T206 Sheets

[Archive]

Posted By: ChiSoxFan

I know that no uncut sheets have ever been found for T206, so on several occasions I have thought about trying to reconstruct sheets based on mis-cut cards.

When thinking more about this, would you want to compare same backs? Does anyone know if the same fronts were printed on a Piedmont 350 as a Carolina Brights as a Sweet Caporal Series 350 (regardless of factory)?

Does anyone know if sheets were more than 5 cards wide, as shown on the Wagner strip? If this is the case, then would a Sweet Caporal Series 150 w/ Fact. 649 Overprint sheet have at least one "double printed" card (34 cards confirmed in the set)? Or is it possible that not all sheets were 5 cards wide? Using this set as an example, with only 34 cards and "regular print", then sheets could have been 17 cards wide (which is only about 24.50" wide - 17 cards times 1.4375" card width)

What other theories do you have about T206 sheets?

Has any other board members tried to reconstruct a sheet?

Let's see some mis-cut T206's, and please list the back.

Thanks,
ChiSoxFan

Looking for T206 Sweet Caporal Fact. #30 White Sox in Poor to Fair condition.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

A reasonable if imperfect guide would be to look at the dimensions of uncut sheets of other cards of the period, including of non-sport cards. This should at least give you a good idea of standard sizes. I would expect there were variations and exceptions (for example, due to the number of cards in a set), but that there were a number of standard industry sizes. Sheets of cardboard and paper have always come in standard sizes, even at the wholesale and industrial level, and I'm sure the card printers bought their cardstock from someone else. Of course, the printer can cut down a sheet (they cut out the cards after all), but an odds on guess is that that a printer used a sheet of cardstock in the uncut size they bought it-- which would be one of the standard sizes.

In short, find out the standard sizes of the day, and it's most likely that the T206s sheets were standard sized. Knowing the sizes will make recreations easier. The other thing to remember is that the T206s were printed over numerous years, and sheets could have come in different sizes. Topps sheets come in different sizes.

[Archive]

Posted By: jason

i saw a 5 card sheet in a book called the card and it was owned by honus wagner it was in his pants pocket. the 5 card sheet had a rare t206 wagner. thats what i've seen

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott B.

Is this what you are talking about?

"T206 printing correlation revealed from T206 test strips and overprints"
http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_47.html

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

The only uncut sheet from that era that I'm aware of is a complete 30-card sheet of E93 cards....configured 10 across x 3 rows.

More evidence of how sheets might have been formatted is this 12-card strip of E91 cards.





We know each series of E91 cards comprises 33 cards; therefore, these cards must of been printed on 36-card sheets (containing
3 double prints). On this strip of 12, Honus Wagner is double-printed.

Considering these two examples, I think a T206 sheet was most likely configured 12 cards across x 4 rows down......for a 48-card
sheet. A 48-card sheet is consistent with the total number of cards in the T206 Southern Leaguer series and the 460-only series.


TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

There was an Obak sheet in auction a few years ago (check your catalogs, probably Masto or REA). I don't remember the dimensions, but it was was long horizontally.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

REA, 2008, Lot 226

[Archive]

Posted By: Craig W

My guess is that T206 sheets had six players across.

Originally, there were 42 So Lgrs, which would mean 7 sheets (7x6=42).

Then there was a sheet with the six Texas Lgrs.

It appears that there were twelve 150-Only players, so this would be 2 sheets.

There are six players in the 350-460 Super Series, which would be one sheet.

There are 48 players in the 460-Only series, which would be eight sheets.

The nominal width of a T206 is 1-7/16. A row of six would equal 8-5/8. Add 3/16 to each side that would later be trimmed off would give a 9 inch wide sheet.

Of course this doesn't explain the 141 cards in the 150-350 series or the 55 cards in the 350-460 Regular series.

Regards,
Craig

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

I agree with Ted on the 48 card sheet. I have been trying to put together a sheet/print run for t205s for many years and the one that makes sense to me is a 48 card sheet. Just not sure which way it is configured.

BTW, not sure if the Obak sheet was a complete sheet. I seem to recall it being a partial sheet.

