T206 Print Groups-A Quick Overview

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by White Borders

I'm still in the early stages of attempting to calculate estimated populations for all T206, T206 Backs, and each T206 Subject. For what it's worth, my very preliminary calcs for these are:

T206 Magee Portrait: 700 in circulation*

T206 Magie Error: 240 in circulation*

* I define in circulation as the # of PSA graded + the # of SGC graded + the # of raw and other third party graded that occasional show up on ebay, bst, auction houses, shows. It does not include the # of raw that are in long time collections that never show up for sale.

Keep in mind that these are very preliminary population estimates and I am still collecting data and refining calculations. I do not yet have enough information to determine statistical confidence intervals (which could show my estimates to be statistically worthless). Also, my population calculation of the Magie Error is probably skewed high because, in my opinion, the ratio of raw to graded for Magie Error is probably lower than for the average T206 subject due to it being a rare card and more likely to be graded. I have not yet gotten to the point of taking this factor into account.

Best Regards and Happy Collecting
Craig

Thanks Craig, great information & research !!!

I have to admit I'm a bit confused at why it wouldn't make sense for the # to be 34 when you review the print groups, but then again, I'm no printing expert. Craig makes a great point about print group 2 with PB backs~~ 136 / 4= 34. Either way, it's great to have a rational discussion

Sincerely, Clayton

[Abravefan11]

I think looking at the print group numbers all together helps bring them into perspective.

A couple of thoughts to go along with this information:

-ATC knew in 1909 that there would be at least two series. They selected PG1 and PG2 in early 1909. The original PG1 and PG2 total 350 subjects as advertised.

-I do not believe ATC/ALC considered error corrections or team updates new subjects. We as collectors checklist them that way. Examples: Magie/Magee and Dahlen Boston/Brooklyn were a single corrected or updated subject. Not two as we classify them.

[steve B]

I don't believe the number is 34 because.

There are small groups that don't work for 34 subject sheets.
The 14 Sl that aren't on Hindu.
The group that's only on P150,SC150, Sov150,and Hindu.
A few very small groups that are very odd and don't really fit any pattern.

If the number of subjects on a sheet was 34 there should not be smaller groups.

Would it make any sense to print a sheet of 34 southern league subjects, and use those for Piedmont, OM and Hindu backs then print a sheet of 14 subjects for only Piedmont and Old Mill?
The Old Mill backs are the key here, since they're different between the southern league subjects and Major/minor league subjects.
So those 14 couldn't have been included on a sheet with other Old Mill backs.

And would it make sense to make a sheet of 34 that included 20 of the previous SL subjects and only 14 new ones? Especially when there were more being worked on and nearly done?

another way of looking at it is
14 +14 +6 =34

Assuming a more complex sheet layout with a subject appearing on more than one sheet or more than one place on a sheet 3 sheets of 14 with 8 double prints makes more sense and easily accounts for the 14 that don't have Hindu backs.

It also works for the other smaller groups.

All this is complicated by the reworking of many subjects between the 150 and 350 groups.

All in all a very complex puzzle.

Steve B

[teetwoohsix]

Yeah, this is a lot for me to wrap my brain around

It seems to make more sense to me that all 48 SL'ers would be in the same print group. For a minute, while pondering the idea that the 14 subjects not printed with Hindu were printed in the second print group (350 series), I thought of the 14+14+6 (like Steve mentioned above) and wondered "well, a double-print on the 14 subjects and maybe the 6 super-prints?",,,,,but the OM on these 14 subjects kills that idea. It would only work if you were talking Piedmont.

I really wish someone would find an intact sheet Maybe Mastro has the answer The Obak sheet comes to mind (I know, Obak's weren't printed by the ALC).

I love this type of discussion, thanks !!!

Sincerely, Clayton

[Abravefan11]

Clayton - The 48 southern league subjects were all printed with an Old Mill back that was used only for these subjects. The ledger page below shows the dates ALC began packing the Old Mill cards and shipping them to the factory. These dates are in the late summer of 1909. Also there is a hand written not that says: "Southern Leagues discontinued later part 1909." I think this unique back is fairly solid evidence of all 48 cards being printed at the same time during the PG1 production.

Group 1 subjects began being printed with Piedmont 350 backs in 1909. So it seems logical to me that all 48 SL subjects, who were in production at the time, were being printed with Piedmont 350 as well. In order for the 14 to be printed with PG2 subjects, ATC would have had to shelve them from late 1909 until several months into 1910, and then print just the 14 as was proposed.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Very cool thread

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Clayton - The 48 southern league subjects were all printed with an Old Mill back that was used only for these subjects. The ledger page below shows the dates ALC began packing the Old Mill cards and shipping them to the factory. These dates are in the late summer of 1909. Also there is a hand written not that says: "Southern Leagues discontinued later part 1909." I think this unique back is fairly solid evidence of all 48 cards being printed at the same time during the PG1 production.

