Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
But consider this....Including your data (125/4 "scratches") we have a total of 511 samples of E90-1 cards with only 18 examples of "ink streaks".
This results in a mere 3.5 % with this anomaly from this large sample of cards. And it's considerably less percentage than the T206 Piedmont 150
data that Pat has analyzed.
Therefore, the remark by some here
...."what difference does it make" what printer (or machinery) was used to produce these E90-1 cards, is very
naïve (if not uninformed).
Anyway, I hope as you do that this survey may provide us some ideas of how the various series of this set were printed (1908 - Summer of 1910).
This is a question you and I and others on this forum have discussed ever since I posted this E90-1 thread in March 2006......
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=89941
Take care......I am choosing to refrain from any further inputs to this thread.
TED Z
.
Hi Steve,
I think Ted misinterpreted what I said. I certainly think it's important how they were printed I was referring to where they were printed.
In a few days it will be four years since you started the PD150 plate scratch thread. I have been tracking them through ebay and most of the
auction houses since then and I can say without a doubt that so far the E90-1's are showing up at a higher %.
If you look at past sales on cardtarget many of the E90-1's have sales with back scans in the single digits for a subject. On the other
hand the majority of PD150 subjects have over 100 sales with back scans.
I'm not sure if it has been established which company in Philadelphia printed the E90-1's but if it was George Harris and sons
which I believe was the largest lithographic printer there at the time they were owned by American Lithograph.