Sheckard and Hinchman

Attachment 585627

Attachment 585628

Attachment 585629

Manning and Bergen

Attachment 585712

Attachment 585713

Attachment 585714

Powers and Shaw

Attachment 585757

Attachment 585758

Attachment 585759

Liebhardt and Konetchy

Attachment 585867

Attachment 585868

Attachment 585869


The scratch on the Liebhardt that I have is faint I need to pick up one with a bolder scratch, here's an image of one with a bolder scratch.

Attachment 585870

Clarke and Ganley

Attachment 586009

Attachment 586010

Attachment 586011

Bresnahan and Gibson

Attachment 586057

I thought that I had the Bresnahan scratch but after searching for it I discovered that I don't have one so I'm substituting an image that I have of it.

Of the 34 scratches on the primary scratch from this sheet I have at least one copy for 31 0f the 34 scratches. I'm lacking Bresnahan and Johnson and I've yet to find a match for the O'Leary scratch.

Attachment 586058
Attachment 586059

Re: sheet layout
 

Truly remarkable work, Pat. Curious about the Liebhardt a few posts up. The massive top border would seem to suggest that it was at the top of the sheet. Why is there no evidence of the bottom caption from the card above it?

Thank you Ed and good observation. I was actually going to post about that when I got into the three other scratches on this sheet besides the primary scratch.

I think that I'm probably confusing some people with the template I've been posting of this plate scratch sheet. There are a few other separate plate scratch sheets besides this one. When I started working on these I made templates by printing out the Piedmont backs on 8 1/2 x 11 paper and taping 4 of them together so they were 34 inches wide and some of them were over 40 inches high. After I already started this sheet I discovered some of the secondary scratches on this sheet I just drew them in above the primary scratch which was already on the bottom of the template (because of the direction of the scratch) rather than going through the trouble of making a new template. So the other scratches would have actually been somewhere on this sheet below the primary scratch instead of above it as it is on this template.


Besides the Liebhardt I have other scratches that show that the primary scratch from Shaw to O'Leary was at the top of the sheet and everything from the left of Shaw was in the second row down on the sheet.

Attachment 586104

Shaw and O'leary scratches with big top borders without part of the caption at the top

Attachment 586098
Attachment 586099


These are all to the left of Shaw and the names at the top would have been from the top row on the sheet

Attachment 586100
Attachment 586101
Attachment 586102

Re: sheet layout
 

Thank you for the explanation, Pat.

Johnson and Stovall

Attachment 586235

Attachment 586236

Attachment 586237

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.

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

Attachment 607931

Attachment 607932

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

Attachment 607933
Attachment 607934
Attachment 607935



Attachment 607936
Attachment 607937
Attachment 607938

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

I imagine you've already done this, but it looks like Dooin was printed earlier since the scratch and the other flaw on that last one are more strongly printed.
The weaker one may be from wear to the stone.

Have you sorted the pairs by how clear the scratches are?

That would probably give us a clear picture of which one of the pair was plate A and which was plate B.

I'm still thinking the shorter one in the middle belongs to the right of the sheet.

Having two clear layouts for P150 is incredibly impressive.

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


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.
Attachment 608010

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".

Hey Steve,

I think at least in some cases it has to do with the inking. I have seen with the same subject/scratch with bold and weak scratches, I will see if I can find and post a couple of examples.

I know that you and a couple of other people have questioned if the shorter scratch belongs on the end one of the longer scratches. I disagree for several reasons but I could be wrong.

The same one with different strengths would probably eliminate that idea. Which is sort of unfortunate. That alignment with the 649 Ops is probably the better path.

I've been trying to think of a way it could be proven, but can't come up with anything likely.
I think if either end of that short scratch ends somewhere off the card, there would be a neighbor card with the actual end visible if it's on it's own. If those end on the card, then I'd think they belong pretty much as placed.

It's one of those ones where I would be somewhat happy to be wrong because it would mean that the sheet layouts might in fact be complete base on the size.

You could be right about clearer and weaker scratches Steve. I had posted all of the "main" scratch pairs starting in post #70 and all of the non 649 subjects have the bolder scratches than the 649 subjects with every pair with the possible exception of the Griffith/Turner in post #70 where the Griffith looks to be slightly bolder than the Turner. However you can see in post #84 that there is a much bolder scratch on a scan of Liebhardt I have compared to the Liebhardt that I own.