Group 1 subjects began being printed with Piedmont 350 backs in 1909. So it seems logical to me that all 48 SL subjects, who were in production at the time, were being printed with Piedmont 350 as well. In order for the 14 to be printed with PG2 subjects, ATC would have had to shelve them from late 1909 until several months into 1910, and then print just the 14 as was proposed.

Excellent !!! Great work, as usual Tim. Makes sense to me, and that ledger page is amazing. How do you find these things?

Thanks again for sharing information like this-I appreciate it !!!

Sincerely, Clayton

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I really wish someone would find an intact sheet Maybe Mastro has the answer The Obak sheet comes to mind (I know, Obak's weren't printed by the ALC).

I love this type of discussion, thanks !!!

Sincerely, Clayton

Mastro has the most info about this if you believe that the Wagner was cut from a sheet. It would follow that the other cards he bought that day were also from a sheet. He could've put them together like a puzzle.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

Mastro has the most info about this if you believe that the Wagner was cut from a sheet. It would follow that the other cards he bought that day were also from a sheet. He could've put them together like a puzzle.

I know, after reading "The Card" I realized that Mastro may really have the information we all need. Whether or not he will give the info, well, time will tell I guess. I would just love to know who was on that sheet.

I've also wondered if maybe it could've been a strip? Like the one found in Wagner's old uniform. Many board members are doing a great job at trying to piece together a sheet using top/bottom names and I enjoy looking at that (great job Chris).

Sincerely, Clayton

[Drew]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Wagner
Plank
Crawford (Throwing)
Jennings (Portrait)
Lundgren (Chicago)

Tim
Any theories why Jennings and Lundgren were only printed with a P150 back?
No SC150 or Sov 150 backs.
drew

[tedzan]

Hi Drew......long time, no see ?

Carl Lungren's Major League career ended April 23, 1909. Therefore, his Cubs card was initially printed with the PIEDMONT 150 back.....since American
Lithographic printed the PIEDMONT backs first.

Furthermore, they included Lundgren (Cubs) when they started printing the PIEDMONT 350 backs. At the same time they also printed the EPDG backs
on certain cards. Both these two backs are quite rare on this Lundgren card.





Best regards,

TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by Drew

Tim
Any theories why Jennings and Lundgren were only printed with a P150 back?
No SC150 or Sov 150 backs.
drew

We believe they were added to the set during the last of the 150 Series printings. Their absence from the first printings of Piedmont and Sweet Caporal are supported by their not being printed with a Sovereign 150 back.

One popular misconception is that there were only single printings of backs like Piedmont and Sweet Caporal. However this doesn't seem to be the case. Piedmont and Sweet Caporal cards are believed to have been printed multiple times during the different series and print groups productions.

The Lundgren (Chicago) cards late entry and early exit from the set accounts for this card being printed with so few backs.

Jennings (Portrait) was added late like the Lundgren (Chicago), but wasn't pulled early and can be found with more of the PG1 350 Series backs.

[tedzan]

Tim

Your conjecture that SOVEREIGN backs were printed first in the process does not wash.

This LUNDGREN card, along with the MAGIE error card, the PLANK card, the WAGNER card, and the JOE DOYLE (Nat'l) error card.....and,
even the JOE DOYLE (remnant) printer's mark card.....all disprove your contention.

American Lithographic's (ALC) initial press runs for the 150 and 350 Series printed the PIEDMONT backs first on the T206's. Followed by
the SWEET CAPORAL backs and the brown HINDU backs. In between the latter two press runs ALC printed the SOVEREIGN backs.

The above mentioned 6 subjects are the closest evidence we have that is consistent with my "PIEDMONT first" theory.

And, how do you explain the PIEDMONT 350 backs on the T206's that I refer to as the "Elite Eight" ? According to your thinking, these
8 cards should have been printed with SOVEREIGN 350 backs ?


There is NO evidence whatsoever to support your conjecture that SOVEREIGN was printed first. SOVEREIGN was at best a 3rd tier brand
in the ATC tobacco hierarchy.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Ted - I know this is complex information, but it would be a big help if you make an effort to understand my points before dismissing them. If you truly have an interest in my thoughts I'll be happy to discuss them. If my ideas or thoughts are wrong before I post them, we should just both move on.

I would never say that Sovereign was the first back printed. We always say that Piedmont 150 was the first printed and we know this because of the Magie error card. What we do believe is that after the Piedmont 150 there was a printing for Sweet Caporal and Sovereign 150. We believe these printings included only the original 150 subjects.

We believe Plank, Wagner, Crawford, Lundgren and Jennings were not included in these early printings and added later.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

And, how do you explain the PIEDMONT 350 backs on the T206's that I refer to as the "Elite Eight" ? According to your thinking, these 8 cards should have been printed with SOVEREIGN 350 backs ?

TED Z

This is another incidence where you're not following me so I'll try and clarify.

I would not say that the print group 1 subjects discontinued early in the 350 series should be found with Sovereign 350 backs. I believe the exact opposite of that.

