The T206 "Exclusive 12" of the 460-Only series

[tedzan]

Only 12 subjects from the 460-Only series were printed with the red HINDU (RH) back. These 12 guys were confirmed 8 years ago; and, no additional 460-Only
series subjects with the RH back have surfaced since then. And, I do not expect that any other RH cards from this series will be discovered. So, 12 is the count.

My theory is that these 12 subjects were exclusively printed on their own sheet. Possibly, Triple-Printed on a 36-card sheet. Or, Quadruple-Printed on a 48-card
sheet. I base this hypothesis on the fact these 12 subjects are also found more available with the AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 backs than the rest of the subjects
in the 460-Only series. Also, their availability considerably out-numbers any of the 350/460 cards with RH backs. And these 12 subjects are the only cards in the
460-Only series printed with the SWEET CAPORAL 460, Factory #42 backs.

Furthermore, while most of the other subjects in the 460-Only series exist with the LENOX back, these 12 are LENOX NO-PRINTS. Also, regarding the PIEDMONT
460, Factory #42 cards....these 12 subjects are PIEDMONT 460, Factory #42 NO-PRINTS. What all of this tells us, is that these 12 subjects were printed in a
separate stage from their other counterparts in the 460-Only series.







This thread is an extension of the recent "Simulated T206 sheets...." thread.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=162935

The significance of this "Exclusive 12" thread is that it illustrates the printing of each T206 series was quite complex. In that some segments of the printing process
consist of many subjects (as noted in the "SimulatedT206...." thread). While other segments could have been as small as a group of 12 (or even 6) subjects.


TED Z

[atx840]

Interesting Ted.

A boardmember found 13 RHs in his grandfathers collection and in it were 8 of your 12 along with Brown throwing and Joss. Triple Crandall and two Wheats.

Wonder if it was a carton of packs all packed at the same time from one sheet.

[CMIZ5290]

Ted- interesting info, I have Geyer in a PSA 6 (SCap fact 42) is there a premium on value? Thanks.....

[cfc1909]

Ted

this is from your post #79 in this thread

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=162935

The 350/460 series DRUM cards and the 350/460 AMERICAN BEAUTY 350 (no frame) cards were both printed on same
pre-printed sheets of 37 - T206 subjects. Three of these subjects (Conroy....Mullin....Stahl) of these 37 have yet to be confirmed with DRUM backs. Eventually, these 3
subjects will be discovered with the DRUM backs.

Can you explain to me how they got 37 subjects on a 36 card sheet?

[White Borders]

Hi T-Rex Ted,

Good stuff

I also have noted that of these twelve 460-Only subjects, I've never found with a SC350-460 Factory 25 back. So it appears that for all 460-Only subjects, the SC350-460 Factory 25 and SC350-460 Factory 42 backs are possibly mutually exclusive (meaning if you find one with a Factory 25 back, you won't find it with a Factory 42 back, and vice-versa.) You've probably mentioned this in some other thread and I missed it.

Also, I've had in my notes that I've seen a Devore with a P42 back. I'm not sure where or when and I can't find a scan at the moment, so I may be wrong. But I got to wondering if for some reason it might have got printed ahead of schedule in place of the 350-460 series subject Tinker Bat Off for some reason (maybe the plate for Tinker broke before or early in the P42 print run and maybe they had Devore ready to go so they used it? - I know it's a real stretch of imagination), which is the only 350-460 subject we haven't found with a P42 back that we believe should have been printed with a P42 back. Just a thought and I'll let you know if I'm able to verify the Devore P42.

Best Regards and Happy Collecting
Craig

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by White Borders

I also have noted that of these twelve 460-Only subjects, I've never found with a SC350-460 Factory 25 back. So it appears that for all 460-Only subjects, the SC350-460 Factory 25 and SC350-460 Factory 42 backs are possibly mutually exclusive (meaning if you find one with a Factory 25 back, you won't find it with a Factory 42 back, and vice-versa.) You've probably mentioned this in some other thread and I missed it.

Craig

Hi Craig,

The mutually exclusive comparison between SC350-460 No.25 and SC350-460 No.42 is misleading when we separate these 12 subjects as their own group. As I've said before, these are ways we classify the cards as collectors and not necessarily how ALC printed them. These 12 are an important subset, but they were always printed with other subjects for a particular brand. When looking at the Sweet Cap backs in their entirety, including the two you mentioned, a different picture emerges.

SC350-460 #42 No OP mirrors Red Hindu
SC350-460 #30 mirrors Sovereign 460
SC350-460 #25 mirrors no other 460 series back.

I can explain this a lot more clearly but it would take a pretty detailed post to do it.

