Posted By:
Dave HornishRe "The mystery part is great: possible deception on the non Sweet Cap poses for Plank and Wagner violates the primacy of Piedmont theory, which I subscribe to (as do the St Louis variations of Demmitt and O'Hara, of course)."
Yes, re-reading it is does not make 100% sense (typed it very late last nite). I'm trying to get a further discussion going on these and was riffing on the Wagner being a Sweet Cap back (assuming the Piedmonts are cut from a sheet)and so it is with Plank too (I think-I have to go re-read that thread). Plank also has 2 Sweet Cap Factories on back in addition to the 350 back (I forget if the argument on the 350 back is that it's from a sheet) which is weird for a scarce short print and noted many times previously here and elsewhere. Demmitt & O'Hara St. L variations are of course, Polar Bear only. The deception wording refers to the uncut sheet of unknown provenance. If I have any of this wrong please post a correction.
So why do 4 cards (assuming Plank is Sweet Cap only) not fall into the main pattern of Piedmont primacy? I think way too much about T206 sometimes......