Simulated T206 sheets....check them out....plus, new find of 350/460 series DRUM card
 

http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps502ee3d8.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psa49c7209.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psd4b87430.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps7c5569c5.jpg


The complexity of the various series in the T206 set makes it difficult to form an accurate arrangement of how a given sheet was printed. The 350 series press run of the
Southern Leaguer's (SL) suggests that a 48-card sheet was printed. Or perhaps a 96-card sheet of them was printed, if all 48 - SL subjects were Double-Printed (as the
"same-name" miscut SL cards indicate). Furthermore, Jantz's excellent thread....One T206, Two Names....shows us that the placement of images on a T206 sheet varied
from one press run to another. Therefore, trying to formulate a sheet arrangement from this data can be very puzzling.

The closest predictable example that I've found in formulating a possible sheet is the group of Major League subjects in the 1910 COUPON set. It comprises of 48 subjects
from the 350-only series (at the time of printing....circa Spring/Summer 1910). I choose this example because 45 ** (of these 48) subjects were printed with the pattern
that I refer to as the "QUINTUPLICATE" stylistic back design (see my 2008 Net54 thread).
http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/d...catedesign.jpg
Furthermore, 39 of these subjects are POLAR BEAR no-prints. This fact provides us a window into a timeline when this group of cards were printed. And, when the POLAR
BEAR press runs occurred regarding the cards in the 350-only series.
The 9 subjects in this group printed with the POLAR BEAR back are Engle, LaPorte, Willett, and the six Super-Prints.


** Note
Byrne and Mowery were in transitional trades at the time of this printing; and, Rossman's career ended. Therefore, these 3 subjects were not printed with the AMERICAN
BEAUTY....BROAD LEAF....CYCLE....DRUM backs.

Any meaningful discussions are welcomed.

TED Z

Super Print sheet......
 

An interesting feature of this simulated sheet is that it includes the "Super-Prints" **. Assuming this sheet represents the inital printing of these six Super-Prints (S-P),
at this phase in the printing game, these S-P cards were "350-only" subjects.

The S-P were printed with as many as 25 different T206 backs. Furthermore, from 4 - 6 of the S-P were also included in the T213-2, T213-3, T214, and T215 sets.

I do not understand why American Lithographic selected two Hal Chase cards. The Blue portrait is certainly a good choice. Perhaps, Tinker would have been another.
Tinker-Evers-Chance....along with Chase, Cobb, and Mathewson make a popular group (circa 1910).



Super-Prints .................................................. .................................................. ....................................\/...........................\/
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps502ee3d8.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psa49c7209.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psd4b87430.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps7c5569c5.jpg
Super-Prints .................................................. ../\.........................../\................................................. .............................../\................................................. .................................................. ............................................/\



**Note

Scot Reader, in his landmark book titled "INSIDE T206" (2006), identified these six T206's as "Super-Prints" (S-P). These S-P are usually referred to as 350/460 subjects.
However, the S-P's are actually quite unique, in that they are in a T206 class of their own by being both 350-only series subjects and 460-only series subjects (as Scot
Reader so aptly described them). For those of you on this forum, who are new to the T206 world, I highly recommend Scot Reader's book.


TED Z

WOW, that is cool Ted!

Thanks for all of your hard labor in putting this together.

In your best estimation when the first series (150) cards were ran after ALC made the corrections to the sheet, who was the player below Honus Wagner?

Craig

Great work Ted. One small mistake. Coupon is T213. If you need a copy of the ACC let me know. :) Otherwise, great job and thanks for sharing.

Great work.

I think its cool to try and figure out a t206 sheet, but I also think

34 Sweet Caporal 649
34 Hindu south
34 Broad Leaf 460 possible
the 68 Coupon 1 could be two 34 card sheets
the 102 major league Hindus could be three 34 card sheets

and there are plenty more times 34 comes up when you really analyze the set
I believe 34 is to strong to ignore but just like what you have printed above there is no proof.

Another possibility it could be a couple different sizes. Hopefully one or more sheets show up one day. That would really be cool.

As for Readers book, I would also ad The Monster and The Mysteries of T206 along with several other hobby publications as a must read and all can be found here

http://t206resource.com/Publications.html

I saw today that someone is selling copies of Heitman's booklet on ebay, obviously new copies, and Bill Heitman told me that it is copyrighted. I'm wondering why there are so many new copies floating around, if that's the case. Even though some of it is outdated, seems like it is still popular enough that it would be worth printing professionally, perhaps with a color card-stock cover. I'd buy it.

Also, "The Encyclopedia of Baseball Cards" is still one of my favorite hobby reads.