This is how I would explain those cards. - There are a number of print group 1 subjects that were either discontinued or had their team designation changed after the first two printings of the 350 series. These first two printings were Piedmont 350 and EPDG backs. These subjects will not be found with any other 350 series back or Old Mill.

[steve B]

I suppose I may as well go against the grain here as well.

Assuming Scot Readers estimate of 370 million produced and the larger sheet of 34 subjects X 5 of each for a 170 card sheet that's nearly 2.2 million impressions. At 1000 sheets an hour that's about 54 weeks of work per color just to print the cards. Or about 7-9 Years of labor depending on how many colors you think were used including backs.

In other words ALC must have been running the T206s on multiple presses at the same time.
Even assuming a large sheet.
Even cutting the estimated production in half it still would have required multiple presses operating simultaneously.

So while they were packed and distributed based on some known dates the printing most likely was ongoing with multiple backs being printed at the same time.


Steve B
PS: I know, the time required to print is another solid argument for a larger sheet. There's also a technical issue of balancing the time to print against the time to cut and package. Larger sheets of small things require a lot of cutting time. But small sheets take more printing time. Someday I'll have to ask someone I know if threre's a formula.

[White Borders]

Originally Posted by steve B

PS: I know, the time required to print is another solid argument for a larger sheet. There's also a technical issue of balancing the time to print against the time to cut and package. Larger sheets of small things require a lot of cutting time. But small sheets take more printing time. Someday I'll have to ask someone I know if threre's a formula.

Steve,

Thinking outside the box, I've always assumed that each sheet ALC printed carried the same back for all the different fronts on that sheet (such as P350 #25 as all the backs on a sheet, or SC350 #30 as all the backs on a sheet, but never a mix of different backs on a sheet). With this assumption, is it possible that instead of cutting the sheets at ALC, the entire sheets were shipped to the appropriate ATC factory where they were then cut into the individual cards and packaged with the tobacco? Is there any proof one way or another?

Best Regards,
Craig

[Abravefan11]

Craig-I don't know that anyone can prove where the sheets were cut for certain, but to me (just my 2 cents) it's most logical that they were cut at ALC. Cutting the cards was part of creating a finished product. That is something the print house would be responsible for. Just as they would with business cards, posters, box labels, or just about any other printed product.

One of the brothers who printed the E222 set was a "cutter" for A. Hoen, a large lithography company in Richmond, prior to starting Fulton Press.

[Abravefan11]

These videos show two examples of cutters used in printing facilities.

The first is for a manual cutter that more than likely predated the T206 set.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0JJajMda3w

The second is for a cutter run by an electric motor that is closer to what ALC would have been using.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ABCCeZ8Wo

[White Borders]

This is confusing:

First Drew asks why Jennings and Ludgren were printed with a P150 back, but not SC150 or Sov150 .

Originally Posted by Drew

Tim
Any theories why Jennings and Lundgren were only printed with a P150 back?
No SC150 or Sov 150 backs.
drew

Ted replies that ALC initially printed Lundgren with P150 back "since American Lithographic printed the PIEDMONT backs first." That is correct. But what Ted doesn't state is the possibility of additional P150 print runs later in the 150 series printings. I believe P150 was the first print run for the T206, but Lundgren Chi was not in this run. SC150s, Hindus, Sov150s were then printed. Then another run of P150's was printed to finish off the 150 series, and this run included Lundgren Chi. The final part of Ted's reply about starting the 350 series printing with Piedmont 350 and EPDG backs I also believe is correct and included the Lundgren Chi. Lundgren Chi was soon pulled, which is why it is difficult to find with these two backs.

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hi Drew......long time, no see ?
Carl Lungren's Major League career ended April 23, 1909. Therefore, his Cubs card was initially printed with the PIEDMONT 150 back.....since American
Lithographic printed the PIEDMONT backs first.
Furthermore, they included Lundgren (Cubs) when they started printing the PIEDMONT 350 backs. At the same time they also printed the EPDG backs
on certain cards. Both these two backs are quite rare on this Lundgren card.
Best regards,
TED Z

Then Tim's statement implies that Sov 150 was most likely printed after several othe backs were printed in the 150 series. Because Lundgren Chi and Jennings Port are not found with Sov150, then they would not have been printed in the first P150 run or SC150 run. That only leaves the possiblity that they were printed in a final P150 run at the end of the 150 series.

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

We believe they were added to the set during the last of the 150 Series printings. Their absence from the first printings of Piedmont and Sweet Caporal are supported by their not being printed with a Sovereign 150 back.
One popular misconception is that there were only single printings of backs like Piedmont and Sweet Caporal. However this doesn't seem to be the case. Piedmont and Sweet Caporal cards are believed to have been printed multiple times during the different series and print groups productions.
The Lundgren (Chicago) cards late entry and early exit from the set accounts for this card being printed with so few backs.
Jennings (Portrait) was added late like the Lundgren (Chicago), but wasn't pulled early and can be found with more of the PG1 350 Series backs.