All the best,
Tim

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by White Borders

Hi T-Rex Ted,

Good stuff

I also have noted that of these twelve 460-Only subjects, I've never found with a SC350-460 Factory 25 back. So it appears that for all 460-Only subjects, the SC350-460 Factory 25 and SC350-460 Factory 42 backs are possibly mutually exclusive (meaning if you find one with a Factory 25 back, you won't find it with a Factory 42 back, and vice-versa.) You've probably mentioned this in some other thread and I missed it.

Also, I've had in my notes that I've seen a Devore with a P42 back. I'm not sure where or when and I can't find a scan at the moment, so I may be wrong. But I got to wondering if for some reason it might have got printed ahead of schedule in place of the 350-460 series subject Tinker Bat Off for some reason (maybe the plate for Tinker broke before or early in the P42 print run and maybe they had Devore ready to go so they used it? - I know it's a real stretch of imagination), which is the only 350-460 subject we haven't found with a P42 back that we believe should have been printed with a P42 back. Just a thought and I'll let you know if I'm able to verify the Devore P42.

Best Regards and Happy Collecting
Craig

Craig

Yes, the P460/42 Tinker still remains a mystery. But, I have never believed in the "broken plate" myth, simply because professional printers have multiple plates of any
given image. I think Tinker should show up some day.

I don't recall Devore with P460/42 back. However, The Monster can surprise you. I'd be very interested if you discover this Devore.


Take care,

TED Z

[Jantz]

Hi Ted

These are the same 12 players I started a thread about back in May of 2010 as to being sheet mates or possibly making up a sheet due to the wet sheet transfers that appear consistently on them.

Since then, we now know these 12 players also have Red Hindu backs.

Can't be a coincidence, can it?

46 known players with a Sweet Caporal 350-460 f#42 back to date.

Minus the 12 Red Hindu players pictured in your first post and we come up with 34.

Interesting huh?

12 or 34, I'm not sure what the magic number is, but it sure makes for good research and fun. I have my own theories, but those are for another thread.

Great thread Ted!


Jantz

[T206Collector]

"And, I do not expect that any other RH cards from this series will be discovered."

But Chris Browne identified a Brown Throwing and a Joss in his post above (although no scan). So, consider me confused.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

"And, I do not expect that any other RH cards from this series will be discovered."

But Chris Browne identified a Brown Throwing and a Joss in his post above (although no scan). So, consider me confused.

Paul

Did you miss my introductory statement......"Only 12 subjects from the 460-Only series were printed with the red HINDU (RH) back."

M. Brown (Chicago) and Joss (pitching) that Chris alluded to are subjects in the 350/460 series.

Hopefully, now you are no longer "confused".


TED Z

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Hi Ted

These are the same 12 players I started a thread about back in May of 2010 as to being sheet mates or possibly making up a sheet due to the wet sheet transfers that appear consistently on them.

Since then, we now know these 12 players also have Red Hindu backs.

Can't be a coincidence, can it?

46 known players with a Sweet Caporal 350-460 f#42 back to date.

Minus the 12 Red Hindu players pictured in your first post and we come up with 34.

Interesting huh?

12 or 34, I'm not sure what the magic number is, but it sure makes for good research and fun. I have my own theories, but those are for another thread.

Great thread Ted!


Jantz

Thanx Jantz

Can this be a coincidence....how about chalking it up to...."great minds think alike"


Anyhow, I have been tracking these 12 subjects since I started on my AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 (AB 460) sub-set, about 7 years ago.







What struck me about these 12 - T206's was that they were, without question, much more available with AB 460 backs than any of the other 63 subjects with the AB 460 back.
Subsequently, I also noticed that these same T206 guys were more available with the red HINDU backs, than the other T206's with this scarce back. Furthermore, that these 12
were the only T206 red HINDU cards in the 460-Only series. So, all that and other factors regarding rare backs (noted in Post #1 here) suggested to me that they were "special".
Therefore, I refer to them as the "Exclusive 12".


Best regards,

TED Z

[wolf441]

I feel like we learn more and more about this set every day thanks to the help of the veterans on this board!! It's also odd that 8 of the 12 are action poses with yellowish backgrounds, 3 are action poses with blue backgrounds....and then you have the red background Crandall portrait. "One of these things is not like the others..."

Steve

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Paul

Did you miss my introductory statement......"Only 12 subjects from the 460-Only series were printed with the red HINDU (RH) back."

M. Brown (Chicago) and Joss (pitching) that Chris alluded to are subjects in the 350/460 series.

Hopefully, now you are no longer "confused".