Cannot tell you who was printed beneath Wagner; its been reported that Plnk was near by.

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...yABBBDDx25.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...RPlaWag25x.jpg


TED Z

Ted,

The reason why I ask is possibly if WAGNER was miscut and there was a player below him, there may be cards out there with a glimpse of the lettering WAGNER, PITTSBURG at the top of that card.

I guess finding a card like that would be the next best thing to owning the WAGNER. It would be a card linked to WAGNER.

Any thoughts?

Craig

Here's the bigger picture regarding the T206 structure....if anyone is interested.


Subjects........Series

..12..............150-only (12 x 1 row)

144..............150/350 (12 x 12)

204..............350-only (12 x 17)

..60..............350/460 (12 x 5)

..46..............460-only (+ 2 double-prints) (12 x 4)

..48..............Southern Leaguers (12 x 4)

...6...............Super-Prints

...2...............Demmitt and O'Hara St Louis variations
____
522 = total subjects



Proof of this 12-card row theory is evident in the structure of the various Series in the T206 set......where the common factor = 12.
Therefore, it is logical to conclude that sheets of T206's (and T205's) consisting of 36, 48, 60, 72, or 96 cards were printed.


A number like "34" does not mathematically jive with the Series structure of the T206 set.

Furthermoe, to say that the 1910 COUPON set comprises of "two 34-card" sheets implies that Major League subjects were intermixed
with Southern Association subjects.

Where is the proof of this ?

There is none....it never happened !


TED Z

The recent T206 "sheet" discussions have been compelling. Even though i've collected T206 for 20 years, i never gave it a strong thought (how many cards might have been printed per sheet). i will certainly defer to the likes of Ted, Jim, Tim, Scot, etc...i will say this however, i always assumed it was a larger sheet, say 24" x 36"+; furthermore, i also assumed the larger sheet size (whatever that may be) was what actually dictated the number of cards per sheet, NOT the other way around (meaning not the number of cards dictating the sheet size). maybe some of printers can jump in here (Joe D)? to me, a smaller amount of cards per sheet (34, 48, etc) seem not very efficient in the printing world, i also imagined the sheets were big because the series' & set were massive, so they would've been rather cost effective & efficient as possible in the printing process. my 2 cents.

Hi Mike
 

In my research of American Lithographic, I came across a description which stated that large sheets in the art of lithographic printing resulted
in lower quality prints. Especially, when 6 to 7 color processes are involved (such as was the casebin the printing of these tobacco cards).

Consider this trade-off......smaller sheets (e.g., 36, 48, 72, etc. cards) resulted in a higher yield of quality prints than larger sheets would. So,
many more usable cards were produced.


Best regards,

TED Z

Hi Ted- ok, gotcha, makes sense. very interesting discussion. i think we'd all love to stumble upon a full uncut sheet tucked away in some little antique shop somewhere. ;)

how much would that fetch? $50-100K? i guess also depends who's on the sheet.

Alan Ray
 

Has anybody here tried to reach out to this guy to find out if The Card was cut from a sheet? If it was then be has probably has a lot of these answers.

So if what Jim is saying is correct that the sheets were of 34 ct then not only could there not be DP players but there would have been a lot of boarder material to make the sheet fit the press or a different press all together. Please correct me if I misunderstood the 34 ct thing.

Jim is referencing this possible layout. Article

Hey Andrew
 

Let them think what they may....however, the T206 structural numbers do not in any way jive with their so-called "magic 34" contention.




TED Z

Some questions I have.

If the ALC was a printing company, did they receive their paper stock to print their cards on from another company? (Paging Steve B.)

If so, then maybe researching the paper manufacturers of the time could yield some clues as to the sheet size via financial records or invoices.

I know its a long shot, but we've got some good researchers here, so maybe.

One other question I have is.

Would I be crazy to think that maybe sheet sizes varied from print run to print run?

Your thoughts and imput are always welcome.


Jantz

Jantz what going on buddy. Been a while since we chatted. Hope to see you at nationals this yr.

I do believe that the presses were a specific size thus allowing Ted to determine possible sheet size. He has info in regards to that. It is very possible to print a smaller sheet but a larger sheet may not work. In actuality we can guess and speculate but may all be wrong.

Although I'm not a 206 collector I follow this in regards to the 205's and connecting possibilities.

Having been at the Willow Grove Show back in the mid-1980's when this PIEDMONT Wagner was being "shopped around", I recall that it was rumored to have
come from a partial sheet which also included Eddie Plank.

This rumor proved to be true when Charlie Conlon's collection was in auction in 2009 which included this PIEDMONT Plank (that Charlie acquired from Mastro).


