have a Piedmont reverse. Thus, one can surmise that the total number of T206s produced in 1910 was in the neighborhood of 200 million. Assuming an additional seven months of production in 1909 and three months in 1911 at equivalent rates to the 1910production, the total production estimate for T206 cards nearly doubles to a whopping 370 million!
On the other hand, actual circulation may well have been considerably lower. It has been reported that in 1910 and 1911 bird and fish subjects were distributed in some Old Mill, Piedmont, Sovereign and Sweet Caporal packs instead of baseball subjects. This would likely have meaningfully reduced the number of T206 cards circulated.

I went with half the high end, 185 million. And the high end of the daily output for a hand fed press. 15000/day
185000000 /96 = 1927083.33 sheets.
1927083.33 x 7 colors = 13489583 impressions
13489583 / 15000 sheets/day = 899.3 days of press time. (2.46 years, actually just about right........except.........

That's not counting time for setup, maintainance, and assorted other problems. Or a slower feeder only doing 12K sheets a day. Or the higher end of the estimate being accurate.

Multiple presses for sure.


I wonder - Are the approximate sales of American Caramel known? Maybe we can figure backwards to a possible print run for the E91s from that.

Steve B

[Leon]

From the centennial edition. Page 26-27 http://www.oldcardboard.com/t/t206/insidet206-centennial-edition.pdf

"Using the one billion production number for Piedmont cigarettes in 1910 as a marker, one can extrapolate a T206 circulation in the neighborhood of 370 million. In particular, it is known that there were 10 cigarettes in a Piedmont pack, and that a typical Piedmont pack contained one T206 card. Assuming pack-only distribution of Piedmont cigarettes, and further assuming every Piedmont pack had a T206 card, the number of Piedmont-backed T206 cards produced in 1910 is estimable at about 100 million. Furthermore, it is known that approximately half of all T206 cards have a Piedmont reverse. Thus, one can surmise that the total number of T206s produced in 1910 was in the neighborhood of 200 million. Assuming an additional seven months of production in 1909 and three months in 1911 at equivalent rates to the 1910production, the total production estimate for T206 cards nearly doubles to a whopping 370 million!
On the other hand, actual circulation may well have been considerably lower. It has been reported that in 1910 and 1911 bird and fish subjects were distributed in some Old Mill, Piedmont, Sovereign and Sweet Caporal packs instead of baseball subjects. This would likely have meaningfully reduced the number of T206 cards circulated.

I went with half the high end, 185 million. And the high end of the daily output for a hand fed press. 15000/day
185000000 /96 = 1927083.33 sheets.
1927083.33 x 7 colors = 13489583 impressions
13489583 / 15000 sheets/day = 899.3 days of press time. (2.46 years, actually just about right........except.........

That's not counting time for setup, maintainance, and assorted other problems. Or a slower feeder only doing 12K sheets a day. Or the higher end of the estimate being accurate.

Multiple presses for sure.


I wonder - Are the approximate sales of American Caramel known? Maybe we can figure backwards to a possible print run for the E91s from that.

Steve B

I haven't seen production numbers for American Caramel though they might exist somewhere....

[Pat R]

With the existing 31 x 23 1/2 Obak sheet and the 18 card E91A strip (approximately 27 inches) I think it would be fair to consider with production
estimates of 200-370 million that T206's were printed on sheets at least
as large as these.

[tedzan]

We have gone thru this numerous times in past threads over the years.

You cannot compare Schmidt Lithographic's (San Francisco) printing methods and machinery used to produce the OBAK's with
American Lithographic's (NYC) printing methods & machinery that produced the T206's, T205's, T209's, T210's, T211's, T213's,
T214's and T215's.

Where is your evidence that supports you making this claim ?

Furthermore, mathematically speaking, tell us how your "17" (or whatever) format maps into the following T206 structures ? ?


150 Series
-------------
150-only group = 12 subjects
150/350 series = 144 subjects

350-only series = 204 subjects
------------------

350/460 series = 60 subjects....plus the 6 super-prints (which were usually Double-Printed)
------------------

460-only series
------------------
Exclusive 12 group = 12 subjects
Subjects printed only with 460 type backs = 36

Southern Lgrs. = 48 subjects
-----------------



Hey guys............
It does not require Rocket Science to see that the common denominator in all these Series structures is a factor of 12.



TED Z
.

[tedzan]

Illustrated here is my concept of a 12 x 8 rows arrangement of the 66 subjects that we know American Litho printed together on one sheet. Note the 6 super-prints are shown Double-Printed.
I intended to Double-Print all 72 cards on a longer sheet comprising of 144 cards. But, the Net54 scan limit per post is 18 scans....therefore, only 108 cards are depicted.

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

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/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



TED Z
.

[Pat R]

Ted,
Where did I ever mention 17 ? Actually I think they were printed on a few different size sheets but that's just my opinion and your 12 factor is no different. It's a number that only fits in a few places without forcing it to fit.


Patrick

[tedzan]

Ted,
Where did I ever mention 17 ?

Patrick

In another thread, you posted a diagram that shows 17 cards across your hypothetical sheet. In this thread, you first jump onto 13, then 16, and then 18 cards. So, which is it ?




Actually I think they were printed on a few different size sheets but that's just my opinion and your 12 factor is no different. It's a number that only fits in a few places without forcing it to fit.

Patrick


Well, I guess we will have to go thru this drill once more............

