T206 Doyle N.Y. +++ let's see your "Y" and "."
 

I know :o there are a variety of printings of the N.Y. of Doyle out there.

Just perusing my set, and realized I have a slight one --- missing most of the right branch of the Y. The "." is faint, but is still there.

Hardly earth shattering, but :)

Attachment 278892

Attachment 278893

If anyone has any others, let's see them.

Fun stuff, Scott :rolleyes:

When I look at my example, I thought "some kid back in 1910 got mad because Joe Doyle pitches for NY American League!" and then scratched off NAT'L

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=22798

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=22799

I sent the card off to my son-in-law (who is a scientist), and he took a picture for me under magnification.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=22797

I posted these pictures before. Everyone who responded said "no way", but I still see something there.....

Larry

I just got this DOYLE, N.Y. .

It has a small mark that seems to be all that is left from the NAT'L that was removed from the printing plate. This is as close as I'll ever come to owning a Doyle error card. :p

I'm sorry for the poor scan. The mark is quite noticeable in person.

Attachment 319847 Attachment 319848

Congrats on the pickup Sean.

Here's a better scan of your new card and a crop of the caption area.

Attachment 319851Attachment 319855

Hi Sean

I acquired one of these Joe Doyle cards 12 years ago. I refer to them as the "poor man's Joe Doyle Nat'l" card. I posted this Joe Doyle "printer's mark" in this 2007 thread...... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...slow+joe+doyle

Over the years, I have run a survey on this "printer's mark" (200+ T206 Joe Doyle cards), and if I recall correctly approx. 6 % of these cards exhibit this mark.
I will dig up my survey and post it.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...sMark75x_2.jpg



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Hi Pat, and thank you so much for the enhanced scan. After I retire and have a lot more time I'm going to get a new scanner and learn how to really use a computer. Until then I appreciate all the help that I can get. :D

Ted, do all these "poor man's Doyle Nat'l" cards have a Piedmont back? That would make sense.

Hi Sean

The Joe Doyle card was printed with seven T-brand backs, this "printer's mark" appears with 4 of them. Here's my old survey from 5 years ago
with 282 unique samples.

I am still searching for my more recent Joe Doyle survey (300+ samples) which indicates approx. 6 % of these cards with this "printer's mark".


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...350xSOV350.jpg
Printer's Mark....................l.... (remnant of "N" in Nat'L)



UPDATED as of Feb 6, 2013


T-brand.............Mark.....No-Mark

Piedmont 350........10............90

Sweet Cap 350.......7...........122

Polar Bear..............3............20

Old Mill..................1.............7

Sovereign 350.........0...........14

Tolstoi....................0.............5

EPDG.....................0.............1

Unknown back.........0.............2
____________________________

Totals................. 21 ........ 261



Joe Doyle cards with this printer's mark = 21/282 = 7.4 %



If anyone on this forum has not previously reported their Joe Doyle card with (or without) this printer's mark,
your input to this survey would be really appreciated.

And, please identify the T-brand back of your card.

Thanks,


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Ted, does this indicate that the backs were not printed consecutively, but rather in a more random fashion? If only 10 % of Piedmonts bear this mark, then the plate must have been corrected after the first 10% were printed. But if a few Sweet Caporals and Old Mills have the mark, then they would have been printed after the 10% of the Piedmonts, but before the 90% that don't have the mark.

So the printers didn't just print all Piedmonts, then all Sweet Caporals, the all Old Mills, etc.?

Joe Doyle "printer's mark"
 

Sean

I'm not quite sure I understand your question here. But, I'll say this.....my research indicates that through-out the printing of the various series, American Litho (ALC) printed
the PIEDMONT backs first (since it was the "flagship brand" of ATC). Followed by SWEET CAPORAL, then the other brands as requests to ALC arrived from the various Tobacco
Factories. From my survey data, it appears that the EPDG, SOVEREIGN, and Tolstoi backs were printed after the printer's mark was completely cleaned off the printing plate.

I found my updated Joe Doyle "printer's mark" survey; and, I will include it in my next post.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Sean/Ted, I don't think that the Doyle with this mark would have been
corrected or "cleaned off".

We have learned over the years that most if not all T206 sheets were
printed with multiples of the same subject in vertical columns meaning
only a certain percent of the Doyles would have the extra part of the letter
on it. For example I will use one of the plate scratch sheets and substitute
Larry Doyle as an example.

The plate scratches have established that this sheet is at least 15 wide
by 11 high (I think it was actually bigger but I need more evidence to
support that) so if the Joe Doyle that had the mark was on a similar
sheet lets say it was the fourth vertical subject from the bottom of the sheet
only one out of every 11 Doyles that were printed from that sheet would have that mark
without factoring in any other things that could affect the %'s.

