Were T206's printed on sheets of 48 Subjects ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

In the past I've been skeptical of T206's printed in sheet form. Just to keep you guys off-guard....now, I'm proposing my theory
that T206's were printed on formats of 48 Subjects.

The lowest common denominator to understanding this theory starts with the 12 cards that are in the "150-only" Series.
I have added Plank to this mix, as I feel he was one of the original "dirty dozen".....Plank was also printed (very few) as a Sweet
Cap 350/30 card and this anamoly was already covered in prior Thread on Plank.

150-only Series cards





All 12 of these cards could have been "Multi-Printed" on the first sheet. My conjecture is a format that was 12 cards across x 4
each in a vertical array. Other configurations are possible; but, this one seems to make most sense.

Subsequently, they withdrew the Plank and the Wagner from this group; and, they replaced these two subjects with any two of
the following candidates.





Here is the BIGGER PICTURE as a function of each Series....

The 150/350 Series comprises 144 subjects = 48 x 3

The Southern Leaguers = 48 subjects

The 460-only Series = 48 subjects

Basically, these numbers certainly reinforce the support for the 12 card - horizontal array format.
And, further analysis is needed to expand this theory to 48-card (or more) arrays.

Well, guys and gals, I hope I clearly presented this theory so that it's understandable. Until we ever find a
partial, or complete uncut sheet, all this conjecture might have to suffice.

But, if some one else on this Forum has a better brainstorm.....let's hear it ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Is my imagination running wild or does all (or part of) this makes some sense to you ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

Ted,
Interesting...as many know, T205s are my game and for a long time now I have suspected they were printed on 48 count sheets. I have been of the theory that certain players were replaced for the minor leaugers and the single prints. The only difference I see is that the t205s were printed one per sheet as opposed to the vertical arrays of the T206.
I also think the Obaks were printed in this fashion as well.

Keep up the good work.

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Ted,
I love ya, but today is my B-Day and I am in Cabo San lucus, so I'll be in touch when I return.... Be well Brian


PS The Weather, Whales, Golf and fishing is awesome......

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

Pretty sure...the few that I have seen that were even more miscut than yours shows them with different teams and players...I did see at least one other instance where it looked like the same player as with yours but it was just the same team.

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Happy Birthday....and, it sounds like you are having a great time.

I want you check all this out when you get back....because your So Lge/HINDU mystery motivated me to
give this much thought.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Tell us more about your ideas on the T205 format that you think may coincide with my T206 printing format of 48 subjects.

Thanks,

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Dylan

Don't some of the miscut cards add some information to these debates? What has been discovered thus far from some of the mis prints we've come across?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ted- assuming this sheet was eight cards across and six down, you would have one that measured only 12" x 15". For printers on the board such as Joe D., wouldn't that be an unusually small size to work with?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I actually think it was 12 cards across and each Subject were vertically repeated. The amount of repetition
is anyone's guess.
So, the actual (physical) sheet could be quite large.

Please note that I've referred to a "48-subject format"......I have avoided the term "sheet", since this is an
unknown quantity.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I think you are on the right track.

... Barry - A sheet for an image area of 12" x 15" is not too small - even by modern standards.

In my spare time - I am researching the printing equipment available at that time to hopefully add something intelligent to these threads. I am by no means a printing historian - so I will try to fill that gap and add it to what I know about modern printing.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Joe- wouldn't it be more cost efficient to print a larger sheet, say of 96 cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

I have sometimes wondered if the sheet size for the cards corresponds to the sheet size for the packaging (i.e. uncut sheets of the cigarette packs). Were not the cards and packs printed at the same location? Different materials I guess but some uncut pack sheets are out there in collector-land and can be neasured I am sure.

Also there is a scan of a partial uncut Obak sheet somehwere on this forum and it was larger then just 48 cards as I recall. It had some vertically repeating subjects randomly interspersed but no real pattern in this regard. I am at work and cannot check; I may have printed that thread a few weeks ago though but maybe someone else remembers and can post the link. Different printer, different part of the country though when compared to the ATC "east of the Mississippi" issues, so maybe no help there.

Ted Z absolutely needs to write a monograph on T206 when his research is complete. Wow, this is great stuff.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

Yes it would make sense.
But I would like to do some research on press sizes and how paper was distributed back then.

My guess would be that they tried to maximize units on standard sized sheets (based on press size).

So if it was a 40" press.... 96 cards sounds possible.

If it was a 20" press... 48 cards sounds possible.


The key is finding out press sizes of the day (maybe they are the same as modern sizes... I don't know).

