I think you are right, I think SGC may have updated their pop report, I suspect that is where I originally saw it. Because they now show the 1911 Broad Leaf (the 460) as having a pop of 3 and none for the 350, while PSA shows 1 for the 460, so the total pop of the 460 would now be 4. When I looked at the numbers a few months ago, it was only a pop 2 combined between PSA and SGC (and really 3, if they had miscategorized one of the 460s as as 350. So either they just cleaned up the mistake, or another one got graded in that time too.

I will update that later, thanks for catching it.

Yeah it's tough to get the true pops on some of the scarce combo's.

I Only know of two Red Cobb broadleaf 460's

The One Jamie had
Attachment 531602

and the one that was discovered in 2018 that was originally graded by SGC and has since been crossed over to PSA
Attachment 531603
Attachment 531604

I haven't heard of a new example but Jamie would probably know if there is one.

Not sure this is going to be a full fledged post, but it was something I thought was interesting as I am slowly working through my Sweet Cap census, based on a comment Steve B made.

There are a few interesting SweetCap patterns I've noticed before, but here is one in Print Group 2 that I find interesting. There are a batch of cards that seem to be a lot more scarce than the other SweetCaps within the print group, along with 2 more extreme cases.

Lundgren KC has 37 SC 350s at PSA and 22 SC 350s at SGC for a total of 59. Compare that to his P350 (187 at PSA, 137 at SGC)

Knight (Portrait) has 25 SC 350s at PSA and 16 SC 350s at SGC for a total of 41. Knight has 352 combined (PSA+SGC) Piedmonts.

The average number of combined (PSA + SGC) SC 350s for a Print Group 2 subject is 147. The average number of P350s is 388. That ratio is about 2.6:1 Piedmont to SC. For Lundgren, the ratio is 5.5:1 and Knight's is 8.6:1.

This below group of cards are more than 2 standard deviations from the average of a 2.6:1 ratio, Piedmont to SweetCap (the ratio is in the column next to the SweetCap population total). But there doesn't appear to be any real pattern here in the other backs. Their populations just look like outliers. Was there a reason these cards have a lot more Piedmonts than Sweet Caps, or in Tannehill's case, almost the exact same number of Piedmonts and SweetCaps? Lundgren was traded from CHC to KC, so we know why his card is special. What about the rest?

(note, the numbers in the chart below are slightly different for Lundgren and Knight, they haven't been updated in months, but I just got their updated totals from PSA/SGC now for the above paragraphs)

https://i.ibb.co/bb4Wm0J/SC-01-Sep2022.png

That's interesting.

I have an idea on cards that are lower population than usual, but the Tannehill is a puzzle.

I know for sure that some 350 subjects were printed in two different runs, probably more like 4 for at least a few of them.

The same for 150, at least some subjects were done in 3 different printings and on at least one subject are identifiable.

150 and 350 were individual from each other, with some probable exceptions.
I'm not sure if 350s were carried over to 350-460, or if they redid things again. I just haven't really looked yet.

On many cards where the population of say a 350 is much lower than the 150 I believe some of that is due to generically printed fronts that were already finished getting used up to fill the first orders for the next series.
The best example is the single Schulte P350 that was found a few years ago. Up til then it was a 150 only, and I believe still should be.

So how would a card get printed enough to be unbalanced towards being more common?
I suppose Tannehill could have been used as a fill in card that got double printed a couple times. But that seems like an odd choice. And I'm not really seeing a reason his card would be graded more often.

Tannehill is a real mystery to me. His Piedmont population is the lowest of any of the Print Group 2 subjects. He actually has the same number of P350s as Shaw (Providence), but Shaw only has 75 total SweetCap backs (one of the lowest totals of any 350 series) and Shaw only has a AB 350, Cycle 350, Polar Bear, Sovereign and BL 350, while Tannehill has the full compliment of 350 backs, plus EPDG and Old Mill.