From all this, I'm not sure how Ted interpreted Tim's post to mean that Sov backs were printed first in the process - Probably just misread Tim's post. No where that I'm aware of has Tim ever stated Sovereigns were printed first. Piedmont 150's have long been assumed to be printed first in the 150 series and Piedmont 350's have long been assumed to be printed first in the 350 series. What Tim is trying to show is that there were most likely 2 or more Piedmont print runs while the series was being printed, with the Piedmont runs being separated with other backs' print runs, and some subjects added and some deleted.

Originally Posted by tedzan

Tim

Your conjecture that SOVEREIGN backs were printed first in the process does not wash.
This LUNDGREN card, along with the MAGIE error card, the PLANK card, the WAGNER card, and the JOE DOYLE (Nat'l) error card.....and,
even the JOE DOYLE (remnant) printer's mark card.....all disprove your contention.
American Lithographic's (ALC) initial press runs for the 150 and 350 Series printed the PIEDMONT backs first on the T206's. Followed by
the SWEET CAPORAL backs and the brown HINDU backs. In between the latter two press runs ALC printed the SOVEREIGN backs.
The above mentioned 6 subjects are the closest evidence we have that is consistent with my "PIEDMONT first" theory.
And, how do you explain the PIEDMONT 350 backs on the T206's that I refer to as the "Elite Eight" ? According to your thinking, these
8 cards should have been printed with SOVEREIGN 350 backs ?
There is NO evidence whatsoever to support your conjecture that SOVEREIGN was printed first. SOVEREIGN was at best a 3rd tier brand
in the ATC tobacco hierarchy.
TED Z

Hope this clarifies a few things.

Best Regards and Happy Collecting
Craig

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

These videos show two examples of cutters used in printing facilities.

The first is for a manual cutter that more than likely predated the T206 set.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0JJajMda3w

The second is for a cutter run by an electric motor that is closer to what ALC would have been using.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ABCCeZ8Wo

Those are some cool videos.

I ran a corner rounding machine a couple times that was made in 1910. Basically a much smaller version with a foot pedal.

The machines hadn't changed much by the late 1970's. Bigger, hydraulic power for both the holddown plate and blade, and the the strip the blade went into was plastic instead of wood. A few other modern things like two buttons to actuate the blade so you couldn't put your hand under the blade.

Typical practice was to trim the borders, then make cuts that cut the sheets into mor manageable blocks. So a 10x 10 sheet got cut into 4 5x5 partial sheets before finally getting cut down. The blade would have been adjusted for each cut. Then the whole stack cut, sometimes 20,000 sheets. Adjust for the next cut, repeat.....

I'm with Tim on the cutting. ALC delivering completely finished cut to size cards is the most likely scenario.

There would be maybe a couple reasons to have done it differently.
If the plants were using automated packing machinery that used strips of cards and cut them during the packing/inserting process. But I'd call that unlikely. I'd expect to see a number of cards factory cut on two sides, as well as a few uncut strips.
The other would be if ATC wanted the sheets sent uncut. There would be less expense in packing, but then they would have to pay someone to do the cutting. Probably not worth doing since they'd have to buy the equipment and hire people to run it.


I don't think either of those happened, but that whole era was one of massive advances in manufacturing machinery. Lithography was changing from stones to metal plates, more stuff was being run by electricity, stuff like that.

Steve B

[Craig M]

Nice thread Tim!

Can someone please give me the small list of players that can be found only with 150 Series backs in the (Group 1) printing?

Thanks

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by Craig M

Nice thread Tim!

Can someone please give me the small list of players that can be found only with 150 Series backs in the (Group 1) printing?

Thanks

http://t206resource.com/Print%20Grou...Checklist.html

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by White Borders

What Tim is trying to show is that there were most likely 2 or more Piedmont print runs while the series was being printed, with the Piedmont runs being separated with other backs' print runs, and some subjects added and some deleted.

That's exactly right.

There also appears to have been two or more Piedmont 350 printings of the group 1 subjects. Dahlen (Boston) was printed during the first Piedmont 350 print run and the updated Dahlen (Brooklyn) during a later Piedmont 350 print run. The same is true for Elberfeld (New York) and the updated Elberfeld (Washington).

I think these multiple printings for Piedmont and Sweet Caporal happened throughout the set.

[White Borders]

If anybody reading this post is able to time travel someday, then you must agree to travel back to American Lithographic Company in 1909 - 1910 and take photos of uncut sheets of T206 and the equipment they were printed with. You must then travel to a point in time of 6:16 pm Central Time, Jan 31, 2013 and post your photos so we will know definitively the size of the T206 sheets.

PS, pick up a couple of Wagners for me while you are there.

Best Regards and Good Luck,
Craig

[White Borders]

Originally Posted by White Borders

If anybody reading this post is able to time travel someday, then you must agree to travel back to American Lithographic Company in 1909 - 1910 and take photos of uncut sheets of T206 and the equipment they were printed with. You must then travel to a point in time of 6:16 pm Central Time, Jan 31, 2013 and post your photos so we will know definitively the size of the T206 sheets.