TED Z

Simulated T206 sheet....check it out
 

Jantz

One of the important specifics of a printing press is its "track width". This characteristic tells us how WIDE a paper or cardboard sheet can be printed on it.

Research shows that American Litho employed printing presses (circa 1909 - 1919) whose width = 19 inches for printing their 6-color lithographic smaller projects.

Therefore, a 19-inch wide cardboard sheet accommodates 12 - T206 (or T205, T213, T214, T215) size cards across its width. The length of this cardboard sheet
is a variable.....which, can be as short as one comprising of 36 cards (12 x 3 rows). Or, as long a sheet that comprises of 96 cards (12 x 8 rows), or even larger.


Now, fast-forward to 1952 for comparison ............
TOPPS used a 54-inch wide printing press to produce their 1952 BB set. They printed cardboard sheets comprising of 2 adjacent 100-card (10 x 10) arrangements
for each of their Series.
In the printing of their famous Hi # series of 97 subjects, they Double-Printed Mickey Mantle, Jackie Robinson and Bobby Thomson in order to fill out their 100-card
arrangement. Double-Printing is a practice that dates back to 19th Century lithography....when the number of subjects falls short of the size of the press.

Another example is the 1953 BOWMAN BB set which was printed using a 43-inch wide press. They printed 2 adjacent 32-card (8 x 4) arrangements on their sheets.


My point here is.....that you can speculate all you want as to the size of a sheet.....but, if you do not know the track width of the printing press it was printed on,
your thinking is just a "crap shoot".


Hey Steve B....please chime in here.


TED Z

Ted, what is the maximum length of the sheet that would fit on the press? My terminologies are certainly wrong, but was there one "press" per color per sheet? (i.e. they weren't pressing rows were they?)

There are standard paper sizes. US standard and international standard are a bit different.

ALC certainly bought paper from a paper company. I can't recall ever hearing of a place that did their own.

Track width is important, but here's where I'll waffle a bit.

Most presses can print on narrower paper.
I'm pretty sure we could have run 8 1/2x 11 on the 35 inch Heidelbergs. But that would have required some dire circumstance. Generally you want to keep close to full size. I know for sure we ran some undersize stuff. Maybe 24x17?

I'm also fairly sure ALC would have had a variety of press sizes. Running a couple thousand business cards on a press with a 19" track would be very wasteful.
The press is chosen based on the job, both the image size of the entire item- like a sheet, AND the quantity needed.

So if you wanted say 100 posters that were 30x20 they would have to be made on the 35 inch press.
If you wanted the same 100 but only 20x20 it would be on the 24 inch press.

Now, reduce the size to 15x12? It can't go on the little press, so it's got to be on one of the bigger ones. If it's only 100 the question becomes wether it's more expensive to make 100 passes through the 24 inch press OR fit two on a sheet and run it through 50 times.
As the quantity goes up, the press used will change.

Small items like T206 would be a challenge. But there's usually a formula that accounts for the costs. Speed would have mattered too. If time was short they may have run smaller sheets to have something to deliver quickly. They could have laid out the plates faster doing only a few subjects as the art and masters were finished.

Later, if there was more lead time and a larger order a bigger sheet may have made more sense.

Going by groups and how many are in a group will only get partway there. Obviously a sheet of 34 subjects doesn't make any sense with groups of cards like the ones that only come with a 150 back.

As Ted has pointed out there are a lot of groupings that are divisible by 6.
(Although even exactly which the 150 onlys are gets confusing, as it's debatable which ones count. )

But there are also groups that don't fit easily with a sheet of subjects divisible by 6.

There's even a card or two where the available backs would lead me to think they may have been partly done on a special sheet with just the one card.
Powers is the only one that only has 150 series backs but also has a factory 649 back.
So it's its own special puzzle.
Done on a special sheet for the 649 series?
On a 649 series sheet natuarally as part of a complex layout involving small sheets with some players short printed and others on multiple sheets?
On a big sheet that got the 649 op but not any of the 350 backs?
All of those are possible.
In fact, all of those could be how it was actually done! I wouldn't think it likely since it's a somewhat tough card, but it's possible.

Another is Magie vs Magee. Magie only has one back. At one point I thought it may have been just one out of however many magie/magees were on a sheet. So I found as many scans as I could find. Pretty quickly I realized that couldn't be the case. There are at least 4 readily identifiable Magies. And the individual fronts always have the same flaws on the back.

I think the sheet layouts varied between the different series, and maybe by league and brand.

I really have to post about some of what I'm looking at and what I've found. Some fascinating stuff, and that's only from a little bit of looking.