TED Z

Thanks - that clears it up for me.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by cfc1909

Ted

this is from your post #79 in this thread

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=162935

The 350/460 series DRUM cards and the 350/460 AMERICAN BEAUTY 350 (no frame) cards were both printed on same
pre-printed sheets of 37 - T206 subjects. Three of these subjects (Conroy....Mullin....Stahl) of these 37 have yet to be confirmed with DRUM backs. Eventually, these 3
subjects will be discovered with the DRUM backs.

Can you explain to me how they got 37 subjects on a 36 card sheet?

Jim

Did I say that these 37 subjects were printed on a 36-card sheet ?

I don't think so.

These 37 subjects could have been printed on a 48-card sheet, or on any standard size sheet, greater than one containing 37 - T206 size cards.

The number of subjects in a series (or a sub-set) do not necessarily equate to the number of cards that are printed on a standard size sheet. In
many cases the number of cards on a printed sheet exceed the number of subjects; therefore, there is Double-Printing (and even Triple-Printing)
in order to fill out the sheet.

This has been a standard practice in the printing industry throughout the 20th Century (and it still is).


TED Z

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Ted- interesting info, I have Geyer in a PSA 6 (SCap fact 42) is there a premium on value? Thanks.....

Kevin

I would say a slight premium. Besides me, I don't think there's that much of a demand for SC 460/42 T206's.

I could be wrong, though.

Best regards,

TED Z

[aabram23]

Tedzan

I tried to pm you. It said your box was full. Would you mind emailing me if you have a minute. I have a question for you on T206 backs that another member and mutual friend told me to ask you. Thanks
Aabram23@yahoo.com

[tedzan]

While I do not accept POP report data as absolute, I think it is fair to say that the POP data is representive of the relative availability of certain cards with respect to other cards.

So, here is the POP report data regarding the "Exclusive 12" with red HINDU backs with respect to the 350/460 series cards with red HINDU backs.

The numbers of the Exclusive 12 subjects, when compared with the numbers of the 350/460 series subjects, overwhelmingly suggest that the Exclusive 12 cards were printed on
a separate sheet of their own.


The POP # = PSA + SGC

Exclusive 12

POP#.....Subject

12 ........ Crandall
6 .......... Devore
7 .......... Duffy
8 .......... Ford
8 .......... Gandil
7 .......... Geyer
13 ........ Hummel
10 ........ McGraw
7 .......... Pfeffer
7 .......... Sheckard
7 .......... Tannehill
10 ........ Wheat


350/460 Subjects

POP #.....Subjects (30 total)

7 .......... Baker **

4 .......... Davis, Snodgrass, Stahl

3 .......... Brown, Chase (blue), Cobb, Johnson, Kleinow

2 .......... Bender, Chance, Downey, Evers, Joss, CYoung

1 .......... Donlin, Doolan, Doyle, Griffith, Magee, Murphy, O'Leary, Seymour, Street, Sweeney

0 .......... Chase (dark cap), Elberfeld, Konetchy, Rucker, Willis


Note **....It appears that Baker was most likely a Double-Print on the sheet comprising of the 350/460 series cards.


TED Z

[tedzan]

For those who have not followed this thread, for better understanding, realize that these Exclusive 12 subjects are part of the 46 subjects in the 460-Only series of the T206 set.






Reiterating....while I do not accept POP report data as absolute, I think it is fair to say that the POP data is representive of the relative availability of certain cards with respect
to other cards.

Here is the POP report data regarding the Exclusive 12 with AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 backs with respect to the other subjects in the 460-Only series with AMERICAN BEAUTY 460
backs.

The POP #'s = PSA + SGC

Exclusive 12

POP #'s......Subject

18 ............ Crandall
19 ............ Devore
18 ............ Duffy
17 ............ Ford
15 ............ Gandil
10 ............ Geyer
15 ............ Hummel
22 ............ McGraw
9 ............. Pfeffer
20 ........... Sheckard
8 ............. Tannehill
13 ........... Wheat


460-Only Subjects

POP #'s.....Subjects (34 total)

5 ............. Latham, Needham, Schlei (portrait)

4 ............. Meyers

3 ............. Camnitz (arm on side), Frill, Lake, Marquard, Oldring, Seymour, Smith

2 ............. Bell, Bergen, Bridwell, Chase, Herzog, Merkle, Overall, Payne, Stovall, Tinker

1 ............. Abbaticchio, Ball, Bescher, Chance, Howell, McGraw (portrait), Schaefer, Schlei (bat)

0 ............. Camnitz (hds over head), Doyle, Murray, Schulte, Wiltse (portrait)


As is obvious from these numbers, this data is even more dramatic than the red HINDU numbers (Post #17) in demonstrating that the Exclusive 12 subjects were printed on a
separate sheet of their own. These #'s suggest that these 12 subjects were possibly Triple-Printed on a 36-card sheet. Furthermore, the remaining AMERICAN BEAUTY 460
cards in the 460-Only series were printed on a separate sheet of their own.

