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.