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

Buried deep in the pages here is a scan of the Obak sheet-I recall it was quite large, maybe almost 200 cards ( I recall 19 columns for some reason but don;t quote me on that). I noticed it when I paged back through the site a couple of years ago, I just can't find it with the search function so it may be in a non-Obak thread.

It bears repeating too that you will never know the full array, your best hope is determining how many different subjects are in a print run.

A 48 card T206 sheet would be quite small-I have to think the size would approach what the packaging was printed on sheet-wise and I believe there are some fairly large uncut tobacco packaging sheets out there that might provide a clue.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

The E93 sheet pictured in the above post is an incomplete sheet. You can see that on the
left border it was hand cut.
A complete sheet includes all 30 cards in this set....in a 10 (across) x 3 rows (down) array.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff S.

We also need to think about the source of the printing - the lithographic stones. It's tough to fathom a stone containing 200 images - the size and weight would be immense. 48 sounds more feasible...

[Archive]

Posted By: jason

i think the size of the sheet depends on where it was printed. thats what i think

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Double post

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Comparing OBAK's with T206 production is a totally different "animal". OBAK's were printed
in California, employing a different printing process and on large sheets....and, perhaps that
is why uncut sheets of OBAK's have survived.

E-cards were printed in the greater Philadelphia area on smaller sheets of 30 (or 36) cards.

T206's were printed in NYC at the American Lithographic Co. (ALC). And, since we have yet
to see an uncut sheet of T206's....my theory is that they were printed with 12 cards across
a row....similar to the 12-card strip of E91 cards shown here......





How many 12-card rows make up a complete sheet is the function of the number of Subjects
in that particular series.
A 48 card sheet is a natural for two of the series in the T206 set......

48 Subjects......Southern League series

48 Subjects......460-only series

Furthermore, the 12-across arrangement is reinforced by the make up of three other series in
the T206 set......

12 Subjects......150-only cards

144 Subjects.....150/350 series (12 rows x 12 cards)

216 Subjects.....350-only series (18 rows x 12 cards)

My educated guess of 12-cards across each row is based on the composition of these 5 Series
in the T206 set.

And, NO....I don't agree that a 48-card sheet is "small", by the printing methods employed by
ALC in 1909-1911.


TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I would guess they used metal plates for the T206s. Commercial stone lithography was more an 1800s thing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

But what do we make of the fact that most miscut T206's have the same player vertically? That would at least double the size of the sheet in theory to 96 cards at a minimum.


Were Obak's definitely printed in California?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Identical 12-card rows were repeated (double, or triple printed) as they printed down
the sheet of cardboard. I think this was especially true with the 350 series cards. I have
seen more of the 350 series cards with the same name on the top border than the other
series cards. And, if you think about this....there are more 350 series cards than any of
the other series.
This is not only so, because of the higher number Subjects in the 350 series; but, also in
the greater availability of T206's from this series.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: johnny

hello

i have seen 2 t206 with two different names at the top and bottom.... i own one

johnny

[Archive]

Posted By: jason

i think they printed them on stone they found a c55 stone for the adds

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Tell us what two T206's they are and what are the different names on the top border ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Ted,
Have you seen the one full uncut sheet of E93s? There are two and a half partial sets (cut into two or three pieces) and all are six wide. My guess from that is that the original complete sheet was six wide by five tall. Perhaps the owner or somebody who has seen the E93 complete sheet can comment. I know the owner is a contributor to this board, but I have not asked about the layout.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: dstudeba

I would love to see the Obak sheet people are referring to. If anyone has scans, or can point me to the auction I would be very appreciative. This is the closest I have seen.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Just looked up the Obak sheet in the 1999 MastroWest Auction. It is 19 cards wide by 3 high. It has a very large blank area above the three rows,and none below, making it look like this is just the top portion of a much larger sheet.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: dstudeba

Thanks Jim, what year is it? The one above is from 1909, I know Leon has similar strips from 1910 or 1911.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

That Mastrowest sheet is not the one I recall, I remember many more cards on it.

[Archive]

Posted By: ChiSoxFan

While looking at Scot's Inside T206 (3rd Edition), it has the following cards per series.

