Sheet edge print mark.

http://i.imgur.com/iKMYnKo.jpg

Interesting Chris Who's on the front?

Updated the image Pat, Johnny V also had a Rhoades with a similar marking.

I'm happy to add this Tannehill with a partial sheet number on the bottom
to my collection.

Interesting that all three tannehills in this thread Johnny's, Brians and
mine all have the same print flaw on the top border and Brians and mine
( I think Johnny's also but hard to tell for sure) have the same light grey
spot behind his cap.

How about 17 X 24 = 408 card sheets? That makes for:

A. A total of 34 Brown Hindu southern leaguer subjects split among two different sheets (17 different subjects running horizontally with 24 copies of each subject running vertically per sheet).

B. A total of 34 Sweet Cap 150/649 subjects split among two different sheets (17 different subjects running horizontally with 24 copies of each subject running vertically per sheet).

C. A total of 48 Old Mill southern leaguers split among two different sheets (a hodgepodge of 24 different subjects running horizontally/vertically on each sheet such that each sheet includes 17 copies of each subject).

Just spitballin'.

Has anyone come across a Southern Leaguer double name with different names on the top and bottom?

sheet #'s
 

Scot,
great hypothesis as always:).....did you see the tolstoi/ cotez scrap I picked up? check out the double strike project thread......love your input..

Pat,

GREAT CARD.....tannehill bros:D

Steve,

I haven't seen a different name sl yet

Johnny,

Have not see the scrap yet. Link?

FWIW, another possibility is 17 X 12 = 204 cards per sheet.

A. 34 Brown Hindu southern leaguer subjects split in two sheets each having 17 different subjects running horizontally and 12 copies of each running vertically.

B. 34 Sweet Cap 150/649 subjects split into two sheets each having 17 different subjects running horizontally and 12 copies of each running vertically.

C. 48 Old Mill southern league subjects split into four "hodgepodge" 17 X 12 sheets (or, if you prefer, four 17 X 12 sheets each having 17 copies of 12 different subjects running HORIZONTALLY across the sheet).

Scot///
 

Discussions like this are what the board such a great place. It seems like there should be a way to use computer mapping to input the known information and possible size restraints.

Great card!

17x 12 might work. It would make sense, since multiples of 6 or 12 also are recurring throughout the set.

I'm also becoming convinced that the sheets were more complex, and may have also been specific to the brand and factory they were intended to be issued from. Chris has done some great work on the 460 series, and attempting to use pop report numbers (which are flawed but generally useful) to disprove it didn't work. But there were some interesting things, groups within groups and a few outliers.

17/34 has never really made sense to me. It isn't a good fit on a lot of paper sizes, either being too large, or leaving margins that are either tiny or huge on one or all sides.
17x 12 = 24.4375 x 31.5 for example. Too big for 24x 36 and on 25x 38 leaves an odd setup with tight margins on the sides, but wasteful margins top and bottom, enough for another entire row.

I have however seen some evidence that ALC may have printed with very tight margins on at least one side.

The 150 only cards fit better as a group of 11 with four outliers for 15. Magie with P150 only, Wagner and Plank with no Sovereign or 649, (the 350 Planks are all scraps) And Powers with a 649, which none of the other 11 have. And all that complicated by F649 probably packing differently for different sales areas.
Other outliers are the Schulte p350 which I believe is a wrong back error. And I think Crawford who doesn't come with Sovereign 150.


All that leads me to think that the layouts were not simple, not consistent between different backs, and possibly sized differently for different brands (More Sovereigns than Hindus but not the same mix of players so perhaps differently sized sheets- larger press runs work better with larger sheets. )
The current confirmed lists also have differences that don't match either group of numbers well.
Sovereign 150 - 150
Hindu - 136 or 102 discounting the SL players

Difference 14 or 48

14 fits neither the 17/34 idea or the one based on 12. But 48 fits the 12

Overall a very complicated puzzle.

Steve B

Scot....
 

Cortez is so weird looking through the magenta.....really cool.....thanks:).........I'm still blown away by this card:cool::eek:

Johnny,
Would love to see your entire freak collection sometime. Do you have a website (e.g., T206freaks.com)?

Steve,
I agree that it's complicated. I think Tim's article is a very good starting point. For me the magic numbers are 34 and 48 since there are: (1) 34 BH southern leaguers and 34 SC 150/649 subjects; and (2) 48 OM southern leaguers (which the pop reports suggest were printed in equal numbers). When thinking about sheet composition, that causes me to start with the least common multiple of 34 and 48, which is 816, and work downwards.

Scot

I thought this was interesting. Don't know if it was posted before but it may help determine sheet placement.

http://m.ebay.com/itm?itemId=121270885105


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hi,

your link doesn't go to anything.

kevin

T206 sheets: Huge factory numbers at back bottom
 

Weird. It works for me. I will check it out when I get home. The link goes to a Cy Young portrait misfit on ebay. You can see from the miscut that there was not a card above. Oh it's available for $19k.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe you are referring to this Young?

I've seen this card up close and it is interesting.


Jantz

Yep. That's the one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

interesting

Wow, that Young portrait is interesting! Unless for some reason there was a break in the middle of the sheet, that would have to be a card from the top of the sheet. Here is a card I got from another board member awhile back, oversized and the top border should have at least the remnants of the bottom lettering from the card above....but it doesn't. So, I assume this card must've been placed at the top of the sheet too. Unless, there was a break in the middle of the sheet?