And - I will assume that they printed on a standard sized press sheet (did not cut the sheet to run) -
this is just a guess based on making this job as easy as possible... so finding standard paper sizes of the day is also a great clue.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ed McCollum

I think back to what we've found out about the Broadleaf 460 series. Twenty six different card examples known, although there should be more, according to the SuperSet Bill has been working on. Haven't seen an updated copy of that recently, but just referring back to this post from last year for shear numbers. How many do you come up with, and sheet size, to account for 26 different cards in a series?

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1140647548/last-1141182185/T206+Broad+Leaf+460+cards

[Archive]

Posted By: J Hull

When I was reading through a couple lithography handbooks from the early 1900s I was struck by how much of a constant battle it was for the pressman to maintain registration through the process.

T206s were run through the press six or more times, one for each color. So that’s six times the sheet had to be aligned to the printing plate/printing press, within the very tight registration allowances, in order to produce a coherent overlayered image.

But there were two very interesting points I came across in the books. The first was the significant effect that changes in humidity and temperature had on the printing process. Keep in mind there were no climate controlled rooms back then. The humidity in particular could cause the paper to very slightly shrink or expand in size. Those changes wouldn’t be perceptible to the eye, but they would wreak havoc with registration. T206s must have been printed over a number of days, because each color ink most likely had to be allowed time to dry before the next could be applied. So on Monday when yellow ink was printed the weather and humidity could be one thing, and Wednesday when blue ink was added the weather and humidity could be completely different. The lithography book noted that the larger the sheet of paper, the more exaggerated the shrinking/expanding effect.

Similarly, each time the sheet went through the press it got wet, from the water/ink lithographic process, and squashed, by the press. This could cause the sheet to also very slightly expand in size, again messing with the registration. I have no idea whether the paper stock used for T206s was given to this type of expansion, but from the books it’s clear some types of paper stock were.

The net effect was that on large sheets, say 36 inches or more in length, the pressman could have the sheet in perfect registration for the top row of cards, and yet for the bottom row at the end of the sheet the registration could be off by as much as 1/16th of an inch. I’ve seen a lot of misregistered T206s, but the lithography books made me think that relatively smaller sheets were probably more likely to be used than very large ones.

Jamie

[Archive]

Posted By: andy becker

the two known s74 uncut sheets contained either 96 or 120 cards......i don't recall, but lew's book references those.

i would assume that was the "standard" format for cards of that size.

that does support a theory of 24 per run.

very interesting stuff, thanks ted.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ed

I have a bunch of T206 birds and fish. What does a PSA 6 bass go for these days?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I think most of us have seen the complete E93 uncut sheet of 30 cards.

These caramel cards were printed during the same time period as the T206's. And, probably with the same
type of printing methods. A sheet this small is consistent with Jamie's story on the lithographic process.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ted- while the E93 set had only 30 cards, how do we know an uncut sheet off the press didn't include two complete sets?

[Archive]

Posted By: Trae R.

I'm sure everyone has seen these already, but if not:

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

Not to complicate things further... but an 'uncut sheet' can actually be a cut sheet - just not completely cut down into individual cards yet.


If I were to do a T206 run right now, you would see half of the sheet have backs, and half of the sheet have fronts. If you work and turn the sheet (run it this way with backs and fronts on the same side) - you can save money on printing plates and time. you run one side of the sheet.... then you just turn it and run the other side. The backs back up the front and the fronts back up the back... and the end result is finished cards.


Are there any uncut sheets from any prewar set that show the fronts and the backs on the same side of the sheet?

Thats how I would run it.


Of course, if they were unsure of the backs... or if the backs were all done in one color - it might make sense to print all fronts on one side - and then come back and print the backs (sheetwise printing)... leaving the flexibility to decide at a later time how you would like to print the backs on the other side (when you figure out what backs you want to print there).

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

Ted- great post/analysis...

Brian (Happy B-day)- didn't you have a Lundgren, Chi. miscut with a different player's name at top, that you showed me...who was that player?

that could be a huge clue.

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

Ted,
Here are my thoughts on the T205 print runs. There were at least 4 different print runs (Hoblitzell supports this theory) and most likely more because of the back ad variations. In fact there might have only been 3 different print runs of the fronts (Chase) and as much as 8 different back runs based on ads and variations.

I have a feeling that the fronts were printed at least 3 different times replacing certain cards in the last print run with the minor leaugers and some variations (Graham, Shean, Breshnahan open, Collins open, etc.). If you look at the numbers it almost lines up correctly number wise with the way the set numbers are. I am still working on mock up of which cards might have been replaced. Just have not had time to run the numbers and complete the work.