150 Only - 9 cards
150/350 - 144 cards
350 Only - 208 cards
350/460 (RP) - 55 cards
350/460 (SP) - 6 cards
460 Only - 48 cards
South. Leg. - 48 cards
"Rule Breakers" - 7 cards

For a total of 524 cards.


In another post, Ted's survey has pretty much concluded that 3 cards should be moved from the 150/350 series into the 150 only (Ames (hands/chest), L Doyle (throwing), and Schulte Batting (Front View)). By doing this, the 150 Only is now at 12 cards, however the 150/350 is down to 141 cards.

Going by Ted's theory of 12 cards wide per sheet, which 3 cards should be moved into 150/350 series?

ChiSoxFan

Looking for T206 Sweet Caporal Fact. #30 White Sox in Poor to Fair condition.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

1st....Scot Reader and I are 99.9% convinced that Ames, Doyle & Schulte are 150-only Subjects (hence, total of 12 subjects).

2nd....then the 150/350 has 141 subjects plus 3 double-prints = 144 subjects

3rd....the 350 series comprises 208 subjects + 6 super-prints** + the two St. Lo. vars. (Demmitt & O'Hara) = 216 subjects


NOTE ......the 6 super-prints are by initial design 350 series cards since their American Beauty backs are FRAMED.
Subsequently, American Lithographic decided to extend these 6 cards into the 460 series.


T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: J Hull

Is this the Obak sheet previously mentioned? Or its other half?

[Archive]

Posted By: J Hull

To add some more pictures to this thread...

Here are some scans which might be relevant to this discussion.


Abbaticchio w/ Cicotte at top
Piedmont 350 back


Hoblitzell w/ Stephens at top
Piedmont 350 back


McElveen w/ Dygert at top
Piedmont 350 back


McGlynn w/ Jones, Detroit at top
Sweet Caporal 350, Factory 30 back

[Archive]

Posted By: J Hull

And a couple more.


Atz w/ Hoffman, Providence at top
Piedmont 350 back


Atz w/ Atz at top
Sweet Caporal 350, Factory 30 back


Engle w/ Phillippe at top
Piedmont 350 back


Engle w/ Engle at top
Piedmont 350 back

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

That Obak sheet must be exactly how T206s were printed.

First, notice that most "doubles" appear in the same row, in a series of repeating players, but separated by other cards. Second, take a look at the center/middle part of the sheet -- you will see that there are vertical doubles of three players, one on top of the other. And then, above and below those duplicate images, are different players.

This explains why T206s with top and bottom border/double names sometimes have the same player name in the top border, and sometimes a different player in the top border.

In the absence of other proof, this Obak sheet, combined with the existence of same name/top AND different name/top T206s, is the best evidence of what a T206 sheet looked like.

Now that we know T206s must have been printed 19 across on a sheet, the only question is how many rows of 19?

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

I have 4 backs,all printed upside down(the scan is actually flipped to see the cards better) that show parts of 4 piedmont ads and when properly aligned they match up pretty good so one could say they might've came from the same sheet. The players are Doolan portrait, Ciccotte, George Davis and Tannehill,chi

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

JHull,
That sheet is different from the one MastroWest auctioned in '99.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

......"That Obak sheet must be exactly how T206s were printed."......

Totally false assumption..........the Series structure of the T206 set is totally different from
the T212 set.

I will reiterate my previous post here in order to make my point.

T206's were printed in NYC at the American Lithographic Co. And, since we have yet to see
an uncut sheet of T206's....my theory is that they were printed with 12 cards across a row.
.....very similar to this 12-card strip of the 1910 series of E91 cards shown here......






How many 12-card rows make up a complete sheet is a function of the number of Subjects
in that particular series.

The following lists the structural make-up of the five major series in the T206 set......

12 Subjects......150-only cards

144 Subjects.....150/350 series (12 rows x 12 cards)

216 Subjects.....350-only series (18 rows x 12 cards)

48 Subjects......460-only series (4 rows x 12 cards)

48 Subjects......Southern League series (4 rows x 12 cards)


My educated guess of 12-cards across each row in the T206 set is based on the structure
of these five Series.
The numbers definitely suggest a consistent pattern, indicative of this 12-card theory.

Not the 19-card rows....as the complete OBAK (76-card) sheet illustrates.


