The T206 "Exclusive 12" of the 460-Only series

[tedzan]

Only 12 subjects from the 460-Only series were printed with the red HINDU (RH) back. These 12 guys were confirmed 8 years ago; and, no additional 460-Only
series subjects with the RH back have surfaced since then. And, I do not expect that any other RH cards from this series will be discovered. So, 12 is the count.

My theory is that these 12 subjects were exclusively printed on their own sheet. Possibly, Triple-Printed on a 36-card sheet. Or, Quadruple-Printed on a 48-card
sheet. I base this hypothesis on the fact these 12 subjects are also found more available with the AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 backs than the rest of the subjects
in the 460-Only series. Also, their availability considerably out-numbers any of the 350/460 cards with RH backs. And these 12 subjects are the only cards in the
460-Only series printed with the SWEET CAPORAL 460, Factory #42 backs.

Furthermore, while most of the other subjects in the 460-Only series exist with the LENOX back, these 12 are LENOX NO-PRINTS. Also, regarding the PIEDMONT
460, Factory #42 cards....these 12 subjects are PIEDMONT 460, Factory #42 NO-PRINTS. What all of this tells us, is that these 12 subjects were printed in a
separate stage from their other counterparts in the 460-Only series.







This thread is an extension of the recent "Simulated T206 sheets...." thread.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=162935

The significance of this "Exclusive 12" thread is that it illustrates the printing of each T206 series was quite complex. In that some segments of the printing process
consist of many subjects (as noted in the "SimulatedT206...." thread). While other segments could have been as small as a group of 12 (or even 6) subjects.


TED Z

[atx840]

Interesting Ted.

A boardmember found 13 RHs in his grandfathers collection and in it were 8 of your 12 along with Brown throwing and Joss. Triple Crandall and two Wheats.

Wonder if it was a carton of packs all packed at the same time from one sheet.

[CMIZ5290]

Ted- interesting info, I have Geyer in a PSA 6 (SCap fact 42) is there a premium on value? Thanks.....

[cfc1909]

Ted

this is from your post #79 in this thread

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=162935

The 350/460 series DRUM cards and the 350/460 AMERICAN BEAUTY 350 (no frame) cards were both printed on same
pre-printed sheets of 37 - T206 subjects. Three of these subjects (Conroy....Mullin....Stahl) of these 37 have yet to be confirmed with DRUM backs. Eventually, these 3
subjects will be discovered with the DRUM backs.

Can you explain to me how they got 37 subjects on a 36 card sheet?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by cfc1909

Ted

this is from your post #79 in this thread

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=162935

The 350/460 series DRUM cards and the 350/460 AMERICAN BEAUTY 350 (no frame) cards were both printed on same
pre-printed sheets of 37 - T206 subjects. Three of these subjects (Conroy....Mullin....Stahl) of these 37 have yet to be confirmed with DRUM backs. Eventually, these 3
subjects will be discovered with the DRUM backs.

Can you explain to me how they got 37 subjects on a 36 card sheet?

Jim

Did I say that these 37 subjects were printed on a 36-card sheet ?

I don't think so.

These 37 subjects could have been printed on a 48-card sheet, or on any standard size sheet, greater than one containing 37 - T206 size cards.

The number of subjects in a series (or a sub-set) do not necessarily equate to the number of cards that are printed on a standard size sheet. In
many cases the number of cards on a printed sheet exceed the number of subjects; therefore, there is Double-Printing (and even Triple-Printing)
in order to fill out the sheet.

This has been a standard practice in the printing industry throughout the 20th Century (and it still is).


TED Z

[White Borders]

Hi T-Rex Ted,

Good stuff

I also have noted that of these twelve 460-Only subjects, I've never found with a SC350-460 Factory 25 back. So it appears that for all 460-Only subjects, the SC350-460 Factory 25 and SC350-460 Factory 42 backs are possibly mutually exclusive (meaning if you find one with a Factory 25 back, you won't find it with a Factory 42 back, and vice-versa.) You've probably mentioned this in some other thread and I missed it.

Also, I've had in my notes that I've seen a Devore with a P42 back. I'm not sure where or when and I can't find a scan at the moment, so I may be wrong. But I got to wondering if for some reason it might have got printed ahead of schedule in place of the 350-460 series subject Tinker Bat Off for some reason (maybe the plate for Tinker broke before or early in the P42 print run and maybe they had Devore ready to go so they used it? - I know it's a real stretch of imagination), which is the only 350-460 subject we haven't found with a P42 back that we believe should have been printed with a P42 back. Just a thought and I'll let you know if I'm able to verify the Devore P42.

Best Regards and Happy Collecting
Craig

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by White Borders

I also have noted that of these twelve 460-Only subjects, I've never found with a SC350-460 Factory 25 back. So it appears that for all 460-Only subjects, the SC350-460 Factory 25 and SC350-460 Factory 42 backs are possibly mutually exclusive (meaning if you find one with a Factory 25 back, you won't find it with a Factory 42 back, and vice-versa.) You've probably mentioned this in some other thread and I missed it.