Any meaningful discussion on these findings is welcome.


TED Z

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by atx840

Interesting Ted.

A boardmember found 13 RHs in his grandfathers collection and in it were 8 of your 12 along with Brown throwing and Joss. Triple Crandall and two Wheats.

Wonder if it was a carton of packs all packed at the same time from one sheet.

Thanks very much Chris

That 13-card find certainly supports my hypothesis regarding the "Exclusive 12" printing with the red HINDU backs. Furthermore, the AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 printing of these
12 subjects with respect to their "cousins" in the 460-Only series dramatically reinforces my hypothesis. Check out the POP report #'s on the AB 460 cards (Post #18).

You would know this....there was a more significant red HINDU find this past year (approx. 30 cards)....do you have the card breakdown of that find ?


TED Z

[tedzan]

Double post

[tedzan]

.





Reiterating....while I do not accept POP report data as absolute, I think it is fair to say that the POP data is representive of the relative availability of certain cards with respect
to other cards.

Here is the POP report data regarding the Exclusive 12 with SOVEREIGN 460 backs with respect to the other subjects in the 460-Only series with SOVEREIGN 460 backs.

The POP #'s = PSA + SGC

Exclusive 12

POP #'s......Subject

34 ............ Crandall
32 ............ Devore
49 ............ Duffy
58 ............ Ford
44 ............ Gandil
41 ............ Geyer
34 ............ Hummel
37 ............ McGraw
28 ............ Pfeffer
26 ............ Sheckard
37 ............ Tannehill
45 ............ Wheat


460-Only Subjects & Super Prints

POP #...............................Subjects (40 total)

40-card AVERAGE = 10.6 .....Abbaticchio, Ball, Bell, Bergen, Bridwell, Bescher, Camnitz (arm/side), Camnitz (hds over head), Chance (bat), Chance (portrait -yellow), Chase (blue),
Chase (dark cap), Chase (trophy), Cobb (red), Doyle, Evers (bat-Chicago), Frill, Herzog, Howell, Lake, Latham, Marquard, Mathewson (dark cap), McGraw (portrait), Merkle, Meyers
Murray, Needham, Oldring, Overall, Payne, Schaefer, Schlei (portrait), Schlei (bat), Schulte, Seymour, H. Smith, Stovall, Tinker, Wiltse



Again, these numbers further reinforce my theory that the Exclusive 12 guys were T206 subjects which were printed on a separate sheet of their own.
And, that these 12 were possibly Triple-Printed on a 36-card sheet....or, Quadruple-Printed on a 48-card sheet.


Any meaningful discussions on the Red HINDU, AMERICAN BEAUTY 460, or SOVEREIGN 460 findings here are welcome.


TED Z

[atx840]

42 Red Hindus from the SCP find and 6 from the 13 I posted earlier were graded by PSA.

Originally Posted by willworkforT206

Chris/Ted,

Total increase of 48, which appears to be the 42 from the find plus 6 additional submissions.

360/460 Series (+14 Total)
+1 Brown (Chicago)
+2 Davis (Davis on Front)
+1 Donlin (With Bat)
+2 Downey (Batting)
+2 Johnson (Hands At Chest)
+1 Joss (Pitching)
+1 Murphy (Batting)
+1 Seymor (Throwing)
+1 Snodgrass (Catching)
+1 Street (Catching)
+1 Sweeney (Fielding)

“Super Prints” (+5 Total)
+2 Chance (Yellow)
+1 Chase (Blue)
+2 Cobb (Red)

460 Series (+29 Total)
+4 Crandall (With Cap)
+2 Devore
+1 Duffy
+3 Ford
+2 Gandil
+4 Geyer
+3 Hummel
+3 McGraw (Glove Hip)
+2 Pfeffer
+1 Tannehill
+4 Wheat

Hope this helps.

Steve

[tedzan]

Chris

Thanks for posting the info on those two red HINDU finds.


TED Z

[atx840]

Hey Ted,

My understanding of why these twelve are seen more often then others with these backs is that the group of twelve is broken down into smaller groups that are likely used in combination with a base group of 28 players across a 34 card sheet. Two rows of seventeen.

It is also likely that these twelve could have been printed multiple times across a sheet taking up more then one space. Giving a higher ratio compared to the base 28 group.

Take Group 1 below and split it across two 14 slot rows A&B and combine them with any of the Group 2, 3 & 4 players. For every unique 14A card there are 2 Duffy's.