PS, pick up a couple of Wagners for me while you are there.

Best Regards and Good Luck,
Craig

Well, it is now 6:22 and I'm very disappointed

[sreader3]

I have been away from this thread for a couple of days to deal with pending business but would like to offer a couple of hypotheticals on the topic of whether the SLers should be characterized as (a) one print group of 48 or (b) two print groups—a 150/350 print group of 34 subjects and a 350-only print group of 14 subjects.

First, I think we all agree that Brown Hindu is a 150 series back. If you do not agree with that, please exit the station here.

Now, for those of you who are still on the train, let’s imagine a universe where the Brown Hindu back reads “150 Subjects” akin to the Piedmont 150 back. In that event, would anyone still be arguing that the 14 SL subjects who are only printed with Piedmont 350 and Old Mill Southern are part of the same print group as the 34 subjects who are printed with Hindu 150, Piedmont 350 and Old Mill Southern?

And if your answer to the first question is “yes,” then why do you consider the 150-only major league subjects a separate print group from the 150/350 subjects? Aren’t the former just 150/350 major league subjects that were discontinued early (akin to the 14 350-only SL subjects that were added late)?

And where the heck is Jamie Hull on this?

Scot

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by sreader3

And if your answer to the first question is “yes,” then why do you consider the 150-only major league subjects a separate print group from the 150/350 subjects? Aren’t the former just 150/350 major league subjects that were discontinued early?

Scot

I do not consider the 150 Only subjects to be a separate print group. I do believe they were print group 1 subjects. They were part of the original 150 subjects and printed like other print group 1 subjects. The only difference was they were discontinued early.

So back to the original question, I do not believe that the absence of the 14 from the Hindu printing is reason to categorize them separately. I believe they were printed as the same supplemental group.

I hope that is easy to follow, but let me know if something isn't clear and I'll be happy to answer a follow up.

[sreader3]

Tim,

I guess we just have a fundamentally different understanding of what constitutes a print group. My sense is that if Subject A is printed in Series 1 and Series 2 and Subject B is printed in Series 2 but NOT printed in Series 1 then Subject A and Subject B are in different print groups. You must have a different understanding--and that is fine. We can agree to disagree.

Scot

[t206hound]

moved to a new thread

[Abravefan11]

Scot - Analyzing the backs that each subject was printed with and grouping them accordingly is how we arrived at these print groups.

Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) and Elberfeld (Washington) are good examples of why this is important. These three can only be found with 350 Series backs. But looking at the backs that they were printed with shows that they are continuations after a team change of their print group 1 counterpart. They were printed with the other group 1 subjects and discontinued before group 2.

Does this make sense?

[sreader3]

Tim,

We have two areas of dispute that I don't think we should conflate.

The first is whether, in the abstract, subjects that ATC intended to print in both Series A and Series B with essentially the same back profile but in fact did not print AT ALL in one of Series A or B are part of the same print group. I am conflicted but I think probably not. You seem to disagree.

The second is whether, on the specific question of SLers, ATC intended to print all 48 with BH, P350 and OMS with essentially the same back distribution but for some reason lost to history failed. This would seem to be a viable theory based on the Hindu ad mentioning Texas leaguers but I don't think the theory holds when one considers that the 34 that were printed with Hindu were printed with the P350 back in quantities similar to the 150/350 major league subjects whereas the other 14 that were not printed with Hindu were printed with the P350 back in quantities similar to the 350-only major (and minor) league subjects.

Scot

[Abravefan11]

Scot - So let's focus then on just the quantity printed with Piedmont 350. I don't think this is a viable reason to categorize the cards into two groups.

The 14 subjects not printed with brown Hindu can be found about or slightly less than 2:1 to those that were.

In the Sovereign 460 subset at least 8 of the 46 group 4 (460 Only) subjects can be found in greater than 2:1 ratios to the others.

I don't think you would disagree that the Sovereign 460 subjects all belong in the same print group. So if the logic wouldn't apply to the Sovereign 460's, I don't believe it applies to the Piedmont southern league subjects.

We actually have seen these types of population variations in other back subsets. I can only speculate as to what in the printing process caused them.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by sreader3

The first is whether, in the abstract, subjects that ATC intended to print in both Series A and Series B with essentially the same back profile but in fact did not print AT ALL in one of Series A or B are part of the same print group. I am conflicted but I think probably not. You seem to disagree.

Scot

Let's try and look at it this way. ATC had a group of cards that were printed from June of 1909 to February 1910*. At the conclusion of printing that group they discontinued them. Then they began printing the next group in March 1910.

We agree that the first group was printed with 150 Series backs and then with 350 Series backs. Some cards from this group were discontinued early. This resulted in these subjects only being printed with 150 Series backs. Others had their team designation changed after the 350 Series backs were being printed. Therefore these updated cards can only be found with 350 Series backs. The important thing is that based on the backs they were printed with, all of these cards were printed from June 1909 to February 1910.