150 Series
-------------
150-only group = 12 subjects
150/350 series = 144 subjects/12 = 12

350-only series = 204 subjects/12 = 17
------------------

350/460 series = 60 subjects/12 = 5
------------------
Plus, the 6 super-prints (Double-Printed)

460-only series
------------------
Exclusive 12 group = 12 subjects
Printed only with 460 type backs = 36 subjects/12 = 3

Southern Lgrs. = 48 subjects/12 = 4
-----------------


Yes, the 12 factor is my opinion, and it's based on my research from completing 6 - T206 sets (minus the "Big 3") during the past 35 years.

And, as demonstrated in the above analysis, it does not get any closer than this. Every Series (or group) in the T206 set is some factor of 12.
This is not by coincidence, it is in the design.

So, I do not understand where you are coming from with a remark like that ? Unless you are deliberately ignoring (or do not understand) the
inherent mathematical realities in each of the Series in the T206 structure.


TED Z
.

[abothebear]

Ted, I don't think you are doing yourself, or your theory, any favors by the way you engage others here.

When Pat said, "With the existing 31 x 23 1/2 Obak sheet and the 18 card E91A strip (approximately 27 inches) I think it would be fair to consider with production estimates of 200-370 million that T206's were printed on sheets at least as large as these." he is making a reasonable statement. Your response to him, though couched in logical terms, was illogical (and ironic considering your criticism of his statement about comparing different printers is the same kind of statement you made when you started this thread).

And continually re-posting your factor of 12 math and your photoshop pictures doesn't advance the discussion at all. We ALL understand the 12 commonality. It is insulting to keep banging that same drum as if that proves something. It doesn't prove anything. It is a reasonable theory that fits some evident patterns, but 12 has always been a significant number from grouping, going back to Genesis 35. There can be any number of reasons why the 12 commonality exists having nothing to do with the printing process. Perhaps the printing process is the driver about the numbers, but perhaps it isn't.

Your pattern may work, and it may end up being the actual pattern. But it may not. We don't know. And to act like the discussion is over because you found a good pattern does damage to your credibility as a reasonable thinker. And ridiculing other people's perfectly reasonable speculations makes you sound like you are more interested in your own reputation than you are interested in the truth.

I like the 12 theory. But your treatment of others and your lack of respect for the discussion are pushing me to a place of hoping that the sheet layout is eventually proved to be anything but that. Maybe you don't care, but if you want people to congratulate you if your theory gets vindicated some day, you may want to ease up on the combative way you defend and promote your theory. We all know your theory, and we all know the amount of work you put into it. Let it stand on its own merits.

[tedzan]

Thanks for chiming in here. You claim to like my "12 theory". And, I posted (in Post # 58) an analysis of the T206 Series structures that supports this theory.
Therefore, I have this question for you, instead of being critical of me, why aren't you criticizing Pat for making the following remark ?

Ted,
..... but that's just my opinion and your 12 factor is no different. It's a number that only fits in a few places without forcing it to fit.
Patrick

Darn it, the 12 factor fits into every Series of the T206 structure....these numbers don't lie. Therefore, it is Pat who making the "ridiculing" remark.


TED Z
.

[Pat R]

OK Ted, Here's a list of backs that are considered complete and don't
contain Wagner and/or Plank where sheets printed in rows of 12 don't fit.

460-PD 350
250-Polar Bear
215-Sov 350 Forest Green
190-AB 350 Frame, Cycle 350
150-Sov 150
109-Cycle 460, PD 350-460 25, SC 350-460 42OP
102-Hindu Brown
69-SC 350-460 25
66-Sov 350 Apple Green
52-Sov 460, SC 350-460 30
37 AB No Frame
34 Hindu SL, SC 150 649

[Jason]

Not to get off topic here as I do not have any information to add to the discussion. I see T210's are being grouped into this printing discussion. Within the 3rd Series of this set there is a 20 card subset of Orange Borders. 20 different players/cards that missed a color pass, or one of the ink wells was running dry. I assume all 20 players had to be on the same sheet. I think that could be a clue into this whole thing but I could be wrong.

[tedzan]

If anything else, what we have learned from this thread (before it went off on other tangents), printers resort to many DOUBLE-PRINTS (D-P), or even TRIPLE-PRINTS to fill out a sheet of cards.

What your various T206 back lists identify is the number of SUBJECTS, but what they do NOT account for is the number of DOUBLE-PRINTED cards of these subjects on a particular sheet.

For examples......

The 34 - HINDU Southern Leaguer subjects may have been printed on a basic 36-card sheet with 2 Southern Leaguers have been D-P (or instance Revelle and Shaughnessy are 2 guys that
have greater population numbers).

DITTO for the 34 - SWEET CAP 150, F#649 subjects. Matty (white cap) and Johnson are likely candidates for D-P. So are Davis, Marquard, and Powers.

And, take this from my experience completing an all-SOVEREIGN set....the 66 apple green subjects (which include the 6 super-prints) were most likely printed on a 72-card (or larger) sheet
because the 6 super prints were D-P.

I know this for a fact, since in the process of putting together this particular group I found more of these super-prints than the other 60 subjects in this Series. Here is my simulated sheet of
these 66 guys......


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


TED Z
.

[Pat R]

OK I think I got it now. The sheets for the 17 backs I listed all had double
or triple prints on them but the 48 OM SL's didn't.

[tedzan]

The printing of the Old Mill and Southern Leaguers (SL) is a complicated matter.

For instance, the 34 subjects that initially were printed with the Hindu backs are more available with Old Mill backs than their Piedmont versions.
Conversely, the 14 - SL subjects (includes the six Texas Lgrs.) that were not printed with the Hindu backs are more available with the Piedmont
backs than their Old Mill versions.

This complexity between these two groups makes for a challenging situation to try and figure out what the printing scheme was for the Old Mill
and Piedmont versions of the 48 - SL guys.


TED Z
.