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

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/tedzan7...2cardStrip.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
.

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?

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.

Dave
 

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
.

T201
 

Ted,

What are your thoughts in regards to the T201 set?

Z wheat

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

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...2cardStrip.jpg

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

Hi Zach
 

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
.

Follow-up examples
 

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-Ame...item5d547f65fc

Seybold
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E91A-Am...item4ae8426194


Unglaub
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1910-E91-C-A...item487cd94fc9



TED Z
.

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

E91C strip
 

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

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

Hi 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
.

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.

Hi Zach
 

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
.

Strip identified
 

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

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/tedzan7...96cards38x.jpg




TED Z
.

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.

And the plot thickens...

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

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.

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

What does your 13 card strip measure Scott?


Patrick

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/...pscfdc1d32.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps4227030d.jpg

http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps45044fae.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps33d8cfb3.jpg



TED Z
.

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

Scott

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

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).

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/griffin.../large/E91.jpg

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

Pat R
 

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
.

Original 12-card horizontal E91 strip from uncut sheet reveals 1909 printing ...
 

Great thread. Fun to figure this stuff out.

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

Deleted
 

Double post

Hi Chris
 

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
.

Deleted
 

Double post

Hi Zach
 

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/tedzan7...erSpeaker9.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...heatFord10.jpg




TED Z
.

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

Steve
 

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
.

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

Take us to DEFCON 3.

Hey 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
.

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.

George
 

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
.

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

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

Hey guys......
 

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/d...swagnere91.jpg



TED Z
.

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_E...d-LOT8796.aspx

http://www.milehighcardco.com/Catego...00_1919-4.html

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/tedzan7...eeseMPx12x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ggioMPx12x.jpg



TED Z
.

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.

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/colle...ress-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=is...0press&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

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

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...ictureid=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...ictureid=18101

So there were a lot of big presses out there.

Steve B

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: