Hey folks....reprising my case for the "12 factor" in the T206 structure

[Tao_Moko]

Until a sheet is discovered or recreated there can only be theory. I don't have any issue with the factor of 12 because it's seemingly evident. I also like Erick's approach and use of technology using scraps and miscuts to create a sheet. I may be late to the game but can you combine both efforts? Trying to prove the other right may be the way we get to the bottom of this.

Maybe we should start a thread where this community makes an effort to provide scans of all of our miscuts, scrap, printers marks and print defects? A resource for sheet builders to access.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

Maybe we should start a thread where this community makes an effort to provide scans of all of our miscuts, scrap, printers marks and print defects? A resource for sheet builders to access.

+1. Or a subcategory/place on the site where members can upload pictures of any of these oddball cards. I also think it would be a good place for anyone who owns/owned one of the rarest backs (Drum, Broadleaf 460, Uzit) to post scans. If we had enough scans of cards with Drum backs for example, it might be possible to try to work them together, jigsaw style. After all, there couldn't have been too many Drum sheets printed back in 1910.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

Until a sheet is discovered or recreated there can only be theory. I don't have any issue with the factor of 12 because it's seemingly evident. I also like Erick's approach and use of technology using scraps and miscuts to create a sheet. I may be late to the game but can you combine both efforts? Trying to prove the other right may be the way we get to the bottom of this.

Eric S

I like your term "seemingly evident" to describe my "12 factor".

One of the problems I have with Erick's approach is that the dimensions of the Lash p/c have not been stated, which would provide a frame of reference.

It appears to me to be the size of a 3" x 5" card, but I'm not sure of this.

Another problem is that the various layouts in the diagrams presented are of an arbitrary nature. It's just guesswork as to how many of these Lash p/c's
overlayed the hypothetical T206 scrap sheet.




TED Z
.

[Tao_Moko]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Eric S



One of the problems I have with Erick's approach is that the dimensions of the Lash p/c have not been stated, which would provide a frame of reference.

It appears to me to be the size of a 3" x 5" card, but I'm not sure of this.

Another problem is that the various layouts in the diagrams presented are of an arbitrary nature. It's just guesswork as to how many of these Lash p/c's
overlayed the hypothetical T206 scrap sheet.




TED Z
.

Totally agree. The overlay is arbitrary if the Lash p/c dimensions are not known and even if they are it doesn't solve the problem on it's own. The p/c may not hold any value to sheet size at the end of the day but it does give some reference. It's truly an irrelevant concern in life but more exciting to read about than hair follicles in the printing process. T206 is the most over analyzed set in existence right? Premiums given to printing flaws in a 105 year old process is kind of funny.

[Jantz]

Thank you Ted.

It was good talking to you at the National too.

Its always one of my highlights of the National talking T206s with you.


Jantz

[tedzan]

I may have asked you this before......
Do you have (or have seen) any of the T206 cards in the 350/460 series with two different names (top & bottom) on them ?

Also, I've asked Doug Bacon this same question, and he does not have any of these from the 350/460 series in his collection.


TED Z
.

[Jantz]

Hi Ted

By my records, there hasn't been any two different name T206s with a 350/460 back found yet.



Jantz