Proof? T206 were printed in rows of more than twelve

[t206hound]

Well, maybe not... but I still think this is interesting.

Based on T206 vertical miscuts, we've seen instances of double names (same name at top and bottom) as well as two names (different name at top and bottom). We've seen this even for the same player, in my case, Rossman:



So we can presume that there was at least stacks of two; we also have postulated that based on the ratio of known two-namers to double-namers that it is highly likely that there were more than two stacked on a sheet.

Until now, I haven't seen anything that can demonstrate this. I've been looking around the site recently and came across the "neighbours" thread that shows the extremely cool "Lash's Bitters" cards and their arrangement:



I probably looked at that thread and that image 20 times without realizing that there were two different Rudoph cards pictured. I noticed that while the two cards were not adjacent, they appeared to line up vertically.

I used the image that Jantz posted in 2013 to layout the Lash's trade card stacked. Then I overlayed the instances of the backs of the Rudolphs on top of that image. I also overlayed part of one of the Lash's backs to confirm the spacing between the trade cards. It certainly looks like EXACTLY ONE CARD fits between the two of them. I added straight lines and the front images as a guide. Now while it is possible that a different player/pose appeared in that spot, I would put my money that there is/was a third "bitter" Rudoph that fits perfectly between these two.

[atx840]

Nice Erick.

Out of the 34 known yellow/brown scraps there is only one with 4 examples, the rest are 1-3. Either there was a second sheet or possibly 4 were stacked.



I think the test print scraps could be useful. There are two Pfeiffer's scraps that likely are stacked, would like to track down higher res scans.

[Runscott]

Chris, regarding the Doyle - could you compare how the backs line up, to see the likelihood that they were stacked? I know there are a lot of different possible combinations, and if the stack were greater than 4, or more than one sheet was printed, it would be almost impossible. But you never know.

[atx840]

Hey Scott, unfortunately I don't have back scans of all four. Several of the y/bs have been trimmed since making it difficult to align based on border cuts.

Erick, as a side note I believe the Schlafly aligns to the right of the Rudolph.

[t206hound]

I went one more step... I believe it's at least four. As you'll see, for every four T206s, there are three Bitter's trade cards...


Based on the back cuts:
Nattress, Barbeau, Miller, Maddox cards were on line #1
Brashear, Rhodes, Rudolph (a), Schlafly, Barger, Graham, Bliss were on line #2
(no cards on line #3)
Rudolph (b) was on line #4

[Matvoo]

Very cool thread

[atx840]

here is as far as I got with these previously, definitely requires further investigating.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by atx840

here is as far as I got with these previously, definitely requires further investigating.

Thanks Chris... per my note to you, this is what I was doing as well. I need to sit down and take more time to do it, but I believe that the piedmont 350 sheet had five columns (maybe only four) and some multiple of four rows (4, 8 or 12) of the Bitters trade cards. I think this may the missing link to sheet size.

I think your grid may have too much space between the cards; and note that some cards will be cut to different sizes.

Do we know if sheets were cut horizontally first, and then vertically?

[HalChaseCollector]

Wow this is really cool

[Jantz]

Hey Er!ck

If I'm looking at these scans correctly, the Bitters scan has Barbeau on the left and Miller to his right.

My second scan has them the opposite.


Jantz

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Hey Er!ck

If I'm looking at these scans correctly, the Bitters scan has Barbeau on the left and Miller to his right.

My second scan has them the opposite.


Jantz

I believe that scan includes the cards in their same position, just flipped over. So in reality, the Miller is to the left of Barbeau from a front perspective.

[atx840]

Ive re-scaled the PC to the size of the Lash T206 scans. So far I get this.

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by t206hound

I believe that scan includes the cards in their same position, just flipped over. So in reality, the Miller is to the left of Barbeau from a front perspective.

Then the Bitters print wouldn't line up then right?

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Hey Er!ck

If I'm looking at these scans correctly, the Bitters scan has Barbeau on the left and Miller to his right.

My second scan has them the opposite.


Jantz

In your scan, the fronts are shown in C-B-A, and the backs are shown in A-B-C.

[Jantz]

Thank you for the clarification

[toppcat]

My head is spinning but this is a cool thread...

