I Believe This Could Be A Complete Horizontal Layout For This T206 Sheet

[steve B]

I still think that secondary scratch goes to the right of the upper primary scratch with either a gap in between or a card that hasn't been found yet.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B

I still think that secondary scratch goes to the right of the upper primary scratch with either a gap in between or a card that hasn't been found yet.

I think we discussed this a couple of times Steve and I still respectfully disagree. If what you are saying is true while these T206 sheets were bigger than most people think
this sheet would have had to have been massive somewhere around 30- 40 cards wide with a section of the sheet layout triple printed on the right hand side.

There are three different horizontal scratches (plus at least one vertical scratch on a few subjects).

Here are the three different Conroy-Williams horizontal scratch pairings

Sheet [A-B] X Large updated - Copy (4).jpg

img804.jpg
img805.jpg

img809.jpg
[IMG][/IMG]

img814.jpg
[IMG][/IMG]

[cfc1909]

I think you have two brains stuffed in you head Patrick.

That is some of the best T206 research I have seen. Right up there with Cathey figuring out the Print Groups.

JR

[steve B]

That's the fun of it Pat. That there's room for alternate ideas and we can discuss them and disagree.

I do think that the larger sheet idea is a fading one.
Originally using Scot Rs ideas on production numbers and the sheets/hr rate of 1910 presses, I thought a much larger sheet was most likely (after a brief flirtaton with the idea of a much smaller sheet with only 12 subjects, now almost certainly wrong)

But the scratches have paid off wonderfully. something I'll make a second reply about.
The things that would prove a gap between sheets are incredibly unlikely to turn up. Horizontal miscuts with a big left or right margin, an uncut fragment with that gap. Not happening.
A card that fits that gap? Should have turned up by now. It's absence is probably the most convincing argument against.

And the possibility of multiple printers makes the math requiring near constant production OR a very large sheet not work so well.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by cfc1909

I think you have two brains stuffed in you head Patrick.

That is some of the best T206 research I have seen. Right up there with Cathey figuring out the Print Groups.

JR

I've said it before, but it bears repeating.

What Pat has accomplished with the scratches is probably not just one of the best bits of research on T206s, but possibly the best in almost any hobby.

In stamps, it's called plating. Figuring out the minute differences that let you know for sure not only what plate a stamp is from, but exactly where on the sheet it was. The guys who are famous for it worked mostly in the 1930s-50's
When the ones it was most possible or interesting for were readily available in large quantities for not much money. Like boxes of thousands.....
It took them decades to mostly plate a few stamps from the 1850's One has a known plate that still isn't totally plated.

And that's with a known sheet size, and plenty of blocks of multiple stamps available to study, some with the plate number on them.

Pat has mostly assembled two different sheets without blocks, without a known sheet size, and with minimal collaboration*. The vertical scratches on the other sheet have gone a long way towards knowing how many cards tall the sheets were.
There are still things to be figured out, but this much advancement in such a short time is amazing.

*I was saving scans and when we first compared notes I had only about half of what Pat had found. I stopped saving scans after that unless something was unusual.

[atx840]

Amazing project Pat, your dedication to this is inspiring and it is really coming together.

I have tried to map out these sheets for years and could never put together enough information, as well some of the info leads me to think that maybe the sheet configurations changed over a print run/different back.

Any information from the OAK underprints that can be gathered? The seven that I am aware of are all from your scratch list. Davis, Ewing, Griffith, Lake, Manning, O'Leary & Powers.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by atx840

Amazing project Pat, your dedication to this is inspiring and it is really coming together.

I have tried to map out these sheets for years and could never put together enough information, as well some of the info leads me to think that maybe the sheet configurations changed over a print run/different back.

Any information from the OAK underprints that can be gathered? The seven that I am aware of are all from your scratch list. Davis, Ewing, Griffith, Lake, Manning, O'Leary & Powers.

Thank you Chris.

We know for sure that the sheet configurations changed and/or were different. I say different because I think there's a good possibility that there were sheets being printed in more than one location at the same time and each facility might have had a different sheet configuration. There are many oddities in the set that this would be the most logical explanation for. I think at the tail end when the printing of the T206's was winding down most or all of it may have been done by one of the smaller facility's. The only evidence I know of where there are different print groups together on the same sheet is the test print scrap that shows Marquard pitching, Seymour portrait, and Schaefer Washington who are 460 0nly subjects on a sheet with a group of 350-460 subjects. This is one of several reasons why I think the Coupon type 1's were printed after the T206 printings with their odd mix of Southern leaguers and 350 only major league subjects together but no 350 only minor league subjects.

Test Print Scrap - Copy - Copy.jpg


All of the known Oak underprints are on this sheet except Ewing. Ewing is one of the subjects with no confirmed scratches the rest are all on this sheet. Ewing is an opposite factory 649 sheet match for Bransfield who is on this sheet (post #47 in this thread)

Bransfield - Ewing.jpg

[Pat R]

The evidence shows that this plate scratch layout was used on one of the SC150/649 sheets. A few years ago using that information I was attempting to
figure out the layout of the other 649 sheet by matching up print flaws of the 649 subjects on this sheet like the Bransfield/Ewing in the above post.