14A + Devore + Duffy + Ford
14A + Devore + Duffy + Ford
14A + Devore + Duffy + Ford
14A + Devore + Duffy + Ford
14B + Devore + Duffy + Ford
14B + Devore + Duffy + Ford
14B + Devore + Duffy + Ford
14B + Devore + Duffy + Ford

For Red Hindu T206resource has a possibility of 46 combinations for this back. They can be broken down into the following groups of 28+12+6. The base 28 group can then be combined with any of the 6 base groups in any combination to form a 34 player sheet.

If the SuperPrints pop reports are lower with these backs it's possible they were used less frequently with the base 28 cards then your Exclusive 12.

From what I can tell, the entire 460 series backs can be broken down to multiple 28 base groups to combine with these three 6 base groups to form a 34 card sheet. Some backs use the Exclusive 12, some only use the SuperPrints (BL460) and some use both. Some use this base 28 or one of the other 28 groups.

Red Hindu groupings.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by atx840

Hey Ted,

My understanding of why these twelve are seen more often then others with these backs is that the group of twelve is broken down into smaller groups that are likely used in combination with a base group of 28 players across a 34 card sheet. Two rows of seventeen.

It is also likely that these twelve could have been printed multiple times across a sheet taking up more then one space. Giving a higher ratio compared to the base 28 group.

Take Group 1 below and split it across two 14 slot rows A&B and combine them with any of the Group 2, 3 & 4 players. For every unique 14A card there are 2 Duffy's.

14A + Devore + Duffy + Ford
14A + Devore + Duffy + Ford
14A + Devore + Duffy + Ford
14A + Devore + Duffy + Ford
14B + Devore + Duffy + Ford
14B + Devore + Duffy + Ford
14B + Devore + Duffy + Ford
14B + Devore + Duffy + Ford

For Red Hindu T206resource has a possibility of 46 combinations for this back. They can be broken down into the following groups of 28+12+6. The base 28 group can then be combined with any of the 6 base groups in any combination to form a 34 player sheet.

If the SuperPrints pop reports are lower with these backs it's possible they were used less frequently with the base 28 cards then your Exclusive 12.

From what I can tell, the entire 460 series backs can be broken down to multiple 28 base groups to combine with these three 6 base groups to form a 34 card sheet. Some backs use the Exclusive 12, some only use the SuperPrints (BL460) and some use both. Some use this base 28 or one of the other 28 groups.

Red Hindu groupings.

Amazing !! This post makes it all come together for me. Thank you.

Sincerely, Clayton

[atx840]

The 460 series when viewed in these groups makes sense for the most part. A good questions raised already is how do we get 4x more Exclusive 12s in this. I am trying to wrap my head around the combinations to give the %s Ted has noted.

Ted, do you see any of the 28 I listed as being extra low pop?

I can provide examples for some of the more complicated backs, which have multiple prints to consider.

Again, I am still wrapping my head around this.

[teetwoohsix]

" Again, I am still wrapping my head around this."

You are doing a great job at it, far better than I am Keep up the great work. I am a bystander at this point, just trying to make everything fit together.

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Chris

Impressive graphic; however, the premise is too convoluted. For starters, it does not explain why the Exclusive 12 are LENOX no-prints.....or, PIEDMONT 460/42 no-prints.
Or, why the Exclusive 12 are the only SWEET CAP 460/42 subjects printed from the 460-only series. I'd go on with more arguments to support my Exclusive 12 theory, but
it has become tedious trying to convince you (and others) of my theory.

Pardon me for reiterated this for the umpteenth time....the printing press track (or width) of 18" (or 19") was the standard machinery that American Lithographic operated
to print their smaller (or medium) size jobs. It conformed with the standard size (18" x 24") paper (or cardboard) sheets of that era.

While we have no card strips of T206's or T205's to confirm this....there, are 11 (or 12) per row card strips of E-cards that have been found. The printing press machinery
used to print E-cards (E91, etc.) of that era (1908-1912) was very similar as those used to print the T-cards.

You can continue to dig up such convoluted concepts to justify your "magic 34" argument. But, your "17-cards" per row premise is incongruent with any lithographic press
size known of that time period for printing T-cards or E-cards whose dimensions were approx. 1 7/16" x 2 5/8".


Best regards, and if we ever dig up an old T206 sheet that supports your contention of "17-cards" per row (as opposed to my "12-cards" per row theory)....I will fly up to
Canada and buy you dinner at your favorite expensive restaurant.


TED Z

[atx840]

Ill take that bet Ted.

Let me share some more data which is till, just theoretical but please check it out and consider it as I have with your 12 sheet theory. I can not explain every situation but a good majority of the 460 series breaks down into 34 possible groupings.

