View Single Post
  #4  
Old 12-03-2012, 08:05 AM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 8,087
Default

Only partly.
The scratched plate was probably only used to print backs for a couple different sheets. I'm certain it was used for two different sheets and I'm hoping that's as far as it went.
(There are also maybe two different groups of scratches, one distinct the other not. The second looks more like it may be a crayon mark, perhaps indicating the plate should have been redone or erased for reuse if it was a stone)

It's still a bit early to tell much for sure, but I'm also looking at other identifying marks on the backs as well as specific front differences.

Between all of it it may be possible to get closer to a sheet layout.
It will be possible to get fairly close to a more provable sheet size.

I had thought that the scratches would have been on the last use of the plate, but that's turning out to not be the case.

Of the cards I've seen, there's one that throws a wrench in the works.
There's a Schulte front view showing the scratch.
But that can't be from the same sheet as the others because the available backs aren't the same.

I have found one of the other marks on two different cards, which means that the two couldn't have been on the same sheet. But that's something for a different thread.

At the worst, the scratches will show us a group of cards that were probably on the same sheet and roughly where they were.

We'll also be able to get a grasp on other things, for instance we know there were multiples of each card on the sheet from the double name cards. And we know there were sometimes different cards vertically from the double/different name cards.
Studying the backs in relation to the fronts should show for instance that there were 4 of each player stacked vertically (The number I'm currently leaning towards)

Steve B
Reply With Quote