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by atx840

Ive re-scaled the PC to the size of the Lash T206 scans. So far I get this.

I independently came up with something very similar... I will post it here shortly. Based on the images, there is a minimum of 14 cards per row, perhaps up to 19.

As an aside, recall that the obak sheet had 21 cards per row.

My spacing and scaling is slightly different, but we are very close:

[atx840]

Perhaps 17

I think you also need to align the Piedmont backs, which I don't think the Maddox does.

[mrvster]

blind

too much scrap in this thread

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by atx840

Perhaps 17

I think you also need to align the Piedmont backs, which I don't think the Maddox does.

I noticed that when I was aligning them. Need to take it off.

[atx840]

Interesting that on the backs there are a few different fronts printed for the PC, some upright and one upside down. On the below is the bar scene upside down and another unidentified front.

The Miller/Barbeau/Natress group its right side up.



If you take our sheet and overlay three front post cards they line up, you can see the red wine glass on the second Rudolph and the L from Lash on the bottom of the third card.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by atx840

Perhaps 17

I think you also need to align the Piedmont backs, which I don't think the Maddox does.

The removal of the Maddox further leads credence that there were stacks of (at least) four... the only card that fits into multiple rows in the same column is Rudolph.

Also helpful that we know that Maddox is adjacent (above) Snodgrass Batting on a two-namer (Piedmont 350), which isn't contradicted on this sheet.

And we know that Bliss was adjecent to Freeman (on the left) of a ghost image Piedmont 350; also not contradicted on this sheet.

[Jantz]

This part of the print on the back is also from another postcard. Honestly can't remember if it was an advertisement for Lash's Bitters, but I found the postcard once on the internet the last time we discuss these.

The dark area on the "dm" of Piedmont is a hat. Looking closely you can see hair just underneath along with the outline of an ear. The man wearing the hat is facing to the left.


Jantz

[atx840]

I'd love to find it Jantz, there are a few Lash PCs with men wearing hats but nothing yet matches.

[t206hound]

I haven't found a match either. Here's a page with several trade cards from Lash's:
http://www.tradecards.com/articles/ponds/

And a blog entries from this year about the company:
http://www.peachridgeglass.com/2014/...r-advertising/

[Jantz]

Chris & Er!ck

I agree with both of you.

I've looked at those two websites before.

Here is another Lash's trade card with men wearing hats.


Jantz

[atx840]

It does look like the T206 sheet was used as a test for the Lash Bitters ad. A few different ink layers can be seen across the T206s.

Oh to find a test sheet like this uncut



If you can keep an eye out for a larger red "LASH BITTERS" it could be whats on the back of the Maddox.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by atx840

If you can keep an eye out for a larger red "LASH BITTERS" it could be whats on the back of the Maddox.

I didn't notice that different Lash's Bitters red printing until I re-read your post. So much going on with this scrap.

If I were to hazard a guess, based on my layouts, I would say that Maddox was between Miller and Brashear (don't know if it is directly adjacent, or just the column between the two). Still working on this... slowly.

[abothebear]

I don't know if y'all saw my question in the plate scratch thread, but I noticed that though most of the focus was on the 150 series scratches, some of y'all were compiling a record of 350 plate scratches as well. Are their any back scratch puzzle matches that have fronts that match the subjects of these sraps?

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by abothebear

I don't know if y'all saw my question in the plate scratch thread, but I noticed that though most of the focus was on the 150 series scratches, some of y'all were compiling a record of 350 plate scratches as well. Are their any back scratch puzzle matches that have fronts that match the subjects of these sraps?

I haven't followed the P350 back scratches info... I think Steve B was looking at the P150 and made a lot of progress. I'll dig a bit, though.

[atx840]

Mystery Solved. Pretty cool that it took less than a day.

http://www.peachridgeglass.com/2014/...eman-in-a-hat/

[t206hound]

Ask the experts... nice job reaching out to those folks. Pretty awesome that they came up with it that fast!

[Pat R]

Great Job Chris!!!

[t206hound]

You are better than imagery than I... the Miller card when turned upside down shows the red sweater/vest of the gentleman in the middle, as well as the jacket and tie of the man to his right (our left). It would be cool to see another of your overlay images (using the Maddox card as well).