I can also show why certain cards are excluded form certain backs. You need to see it holistically. Lenox is simple,

Here is BL460.



Here is P460F25 in two prints, the second run I believe swapped out Ames for Dougherty (just my theory based on looking across all 460 brands).

Each 28 group can combine with the 6 subgroup as well as the 21 subgroup combined with the 13 subgroup = 34

[atx840]

Here is another neat one Ted

Lets take Johnny's favourite subsets the Yellow Brown scraps.

These yellow browns are interesting as they have F30 backs but never were intended to be printed with this back. They don't exist. The reason is they were supposed to be overprinted with F42 but never made it that far.

If you look at the series we find several 28 groupings used, one is the example I used called Group1A. Take that group and combine it with the 6 SuperPrints you get 34 cards. 28/28 are found as a yellow brown scrap, no exceptions to any other F30,F25, F42 player out there. Out of the 6 SuperPrints 5 have been found as a yellow brown scrap, missing only Chase Dark Cap.

It makes sense that all sheets using this combination of F30 were used for the F42OP run and one full sheet ended up being scrapped to what we now get as the yellow brown scrap subset.

[tedzan]

Chris

That's just a partial list of the 350/460 subjects with the SWEET CAP Factory 30 backs (that were not issued).

All 63 subjects from this series are found with the SWEET CAP Factory 42 overprint. So, I do not understand your point of referring to a partial list of the color-less scraps ?


TED Z

[tedzan]

Chris

A picture is worth a 1000 words............









TED Z

[toppcat]

Ted that top row almost looks panoramic...

[atx840]

SC560F30 has 52 cards in it. All of them are found in the 109 F42OP subset.

Left over are 57 F30 cards that were overprinted but never released into the wild as F30 cards. This breaks down into two 28 print groups with one card being swapped out at a second printing (Ames with Dougherty) giving you 57 cards.

These two 28 base groups are used multiple times throughout the 460 series for different backs in combination with the SP and your Exclusive 12.

One of those groups of 28, not coincidentally is made up of ALL the known yellow brown scraps + the 6 SuperPrints.

NONE of the other 28+Dougherty cards have been found in a scrap form. This leads me to believe that the scraps that are found are linked, likely on one sheet.

[tedzan]

Chris

Basically speaking, your premise falls apart on these two fronts......

1st.....28 color-less subjects from the 350/460 series may exist for now, but there will be more found in the future.

2nd.....surveys show that the 6 super-prints were Double-Printed on sheets of PIEDMONT 460 F25 & F42, POLAR BEAR, etc.


TED Z

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Ted that top row almost looks panoramic...

Dave

"Panoramic".....is a dramatic description of this 12-card strip.....I like it

Best regards,

TED Z

[atx840]

Ted,

1st, Maybe they will show up and if they do, they will be from the second group of F30 cards not found in the wild that I listed. I doubt they will show up, as all known examples are from one group of 28. You would think at least one from the other group would have been found by now. Maybe Dougherty is out there.

2nd, I think you are missing the point Ted. Yes SP can be double printed. Any of the 34 slots on a sheet can be filled with any of the 6 SPs in any combination.

Take 28 from a group, remove 6 and add in two sets of the 6 SP and you still get 34 cards on your sheet but now the SP are double printed. Are some of the 28 I listed SIGNIFICANTLY harder to find, maybe they were short printed because of this.

Maybe the Exclusive 12 were printed this way, but not on a 12 card sheet.

I can break down every 460 series back into 34 from combinations of 28 & 6 groupings and 21 & 13, I just can not 100% say how the printers arranged those groupings on the sheets. Of course there are anomalies to be solved but we will get there.

[tedzan]

Scot Reader in his book "Inside T206" estimates that approx. 1.6 Million T206's are presently in circulation. If this is so (and, I think it is a fair guesstimate) then, we could
reasonably extrapolate that American Lithographic (ALC) printed and issued at least 10 - 20 Million T206's.

To produce this volume of cards in just 2 years, ALC must of printed T206's in sheets of 100+ cards. To think of card sheets comprised of anything less than 100+ cards is
absolutely impractical (and, I've been guilty of this with my suggestion of 36-card sheets). Other's here have suggested 34-card sheets, which are even more preposterous.

Now, two independent sources have informed us that the printer's standard size cardboard sheet was 18" x 24" (circa 1908-1911 era). Furthermore, research has indicated
the track width of lithographic printing presses of that era were designed to accomodate these standard size sheets. Presented here are the Exclusive 12 subjects filling out
an entire 18" x 24" standard sheet comprising of 108 cards.















