Quote:
Originally Posted by topcat61
I seem to remember that American Litho used a Hoe & Co Litho printer so you can find out the dimensions of the sheets the printer used. I dont see it being any different that the Schmidt Litho's Obak sheet...and for that we do know of a few complete sheets. I might be possible to examine that sheet to figure out a proper dimension of tobacco cards.
|
A few people have been working on that for some time.
Hoe & co made a wide variety of presses, and ALC was pretty closely aligned with them.
There's a Scientific American article on electrification in industry that shows a floor plan of one section of ALC using Hoe #5 presses.
But that's only one section, using one press. ALC had more areas, and almost certainly used more than one size press.
The place I worked at was tiny, and we had five presses four different, and three different sizes.
Add in that the presses can run smaller sheets if necessary. For example, the 35" press I ran (briefly) could easily run a 24" wide sheet, or even an 8x10... Not that we would, as that would be pretty silly. But if for instance we had a critical job and the little press that ran 8 1/2 x 11 sheets was broken it could be done.
There have been different approaches taken to trying to determine sheet size.
Examining the lists of prints/no prints and groups that are uncommon and have a similar uncommonness between cards in the group. Then seeing what number might divide into it evenly. The current leaders are 17 and 12, as there are groups of 34 and groups of 12/24/48 - Not yet conclusive as some similar groups are divisible by both - southern leaguers may have been done on one or two sheets 12 or 24 cards wide(Or other sizes) for Piedmont, but on a 17 or 34 card wide sheet for OM and Hindu. Or all of the above.....
Keeping a list of cards found with one name in the usual spot and a different name at the top. (Proves that for some backs,
Keeping a list of cards with large factory numbers at the bottom or side. (Helps indicate how many different sheets were done for a large group)
For P150, Pat has done an amazing job of extending the study of cards showing a plate scratch on the back. I started it but essentially stopped when he shared a bunch of scans with me and I realized he was so far ahead of me I'd never catch up. I was gathering scans from Ebay and other sources, while he was actually getting the cards too. He had about twice as many as I had found scans for.
We now know at least 2 P150 sheets fairly well, the width is fairly certain, and we have a decent idea of the height.
Given that Plating some stamps from the 1850's took decades and the sheet size was already known, And that Pat has mostly figured out horizontal plate size and what players were in what column in just a few years, I consider this one of the most impressive hobby feats I've seen in any hobby.
I had to bold that.
None of that gives us a definitive sheet size. The cutting in that era was also a lot more variable. American Beautys are generally very narrow, but a few are normal width. At the same time, there are cards that are other brands that are not trimmed, but are also nearly as narrow as most ABs.
I would think the ABs were printed on sheets that had the cards closer together than other brands, the other option was that the cutter discarded thin strips between the cards. A horizontal miscut would be decent proof of which, but I can't recall seeing one from that brand.
And I'm not sure it's possible to know the sheet margin for sure. We could back into a likely size but I don't think there's a way to prove it.
There is no evidence that T206s had a few cards placed horizontally in the margins like the Obak sheets have.