What I'm aiming at is some solid proof of certain ideas. If the cards lead towards proving my theories wrong that's ok, that's how science works. (And science it is figuring even a bit of this out)

Steve B

Steve B

@ndrew - Its going well. Good to hear from you. National for sure!

Ted - Great information and thanks for answering my question.

Steve B. - Great information also! Thank you for taking the time to post all that.

One of these days I'm going to have to sit down with my friend and discuss all of this with him. He worked for 34 years with a printing company here in my hometown. Maybe he has some further information.

I know one time we were working together and I was asking him some questions about printing processes. He mentioned that the factory here in my hometown still has some very old printing related machines (presses & cutters) sitting around in the back of the factory. I then asked him why they still had them sitting around. His reply was.."No one has built a better mouse trap".


Jantz

Ted, people have been finding magical qualities in numbers for centuries. It's really amazing what you can 'see' in numbers. I don't think Jim and Tim are doing it any more than anyone else, yourself included. You could be right - they could be right - you both might be wrong.

But the discussion is fun. I like that Steve B is wrapping some experience around all the theories.

I'm probably a fly in the ointment here, but isn't the idea of a t206 sheet a myth? 95-99% of the double names we see show the same player above and below. So it seems that rows should be reconstructed, not sheets.

Rows with 12 cards make sense...allows for 6 to be repeated too.

What about those different name t/b cards? They're clearly the exception...is there a pattern as to series/back on those? I guess they could be the dividing line between two groups on a big sheet. If 1 in 8 double names were different, that would suggest two groupings of 4x12 rows...with only the 4th (out of 8) row possible with different names.

Mac

The question is how many cards to a row. Yes, we know that multiple identical rows were on a sheet stacked vertically. And with the two name cards, at least two different sets of rows on a sheet.

My still unanswered question (which I will rephrase):
Were sheets pressed? Or were individual rows pressed?

Edited to add: from the "plate scratch" thread we can assume the backs were pressed per sheet (not per row). To press per sheet for the fronts means multiple plate copies of the same player pose existed for each color pass.

Exactly.

The differences on the fronts are smaller, but they're there.

Here's Batch showing different layout marks at the top edge.

Steve B

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...pictureid=4528

Great idea Jantz- researching the paper manufacturers that supplied the ALC and possibly finding old invoices, records, packing slips, etc. may be a way to figure it out.

And you bring up an excellent question about the possibility of varied sheet sizes from print run to print run-I had asked in another thread about whether or not the track size (width) was adjustable because I was wondering about this too. I didn't get a response, but maybe my question didn't make sense.

This topic can be confusing for me as I've never dealt with printing before. It's easier for me to comprehend the # of 34 subjects, when associating them with the print groups as Tim and Jim have explained. I don't picture a sheet with only 34 subjects, but more like 68 (2x34 same subjects) or 102 (3x34 same subjects).

Not to dismiss Ted Z's theory, I understand where he's basing this opinion from~ 12 across and a 19 inch track width , 12x3 rows up to 12x 8 rows. But the confusing thing about this ^^ how it fits with the print groups.

So, may I pose this question to the experts: how much room around the sides and tops of the sheets would there be (edges, top, bottom)~ I guess we could call it "the borders" :D~ with the 19 inch width "non" adjustable track? As you can see from some T206's, with oversized borders or miscut backs that there is room to play. And, like the Obak sheet, there was a lot of border space. As you can see with this miscut back, there is quite a bit of space, and there had to be "more" cut off. I hope I'm making sense.

With Ted Z's simulated sheet~ is that the full 19 inches across, or is there room for borders?

Great topic, I'm trying to follow both sides of this. Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

Thanks Steve. If we assume the track was 19" wide (with a 17+" print width)... What was the maximum length?

Clayton

Given, the width of a typical T206 is 1 7/16 inches.

Total cards' width....... 12 x 1 7/16 inches = 17 1/4 inches

Assumong these 12 cards were printed on a 19-inch wide cardboard sheet, then that leaves a border....19 - 17 1/4 = 1 3/4 inches

Which, if printed cards are centered on this cardboard sheet, results in a 7/8 inch wide border on each side.


TED Z

It would depend on the diameter of the press cylinder. Modern ones are usually fed with the long side towards the press, so the maximim size would be 19x less than 19.

The pictures of the presses of the era look like the cylinder is rather large, so they could have done it differently. 19x24 is a traditional paper size.
If you can stand toread through it there's a good look at paper standardization here
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volat...papersizes.pdf

Looks like the sizes weren't standardized much until after WWI and serious standardization not till after WWII.

Steve B

ok...
 

Thanks again, Steve. I've been asking these questions because I keep hearing that 17 cards (as an example) cannot fit on a sheet that is 19 inches wide.