I think pop number oddities like your Tannehill example has to do with the print timing and print duration you see this quite a lot especially with print group 1 and 2 subjects. I think at least print group 1 and 2 were printed in several stages for example Tannehill is a print group 2 subject and I think the Piedmonts in this group were printed in 5-6 stages and the Sweet caporals were printed in 2 or 3 stages and if we can ever figure the stages out you would be able to figure out how many and which stages certain subjects were printed in. That's one thing I'm trying to figure out by researching every print flaw I find.

The more research I do the more I'm convinced that The T206's were also printed in more than one American Lithograph facility at the same time and probably each facility had different sheet layouts.

James, your chart above is very good. Thank you.

I have substantial experience with the yellow Chance portrait and the Evers yellow sky (Chicago on shirt), since I am (insanely) working on back runs of both. The pop report on Evers is incorrect - there are two (2) graded BL 460s. My PSA 2 used to sit in an SGC flip before Derek H crossed it over to PSA, so the the SGC one is double counted. Regarding the yellow Chance, I can think of 3 red Hindus as I type this, but I am almost sure there are at least 5. Regarding the BL 350, I don’t know how many there are but I have not been able to find more than one (and I look pretty hard). So my gut is the BL 350 is tougher than the RH

Pop reports are useful guides and can provide a general idea of a back’s scarcity. But when it comes to comparing cards with 1-5 “graded” examples, it can be misleading. All it takes is someone to cross a PSA to an SGC (or vice versa) and a pop 1 doubles instantaneously

Keep up the great work!!

The more rabbit holes I go down and track, the more I think you are probably correct and we are going to end up here. It’s going to be very difficult to ever prove it conclusively as it requires not just a sheet or two but a lot of uncut material. I think some other sets were done this way by the AL and it’s affiliates. It explains a lot of the ‘random’ scarcities of front/back combos across the big print run sets and, it really fits with our research last year into the complicated setup and relationships between the AL and its affiliates or independent partners. They had multiple lithographers working together for small print runs of contracted items; why not for huge orders?

Great work!
The pop reports are useful however pictures would be better. If you had pics/scans of the BL460s you could easily see that some have been crossed over and thus double counted.
Pat is correct there are only two graded Cobb BL460s the ones he provided scans of. I have never seen the one SGC has listed as Authentic.
Ryan is correct there are only two graded Evers BL460s (both graded by PSA now) the one he has that was crossed over from SGC 2 #8175964-002 and the one in the Hill collection.

Pop reports show there are 104 graded BL460s (PSA - 47 and SGC - 57) but in reality less than 100 actual cards are currently graded due to cross over. Obtaining pics should not be that big of a challenge if you have time looking through old auction house listings.

BL 460 PSA pops of the 29 subjects, 3 do not have any graded
Baker - 2 (PSA 1.5 and PSA 1)
Brown - 1 (PSA 4.5)
Cobb - 1 (PSA 1MK)
Davis - N/A
Donlin - N/A
Doolan - N/A
Dougherty - 3 (PSA 4, PSA 2.5 and PSA 1)
Downey - 3 (PSA 2, PSA 2 and PSA Auth)
Elberfeld - 3 (PSA 6, PSA 1.5 and PSA 1)
Evers - 2 (PSA 2 and PSA 2)
Griffith - 2 (PSA 1 and PSA Auth)
Johnson - 2 (PSA 4.5 and PSA 3.5)
Joss - 1 (PSA 2.5)
Kleinow - 1 (PSA 2)
Konetchy - 1 (PSA 3)
Magee - 1 (PSA 2.5)
Mathewson - 2 (PSA 3 and PSA Auth)
McIntyre - 3 (PSA 3, PSA 3 and PSA 2.5)
Murphy - 2 (PSA 4 and PSA 4)
O'Leary - 1 (PSA 1.5)
Reulbach - 3 (PSA 3, PSA 3 and PSA 1)
Rucker - 2 (PSA 3 and PSA 2)
Seymour - 1 (PSA 4)
Snodgrass - 2 (PSA 3.5 and PSA Auth)
Stahl - 2 (PSA 2.5 and PSA Auth)
Street - 2 (PSA 3 and PSA 1)
Sweeney - 1 (PSA 2)
Willis - 2 (PSA 3.5 and PSA 2)
Young - 1 (PSA 5.5)

Graded Evers BL460s (not my cards)