Quote:
Originally Posted by toppcat
"Comparing to Look n See, which is the nearest set in time with these dimensions, suggests a possible print array of 11 x 11 for 121 cards the size of a single Red Back. If you take 20 possible Teams and Connie Macks, that takes 40 slots and we add 52 to get to 92, so some would be double printed so there is room."
Intriguingly, Scoop, issued after Look n See, may have been produced in a 13 x 12 array (156 cards), which if you double print all the Red Backs (104 slots) and single print the Connie Macks and Teams (40) and add it all up, you get to 144 with 12 slots left over, so maybe a half dozen Red Back panels were triple prints.
I have no data on double prints in the Red Backs but I know there are some thoughts out there on how the short prints work in the Connie Macks and Teams. The cards were die cut (except Teams), with Red Backs being rounded on the corners and Connie Macks scored to allow the punchout of the player to work. That would probably play into how the sheets were arranged as those are two different processes.
Blue Backs and Major League All Stars could also have been produced on the same sheet then but without the Teams, which do not come with blue reverses.
|
Dave - Any use of math in an explanation kind of disorients me, as a dysarithmetic, but I'm trying to follow your analysis of possible sheet layouts.
Are you suggesting that the 51 Topps sheets were necessarily either 11x11" or 13x12"? I'm wondering how the blue-ink sheets might have been arranged. Since you would have a 52-count series of Bluebacks on a sheet with - what?- either 11 Major League All-Stars, or 8 of those, depending on whether or not the three Philly scarcities were included, how would that comport with your thoughts on the sheet dimensions?