Craig

Hi Craig,

The mutually exclusive comparison between SC350-460 No.25 and SC350-460 No.42 is misleading when we separate these 12 subjects as their own group. As I've said before, these are ways we classify the cards as collectors and not necessarily how ALC printed them. These 12 are an important subset, but they were always printed with other subjects for a particular brand. When looking at the Sweet Cap backs in their entirety, including the two you mentioned, a different picture emerges.

SC350-460 #42 No OP mirrors Red Hindu
SC350-460 #30 mirrors Sovereign 460
SC350-460 #25 mirrors no other 460 series back.

I can explain this a lot more clearly but it would take a pretty detailed post to do it.

All the best,
Tim

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by White Borders

Hi T-Rex Ted,

Good stuff

I also have noted that of these twelve 460-Only subjects, I've never found with a SC350-460 Factory 25 back. So it appears that for all 460-Only subjects, the SC350-460 Factory 25 and SC350-460 Factory 42 backs are possibly mutually exclusive (meaning if you find one with a Factory 25 back, you won't find it with a Factory 42 back, and vice-versa.) You've probably mentioned this in some other thread and I missed it.

Also, I've had in my notes that I've seen a Devore with a P42 back. I'm not sure where or when and I can't find a scan at the moment, so I may be wrong. But I got to wondering if for some reason it might have got printed ahead of schedule in place of the 350-460 series subject Tinker Bat Off for some reason (maybe the plate for Tinker broke before or early in the P42 print run and maybe they had Devore ready to go so they used it? - I know it's a real stretch of imagination), which is the only 350-460 subject we haven't found with a P42 back that we believe should have been printed with a P42 back. Just a thought and I'll let you know if I'm able to verify the Devore P42.

Best Regards and Happy Collecting
Craig

Craig

Yes, the P460/42 Tinker still remains a mystery. But, I have never believed in the "broken plate" myth, simply because professional printers have multiple plates of any
given image. I think Tinker should show up some day.

I don't recall Devore with P460/42 back. However, The Monster can surprise you. I'd be very interested if you discover this Devore.


Take care,

TED Z

[Jantz]

Hi Ted

These are the same 12 players I started a thread about back in May of 2010 as to being sheet mates or possibly making up a sheet due to the wet sheet transfers that appear consistently on them.

Since then, we now know these 12 players also have Red Hindu backs.

Can't be a coincidence, can it?

46 known players with a Sweet Caporal 350-460 f#42 back to date.

Minus the 12 Red Hindu players pictured in your first post and we come up with 34.

Interesting huh?

12 or 34, I'm not sure what the magic number is, but it sure makes for good research and fun. I have my own theories, but those are for another thread.

Great thread Ted!


Jantz

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Ted- interesting info, I have Geyer in a PSA 6 (SCap fact 42) is there a premium on value? Thanks.....

Kevin

I would say a slight premium. Besides me, I don't think there's that much of a demand for SC 460/42 T206's.

I could be wrong, though.

Best regards,

TED Z

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by atx840

Interesting Ted.

A boardmember found 13 RHs in his grandfathers collection and in it were 8 of your 12 along with Brown throwing and Joss. Triple Crandall and two Wheats.

Wonder if it was a carton of packs all packed at the same time from one sheet.

Thanks very much Chris

That 13-card find certainly supports my hypothesis regarding the "Exclusive 12" printing with the red HINDU backs. Furthermore, the AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 printing of these
12 subjects with respect to their "cousins" in the 460-Only series dramatically reinforces my hypothesis. Check out the POP report #'s on the AB 460 cards (Post #18).

You would know this....there was a more significant red HINDU find this past year (approx. 30 cards)....do you have the card breakdown of that find ?


TED Z

[aabram23]

Tedzan

I tried to pm you. It said your box was full. Would you mind emailing me if you have a minute. I have a question for you on T206 backs that another member and mutual friend told me to ask you. Thanks
Aabram23@yahoo.com

[atx840]

It's 34 slots per sheet broken down to two rows of 17. These rows are then repeated up and down the sheets 4+ times. That's 136 cards per sheet

[Runscott]

It's silly to see two sides so diametrically opposed and arguing so vehemently as though they have the facts.

I'd really like to see both sides proven wrong. Maybe then you could start discussing things from equal ground.

[atx840]

Hey Scott, agree its not getting anyone further ahead.

When I recently started to look at the 460 group I erased the base 34 from the process and started fresh. Within a few groupings it showed up 100% for every 460 back. I'd love to show someone my data in person/phone as the forum is the wrong format to get it properly across.

I'm not stating 34 is the definitive # in my previous post only that the theory is not limited to 34 per sheet but multiples stacks of 34.

I've tried to contact Ted to review notes offline, no luck

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by atx840

Hey Scott, agree its not getting anyone further ahead.

When I recently started to look at the 460 group I erased the base 34 from the process and started fresh. Within a few groupings it showed up 100% for every 460 back. I'd love to show someone my data in person/phone as the forum is the wrong format to get it properly across.

I'm not stating 34 is the definitive # in my previous post only that the theory is not limited to 34 per sheet but multiples stacks of 34.