Attachment 319989

When print flaw is found on a non Piedmont back it's found in much
higher %'s. I will post a detailed explanation one reason I think this
might be when I have more time.

Joe Doyle "printer's mark"
 

Hi Pat

Pardon me, but I'm not sure I understand why you have identified the Larry Doyle card in your diagram.

How does it connect with the Joe Doyle card which we are discussing ?
Please explain.


TED Z
.

Ted, Pat is using Larry Doyle as an example of his theory. I think that his explanation makes perfect sense. It explains why a few Joe Doyle cards continued to be printed with that printer's mark with Sweet Caporal or Old Mill backs, while the majority of earlier printed Piedmont backed Doyles don't have the mark.

To summarize: there were multiple Joe Doyles on a sheet, therefore there were multiple plates featuring Joe Doyle. One of these plates had this remnant of the Nat'l designation on it, while the rest of the Joe Doyle plates didn't have the mark. So one of every eleven or so Doyles would bear this mark, while the others from the same sheet wouldn't have it.

Thus a few Piedmonts would have the mark, while the rest wouldn't. Then the Sweet Caporals would be printed, and one Joe Doyle per sheet would have the mark, while the others wouldn't. Same with the Old Mills.

I think that Pat is right, and he certainly answered my question.

Joe Doyle "printer's mark"
 

OK guys, here's the latest results of my 10-year survey on the Joe Doyle "printer's mark".



http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...350xSOV350.jpg
Printer's Mark....................l.... (remnant of "N" in Nat'L)



UPDATED in January 2018.


T-brand.............Mark.....No-Mark

Piedmont 350........10..........126

Sweet Cap 350.......7...........134

Polar Bear..............4............29

Old Mill..................1.............7

Sovereign 350.........0...........15

Tolstoi....................0.............6

EPDG.....................0.............2

Unknown back.........0.............2
____________________________

Totals.................. 22 ........ 321



Joe Doyle cards with this printer's mark = 22/343 = 6.4 %



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Hi Ted,

As Sean pointed out I was just using Larry Doyle from a known plate
scratch sheet layout as an example of why different backs would have
the flaw and why the % would be different.

There are a few different Joe Doyle flaws that were created when they
removed the NAT'L and each one would have come from a different
position on the sheet.

here are a couple other Joe Doyle flaws

There's this one where part of the Y and the period got removed along
with the NAT'L

Attachment 319999Attachment 320004

and this one missing the bottom of the Y so it looks like N.V. instead of
N.Y.

Attachment 320002

all of the "N.V." examples also have the same darker blue spot
above his right arm here are two different Sov 350's examples

Attachment 320000 Attachment 320001

each of the different Doyle flaws would have come from a different position on
the sheet.

Doyle Back Run
 

I'm 1 card away from finishing a Doyle back run. My Sovereign has the same dot. My Old Mill is missing part of the "Y" in New York and doesn't have a period after the "Y". 0/7 on the dot.

Edit: upon closer examination, my Sovereign is the 2nd one that Pat just posted haha.

Hi Pat

What are you referring to by this......
"all of the "N.V." examples also have the same darker blue spot
above his right arm here are two different Sov 350's examples"


Incidentally, I currently have 5 cards of Joe Doyle (PIEDMONT 350, SWEET CAP 350, two SOVEREIGN 350, and a PIEDMONT 350 with the "printer's mark".
Furthermore, I recently have sold two SOVEREIGN 350 cards of Doyle. None of these 7 cards have the darker blue dot above his right arm. How often does
this dot appear on the Doyle cards ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I haven't done a data sheet on the N.V. variation but when I get a
chance I will and I'll post it here.

The darker blue spot is the one I've circled it's on all of the N.V. variations
that I've seen so far.

I just did a quick check and found a third sovereign 350 and a SC350/30
N.V. variation out of the first ten Doyle's I looked at and both have the dark
blue spot.

Attachment 320034Attachment 320035

Attachment 320036Attachment 320037

Thanks Pat

So, the dark spot appears only on Joe Doyle cards with the N. V. error in the caption.


TED Z
.

Joe Doyle EPDG
 

If anyone has a Joe Doyle EPDG please PM me. Love to finish my back run.

That's correct Ted.

I did some research on the N.V. and these are the numbers I came up
with. The ones with an asterisk I didn't account any cards that might
have been sold more than once because it would take to long to
go through several pages and try and pick those out.


When I have time I'll do the numbers on the other variations but
from what I saw doing the research on this one it shows up the
least of all of them.

Attachment 320062
Attachment 320063