*These dates are used to help illustrate a point and not meant to be exact.

[sreader3]

Tim,

if print timing is your polestar I don't see how it supports your print group breakdown. Yes you can say that the 150-onlys and 150/350s were both printed between July 1909 and February 1910 so what difference does it make but my response would be that the 150-onlys were printed from July 1909 to November 1909 whereas the 150/350s were printed between July 1909 and February 1910 so it makes all the difference in the world. (Dates are approximate). The same logic applies for the SLers--while there is overlap in print timing there is not identity. Thanks for the discussion. Need to sign off.

Scot

[Abravefan11]

Scot - The time frame of each print group is what shows us the cards were a group. This is fundamental in understanding how the set was produced.

These time frames prevent us from mistakenly classifying cards from print group 1 that were printed with only 350 series backs, with cards from group 2 that were printed with only 350 series backs.

We can identify many different subsets within the major print groups like the 150 only. We can do this by different parameters such as when they were discontinued, or what backs they were or were not printed with during a groups production. However the series subjects were all part of one of the four major print groups.

It's been my experience with longtime knowledgeable collector's that it takes some time, effort and openness for the print groups to make sense. Once it clicks though it really simplifies how the set was put together in my opinion and based on the feedback I've received from others.

Tim

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Scot - Analyzing the backs that each subject was printed with and grouping them accordingly is how we arrived at these print groups.

Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) and Elberfeld (Washington) are good examples of why this is important. These three can only be found with 350 Series backs. But looking at the backs that they were printed with shows that they are continuations after a team change of their print group 1 counterpart. They were printed with the other group 1 subjects and discontinued before group 2.

Does this make sense?

To me it does not make sense.

The change required at the very least a new master for one color and a new plate for that color. Possibly more than one.

I'd place them with the 350 only subjects.

I'd place the 14 Sl cards without Hindu with 350 only as well.

I'd also do this with the other reworked cards that were a more direct carryover from the 150-350 series. I have it on the list to look into how many were reworked. If the number of reworked subjects is fairly small that would be some help towards a sheet size.


Steve B

[tedzan]

DITTO....to what you just said Steve.

The Browne (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn), and Elberfeld (Washington) are indeed 350-only distinct subjects.


George Browne waivered over to Washington May 21, 1909.

Bill Dahlen is signed as a Free Agent with the Brooklyn (becomes their MGR. for the 1910 season).

Kid Elberfeld was purchased by Washington December 14, 1909, which would place his T206 card into the 350-only timeframe press run.


This "print group" numbering is unnecessary. Traditional T206 thinking has established the various Series (150, 350, 350/460, 460....and,
the 150 series SL press run, followed by the 350 series SL press run.

Why is it necessary to "re-invent the wheel" ?


TED Z

[cfc1909]

Studying this set has always been difficult and mainly because we have put cards like Browne (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn), and Elberfeld (Washington) in the wrong category. Putting these cards in print group 1 makes the numbers in the 150 and 350 accurate.

The set originally had 150 subjects issued. During the printing of this group their were 5 additions, 3 team changes and 1 error corrected but the initial 150 subjects are there. Then 200 subjects were added and you have your 350 subjects. Demmitt and O'hara had team changes but when you count them each as a subject you have an even 200 instead of 202. Putting the set into these print groups makes it much easier to understand.


It took me some time to change the way I looked at the set. I had to go over the print groups several times before I got it. Its hard to change the way you look at the set for more than 15 years but the more I read over these groups the the easier it was the understand and the 150 and 200 subjects finally made sense.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Why is it necessary to "re-invent the wheel" ?

TED Z

What if we could re-invent the wheel? Shouldn't we be so bold as to try, rather than blindly accept that things are as good as they could be.

These print groups are not meant to be a slight to anyone or anything previous. It's the information that I believe to be correct. It has been vetted by some of the best T206 guys in the hobby and so I put it forward for the consideration of others. At the end of the day no one is trying to force anyone to believe something they don't.

[g_vezina_c55]

Edit.

[Abravefan11]

Hopefully this chart will help better illustrate the three print group 1 team changes.

Print Group 1 subjects could have been printed with up to 12 different backs.

-Brown (Chicago) was the first team change. It was changed to the Brown (Washington) variation after the PG1 cards concluded the 150 Series printing and began being printed with 350 Series backs.

-Dahlen (Boston) was the second team change. It was changed to the Dahlen (Brooklyn) variation after the first two backs of the 350 Series were printed. These two backs were Piedmont 350 and EPDG.

-Elberfeld (New York) was the last team change of the three. It was changed to Elberfeld (Washington) in the later stages of the PG1 subjects being printed with 350 Series backs.

-I added Bresnahan (Portrait) on the bottom to show a comparison of the three team changes to a regular PG1 subject.

-It's important to point out that in some cases both variations are possible with Piedmont 350 and Sweet Caporal 350 backs. As stated earlier in this thread these backs were printed multiple times during a print groups production.