TED Z

[atx840]

It's 34 slots per sheet broken down to two rows of 17. These rows are then repeated up and down the sheets 4+ times. That's 136 cards per sheet

[Runscott]

It's silly to see two sides so diametrically opposed and arguing so vehemently as though they have the facts.

I'd really like to see both sides proven wrong. Maybe then you could start discussing things from equal ground.

[atx840]

Hey Scott, agree its not getting anyone further ahead.

When I recently started to look at the 460 group I erased the base 34 from the process and started fresh. Within a few groupings it showed up 100% for every 460 back. I'd love to show someone my data in person/phone as the forum is the wrong format to get it properly across.

I'm not stating 34 is the definitive # in my previous post only that the theory is not limited to 34 per sheet but multiples stacks of 34.

I've tried to contact Ted to review notes offline, no luck

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by atx840

Hey Scott, agree its not getting anyone further ahead.

When I recently started to look at the 460 group I erased the base 34 from the process and started fresh. Within a few groupings it showed up 100% for every 460 back. I'd love to show someone my data in person/phone as the forum is the wrong format to get it properly across.

I'm not stating 34 is the definitive # in my previous post only that the theory is not limited to 34 per sheet but multiples stacks of 34.

I've tried to contact Ted to review notes offline, no luck

Well, good luck Chris. With all due respect to TedZ, I don't think he's willing to entertain anything other than what he presents. And that's ok too. We all have different opinions, but being open minded to new research and new developments would make it easier to come to a rational conclusion
Until then, it's like mountain goats butting heads on the side of a steep cliff

I think there is great progress happening with other avenues to piece together what a sheet may have looked like, with the double named cards (same name top/bottom and different name top/bottom) as well as Steve's brilliant idea to piece together the backs with the plate scratches.

Maybe one day we will have a "God particle moment" and it will all make sense

Sincerely, Clayton

P.S. Thank everyone for their hard work and time spent trying to unravel these mysteries.

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Well, good luck Chris. With all due respect to TedZ, I don't think he's willing to entertain anything other than what he presents. And that's ok too. We all have different opinions, but being open minded to new research and new developments would make it easier to come to a rational conclusion
Until then, it's like mountain goats butting heads on the side of a steep cliff

Not necessarily true. It's hard sometimes to dump your heart and soul into something and then be told you are wrong. Not that you want to discuss it rationally and pass info to conclude an answer but to just be told you are wrong. That makes a person block out opinions of others. It makes sense to them and some others as does the other theories to everyone else. As of now everybody is just speculating till a sheet or solid proof is found thus making everybody wrong and only correct based on opinion.

Look at my theory about the 12 T205 ML subjects. I spent several yrs researching this and thought I had figured it out because the numbers matched so close it was hard to ignore. Post it here and immediately was told I was wrong and that because some guys from 70+ yrs ago had a theory without proof either that it was pretty much conclusive evidence what they said was correct. No one wants to be wrong but in the end someone always is.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Scot Reader in his book "Inside T206" estimates that approx. 1.6 Million T206's are presently in circulation. If this is so (and, I think it is a fair guesstimate) then, we could
reasonably extrapolate that American Lithographic (ALC) printed and issued at least 10 - 20 Million T206's.

To produce this volume of cards in just 2 years, ALC must of printed T206's in sheets of 100+ cards. To think of card sheets comprised of anything less than 100+ cards is
absolutely impractical (and, I've been guilty of this with my suggestion of 36-card sheets). Other's here have suggested 34-card sheets, which are even more preposterous.

Now, two independent sources have informed us that the printer's standard size cardboard sheet was 18" x 24" (circa 1908-1911 era). Furthermore, research has indicated
the track width of lithographic printing presses of that era were designed to accomodate these standard size sheets. Presented here are the Exclusive 12 subjects filling out
an entire 18" x 24" standard sheet comprising of 108 cards.















TED Z

Hi Ted,

Is this how you suppose that they sheet would be laid out? If so, doesn't this seem to contradict the fact that we see many more same name top bottom miscuts than those with two different names on top & bottom? It seems to make more sense that each player was laid out vertically in rows of 3. Perhaps with 5 subjects vertically per sheet, which would make for a length of 15 cards (perhaps by 10 cards width-wise for sheets of 150)? I haven't even scratched the surface in terms of the amount of research that you have done, just throwing out an idea...

Thanks,

Steve

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by wolf441

Hi Ted,

Is this how you suppose that they sheet would be laid out? If so, doesn't this seem to contradict the fact that we see many more same name top bottom miscuts than those with two different names on top & bottom?

Steve

With all due respect....I'm confused with this first statement of yours ? This simulated sheet illustrates that the SAME subjects are vertically arranged; therefore,
if any of these 12 are miscut the same name will appear top and bottom.