I've tried to contact Ted to review notes offline, no luck

Well, good luck Chris. With all due respect to TedZ, I don't think he's willing to entertain anything other than what he presents. And that's ok too. We all have different opinions, but being open minded to new research and new developments would make it easier to come to a rational conclusion
Until then, it's like mountain goats butting heads on the side of a steep cliff

I think there is great progress happening with other avenues to piece together what a sheet may have looked like, with the double named cards (same name top/bottom and different name top/bottom) as well as Steve's brilliant idea to piece together the backs with the plate scratches.

Maybe one day we will have a "God particle moment" and it will all make sense

Sincerely, Clayton

P.S. Thank everyone for their hard work and time spent trying to unravel these mysteries.

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Well, good luck Chris. With all due respect to TedZ, I don't think he's willing to entertain anything other than what he presents. And that's ok too. We all have different opinions, but being open minded to new research and new developments would make it easier to come to a rational conclusion
Until then, it's like mountain goats butting heads on the side of a steep cliff

Not necessarily true. It's hard sometimes to dump your heart and soul into something and then be told you are wrong. Not that you want to discuss it rationally and pass info to conclude an answer but to just be told you are wrong. That makes a person block out opinions of others. It makes sense to them and some others as does the other theories to everyone else. As of now everybody is just speculating till a sheet or solid proof is found thus making everybody wrong and only correct based on opinion.

Look at my theory about the 12 T205 ML subjects. I spent several yrs researching this and thought I had figured it out because the numbers matched so close it was hard to ignore. Post it here and immediately was told I was wrong and that because some guys from 70+ yrs ago had a theory without proof either that it was pretty much conclusive evidence what they said was correct. No one wants to be wrong but in the end someone always is.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

Not necessarily true. It's hard sometimes to dump your heart and soul into something and then be told you are wrong. Not that you want to discuss it rationally and pass info to conclude an answer but to just be told you are wrong. That makes a person block out opinions of others. It makes sense to them and some others as does the other theories to everyone else. As of now everybody is just speculating till a sheet or solid proof is found thus making everybody wrong and only correct based on opinion.

Look at my theory about the 12 T205 ML subjects. I spent several yrs researching this and thought I had figured it out because the numbers matched so close it was hard to ignore. Post it here and immediately was told I was wrong and that because some guys from 70+ yrs ago had a theory without proof either that it was pretty much conclusive evidence what they said was correct. No one wants to be wrong but in the end someone always is.

Nice post Andrew, and I understand what you are saying.

I guess I don't look at it as though anyone is telling someone everything they think is wrong, but rather "hey, look how all of this fits together".

As far as your research-I'm a fish out of water when it comes to T205's I do like the Minor League T205's though (and I did see your thread).

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

Not necessarily true. It's hard sometimes to dump your heart and soul into something and then be told you are wrong. Not that you want to discuss it rationally and pass info to conclude an answer but to just be told you are wrong. That makes a person block out opinions of others. It makes sense to them and some others as does the other theories to everyone else. As of now everybody is just speculating till a sheet or solid proof is found thus making everybody wrong and only correct based on opinion.

Look at my theory about the 12 T205 ML subjects. I spent several yrs researching this and thought I had figured it out because the numbers matched so close it was hard to ignore. Post it here and immediately was told I was wrong and that because some guys from 70+ yrs ago had a theory without proof either that it was pretty much conclusive evidence what they said was correct. No one wants to be wrong but in the end someone always is.

Andrew

They can tell me I'm "wrong" all day long, after all that's their prerogative. No problem.

The real problem, though, is that they want to discuss their highly convoluted scheme....which I (and others) find mathematically incongruent
with the the structural numbers in the T206 series. And, their failure to consider the printing press size that was compatible with the standard
size (18", or 19" x 24") sheets of that era used for this type of lithographic printing.

And, as an engineer, I am not confident in any system that does not follow a logical and mathematical pattern.

Furthermore....Andrew, have you noticed if they are willing to meet me half way....by discussing my hypothesis ? Absolutely NO !


TED Z

[tedzan]

These Exclusive 12 cards in the 460-Only series are found with the El Principe de Gales (EPDG) back. Not all the other 36 subjects that were printed with only 460 series backs
appear to have been printed with the EPDG back. Approximately 14 subjects in this series have yet to be confirmed with the EPDG back (and, may be No-Prints).

Furthermore, relative to the Exclusive 12 with AMERICAN BEAUTY 460, red HINDU & SOVEREIGN 460 backs, the EPDG versions of these 12 are not often seen. They indeed are
tough to find.








TED Z
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

LOOKING for these T206 guys to complete my AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 sub-set (75 cards)

AMES....CAMNITZ....CRAWFORD (bat)....DOYLE (port)....JORDAN (bat)....McGRAW (port-cap)
McQUILLAN (bat)....TINKER (bat off)....WILTSE (port-cap)

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Maybe one day we will have a "God particle moment" and it will all make sense

If we could get this guy to turn to T206 research, I'm certain he could find the answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqeC3BPYTmE