If you look at the two team variations for each of these cards as one subject, I believe it shows they were printed like the other print group 1 subjects. They just had a team change along the way.

[rebelsart]

Tim, Thanks for posting this thread on the T206 print groups. As always these T206 threads attract very passionate responses.
When I was first introduced to Tim's print groups I was very confused. The concept is difficult for me to grasp, but if you really look at the information it makes sense.
Many other T206 lovers have done great work on this set as well (Ted Z. and Scott Reader come to mind) and everyone has their beliefs.
This set is truly a monster.
Art M.

[Pat R]

Bumping this older thread on the print groups and how they break down the set beyond the different series for the newer members/T206 collectors.

[parkerj33]

Thanks Pat, i forgot about this thread. Could you summarize where this is controversial or in conflict with scott Readers or ted z's work?

[steve B]

As a bit of a heretic when it comes to the current print group thinking, I'll take a try at that.

The first and most important point is that for the most part, we all respect each others work and ideas. None of the current or future things we believe or know about the cards production would be possible without all those people laying the groundwork, and or adding information. That's not to say we don't occasionally have some serious disagreements, but that's the nature of things.

To me, the current print groups are sort of like a good intro to the complexity of the set. It's complex enough to be a bit of a challenge, but not so complex that most people can't grasp it.
One of my favorite catalogues in a different hobby is set up where for complex sets they show the basic set with the truly major varieties. Then there's a listing that lists different papers, gums etc along with a usually extensive listing of plate flaws that are collectible. And on occasion, they follow that up with a note that's polite but should read "if you're truly insane and have to know literally every small detail of this set you should buy this book by someone crazier"
That gives the collector a framework of how far to specialize.

In that way, the print groups are a solid foundation for further investigation. As well as a good framework for a collector to decide when to stop.

Where it breaks down is perhaps well into crazy land.
Within the current framework-
I would call the dozen or so 150 only cards print group 1.
And the rest of the 150s as either print group 2 or maybe 1A

Within the 150 group, there were at least three individual printings. As maybe the most obvious example, the Tinker hands on knees comes at least three different ways, each would have required a change to the original art, and new masters/transfers/etc.
Chicago partly visible behind Cubs
Chicago semi removed
Chicago not there at all

So that makes it at a minimum
Group 1 - 150 only, and potential sheetmates which may or may not be identifiable or have even existed at all.
Group 2- 150 but from the sheet that produced the Tinker with clear Chicago
Group 2A - 150 from sheets that produced tinker with partly removed Chicago
group 2B- 150 from sheets that produced correct cards with fewer design flaws.

And here's where there's a major branching
I consider 350s to be an entirely new set.
There are a few cards that show design changes between 150 and 350. Most are very minor. But also would have required new masters etc.

And within the 350's?
At least three more divisions.
If you want a "missing red" card, just find a Dygert without lipstick. They're common enough that I don't believe they're errors. They're readily available both with and without. And have a few cards with the same stuff going on but less obvious.

Hopefully the 350-460s and 460 only groups have fewer divisions, but I'm expecting them to be at least two each.


The other big branching spot is
were the same sheets used for all backs? Or did individual brands use their own sheet layouts and player selection?

UGH...... Since there's a couple team variations in the 350's that are only on PB, it can be pretty much assumed that at least partly brands may have had different sheet layouts and even different sheet sizes. That's both good and bad. On the bad side, it makes things 15x as complicated.
On the good side, it explains reasonably well why groups of 12 or groups of 17/34 both exist.

Confused yet?

Yes, for the vast majority of collectors, print groups as we currently explain them are just about right. And we have a few people who did some great work with access to lots of cards over several years to thank for that semi comfortable station we can stop or rest at before transferring to the crazy train lines.

[parkerj33]

Thanks Steve! I am always fascinated by this, so call me crazy, but I also think the healthy dialogue that occurs really helps to move our total understanding forward.

I think I am interpreting your response to mean that you believe that print groups help to explain things superficially, but when digging deeper it presents a too simplistic theory to account for all the actual evidence.

Edited to add: I don't yet understand the supposition that to replace a player/pose/team/artwork, they would have had to create an entire new sheet. I guess i envision a press made up a set of individual stones that get inked and pressed against the paper. so an array of 12x12, or 17x4, or whatever....but each of those individual "cells" in the array could be reomved and replaced indpendently.

so, magie is found...his stone removed, and replaced with magee stone, and resume cranking the presses.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by parkerj33

Thanks Pat, i forgot about this thread. Could you summarize where this is controversial or in conflict with scott Readers or ted z's work?

There are good points made in this thread but some people are confusing the print groups with print runs of that group. As Tim pointed out there were multiple printings of some backs within a print group. With some subjects you can get an idea of when they were printed by the backs they are found on.

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

We believe they were added to the set during the last of the 150 Series printings. Their absence from the first printings of Piedmont and Sweet Caporal are supported by their not being printed with a Sovereign 150 back.