T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

There are many totally false assumptions on this thread.

There is no basis at all for assuming that T206s were printed in rows of 12, simply because the series divide evenly by multiples of 12. Also, I don't believe all the T206 series can be divided evenly by 12 (the 350/460 series is 55 cards + 6 super prints, which is 61. And I thought the 350 only series was 208 (?)).

The 19 card row Obak sheet pictured above has the "PCL" designation in the bottom border -- which means it isn't the 76 card 1909 Obak set. That sheet appears to be from the 175 card 1910 Obak set. And 19 doesn't divide evenly into 175.

Moreover, the E91 strip of 12 pictured above appears to be cut on both ends. It was likely wider than 12 when printed. But, in any event, the E91 sets are each comprised of 33 players, and 12 doesn't divide evenly into 33.

Also, the E91s are a different size than T206s and Obaks, so we cannot draw any conclusions about how many T206s appeared on a sheet from based on an E91 sheet (even if we had a complete E91 sheet to compare).

And while Obaks were printed on the west coast, and T206s printed on the east coast, according to the Standard Catalogue, the Obaks were "produced by the California branch of the same American Tobacco Company conglomerate".

Until something better than even division appears, the 3x19 Obak sheet is still the best evidence of how T206s were printed. They are cards printed by the same company, in the same year, and are the same size, produced to be distributed with the same product type (cigarettes). Plus, the positioning of the "doubles" on the Obak sheet explains perfectly why T206s are found with same and different names in the top border.

[Archive]

Posted By: J Hull

All we have are theories, and theory-filled threads are (to me) the best kind.
I think, as Ted points out, the numbers 6 and 12 are too prominent in the series compositions to be purely a coincidence.

But on the other hand, looking at that Obak sheet, I count 57 places where we can see a card and see the card positioned
above it in the same column. Out of those 57, there are 4 where if this sheet was miscut we'd see the same name at the
top and bottom of the card, and 53 where we'd see one name at the bottom and a different name at the top.

That kind of ratio is pretty much exactly the opposite of what I've observed in looking at T206s. With T206s the
vast vast majority of double-name cards have the same name at the top and the bottom of the card. Maybe if we imagine
something like the Obak sheet but with all the columns, however many there were for T206s, having the same player in vertical
columns and a few here and there that made up of different players, we might be close to how they really looked.
Might be. The problem is if we concretely determine there were 12 columns or 19 columns or some other number, how many
of those columns were the same player and how many were mixed? For that, I don't think anyone has the answer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

1st....the 350 series comprises 208 subjects + the 6 super-prints** + Demmitt & O'Hara (St Louis vars.) = 216 Subjects

**NOTE....the 6 super-prints are by initial design 350 series cards. We know this since their American Beauty backs are
the FRAME version.
Subsequently, American Lithographic decided to extend these 6 subjects into the 460 series.

JAMIE

I strongly believe that "12" is the common denominator in the T206 production process; and, I appreciate your support of
this theory.
The number of cards across a row on the printed sheet is dictated by the printing press track. I've read that one popular
press track in the early 20th Century lithographic firms was 19 inches.

If true, then 12 x 1 1/2 inches = 18 inches. Add a 1/2 inch edge on each side of the sheet and it = 19 inches.


The vertical same-name phenomena that we see on T206's is the result of "repeated row" printing down the sheet.

If I understood your last paragraph correctly, I think you have alluded to this type of repeated-row printing.


TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: JimP

Ted, great theories, but one thing troubles me....it is proposed that because there were 12 150-only subjects, that lends creedence to the 12 cards per sheet theory.

Don't we have good understanding as to why the 12 subjects were left off the 350 series? (Changed teams, out of baseball, etc) Couldn't it just be a coincidence that the number of "corrections" made to the 150 series when it was re-released as a 350 series was 12 (or 9, depending on what you believe)?

Also, consider that the 12 (or 9?) 150only's were probably scattered across different strips or sheets. I say this because when they first laid out the players in early 1909, they couldn't have known which ones would be left off of a then-unknown future 350 series. So did they rearrange the subject-layouts on the sheet altogether for the next series? Wouldn't that have involved significant re-tooling of the printing plates? Do we think it was a single 12-subject plate or 12 individual plates stacked together? That's a question for the printing historians out there. Wouldn't it be great if we had more technological background about ALC?