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I have quite a bit of insight as to how the Bowman BB & FB card sheets were printed.
Longtime ago I talked with two former Bowman employees about how they were produced.

For instance this colorful 1949 Bowman sheet of mine is complete in that this series was issued
with the 36 cards on it (in the Summer of '49). However, it is only 1/2 of an actual 72-card
sheet. The other adjacent half has the same 36 cards on it, but the press must have been ro-
tated 180 degrees, because the card images on that half are inverted with respect to these 36.

I hope I'm making it clear, as this method of printing seems quite similar to what you are stating.
It makes sense, as they used one set of plates to print on a wider piece of cardboard. If I recall
correctly, they told me there was a "38-inch track" press. Does all this jive with your expertise ?



TED Z collection

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

You are mostly correct... that is a work-and-turn form that I mentioned earlier.
It is really how to do a job like this.

but the press doesn't rotate


Basically you print the fronts and the backs on the same side of the sheet... but the fronts are facing one direction and the backs are 180 degrees in the other direction.

After the pressman runs one side of the paper... he turns the sheet left to right and runs the paper through the press again using the same plates. Doing so... the backs correctly back up the fronts and the fronts back up the backs... and the pressman didn't have to change printing plates.

If you print out my little drawing of a press sheet - below - print two copies and make one the back of the other you will see how the fronts and backs back each other up correctly and everythign goes right side up.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Ted,

I have been thinking about these issues for a while and haven't been able to settle on a number, such as 48. Let's look at the number of subjects printed with particular backs.

1. The number of subjects printed with Sovereign 460 is 52, i.e. 46 of the 48 460-only subjects + the 6 350/460 superprinted subjects.

2. The number of subjects printed with Sweet Caporal 460/30 is also 52, i.e. 46 of the 48 460-only subjects + the 6 350/460 superprinted subjects.

3. The number of subjects printed with Sweet Caporal 150/649 is 35, i.e. Alperman, Bates, Bransfield, Bresnahan (Portrait), Clarke (Cleveland), Davis (Chicago), Delehanty (Washington), Ewing, Gilbert, Goode, Griffith (Portrait), Davis (H. on Front), Johnson (Portrait), Jones (St. Louis), Killian (Pitching), Lajoie (Throwing), Lake (New York), Liebhardt, Manning (Batting), Marquard (Hands at Thighs), Mathewson (White Cap), McIntyre (Brooklyn), McQuillan (Ball in Hand), Nichols, O’Leary (Portrait), Owen, Pastorius, Powers, Ritchey, Schmidt (Throwing), Schlei (Catching), Sheckard (No Glove), Spencer, Wagner (Bat on Left) and Wilhelm (Hands at Chest).

4. The number of subjects printed with Old Mill Southern is 48, i.e. the 48 southern league subjects.

The factors of 35 are 1, 5, 7 and 35.
The factors of 48 are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24 and 48
The factors of 52 are 1, 2, 4, 13, 26 and 52.

The greatest common factor is 1. Even if we assume that there are actually 36 Sweet Caporal 150/649 subjects (i.e. that I have missed one) the GCF is 4.

So what are we to make of this mess?

Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

the fundamental issue I have with your posts is that you are thinking in terms of individual cards - when really the thought should be number of 'units'.

The number of cards may fluctuate for each press run. The number of units probably remained the same.



I think we need to find out press size and paper size.

With that information we could then figure out the maximum number of units on the sheet.


The number of individual cards is almost of no concern... it is quite possbile that there were multiple up of players - and possibly not done in consistent manner. Maybe six cobb red on one sheet and only two or three of other players.

It is a very tough riddle.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Joe- those uncut sheets you gave me of my auction catalog are instructional on how printing is done. If I could show one on the board, it would be useful. They are rather large, and all 16 pages of my catalog are on them, but the configuration shows half right side up, half upside down, and not exactly in a straight numerical page order.

I know that is different than a sheet because the end result is a 16 page book, but it is instructive to look at the sheet before it is cut up.

Does this make any sense at all?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I am finally out of jury duty, all week I didn't get on any case. The lawyers kept rejecting me....didn't
like my looks, didn't like my answers, or most likely didn't want an engineer on a case.

In general, I agree with you, it's a "monster mess", as there are too many back variables to try and arrive
at some neat rhyme or reason from all this. My perspective, however, for this theory ignores the compli-
cations resulting from the various backs and is a 1st order approach with respect to the fronts. Which, by
the way, you can apply this thinking to an all-Piedmont set of 522 cards and the analysis should be the
same.