It is interesting to see the blues and yellows not occurring together in the test images... yet both colors appear.

[tschock]

I haven't been following that closely, but if the same COMPLETE sheet is used for 2 different sized items, couldn't one determine the number X of T206 cards that could fit into the number Y of the Bitters? Or at least a factor thereof? While one might not be able to prove the number of T206 rows/columns, one could still prove what could NOT be the number of rows/columns of T206s on a sheet. Assuming the sheet wasn't trimmed for the second test run.

Apologies if this has already been discussed/proven.

[atx840]

I agree we can use the spacing of these PCs to help determine the minimum number of T206s stacked vertically, and possibly horizontally.

[teetwoohsix]

WOW!! I've been off of the board for awhile, other than to respond to some PM's, and finally had a chance to do a little catching up. I'm so glad I went back a page to find this awesome thread!

It is inspiring and amazing what you guys have accomplished here in this thread! Congratulations on a job EXTREMELY well done, I am in awe.

I always figured somehow someway with the knowledge on this board that it would be possible to piece together the clues from scraps, freaks, mis-cuts, double names, etc., and come closer to getting a realistic idea of a T206 sheet. This makes me feel that it's possible we may see it happen sooner rather than later-and that's exciting stuff!! I love it. Keep up the great work!

And, thanks for sharing the hard work with us all, I appreciate it!!

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Originally Posted by t206hound

I haven't followed the P350 back scratches info... I think Steve B was looking at the P150 and made a lot of progress. I'll dig a bit, though.

I haven't had as much time recently.

Pat R has taken the 150 scratches far beyond what I did and I doubt I have the time to catch up. I have some scans from him, but I need to get photoshop or something similar to start the piecing together. My jigsaw puzzle way of drawing the scratches onto P150 blanks I printed isn't as effective.

The P350 scratches are much less common, and much less obvious.

I've seen a few that might be 150 scratches that didn't get completely resurfaced off. So it's possible the same plate was used for both if that's so, it's proof the backs were printed from stones rather than metal plates.

Some other avenues of study

Some apparent plate damage on the red Hindu backs. Maybe on the browns too, but I haven't seen any. Storing the stone from 1909 til 1911 seems odd, but maybe for a huge customer like ATC it was more normal.

Figuring out the approximate nimber of press runs. I believe there are three or more for both 150 and 350 and that the 150's and 350's were entirely different. I'm not as sure for 350/460 But I'm fairly confident that the two series were different.
Meaning the non-series like OM should be findable in both a 350 and 460 front - likely very minor differences.

Getting an idea of the number stacked by studying the tougher cards. Magie, Plank, Wagner, O'Hara stl. and Demitt stl. were probably only on one sheet each and figuring out identifiably different examples of each should give us the number vertically. I've done some work on Magie, and I'm sorting the types. It's a bit easier since there are back differences that match front differences and that show in the typical small scan.

Digitally reassembling some of the groups of scraps. None of my BB Sl cards fit each other, but may match another I just don't have enough scans. (And it's very hard, I have had a "big" batch of a nonsport set that is typically handcut and even with the only full set and scans of nearly a set of doubles, all from the same source, there aren't any matches)
This effort on the Lash's backs is excellent as far as getting a few pairs that are certain.

In Stamps this whole process is called "plating" - figuring out the position of each stamp from a plate based on tiny consistent differences. Even with access to large quantities, blocks and strips, and knowing in some cases exactly how many plates there were it can take one person a full collecting lifetime (figure around 20-40 years) to get enough to be sure.
T206 is orders of magnitude harder. I don't expect to see what I'd call solid proof of a full sheet layout in my lifetime. Maybe Wazoo or some of the younger collectors will.

Steve B

PS- As an example of how long some things can take. In 2012 I wrote an article on a stamp I'd found. Other than showing a small portion of a plate number at the top it was very common. Except that plate 40 was used on an experimental press and there were only around 24000 impressions. That it existed and how many impressions were made was published in around 1901. The only time it had been described in any article was 1932, and that article might have been wrong another plate had been reworked and the early stamps are very similar to plate 40. Experts had begun to think that the 1901 book was incorrect there were a few other mistakes, maybe this was another.
Until I found a stamp showing a bit of the number 40. Now we all know for sure that plate 40 was used and stamps issued. But out of 100 positions only one can be accurately described, and so far there's only one known stamp from plate 40. And that's since 1873! (There are a few that are probably from plate 40, but very few survivors out of 240,000 printed)

[t206hound]

I've asked about the actual dimensions of the Lash's Bitters postcards and the approximate release date, but to this point have not received a response. The introduction of the second postcard front, however, has made me believe that my initial recreation in post 17 was incorrect.