So, where is the "contradiction" ?

Originally Posted by wolf441

It seems to make more sense that each player was laid out vertically in rows of 3. Perhaps with 5 subjects vertically per sheet, which would make for a length of 15 cards (perhaps by 10 cards width-wise for sheets of 150)? I haven't even scratched the surface in terms of the amount of research that you have done, just throwing out an idea...

Please realize this....I have singled out this group of 12 subjects (from the 460-only series) because the pattern and availibility of their T-brand advertising backs are
different from their "cousins" in the 460-only series with respect to AMERICAN BEAUTY 460, red HINDU, and SWEET CAP 460 (factory 42) backs. In my opinion, this is
an exclusive group of 12 subjects in the T206 set.

Regarding my thinking on the 150 and 350 series cards' sheet arrangements, refer to my thread titled...."Simulated T206 sheets....check them out".


Best regards,

TED Z

[wolf441]

Thanks Ted,

I guess I was confused by the way the cards are laid out on the thread pic (for example, Gandil on top of Wheat on top of Gandil). If your theory is that you would have three Gandils in a row vertically, then that makes perfect sense. Thanks for all of the research! I guess I should have figured it out by the title "group of 12" and not "group of 6". I'm a little slow on the uptake, I guess

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Maybe one day we will have a "God particle moment" and it will all make sense

If we could get this guy to turn to T206 research, I'm certain he could find the answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqeC3BPYTmE

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by wolf441

Thanks Ted,

I guess I was confused by the way the cards are laid out on the thread pic (for example, Gandil on top of Wheat on top of Gandil). If your theory is that you would have three Gandils in a row vertically, then that makes perfect sense. Thanks for all of the research! I guess I should have figured it out by the title "group of 12" and not "group of 6". I'm a little slow on the uptake, I guess

Steve

I now see the source of your "contradiction" comment.

In my 1st post in this thread, I posted this scan of these 12 cards......





In Post #11, I rearranged these 12 subjects when I scanned my AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 cards. I did this because I thought was a more realistic pattern............



And, this is the pattern of these 12 cards that I continued with in most of the subsequent posts.


I should have replaced the scan in the 1st post in order to be consistent with my picture of these 12 guys. Please refer only to the scans that start with the Gandil as
the 1st card. The same picture that you repeated when you quoted me in your Post #44.

Best regards,

TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

Not necessarily true. It's hard sometimes to dump your heart and soul into something and then be told you are wrong. Not that you want to discuss it rationally and pass info to conclude an answer but to just be told you are wrong. That makes a person block out opinions of others. It makes sense to them and some others as does the other theories to everyone else. As of now everybody is just speculating till a sheet or solid proof is found thus making everybody wrong and only correct based on opinion.

Look at my theory about the 12 T205 ML subjects. I spent several yrs researching this and thought I had figured it out because the numbers matched so close it was hard to ignore. Post it here and immediately was told I was wrong and that because some guys from 70+ yrs ago had a theory without proof either that it was pretty much conclusive evidence what they said was correct. No one wants to be wrong but in the end someone always is.

Nice post Andrew, and I understand what you are saying.

I guess I don't look at it as though anyone is telling someone everything they think is wrong, but rather "hey, look how all of this fits together".

As far as your research-I'm a fish out of water when it comes to T205's I do like the Minor League T205's though (and I did see your thread).

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

Not necessarily true. It's hard sometimes to dump your heart and soul into something and then be told you are wrong. Not that you want to discuss it rationally and pass info to conclude an answer but to just be told you are wrong. That makes a person block out opinions of others. It makes sense to them and some others as does the other theories to everyone else. As of now everybody is just speculating till a sheet or solid proof is found thus making everybody wrong and only correct based on opinion.

Look at my theory about the 12 T205 ML subjects. I spent several yrs researching this and thought I had figured it out because the numbers matched so close it was hard to ignore. Post it here and immediately was told I was wrong and that because some guys from 70+ yrs ago had a theory without proof either that it was pretty much conclusive evidence what they said was correct. No one wants to be wrong but in the end someone always is.

Andrew

They can tell me I'm "wrong" all day long, after all that's their prerogative. No problem.

The real problem, though, is that they want to discuss their highly convoluted scheme....which I (and others) find mathematically incongruent
with the the structural numbers in the T206 series. And, their failure to consider the printing press size that was compatible with the standard
size (18", or 19" x 24") sheets of that era used for this type of lithographic printing.

And, as an engineer, I am not confident in any system that does not follow a logical and mathematical pattern.

Furthermore....Andrew, have you noticed if they are willing to meet me half way....by discussing my hypothesis ? Absolutely NO !


TED Z