Do you agree, though, that with 144 Subjects in the 150/350 group....48 Southern Lgers....and 48 Subjects
in the 460-only Series, it is awful tempting to think T206 formatted their design around this factor of 48 ?

And, I say this because I still have strong feelings that the fronts were printed separately; and, at some
stage in the process were somehow appliqued onto pre-printed cardboard sheets with the various T-brands.
So, that's my rationale for approaching this strictly from a "front" perspective. Otherwise, it is mind-boggling.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Ted,

I too was dismissed from a jury panel during voir dire last time I was called for service. Engineer + Lawyer = Goodbye. Anyway, on the same jury panel was a guy who had legally changed his name to Jesus Christ and who came to the courtroom dressed in a white robe. He survived voir dire and ruled on the case. No joke.

I will grant you that "48" pops up a lot in T206. I'm just not sure anything about production can be surmised from that.

Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

You just posted on my other Thread......so, I'm curious if you have given some thought to my speculation ?
As to why you probably will not find anymore Southern Lgers with Brown HINDU backs.....other than the 36
(or 37) you currently have.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Judson Hamlin

Ted- How about four high and twelve wide per sheet? That would also fit the known Polar Bear set numbers (252 = 13 sheets) and would also fit the Hindu SL numbers? The 12 card could be repeated vertically on the entire sheet or, in the case of the Phillippe miscut, have a few players replaced on the sheet, say 2 each of 6 players and an extra 2 Pirates players along the top of the sheet. You could also use this printing system to allow the "superprint" cards to work on the Sovereign 460 set
In the case of the 649 overprints, we're one away from a three-sheet run, allowing for one example (perhaps on either edge, thus being subject to damage/miscut) slipping through our collective net so far.
With the Sweet Cap 35-460's, I bet if we broke it down by factory, we would come up with groups of twelve.
So your idea works on multiple levels, I think. Looking forward to hashing this over over some hash on the 24th

Judson

[Archive]

Posted By: johnny

TRAE!!!

the philippe is hot!!!

sweet card!!!!is it for sale??????????????????????????

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

JUDSON

Sounds like I convinced you regarding the "12 factor". Yes, that's exactly my initial conjecture
that the printing configuration was formatted 12 cards across......and it's anyone's guess how
many rows down.

SCOT

I completely forgot about the Sweet Cap 150/649 group. And, as you noted there have been 35
subjects with this back confirmed. But, I would venture to say there were 36 cards printed.....I
just have to justify my lowest common denominator (12); so, either one will eventually show up,
or one of the 35 subjects was double-printed. And, my candidate would be Powers, as I've seen
this card with this back more than the other 34 cards.

Perhaps, we should conduct a survey regarding the SC 150/649 cards ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I certainly don't get tired of seeing your Phillippe/Engle card. Most of the vertically O/C T206's
are repeated players....your's is very unusual.

But, how come we never see a horizontal O/C T206 ?

Here's my horiz. O/C T205 card of Titus/Smith.......

Hey guys and gals.....does anyone on this Forum have a horiz. O/C....T206 to show us ? ?



TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Hi Ted,

It is certainly possible that one of the 35 SC 150/649 subjects was double-printed. And why not Powers? He does seem to show up a lot with that back.

But that still leaves us with the problem of 52 subjects printed with SC 460/30 and Sov 460, that is:

48 460-onlys - Kleinow (Boston) - Smith (Both) + 6 350/460 superprints.

Of course, it could be that eight of those subjects were double-printed (i.e. 12 X 5 = 60), but then we are into the realm of wild speculation.

Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

The question regarding the SOVEREIGN 460 subjects (52) is a puzzling one, for sure. I'm still mulling it over.

Conversely, the standing total of POLAR BEAR subjects is 252.

The current total of EPDG stands at 240.

Unless more data is received on these two T-brands (and I will be surprised if there aren't any more inputs),
the "12 factor" in the printing format is becoming more plausible.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Hey guy.....still waiting for your response to my theory on why you have all the HINDU Southern Lgers.
there is to be found.

Check it out in my opening presentation. Need to hear your expert opinion ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Ted,
I am way behind on work thi week, so I'll get to it over the weekend. Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

Hi Brian, how are you?

don't forget about that Lundgren miscut? who is the player on top? i think this is a great clue...

MS

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I think you will like how this analysis works into possibly resolving your Southern Leaguer/HINDU mystery.
As you know, the brown HINDU backs were printed during the 150 Series run, in which the Southern Lgrs
were also issued. Now, if my theory regarding 48 subjects per sheet is valid, then consider the following....