One of the standard paper sizes referenced in that PDF is 17x28. Imagine if the sheets were pressed as below (image from T206Resource.com rotated 90 degrees). Six cards could fit in the "row" (2.625*6 = 15.75) and you could have 17 cards in each "column" (1.4375*17 = 24.4375).

Perhaps that's too much "waste" at the top and bottom (~1.75 inches each), but 17 cards would definitely fit, right?

That would fit, and it would account for both the 17/34 theory AND the 6 theory.

It might still be difficult to figure some groups, like the 14 Sl cards without Hindu. And the 150 onlys are more than just a simple group even being small.

It also assumes running a sheet through a 19" press the long way. I'm not certain that was possible or good practice.

Of course then I'm assuming a maximum press size of 19".

You see how the reasoning can get very circular.

And I haven't even floated the idea of a very complex layout, which is suggested by the plate scratch. Some of the cards may not have been in square blocks, but in diagonal rows. Two of the blocks I've pieced together might go together like that.

That's why I decided to look for something like the plate scratch. It will eventually provide some concrete evidence of sheet minimum size. If I'm lucky it will lead to a complete sheet, but it may not.

At least with Stamps there are usually pairs and blocks to build from, and the records about sheet size still exist.

Steve B

Thanks Ted for the response.

Thanks for the great discussion everyone.

Sincerely, Clayton

Regarding the Hindu, I can see it as 14 SL cards being added to make the run 136 (17*8).

Of course, these are all guesses, not absolutes. I don't think anything yet has disproved the 17 or the 6 card row hypotheses... or that the numbers didn't change on different print groups or press runs.

Steve

I definitely agree with you on these two comments of yours......

1st...... "19x24 is a traditional paper size."

I have seen American Litho. (ALC) Tobacco advertising posters and other types of lithographic artwork of ALC on exactly 19" x 24" size cardboard. Medium size printing presses
were designed to accomodate this standard paper (cardboard) width of 19 inches.

2nd...... "It also assumes running a sheet through a 19" press the long way. I'm not certain that was possible or good practice."

A NO-NO. Rotating the so-called "34-card" sheet 90 degrees (as shown in above post #33) and printing it in this manner is impractical, and is an inefficient waste of cardboard.
As, the width of such an arrangement is only 15 3/4 inches (leaving 3 1/4 inches of the 19-inch cardboard blank).


Here is the simple solution for those who claim that ALC printed T206's on a "34-card" sheet......

Simulated basic sheet of 36 cards of the 34 subjects (Factory #649 overprints), of which Powers and Matty (white cap) were Double-Printed. This sheet can be extrapolated
to comprise of 2 arrangements of this format (72-card sheet), or 3 arrangements of this format (108-card sheet).

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...T206sheetB.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...xt206sheet.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...xT206sheet.jpg
DOUBLE-PRINTS.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...... Powers .................. Matty


FYI......regarding the practice of Double-Printing during the 20th Century of the major BB card issues. On display in this thread are quite a number of pictures of uncut sheets
of BB cards, check it out........

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=151780



TED Z

Points 1 and 2 combined argue against the cards being done on a 19 inch press. To run 19x24 that means the other pieces would have been run with the narrow end going in first. That's what I'm unsure of.
But if they had some 24 inch presses the 19x24 could be run normally - wide end pointing in. I should check the old printing book I found to see what the practice was at that time. The presses printing from stones are different enough from ones made even 20 years later that the details of operating may have been different.
Our little press ran stuff through the long way. the 35 and 24 inch ones ran it through the short way. I suppose they could have done smaller stuff differently but never saw it done.

Margins around 1.75 would be wasteful, but aren't absurdly large. A few jobs we did had margins around that size. I took some of the cutoffs from a label job home and had sticker materials enough to last for years just in 8x2 inch strips with a bar of color along one side:D

Steve B

The point about doubleprints is a good one. There are plenty of layouts that would allow that with nearly any size sheet. It's certain there were multiples of most cards on the sheet, but how many of each and wether that was constant for all cards is uncertain.

Simulated T206 sheets....check them out
 

Steve

Thanks for your support of the argument that I've been making with respect to the Double-Printing of certain T206 subjects in order to fill out a 36-card, or 48-card,
or a 108-card (19" x 24") printer's sheet.

I see this not only in the SWEET CAP 150 (Factory #649 overprint) sub-set; but, also in the brown HINDU series, and in the 460-only series (as I've noted above in that
thread that I provided a link to).


TED Z

Erick, I think you may be on to something here. Like Steve said, it could account for the 17 and the 6,,,,, interesting.

