T206 George Browne Washington

[Runscott]

Why does this card almost always measure short?

[FrankWakefield]

That's one fine question, Scott. I was not aware of that subtlety.

[Brian Weisner]

Hi Scott,
I don't think it does.... Most of the ones I've seen are no different than any other T206...

Be well Brian

[Gradedcardman]

I've owned four in the last year and all have looked and graded with no issues.

Best regards,
Adam

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Gradedcardman

I've owned four in the last year and all have looked and graded with no issues.

Best regards,
Adam

Edited: Okay, thanks. I just checked ebay and most of them looked okay. It might just be a coincidence that there was a period recently where they all appeared short.

[Jaybird]

at 5'10" he was probably considered tall for his time...


http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...rownge01.shtml

[Ronnie73]

There might be a small group of George Browne cards that are smaller but not all of them. I've noticed that some George Mullin with bat cards are oversized left to right. Finding more of other cards with the same size differences might give us an idea of card placement on a sheet. At least down to sharing the same strip on the sheet.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Ronnie73

There might be a small group of George Browne cards that are smaller but not all of them. I've noticed that some George Mullin with bat cards are oversized left to right. Finding more of other cards with the same size differences might give us an idea of card placement on a sheet. At least down to sharing the same strip on the sheet.

Good point. I've seen a lot of Krause/pitching with extra at the top border, so my guess was that his card was at the top of the sheet. I guess 'short' would indicate bottom?

[FrankWakefield]

I see no reason to infer that the border at the top of the the card sheet would have been large and the border at the bottom small... Seems to me that margin borders would have a chance of being larger, and I guess smaller, too. Point is that the big margin could just as well be at the bottom.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

I see no reason to infer that the border at the top of the the card sheet would have been large and the border at the bottom small... Seems to me that margin borders would have a chance of being larger, and I guess smaller, too. Point is that the big margin could just as well be at the bottom.

I guess that because a big top border would normally show the bottom print from the card above it.

[steve B]

The sheet should have had a good margin all around. Probably about 3/4-7/8 of an inch most of which would have been trimmed off.

so not only is a wide top or bottom margin possible, but extra wide side margins too. I think someone showed a SC with the factory number at the side of the back.

Steve B

[FrankWakefield]

Well a big bottom border would normally show the frame of the image from the card below it...

There's no reason the card images would have been printed off center on however big of a sheet of card stock it was on which they were printed. I'd think, for the sake of the printer and for whoever was going to cut the cards, the cards would be centered on the card stock.

[3-2-count]

Hi Scott. Not to derail your thread, but the discussion of large top borders got my attention and I'd like to share some pics. I was attracted to these because of the large top borders alone. No print is evident on the top of any of them.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by 3-2-count

Hi Scott. Not to derail your thread, but the discussion of large top borders got my attention and I'd like to share some pics. I was attracted to these because of the large top borders alone. No print is evident on the top of any of them.

Tony, Hannifan is one of the ones I've seen before with a big top border and no print from the card above.

Frank - I admit, I haven't seen many (if any) with big bottom borders and no print.

[Ronnie73]

Tony, I would think those cards were from the top of a sheet. Other cards with less border end up showing a name at the top of the card. Your cards almost don't even look real. I realize that we may never know the actual placement on a sheet until one shows up but its interesting to talk about the possibilities even if theres no real proof.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Ronnie73

Tony, I would think those cards were from the top of a sheet. Other cards with less border end up showing a name at the top of the card. Your cards almost don't even look real. I realize that we may never know the actual placement on a sheet until one shows up but its interesting to talk about the possibilities even if theres no real proof.

Ron - take a look at the posts on the previous page.

Also, there are board members who have shown an interest in figuring out card placement. I haven't noticed them discussing placement based on wide borders but I'm sure it's crossed their minds.

[atx840]

Not my card.*

[Ronnie73]

Ok Chris, you win for largest top border lol even though its not your card. Figured i'd post a picture of my George Mullin that I was talking about earlier. It's so wide left to right that it didn't fit in the standard T206 PSA holder.

[wonkaticket]

Crawford batting is another card that can be found fat left to right. I just sold a few extras via the 54 BST it seems most of them have already found there way to eBay it along with Crawford below.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/T206-Sam-Cra...item20c17d4b8f

All shapes and sizes can be found on these cards along with all sorts of color differences...



Cheers,

John

[Runscott]

Steve - would it have made sense for images to ever be moved around on the sheets? The Dougherty's John posted make me wonder.

[atx840]

Hey Scott,

From the 25 known double names we have seen a few examples of different top/bottom/back combinations. From the limited examples it appears that the same player is always below or always on top.

[Brian Weisner]

Here are a few from my "Large Border" collection:









Be well Brian

[Runscott]

Brian, Burns and Beckley are two others I've seen with large top borders.


Chris - I was digging around through my old card scans and found a Rossman portrait with 'Thomas, Phil.' above him. Do you have that one?

[atx840]

I do not, would love to see scans. Within the last three weeks five more have shown up which really helps this project.