Also, consider they indicated 150 subjects on this "150 series" on the first printed backs (Piedmonts, presumably) for some reason which I have never heard explained...Why didn't they say "156" subjects?
So the designers would have known the printing limits of cards/sheet and they still had a target of 150 cards (which is divisible by 6 not 12)

I don't discount the 12-cards per sheet theory, I just am questioning how the 150onlys play into that theory.

[Archive]

Posted By: J Hull

Hi Ted.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring to.

I think your mention of printing press dimensions is an important one. The more we know about the presses of the day,
the more insight we'd get into things like sheet size.

I also think that while looking at the total cards included in each series (150, 350, 350-460, 460-only, Southern
Leaguers, etc.) is valuable, we've learned from the numerous surveys conducted here on the board (largely led by Ted Z)
that not each card in each series was printed with all theoretically possible backs. Correct me if I'm wrong,
but not every 350-only series card has been verified with an American Beauty back, or an Old Mill back, or a Cycle 350 back, etc.
To me it seems clear that if 350-only series Card A is possible with an American Beauty back and 350-only series Card B
is not possible with that back, those two cards were not printed from the same printing plate. It does not necessarily
follow that if card A and card B DO both have American Beauty backs that they were printed from the same plate either, because
a card may have appeared on more than one plate. But I think that adding in our knowledge about available back brands is
key to this conundrum of sheet makeup.

So here's an easy-ish example. What's the number of 150 series cards confirmed with Sweet Caporal 150,
Factory 649 overprinted backs? My notes say 34. How does that number (or whatever the correct one is) fit
into things?

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

I do not believe the number 12 appears, with any certainty, in any T206 series other than the 460 Only series and the So. Leaguers.

Here's how I look at the first 4 series ...

1st Series / 150 Only -- is it 9 or 12 cards? Or is it 10 or 11? We do not know. But you only get from 9 to 12 cards if you take 3 out of the 150-350 Series.

2nd Series / 150-350 -- is this made up of 141 cards or 144? Or somewhere in between? The issue I have here is that you can't take 3 away from the 150-350 Series and assign them to the 150 Only series, and then assume there must have been three double-prints, just to get back to 144.

3rd Series / 350 Only -- this is at least 208 cards. To get to 216 you have to take the 6 super-prints (which are from the 350/460 series) and then add in the Demmitt & O'Hara St. Louis variations (which only appear with Polar Bear backs). However, if you are going to add the two St. Louis variations, shouldn't the Demmitt NY and O'Hara NY be subtracted? I do not see how Demmitt NY and O'Hara NY could have been printed on the same sheet as the St. Louis/Polar Bear variations. That would be impossible. So, even if you take the 6 super prints from the next series (which is a big assumption), the most you can come up with for any individual 350 Only print run is 214.

4th Series / 350-460 -- this comprised of 61 cards. 55 + the 6 super prints. No matter how you slice it, there's no forcing this series into a multiple of 12.

And if you factor in the overlap among the Series in the print process (150 Only and 150/350, 350 Only and 350/460, etc.), and the fact that not all cards in a series are found with the same backs, then the number 12 really has no significance in the printing process.

I'd be happy with 12 or 19. I just don't see how the 12 card theory can be viewed with more certainty compared to what we actually see in the Obak printing process.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

PC you said......
"So, even if you take the 6 super prints from the next series (which is a big assumption), the most you can come up with
for any individual 350 Only print run is 214."

The 6 "super prints" being initially in the 350 series is not a "big assumption". If you have a problem believing me, then you
also have a problem with Scot Reader's analysis. It was Scot who 1st discovered this fact. You do realize that these 6 sub-
jects exist with AB 350 backs with FRAME ?
This is only possible on T206's that were printed April-May 1910 when the first AB backs (with FRAME) were produced.

The 55 (actually 56) subjects, all originally in the 350 series, were repeated subjects in the 460 series. I'm sure you under-
stand this ? This group of subjects exist with AB 350 (NO FRAME) backs. Furthermore, some (not all 56) exist with AB 460
(NO FRAME) backs.