Sincerely, Clayton

Simulated T206 sheets....check them out
 

Steve B and guys

The math does not jive regarding a sheet with 17 cards per row, no matter how you try to finagle this on a standard 19-inch x 24-inch sheet of cardboard (as Steve noted).

17 x 1 7/16 inch wide T206 = 24 1/4 inches


Meanwhile, a 12 cards per row arrangement works very neatly on a 19-inch x 24-inch (or an 18-inch x 24-inch) sheet of cardboard to produce 108 - T206 cards.

For example, consider the standard 19" x 24" cardboard sheet, the original 12 - 150-only subjects were most likely repeatedly printed in a 108-card arrangement such as this:


http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps006d5347.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps006d5347.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps006d5347.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps006d5347.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps006d5347.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps006d5347.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps006d5347.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps006d5347.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psd5a41f81.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps006d5347.jpg


TED Z

Well, I don't know about that example of a sheet configuration Ted, you have the same player all the way down the sheet. How would you explain the 1 card 2 name thing? Different name at the top of the card than the name of the player depicted on the card. Like the ones Erick is collecting.

On a side note- could the Wagner strip show where he may have been on the sheet? It seems to me that (possibly) the ATC would have just cut that strip from a sheet, rather than print a strip? It seems logical to print the sheet, and cut the sample strip right from the sheet. What do you guys think?

Sincerely, Clayton

Since the Wagner strip is a proof it should be taken as a unique item.

It's possible that it was taken from a set of nearly ready plates. But it's just as likely to have been taken from the master, or from a set of plates assembled strictly for proofing.

As I've seen more from the P150 plate scratch, I've become less certain about plate layout. What's been seen so far argues for a higher number of individual cards vertically, probably 5-6. Horizontally I'm just not sure.

I am fairly certain that my initial thought of a small sheet with only 6-7 subjects is probably wrong. I'm not 100% ready to give up the idea, but what I've seen so far isn't encouraging.

12x9 seems possible, as does a 17 wide sheet. I'm leaning towards a group of complex 12x9 sheets because the fit on a standard sheet of paper is better.
The two name cards could be a result of a singleprints/doubleprints arrangement.

Hopefully I'll get a bit more time to work on stuff. The 2 year old has kept me running crazy all week and I still have to reply to some pms and Emails as well as try to arrange some new scans and try to add in the double name cards and the ones known to be pairs from miscuts.

Steve B

Simulated T206 sheets....check them out
 

Clayton

Realize that the 12 cards I have posted in that 108-card simulated sheet are 150-only subjects. As best we know, this series of T206's were the first printed T206's
in the set. And, were not intermixed with 150/350 series, or 350 series, or 460 series cards.

Therefore, if my 108-card simulated sheet is valid, if any of these 12 - 150-only cards are found with 2 names....I expect that they will be the "same-name" version.

I have never seen any of these cards with 2 different names. I will be very surprised if any of them show up with 2 different names.

Check out Jantz's excellent thread....I welcome you to prove me wrong.


In my opinion, that 5-card Wagner strip was not cut from a regular production sheet. I say this because the two following reasons......

1....The colors on the various cards are incomplete, although the Wagner looks like its colors are all there. Furthermore, the captions are in BLACK ink, rather than the
normal BROWN ink.

2....Wagner is a 150-only subject....the other cards on this strip (M.Brown, Bowerman, CYoung, and Kling) are 150/350 subjects.



TED Z

You guys are hardcore....

Ill probably never get into t206s but its great to see all this knowledge and constructive debate.

Ted- is the above layout pictured correctly? seems like i very long & narrow sheet...if so, it creates an awkward proportion for a sheet. i also think the cards would be oriented in the other direction, not vertically with the length of the sheet.

A few points to consider regarding the above quote.

-Plank is not a 150 Only subject.
-Some of these cards were printed with Sovereign 150 and some were not.
-Almost all Plank 150 Sweet Cap are Fac. 30, and almost all Wagner Sweet Cap 150 are Fac. 25. If they were Sweet Cap sheet mates the numbers wouldn't be so drastically different.
-If all of the cards pictured above were sheet mates, printed for the same amount of time, all be as relatively scarce as Wagner and Plank with Sweet Caporal 150 backs.

The common thread is when these subjects were discontinued. Prior to that, every indication is they were printed on sheets like any other subject from group 1. It's certainly possible when a double name of a 150 only subject is found that the second subject may also be a 150 only. However, I also find it highly likey that it could also be any other subject from print group 1.