1. Abbaticchio(Brown)-Cicotte (Piedmont 350)
2. Atz-Hoffman (Piedmont 350)
3. Barbeay-Stang (SC 350 Factory 30)
4. Bradley-Bender (Piedmont 150 Factory 25)
5. Bresnahan (port)- Doolin
6. Chase(BluePortrait)-Zimmerman (Piedmont 350 Factory 25)
7. Criget-Ritchey
8. Delehanty(Washington)-Waddell
9. Elberfeld(NewYork)-Parent (Piedmont 350)
10. Engle-Phillippe (Piedmont 350 Factory 25)
11. Hoblitzell-Stephens (Piedmont 350)
12. Jennings(Portrait)-Jordan (Piedmont 350 Factory 25)
13. Killian(Pitching)-Chance (Piedmont 150)
14. Killian(Portrait)-Dubuc (Sweet Caporal 350 Factory 30)
15. Lindaman-Bresnahan (Piedmont 150 Factory 25)
16. Lundgren(Cubs)-Ball
17. Lundgren(Cubs)-Doolin (Piedmont 150 Factory 25)
18. McElveen-Dygert (Piedmont 350)
19. McGlynn-Jones (Sweet Caporal 350 Factory 30)
20. McGraw-Chesbro
21. Pickering-Myers (Sweet Caporal 350 Factory ?)
22. Powell-O'Leary (Piedmont 150)
23. Snodgrass(Batting)-Maddox (Piedmont 350 Factory 25)
24. Spade-Cicotte (Piedmont 150)
25. Rossman (port)-Thomas Phil
26. Turner-Lobert

[Runscott]

okay, sending scan via email.

I don't know the history of the card other than I owned it at one point.

[3-2-count]

Brian W, those big bordered cards are fabulous. Love em! Here's another one.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Steve - would it have made sense for images to ever be moved around on the sheets? The Dougherty's John posted make me wonder.

Any sheet would have had multiples of the same card, And we know some were directly over each other. So if a card was the second card from the left in the top row it would almost certainly have had a duplicate that was second from left in the second row.

If different stones were laid out then yes, they could have easily setup the sheet differently each time. So Dougherty could have been in the second row of one sheet, but some other row on a different sheet. (And the cards could have been laid out in blocks rather than strips, making side to side pairs possible. I'm pretty sure all the side to side miscuts I've seen are different players.)

What's interesting to me is seeing the different cards together. The three Doughertys all have slight differences, aside from color. All the ones from the top row even without a wide border should have the same carachteristics which differ from other positions. In this case the top border card has nothing I can spot that can't be caused by inking or registration. The left card has a bit of a gap in the top border, maybe from the alignment mark on the stone being erased too much. The right one has what looks like one of the alignment marks in an odd spot about 1/8th of the way in from the top left.
Both the left and right cards have fatter letters than the center card.
So maybe the left and right ones are from the same plate (Or the same state of plate, wear could widen the letters) While the one with the wide border might be from a different plate. I would bet that they're from different series, either one 150 and two 350s or the other way around.

Steve B

[wonkaticket]

The holder tells you what series the card on the far left is. It says 1910 SC so it's a 350 the other two cards are P150 cards.

John

[Runscott]

Here's the Rossman with 2 names

[steve B]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

The holder tells you what series the card on the far left is. It says 1910 SC so it's a 350 the other two cards are P150 cards.

John

Darn, wrong again. I didn't look much at the holders at all.

Just goes to show how complex these can really get.

And if they're actually multiple printings with the same back it will be even more complicated.

Steve B
PS I'm not too worried, with science and backfiguring stuff being wrong happens. If I learn from being wrong that's good.

[Runscott]

Here's a Polar Bear back that probably came from the top of the sheet.

It has a large top front border with no residue from another name, plus the top of the back has the printing messed up (the black fuzzy stuff near the top is black ink) - my guess is that this would be more likely to happen at the top of the top row of cards, but hopefully Steve will bring his opinion.

[steve B]

I've seen a few PBs like that.

They're too crisp for having too much water on the plate.
The other choices are plate wear, or the blanket not having enough backing or being worn.

I won't be able to get to it for a few days, but I've got some scanning to do. Probably 5 or 6 cards with large uppper borders, and a few with fairly big lower borders. The only one I'm sure the lowere border is big enough is Burch. That one has a sliver of what's probably another Burch at the bottom.

Steve B

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

I've seen a few PBs like that.

They're too crisp for having too much water on the plate.
The other choices are plate wear, or the blanket not having enough backing or being worn.

I won't be able to get to it for a few days, but I've got some scanning to do. Probably 5 or 6 cards with large uppper borders, and a few with fairly big lower borders. The only one I'm sure the lowere border is big enough is Burch. That one has a sliver of what's probably another Burch at the bottom.

Steve B

Thanks, Steve - the black 'checkered' pattern at the top is kind of weird. I had another one that was similar, but didn't think much about it and sold it. Looks like the rubber didn't quite meet the road at the top.