The T206 designers intermixed the above 12 Major Lgrs (the 150-only cards) with the Southern Lgers on this
48 card format....therefore, only 36 Southern Leaguers (of the original 48) are found with HINDU backs. Why
they did this, who knows. But, this theory makes sense to me, since I believe the level of scarcity of these
So Lgrs with HINDU backs is equal to the above Major Lgrs. with HINDU backs (of course Plank and Wagner
are not included, instead, their two replacements are).

BRIAN.....correct me if I am wrong, but you have found only 36 (or is it 37) Southern Lge. players with HINDU
backs.
I think the missing, or No-Print guys are.....

Bastian
both Hart's
Lentz
Miller
Orth
Smith (Shreveport)
Stark
Thebo
Westlake
White (Houston)

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Ted,
Your theory of 48 per sheet is certainly possible, but I have always felt they were printed in smaller sheets from 18-36. I don't have any hard evidence to support either idea, but I think we do agree that most of the vintage sheets in existence include between 18-48 cards.
Your theory does raise several questions that have always puzzled me:

1. There are exactly 48 Southern Leaguers in the set, but only 37 of them have been found with Hindu backs, making it possible that they did share space on a 48 card sheet with a few Major Leaguers.

2. Obviously it makes sense that the 9 150 only cards could have been added to the sheet to bring the number to 46, and that 2 more cards could have been added to complete the sheet. However, we have seen evidence while trying to rebuild sheets that suggest that not all sheets had the same conbinations. There are certainly "Long prints", ie Evers Yellow, Chance Yellow, Cobb Red, etc, as well as "short prints" ie Lundgren, Lindaman, Doyle, etc that support this idea.

3. The 48 number also could lead you to conclude that all of the Southern Leaguers were printed on the same sheet for the 350 series, as all are found with Old Mill and Piedmont backs. All they had to do, was drop the 9 150 only cards and the 2 extra's and everything fits nicely.

I'll try to add more to your theory when I have more time, but I'm heading to the pool right now. Be well Brian

PS Michael the name on the top of the Lundgren is Doolin, who appears in many of the early Hindu adds...

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

To reiterate an idea I have seen on here previously, I think you need to look at the number of subjects per series becasue you will likely never figure out the subject distribution on the sheets, even if you know the array. There must have been a budget for the cards and part of that would mean a finite number to the drawings/paintings that make up the cards. The partial Obak sheet scan I have seen (on the board here somewhere in the past) did not have a rhyme or reason to the duplicate subjects and there's no reason to think T206 did either, other than to allow ATC to package the cards with whatever level of duplication they felt comfortable with. Topps used to do the same thing, double printing certain rows of cards on the press sheets.

For T206 you might have a set number of subjects appearing once or twice per sheet (say on the right side) then you could set up the left side differently, say with the first print Cubs or the cards celebrating the Pirates as Champs being multiple printed in repeating vertical strips. I always thought it possible there was some latitude given to the brands (or at least factories) regarding which subjects they wanted to distribute. Imagine a core group of cards, say 80% of a given series, then the remaining 20% could have been selected from a larger pool of subjects.

Food for thought?

Dave

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Thanks for your input on this subject matter, it's very interesting.

If you get a chance, would you mind providing us a scan of your Lundgren/Doolin card ?
Also, is it a Piedmont 150 or 350 card ?
That has to be one "cool" card. It isn't often we see disimilar names on vertically O/C T206's.

We have in a prior post here, Trae's really neat Phillippe/Engle card.

All the T206's that I have with top/bottom names are the same player's name.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Ted,
Here's the Lundgren with a Piedmont 150 back.




I also have a Jim Delehanty Piedmont 350 with a partial of Waddell's name at the top. I even have a miscut Waddell that fits on top, but it's not a perfect fit and it has a 150 back. I will try to post a scan tonight.

Later Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Fantastic....you are the greatest....thanks for posting your scans.

Does your Lundgren/Doolin card tell us something......instead of the usual vertically repeated cards
(multi-printing of the same player), these two appear to have been printed just once on their sheet.
Therefore, they were "single printed".

Well we all know how tough this Lundgren card is; however, Doolin is not as tough. But, this Doolin
(portrait) is not an easy card, either.

Although, this same reasoning does not apply to Delehanty and Waddell, as both are easy to find.

Now, good ole buddy......do you have, or have you ever seen, a T206 horizontally O/C like my T205
Titus/Smith ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

ted,

have you seen the t206 horizontal miscut on T206museum.com