Lastly, I don't believe Wagner and Plank were included with the first cards printed in the set. There were three intital printings:

Piedmont 150
Sweet Caporal 150
Sovereign 150

First being Piedmont which included Magie that was corrected. After Piedmont but in this early distribution Sovereign 150 were printed. It included exactly 150 subjects, as advertised, but not Plank and Wagner. I believe they were added after and included in later Piedmont and Sweet Caporal printings.

Just my two cents. All the best.

Ted-

I see. So you're saying there's no double (two different names) cards of THESE cards you've posted as a simulated sheet above.

Here's Jantz's thread I believe you are referencing (awesome thread BTW Jantz): http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...6%2C+two+names

But, here's where I'm confused: Confirmed cards with two different names~ all of these are Piedmont 150:

Bradley-Bender
Killian (pitching)-Chance
Lindaman-Bresnahan
Spade-Cicotte
Lundgren(Cubs)-Doolin
Bender(port)-Delahanty(Wash)
M.Brown(port)-Magee

All of the above cards are from Print Group 1:

http://t206resource.com/Print%20Grou...Checklist.html


I know you are going to say these are not ONLY 150 subjects~ but they are 150 subjects. So, I'm not following still.....

As far as the Wagner strip,,,,so you don't think they printed a sheet out and cut the strip from that? I'm not saying it was a regular production sheet, but just figuring it would be printed on a sheet "the size" of a regular production sheet. I'm trying to follow the 19 inch wide track thing, and understand how if they didn't use the regular presses to do this strip, what did they use?

Sincerely, Clayton

Thanks Tim, that makes sense. Great post !!

Sincerely, Clayton

Hi Steve - We know a good number of subjects that were printed side by side in vertical rows. Most are just small groups of two or three, but the largest group is 8 subjects side by side. From this we can conclude that the vertical rows were 8 subjects or larger, unless you believe two different size sheets were used at times.

To me, two different size sheets doesn't seem logical, but I certainly can't disprove it and would consider anything put forward supporting the idea.

The ones Ted showed are a subset of print group 1. None of them are also found with any 350 back or with factory 649 (Except for Plank, and If I recall it right all the 350 Planks are hand cut?)

Schulte front view should be included. There is a P350 that just turned up but I believe it's not a normal production card, most likely a wrongback(150 series sheet given a 350 back, either using up leftovers or as a makeready sheet that got cut and distributed.)

Magie should also be included. (Since at least one master and plate would have had to be reworked to fix Magie I consider Magie and Magee to be different cards Magie 150 only Magee 150/350)


Leaving out Plank and including Schulte, Wagner and Magie This group breaks into two groups, one slightly tougher than the other. With three exception Brown Cubs which isn't all that tough, and Wagner and Magie which are.

My theory had been that 5 of them had been on a sheet with Wagner, the other 5 on a sheet with Magie, and that both sheets had been withdrawn and the plates redone either partly or completely with Brown replacing both Wagner and Magie.

The other outlier card is Powers. No 350 backs, but he is found with factory 649. That one is interesting. Either they handled the sheets oddly to print the 649 overprints or Powers was on more than one sheet. Figuring that out would require looking at the tiny front differences to see if some are only found with 649 and some only with 150 backs. That's a whole project on its own.

Keep in mind that the sheet layout/size could have easily been different for 150 and 350 The 150s were a somewhat more limited release, 4-5 brands. While 350 had all 16. Printing larger sheets or sheets with more subjects to a sheet would have made more sense for 350.

For that reason I think it makes sense to look at sheet layouts by series or if you must, by print group.

Some of the cards on Teds sheet show the P150 plate scratches, so they must have been printed well into the later part of 150 printings.

One attraction of Teds layout is that it would explain a number of things. In production, extracting the Wagners, Planks and Magies would have been simply a matter of cutting off the edge if it was on the edge and discarding it, or cutting into strips and discarding the appropriate strip. Cutting into strips isn't good practice, because handling the long strips in the cutter makes diamond cuts much more likely.

Another issue is the scrap of the log from the packing plant clearly stating "other than philadelphia area" Which probably means that there was a different sheet to produce the mix of cards intended for at the very least the Philadelphia area. Sorting stuff by player and where each was intended to go just doesn't work for packing/distribution there's just way too much manual labor and thought invloved unless there's a major difference in the cards themselves (Like the red bordered paralells sold in Topps product exclusively in Target. Simple to add in while packaging their order since the look is very different.)

All in all a highly complex problem.

Steve B

Now for the Wagner strip answer.

The transfers that would be used to lay out the plates and probably any proofs would have been printed on small manually operated proofing presses.

Those can be very small, tabletop size. And are designed to produce one print at a time. The proofs are examined for both design, and to see if all the color elements are in the right place. An example of something that should have been caught in proofing is Magie, and Doyle. There are others that simply weren't fixed until much later. Ganzel has part of the background extending into his hat. That was fixed, but isn't at all rare. But it should have been caught in proofing.