Incidently, the 56th subject is Nichols (bat), who exists with an AB 350 (NO FRAME) back. But, no AB 460 (NO FRAME) back.


One final note....I agree with you that both Demmitt's and O'Hara's were not on the same sheet. Demmitt (NY) & O'Hara (NY)
are not found with POLAR BEAR backs. I can only conclude that there were 2 double prints to bring the total 350-only arrange-
ment to 216 cards.



TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

"I can only conclude that there were 2 double prints to bring the total 350-only arrangement to 216 cards."

You also conclude that there must be three double-prints in the 150/350 Series (to get to a multiple of 12 in that series), since there might be 3 that need to be moved to the 150 Only series (which results in a multiple of 12 in that series).

You are making assumptions and calculations to force a multiple of 12 in series where the multiple does not exist, and I disagree with that.

And I completely understand the super-prints, and why you would want to include them in the 350 series. The only problem with doing that is they are not 350-Only series cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

JIM

Too many ?'s.......for now I'll answer your 1st ? Reasons for these 12 not being being continued with 350 backs is......

150-only Subjects

M. Brown (Cubs)......same pix, uniform change to "Chicago" in 350 series (and 460 series)

G. Browne (Chi).......same pix, traded to Washington in 350 series

Burch (batting)........no obvious reason

Donlin (fielding)........briefly left BB to be in vaudeville

L. Doyle (throw).......no obvious reason

Evers (Cubs)............same pix, uniform change to "Chicago" in 350 series (and 460 series)

Pattee....................one year ML career ends at end of 1908

Pelty (horiz).............no obvious reason

Powers....................died in April 1909.

Reulbach (Cubs)........diff. pose in 350 (and 460 series) with "Chicago" uniform

Schulte (Cubs).........diff. pose in 460 series with "Chicago" uniform

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

Its your prerogative not to agree with my observations on the T206 structure. I referred you to Scot Reader's analysis.
Yet, for whatever reason (that I'm not sure I understand) you appear to to be a contentious critic. The fact that you
do not want to accept that the 6 super prints were originally designed as "350-only" cards is your problem.

Anyhow, I waiting for some logical alternatives from you regarding the overall T206 printing arrangement ?

I think the series "numbers" favor my contention that this set was printed in multiples of 12. I have discussed this with
others; and, they consider my observation to have some merit.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

No contention here. I just disagree with the 12 multiple theory.

And my logical alternative is what we see on the Obak partial sheet, which I think is a better indication of how a T206 sheet looked (for the reasons I stated above).

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I have 35 of 150 series cards confirmed with Sweet Caporal 150, Factory 649 overprints. I expect a 36th to show up
someday.
If not, than perhaps Griffith or Matty were double-printed for a total of 36.

Now, you bring up a great question regarding the various T-brand NO PRINTS. I will check-out my complete SOVEREIGN
set and see what I can make of it with respect to possible sheet configurations. The SOVEREIGN set is an excellent
model since its 3 Series are straightforward. That is there is no interim series such as a 350/460 series or So. Lgrs.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

The Tolstoi survey yielded 227 examples. One more would make 228.

228 is 19 rows of 12 across, or 12 rows of 19 across.

Is that irony, or what?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

You both have suggested even a lower common denominator of 6. I've looked over my three "all-T brand"
complete sets (PIEDMONT, SOVEREIGN, SWEET CAPORAL-Fac. 30).....and you might be on to something.

For instance....my SWEET CAP (Factory 30) set of 467 cards (- Plank & Wagner)....its 350 series includes
exactly 270 subjects (45 x 6).

My SOVEREIGN set's 350 series has 204 subjects (34 x 6)

Also, the following lists various T-brand's confirmed tallies (but, I don't think we can derive any common
denominator from these numbers.

CYCLE 460............87 subjects
EPDG.................274 subjects
OLD MILL............338 subjects
SOVEREIGN.........405 subjects
SWEET CAP/30....469 subjects


TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: johnny

TED

sorry so late, have a pickering w/ meyers at top...

the other one i saw was a mcgraw w/ ??? can't remember


WOW!!!jamie, where did u get so many 2 different names???!!!

i'm impressed, they are super tuff....

johnny