More T206 Sheet Madness

[t206hound]

I recently obtained another T206 ghost which had me looking through old N54 threads. It's amazing how much you can forget.

Over the past few years I've owned a handful of two name cards (miscut card name at top of card is different than player below), as well as a few ghosts (reveals players side-by-side). Additionally, I've seen images of side-by-side miscuts and other scraps that show adjacent poses. These have always intrigued me as it gives insight to the sheet layouts.

We've seen that two name cards occur less frequently than the double name (same name twice) cards; further, we've never seen a side-by-side of the same player.

It's no surprise, that Rossman has been my card of choice (my avatar). I've obtained a a double name (same name twice) and two different Rossman-McBride miscuts all with a Piedmont 350 back.

So while researching my recent ghost find, I came across a thread that discussed side-by-side miscuts. One of the posts referenced a Stephens-Rossman miscut. I've confirmed with the owner that this too is a Piedmont 350 back. So, it if you assume that the sheet layouts for a given back remained constant (perhaps a leap), that means that Stephens was to the left of Rossman, which was under McBride.

Cool, I thought. Then I remembered something else. I remembered that there was a two name card of Stephens. This card is also a Piedmont 350. In this case, Stephens is above Hoblitzell. So, if you make the same leap as above, now we have Stephens above Hoblitzell and to the left of Rossman, and Rossman is below McBride.

The T206 Sheet Mystique article on T206Resource postulates two identical rows of cards being replicated three to four times per sheet (six to eight rows).

How likely is it that there were (at least) three different rows of cards per sheet? I have some further theories that I'm noodling regarding sheet size/number of cards/etc., but wanted some feedback on this before I continue.

Thoughts?

[mrvster]

You are a madman! like me

[t206hound]

I also would like to add that I am currently thinking that the sheet size (and therefore layout) could very well have been different depending on the "set" of cards being produced. I think we can learn a lot from the Obak Full Uncut sheet.

The sheet appears to have weird patterns, but to me the most interesting things are this:

1. 88 different players are represented on the sheet (179 total cards); 85 appear twice; three appear three times to reduce waste.
2. There are 175 cards in the set
3. You can presume a second sheet of 87 players would have been produced (also 179 cards) to complete the set (likely with 82 appearing twice and five appearing three times)

With this information in hand, it appears that they carefully chose the sheet size (31x23.5):

• Manageable in size
• Yet low number of sheets to produce set
• Duplicate players 2-3 times

I would guess that if there were a different number of cards in the set, the sheet layout and perhaps even the size may have been different. ALC undoubtedly had various sizes of presses at their disposal... use the right tool for the job.

[steve B]

It's entirely possible that there were three players stacked as you've shown.

And I've been convinced that the sheets sometimes varied by brand for some time now. Glad to see someone else reach the same conclusion.

But I also think the layouts were more complicated than just blocks of a player stacked, even if it's only two. If that were the case, there should be one card showing different names top and bottom for every 3-6 showing the same name top and bottom. And the one with different names just aren't that common.

I don't have anything I'd call proof yet, but currently I believe the sheet size and makeup varied by brand. And the sheets included both specific sheets and common sheets. so for instance, some sheets were shared between Piedmont and SC, and maybe other brands, while there were other sheets specific to only one brand like Hindu. (Or more likely the sheets were specific to each brand, but many of the smaller brand sheets were also used for Piedmont and SC. )

There's some info that gets close to proof of that in the 150's. But I don't have it in enough detail yet.

Steve B

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

I always enjoy reading board member research. Thanks for sharing!

[ZachS]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

I always enjoy reading board member research. Thanks for sharing!

Every time I read these threads this is how I feel:

[t206hound]

I've been looking at various uncut sheets from various products over time, and cannot find an instance where a player appears more than three times on a sheet. This makes sense to me... why keep making stones/plates when I can just print more sheets.

We've never seen same player/pose horizontally. We know based on (double name) miscuts that there are MANY instances of players stacked vertically. There are (apparently) fewer instances of two name miscuts that show different players stacked vertically. There are definitely more instances of double name miscuts than two name miscuts.

I want to believe that in most cases there were no more than two instances of a card on a sheet, but the ratio of double name to two name cards seem to indicate that most cards probably occurred three times. I cannot imagine a fourth instance of a card on a sheet.

What's the opinion/consensus here?

[steve B]

At least for P150 the number is closer to 8 of the same card on a sheet. Possibly without stacking. I've only looked closely at one card, and sort of looked at a couple others as a sort of test before I get into a huge project.

Steve B

[atx840]

Erick, both are BB's so not sure which back they would have had...doubt from same sheet but Oakes has Hoblitzell red ink shift.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by t206hound

I also would like to add that I am currently thinking that the sheet size (and therefore layout) could very well have been different depending on the "set" of cards being produced. I think we can learn a lot from the Obak Full Uncut sheet.

The sheet appears to have weird patterns, but to me the most interesting things are this:

1. 88 different players are represented on the sheet (179 total cards); 85 appear twice; three appear three times to reduce waste.
2. There are 175 cards in the set
3. You can presume a second sheet of 87 players would have been produced (also 179 cards) to complete the set (likely with 82 appearing twice and five appearing three times)

With this information in hand, it appears that they carefully chose the sheet size (31x23.5):

• Manageable in size
• Yet low number of sheets to produce set
• Duplicate players 2-3 times

I would guess that if there were a different number of cards in the set, the sheet layout and perhaps even the size may have been different. ALC undoubtedly had various sizes of presses at their disposal... use the right tool for the job.

Amazing Erick! I'm late to this, obviously, but I agree with all of the above^^^. About a year ago, while trying to find information about sheet size, I was contacting the Library of Congress. I noticed that they had the T212 Obak cards listed as an American Tobacco Company release, which I wasn't aware of.

I contacted Tim C. to verify this, and he explained to me that the Obak cards were a product of John Bollman & Co. and that they were also controlled and owned by the American Tobacco Company Trust (thanks again for that info Tim!). So, it's very interesting that even though Obak cards are a west coast production, there is still an ATC connection there. So, I think it's relevant to at least consider the Obak sheet during these discussions. Great work!!

Sincerely, Clayton

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by atx840

Erick, both are BB's so not sure which back they would have had...doubt from same sheet but Oakes has Hoblitzell red ink shift.

What a find!

[mrvster]

love both of those BB's