Quote:
Originally Posted by t206hound
I haven't followed the P350 back scratches info... I think Steve B was looking at the P150 and made a lot of progress. I'll dig a bit, though.
|
I haven't had as much time recently.
Pat R has taken the 150 scratches far beyond what I did and I doubt I have the time to catch up. I have some scans from him, but I need to get photoshop or something similar to start the piecing together. My jigsaw puzzle way of drawing the scratches onto P150 blanks I printed isn't as effective.
The P350 scratches are much less common, and much less obvious.
I've seen a few that might be 150 scratches that didn't get completely resurfaced off. So it's possible the same plate was used for both if that's so, it's proof the backs were printed from stones rather than metal plates.
Some other avenues of study
Some apparent plate damage on the red Hindu backs. Maybe on the browns too, but I haven't seen any. Storing the stone from 1909 til 1911 seems odd, but maybe for a huge customer like ATC it was more normal.
Figuring out the approximate nimber of press runs. I believe there are three or more for both 150 and 350 and that the 150's and 350's were entirely different. I'm not as sure for 350/460 But I'm fairly confident that the two series were different.
Meaning the non-series like OM should be findable in both a 350 and 460 front - likely
very minor differences.
Getting an idea of the number stacked by studying the tougher cards. Magie, Plank, Wagner, O'Hara stl. and Demitt stl. were probably only on one sheet each and figuring out identifiably different examples of each should give us the number vertically. I've done some work on Magie, and I'm sorting the types. It's a bit easier since there are back differences that match front differences and that show in the typical small scan.
Digitally reassembling some of the groups of scraps. None of my BB Sl cards fit each other, but may match another I just don't have enough scans. (And it's very hard, I have had a "big" batch of a nonsport set that is typically handcut and even with the only full set and scans of nearly a set of doubles, all from the same source, there aren't any matches)
This effort on the Lash's backs is excellent as far as getting a few pairs that are certain.
In Stamps this whole process is called "plating" - figuring out the position of each stamp from a plate based on tiny consistent differences. Even with access to large quantities, blocks and strips, and knowing in some cases exactly how many plates there were it can take one person a full collecting lifetime (figure around 20-40 years) to get enough to be sure.
T206 is orders of magnitude harder. I don't expect to see what I'd call solid proof of a full sheet layout in my lifetime. Maybe Wazoo or some of the younger collectors will.
Steve B
PS- As an example of how long some things can take. In 2012 I wrote an article on a stamp I'd found. Other than showing a small portion of a plate number at the top it was very common. Except that plate 40 was used on an experimental press and there were only around 24000 impressions. That it existed and how many impressions were made was published in around 1901. The only time it had been described in any article was 1932, and that article might have been wrong another plate had been reworked and the early stamps are very similar to plate 40. Experts had begun to think that the 1901 book was incorrect there were a few other mistakes, maybe this was another.
Until I found a stamp showing a bit of the number 40. Now we all know for sure that plate 40 was used and stamps issued. But out of 100 positions only one can be accurately described, and so far there's only one known stamp from plate 40. And that's since 1873! (There are a few that are probably from plate 40, but very few survivors out of 240,000 printed)