Sincerely, Clayton

Also, I apologize for getting a little off topic of factory #'s- but the person I got this card from recently (thanks again Michael :)) pointed out to me that the "M" in Merkle is partially missing......I was wondering if anyone else had this minor print flaw on their Merkle Piedmont 350 Factory 25? Sorry, my scans aren't the best-

Sincerely, Clayton

Looks like it could have rubbed off over time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I checked it under a loupe.

Sincerely, Clayton

That young is cool in its fugliness...crazy to think what a disgusting card like that could sell for!

Interesting. You might get more responses on the card if you start a separate thread. It would be interesting to see if it was prevalent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the price is ridiculous


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another one to ad to the list: Beaumont

Thank you Pat!

I appreciate you sharing the information.

Beaumont added to the list.



Jantz

Jantz, It's very interesting that of the 12 different players found so far with factory numbers all of them are found in the piedmont 150 (156 different cards) and SC 150 factory 25 and 30 (153) series in spite of the fact there are 271 in the SC 350 factory 30 that are not found in the 150 series. I don't know what the odds of that are but I would say it looks unlikely there would
be any found that are not in the 150 series.

Patrick

Add Ames Portrait to the list
 

I hope Johnny doesn't mind, but he found an Ames Portrait factory 25 at the Philly Show; he recalled previously owning an Ames Portrait with the 30 at the bottom, but had sold/traded it. However, I found another Ames Portrait on cardtarget.com that showed factory 30 at the bottom.

This would leads me to believe in the probability that the sheet layouts may have been identical between factory 25 and 30, realizing that the Plank card was replaced at some point during the the printing of the thirties and not included in the twenty-fives (I believe this is the one difference between the subsets).

I will update Jantz's list here for the "Huge Factory Number" 30; there are currently 13 14 known:

• Ames (port)
• Beaumont
• Cobb (bat on)
• Durham
• Gilbert
• Johnson (port)
• Killian (pitching)
• Mathewson (port)
• Merkle (port)
• Overall (port)
• Spade
• Steinfeldt (port)
• Tannehill ("L" on front-Chi.)
• Wagner (bat left)

Erick.....
 

Brilliant! I don't mind at all! you were there with me:)....

I found a scan of my old Ames...

this factory #25 Ames is like the "missing" link...

I have been searching for one FOR 15 YEARS!:eek:

HAS ANYONE ELSE SEEN ONE??:confused:
fact #25 sheet stamp??????????????????????:confused:

same card
 

your card is the one I found in cardtarget (raw)... there's a flaw on the center of the back that matches... right above the "A" in Ball

the Dawg....
 

strikes again!

Have only seen one other Johnny, not Ames (not my card)

http://i.imgur.com/sZBifY4.jpg

Possibly one more for the list Er!ck.


Jantz

Jantz...
 

:):)O ya! top o' the 0!

Chris! wild how I found one , huh?! 'twas the luck of the hound dawg Erick rubbed off on me that day!:)

first one I have ever seen in the wild(besides Pat's Herzog??:confused:) is that the one??

My gut says "YES" to that one... based on positioning and the fact that the top of the zero always is a bit higher than the top of the three.

How about we add it with an asterisk? BTW, even with his inclusion, all 14 of these cards are in Print Group 1. I don't know what it means, but it is interesting.

• Ames (port)
• Beaumont
• Cobb (bat on)
• Durham
• Gilbert
• Johnson (port)
• Killian (pitching)
• Mathewson (port)
• Merkle (port)
• Overall (port)
• Spade
• Steinfeldt (port)
• Tannehill ("L" on front-Chi.)
• Wagner (bat left)

Erick....
 

love the new scrap rossman in your avatar! the high blue eyebrows are sick!:)

Erick, I've seen another Wagner with one. I'll dig for a scan.

My Rossman scrap
 

this is for Erick! my Rossman scrap:)

I'll remove the asterisk. (Again, thanks to Jantz for his list earlier in the thread that I'm simply updating).

Note that I think 14 is a VERY interesting number... makes me start theorizing again. All guesses, for certain, based on number manipulation, but curious. It also assumes that 14 is the final number, which could a naive assumption. More soon.

here is my Merkle
 

thanks to Trae R.:)

I have another 30 to add to the list - Hemphill. This makes 15, as per the updated list below. Sorry to torpedo the possibilities for 14. At least Hemphill is also in Print Group 1 like everyone else on the list (Print Group 1).

• Ames (port)
• Beaumont
• Cobb (bat on)
• Durham
• Gilbert
• HEMPHILL
• Johnson (port)
• Killian (pitching)
• Mathewson (port)
• Merkle (port)
• Overall (port)
• Spade
• Steinfeldt (port)
• Tannehill ("L" on front-Chi.)
• Wagner (bat left)

[/QUOTE]

Great find, Jobu. At this point, I'll guess that there are 4-6 more subjects that may be found... But again, it's a guess

This Keeler w/bat, albeit slight, looks like a worthy addition to the factory 30 stamp list:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/T206-Sweet-C...-/191301155391

make it sixteen
 

I agree, Trae.

• Ames (port)
• Beaumont
• Cobb (bat on)
• Durham
• Gilbert
• Hemphill
• Johnson (port)
• Keeler (with bat)
• Killian (pitching)
• Mathewson (port)
• Merkle (port)
• Overall (port)
• Spade
• Steinfeldt (port)
• Tannehill ("L" on front-Chi.)
• Wagner (bat left)

Nice card Bryan!

Good catch on the Keeler also Trae!


Jantz

I thought I should add the card Trae mentioned for posterity.

This one was scooped up as soon as it was listed, it was already sold by the
time I had clicked on it. I hope someone here got it.

Jim R has a nice Steinfeldt with a good portion of the 30 showing.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206...p2047675.l2557