One popular misconception is that there were only single printings of backs like Piedmont and Sweet Caporal. However this doesn't seem to be the case. Piedmont and Sweet Caporal cards are believed to have been printed multiple times during the different series and print groups productions.

The Lundgren (Chicago) cards late entry and early exit from the set accounts for this card being printed with so few backs.

Jennings (Portrait) was added late like the Lundgren (Chicago), but wasn't pulled early and can be found with more of the PG1 350 Series backs.

Lundgren Chicago and Jennings portrait were printed in Group 1.

Lundgren Chicago was printed with

Piedmont 150
EPDG
Piedmont 350

Jennings portrait was printed with

Piedmont 150
EPDG
Piedmont 350
Old Mill
Sweet Caporal 350/25 & 30
Sovereign 350

using Tim's chart you can get a general Idea when the printing started and stopped for those two subjects in the print group 1 printing.

0 T206Timeline - Copy.jpg

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B

As a bit of a heretic when it comes to the current print group thinking, I'll take a try at that.

The first and most important point is that for the most part, we all respect each others work and ideas. None of the current or future things we believe or know about the cards production would be possible without all those people laying the groundwork, and or adding information. That's not to say we don't occasionally have some serious disagreements, but that's the nature of things.

To me, the current print groups are sort of like a good intro to the complexity of the set. It's complex enough to be a bit of a challenge, but not so complex that most people can't grasp it.
One of my favorite catalogues in a different hobby is set up where for complex sets they show the basic set with the truly major varieties. Then there's a listing that lists different papers, gums etc along with a usually extensive listing of plate flaws that are collectible. And on occasion, they follow that up with a note that's polite but should read "if you're truly insane and have to know literally every small detail of this set you should buy this book by someone crazier"
That gives the collector a framework of how far to specialize.

In that way, the print groups are a solid foundation for further investigation. As well as a good framework for a collector to decide when to stop.

Where it breaks down is perhaps well into crazy land.
Within the current framework-
I would call the dozen or so 150 only cards print group 1.
And the rest of the 150s as either print group 2 or maybe 1A

Within the 150 group, there were at least three individual printings. As maybe the most obvious example, the Tinker hands on knees comes at least three different ways, each would have required a change to the original art, and new masters/transfers/etc.
Chicago partly visible behind Cubs
Chicago semi removed
Chicago not there at all

So that makes it at a minimum
Group 1 - 150 only, and potential sheetmates which may or may not be identifiable or have even existed at all.
Group 2- 150 but from the sheet that produced the Tinker with clear Chicago
Group 2A - 150 from sheets that produced tinker with partly removed Chicago
group 2B- 150 from sheets that produced correct cards with fewer design flaws.

And here's where there's a major branching
I consider 350s to be an entirely new set.
There are a few cards that show design changes between 150 and 350. Most are very minor. But also would have required new masters etc.

And within the 350's?
At least three more divisions.
If you want a "missing red" card, just find a Dygert without lipstick. They're common enough that I don't believe they're errors. They're readily available both with and without. And have a few cards with the same stuff going on but less obvious.

Hopefully the 350-460s and 460 only groups have fewer divisions, but I'm expecting them to be at least two each.


The other big branching spot is
were the same sheets used for all backs? Or did individual brands use their own sheet layouts and player selection?

UGH...... Since there's a couple team variations in the 350's that are only on PB, it can be pretty much assumed that at least partly brands may have had different sheet layouts and even different sheet sizes. That's both good and bad. On the bad side, it makes things 15x as complicated.
On the good side, it explains reasonably well why groups of 12 or groups of 17/34 both exist.

Confused yet?

Yes, for the vast majority of collectors, print groups as we currently explain them are just about right. And we have a few people who did some great work with access to lots of cards over several years to thank for that semi comfortable station we can stop or rest at before transferring to the crazy train lines.

As Tim pointed out the 150 only subjects were printed with other print group 1 subjects they were just discontinued early for reasons we don't know.
We also now know from the plate scratch sheets that all twelve of them weren't on the same sheet and they were also on sheets with other subjects from print group 1.

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

I do not consider the 150 Only subjects to be a separate print group. I do believe they were print group 1 subjects. They were part of the original 150 subjects and printed like other print group 1 subjects. The only difference was they were discontinued early.

[Pat R]

You can get an idea of the different print runs within the print groups by the print defects found on some of the subjects in the same print group.

Here are the stats on a few print group 1 subjects that have front print defects that are found with 350 backs. None of these defects are found with a 150 series back.

I put the EPDG's in to show that they were printed with the 150 backs and not the 350 backs you can also get an idea of what backs were probably printed together in a print run.

Stats Clarke.jpg

Stats Dougherty.jpg

Stats Hinchman.jpg

Stats Keeler.jpg

Stats Killian.jpg

Stats Schlei.jpg

Stats Tannehill.jpg

I would guess that there were 2 or 3 print runs of the PD350's and 1 or 2 print runs for the rest of the 350 print group 1 backs. The stats show that the Old Mills and SC350/25's were most likely printed together but not with the Sov 350's.