Knowing the two front images yields new clues, specifically that some of the cards I thought were on the same sheet, probably were on separate sheets. This appears to be the case because there were two "runs" for each postcard front on each sheet: one rightside up, and one upside down.

You will notice, in the animations, that the overprint backs skew slightly on their starting position, but I believe I have the size and spacing equivalent in each. You will also notice that in the two sheet animations, that separate color passes for each front are represented. In the first sheet, the "big hat man" (blues) appears right side up, and on the second sheet his "mates" (reds) appear upside down. The is opposite is true of the other postcard front. On the first sheet, you can see the yellows and oranges of the bar upside down, but that same images blues are right side up in sheet two.

This knowledge has me revise one sheet to reveal what appears to be cards within seven columns of each other (listed from the back view left to right): Brashear, Rhodes, Rudolph, Schlafly, Bliss. It is highly likely, based on a ghost image of a Piedmont 350, that the card to the right of Bliss (again from the back view) was Freeman. Based on the layout of the T206s and the alignment with the Lash's post card images, it is highly likely that there was a run of seven T206s that span at least two postcards.

Note that the card in row four is also a Rudolph (same column) and that card is obviously not the last row on the sheet since the (upside down) Lash's front has a "bottom" occur there. Here's an animation showing the three overprint runs and how the cards align:

[t206hound]

The more interesting combination is the second grouping. Again, I've lined up the three separate Lash's images (the postcard back and both postcard fronts) so that there is alignment with the arrangement of the T206s.



In this animation, again the T206s line up perfectly with each of the three postcard runs (back and two fronts). My vertical lines are equal spaced. This demonstrates a run of 11 cards (with gaps, listed from the back view left to right): Maddox, Barger, Nattress, Barbeau, Miller (note that we observe the adjacency of Miller and Barbeau in a P350 ghost as well). We can make an assumption that the Miller could be the far right card on the sheet (again, from the back view). But based on the back of the Maddox card, one can safely assume that there were cards to its left, likely three more.







Now this still may not "prove" anything, but in my opinion, this is additional evidence that can help us get closer to understanding sheet size and number of cards per sheet.



I will also note that the Graham card is an outlier. While it matches the imagery of the backs of the first sheet above, it's vertical cuts do not fall in line relative to the other cards represented by my image. My assumption is that it came from a third scrap sheet.

[Matvoo]

Very inteeresting info

[atx840]

Picked up a LB PC, scanned alongside Maddox for size comparison.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by atx840

Picked up a LB PC, scanned alongside Maddox for size comparison.

Congrats on the new PC pickup, Chris. Quite awesome how you do the rotating stuff. What a great ancillary item. I love that kind of collecting...

[frankbmd]

I wonder if other Lash's Bitters collectors try to piece together rare baseball cards too.

[sreader3]

Awesome. Somehow I missed this entire thread the first go-round. Thanks for reviving.

[mrvster]

pick up! and great detective work

[Pat R]

Nice pickup Chris, is the PC 5 1/2 X 3 1/2 inches?

[atx840]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Nice pickup Chris, is the PC 5 1/2 X 3 1/2 inches?

Thanks Pat, yep it measures exactly 5 1/2 x 3 1/2. Hoping it can help get us closer to a T206 sheet size.

[Pat R]

I think it could prove to be a big help. It seems you and Erick have everything
lined up good in your recent posts which would put this sheet at minimum
of 23-24 inches wide. (If the PC wasn't offset on the sheet).

[mrvster]

guys! we need to re construct the Sweet Cap 350/460 yellow brown sheet

The Bitters is SICK!

I love connecting them to other period lithography!

like the Gandil / Cortez scrap I have

Erick....please post the Gandil / Cortez ghost scrap over lay