O'leary

Attachment 586245

Attachment 586246

I just recently found a new scratch from one of the secondary scratches that closes up a gap in the confirmed scratches for 5 subjects on this particular scratch (same 5 subjects in order as the primary scratch)

Attachment 586703

Attachment 586704

You can see why the secondary scratches are far more difficult to find than the primary scratches.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...20-%20Copy.jpg[/IMG]

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

Attachment 586758

Attachment 586759
Attachment 586760

Attachment 586763
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...aks/img811.jpg[/IMG]

Attachment 586764
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...aks/img817.jpg[/IMG]

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

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

JR

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.

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.

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.

Attachment 586981


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)

Attachment 586974

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

Attachment 587193


Yesterday I came across this JJ Clarke SC150/25 with a print flaw
Attachment 587195

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
Attachment 587196

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.