I only worked on that for a brief period because I was still working on all of the other PD150 plate scratch sheets.

Here's what I have on the other 649 sheet so far

img822 - Copy.jpg


Yesterday I came across this JJ Clarke SC150/25 with a print flaw
Clarke.jpg

My first thought was when I saw was I wonder if there is a Ganley with the same mark being that he is a plate scratch match for Clarke and just a few Ganley's in my search I found this one
Ganley.jpg

So now I know this plate scratch layout was used on some of the SC150/25 sheets and it's possible it was used on some of the other sheets like the Sovereign 150's and SC150/30's which would present more possible cross references using print flaws to figure out the rest of the 2nd 649 sheet and possibly others.

[Pat R]

I never thought it was going to take over 7 years but I finally found the last subject on this dual plate scratch sheet.

When I found the Bresnahan scratch back in November 2016 that left only one unconfirmed plate scratch subject from the two different (same scratch) sheets.

The missing subject was the scratch that matches O'leary to complete all the subjects on both sheets

0 Sheet 1B - Copy.jpg

0 Sheet 1A.jpg

The final subject and match to the O'Leary scratches is Red Dooin

Sheet [A-B] X Large updated - Copy.jpg
img114.jpg
img115.jpg



Sheet [A-B] X Large updated.jpg
img120.jpg
img121.jpg

[G1911]

Fantastic research Pat.



My math:
1 7/16 = 1.4375 inches
2 5/8 = 2.625 inches
17 cards x 1.4375in = 24.4375in + presumable border spacing
12 cards x 2.625in = 31.5in + presumable border spacing

We know that at least some 1910 T card sheets for the same client were ~51x~34. Interesting parallels here when we adjust for the sheet border beyond the cards.

[CW]

The fact that you can even see or find these scratches, Patrick, let alone use them to assemble a possible sheet layout, is fascinating to me. Excellent research!

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by CW

The fact that you can even see or find these scratches, Patrick, let alone use them to assemble a possible sheet layout, is fascinating to me. Excellent research!

Originally Posted by stutor

Wow!!! 7 years!!! That’s absolutely relentless research Pat. Well done!!! Your knowledge of the set is inspiring…congratulations on finding the missing link. And thank you for sharing.

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Amazing research Pat, thank you. It's overwhelming the amount of time and effort you've put into this, truly impressive and so important to the history of baseball cards.

Originally Posted by Seven

Pat,

Fantastic research. I scanned through this thread in it's entirety, and its nice to see a seven year journey come to a close, with a satisfying result! Reading the old posts from Ted, makes me think that he would have loved this as well. Have a great day.

- James

Chuck, Sonny, Phil, and James, thank you for the kind words.

Originally Posted by sreader3

Well done Pat.

Do my eyes deceive or were all of the subjects based on Carl Horner studio photos printed on the outskirts of the sheets? That seems a strange quirk.

Hey Scot, I have mentioned it in some of the other plate scratch threads that there are some odd layouts of the portraits on all of the sheets. Some of the sheets have them on the ends while one sheet has all four portraits together in the middle of the sheet and If I have the layouts correct on one of the dual plate scratch sheets all the portraits on one sheet and all of the action poses are on another sheet.
This is an older image and Boweman is a confirmed scratch next to Young on the middle right image which matches up with the Wagner strip.
Plate Scratch Sheet Fronts Group.jpg

Originally Posted by G1911

Fantastic research Pat.

My math:
1 7/16 = 1.4375 inches
2 5/8 = 2.625 inches
17 cards x 1.4375in = 24.4375in + presumable border spacing
12 cards x 2.625in = 31.5in + presumable border spacing

We know that at least some 1910 T card sheets for the same client were ~51x~34. Interesting parallels here when we adjust for the sheet border beyond the cards.

Hey Greg, I think one of the difficulties with the research of the T sheets is the probability that in many cases there were different sheet sizes used within some of the sets.

There are bigger plate scratch sheets than this one and there is also no way to tell if the layout of this sheet is complete there could be missing scratches from this sheet (I think this is unlikely) or the scratch could have stopped before the end of the sheet (definitely possible).

I should also mention that on this dual sheet plus the one other dual plate scratch sheet the selection of which sheet each subject goes on is speculation on my part based on past research and my knowledge of the set.

I'm very confident on this sheet based on few things. One fact is that each scratch has a Sweet Caporal 150 factory 649 subject that matches up with a non 649 subject. Another fact is that Brian W has the 649 Sheckard/Goode side miscut and they are also linked together with the plate scratches. Although it's just speculation I think there's a very high probability that the 649 subjects were on one PD150 sheet and the non 649 subjects were on another PD150 sheet.

The other dual sheet has 10 (if you consider Schulte part of this group which I personally do) 150 only subjects connected by plate scratches starting on the left (front) of the sheet. (that's the middle two sheets in the image that I posted below where I relied to Scot".