If the Wagner strip was specially printed to try to convince him, it could have been laid out and one copy made. Or they could have used an existing set of proofs. The registration is very precise, better than some other proofs. In looking at the scans I have yesterday it also occured to me that it has a background color making the borders tan rather than white.

Steve B

Mike

Given......The typical width of a T206 is 1 7/16 inches

I contend that American Lithographic (ALC) printed T206's (and T205's) formatted in rows of 12 cards each.

Therefore, 12 x 1 7/16 inches = 17 1/4 inches. Now, it has come to our attention (from Steve B) that the standard size sheet (or cardboard) during the
T206 printing era) is 19" x 24".

Recently, a nearby neighbor of mine, who was in the printing business for 45 years (and is also an artist), told me that a standard size sheet is 18" x 24".

In any event, my 12-card per row theory (17 1/4 inches wide) fits very neatly with either of these size sheets.

Also, my research indicates that ALC operated 19" track (width) printing presses to produce these types of lithographic jobs (advertising posters, cigar-
ette premiums, etc.).


Furthermore, the big picture regarding the T206 structure makes a compelling argument in favor of my 12-card per row theory......check out this math.

Subjects........Series

..12..............150-only (12 x 1 row)

144..............150/350 (12 x 12)

204..............350-only (12 x 17)

..60..............350/460 (12 x 5)

..46..............460-only (+ 2 double-prints) (12 x 4)

..48..............Southern Leaguers (12 x 4)

...6...............Super-Prints

...2...............Demmitt and O'Hara St Louis variations
____
522 = total subjects



Best regards,

TED Z

Plank for all practical purposes is a "150-only" subject (just like Wagner). They both didn't want to be associated with cigarette cards. Wagner went "public", while Plank
was silent and most likely issued a cease & desist order to ATC. However, ALC did not desist; but, continued printing Plank in their early 350 series press runs of SWEET
CAP cards. And, isn't it interesting that they avoided Factory #25. Plank's 350 card was shipped only to Factory #30. In my opinion, this was deliberately done to avoid
the Philadelphia market....which was served by Factory #25 tobacco products. Factory #30 cigarettes were distributed in the New York and New England regions.

We have factual evidence that Wagner and Plank were on the same sheet. The "Gretzky Wagner" and Charlie Conlon's Plank were cut from same PIEDMONT sheet.
This I recall from my experience when Mastro was first shopping around the Wagner at the Willow Grove Show in the mid-1980's. This is an undeniable fact.

And, since we know that the fronts were pre-printed....followed by the printing of the advertising backs, it does not make any difference whether we are referring
to PIEDMONT cards or SWEET CAP cards.

We will never know how many Wagner and Plank cards were originally printed. Then discarded, after ALC was informed to desist. Meanwhile, the printing & shipping
of the other 10 subjects on my simulated sheet of 150-only series cards continued. The discarding of the Wagner and Plank in no way affects the numbers of the
other 10 subjects.

With all due respect, I don't get what you are saying here.


TED Z

Unless I misunderstand you, based on your mock sheet and your arguments for it, you're contention is that the cards only found with 150 series backs and Plank were printed on every sheet together.

Is this accurate?

Edit to add: I am aware that Plank and Wagner were on the same Piedmont 150 sheets. Do you believe the same to be true with Sweet Caporal 150?

I think the pithier the discussion, the more likely we are to understand each other and maybe make some progress.

Hi Ted,
I don't understand how Plank is a "150 only" card.... We have have twice as many known SwCap 350 Planks as we do Plank SwCap 150's.... That leads me to agree with Tim, that Plank was added late in the first print group and continued over into the 350's... I also believe that Wagner and Plank were most likely on the same Piedmont sheet, but not on the Sweet Caps....
Hope you are well Brian

Thanks for the reply Steve, I appreciate it.

I'm mucking things up in this discussion by bringing up the strip. I guess it's best to stay more on topic. Now, I don't know how to quote a certain section of a post, so I copied and pasted this :o:

"Keep in mind that the sheet layout/size could have easily been different for 150 and 350 The 150s were a somewhat more limited release, 4-5 brands. While 350 had all 16. Printing larger sheets or sheets with more subjects to a sheet would have made more sense for 350."

This is something I've been wondering about. I notice on a lot of the 150 series cards, the brown writing (player name & team designation) will be a thicker, bolder brown. And, on a good majority of the 350 series, the brown writing will be thinner and lighter. I wonder if that has to do with the volume they were printing?

I know that in the end we can only come up with theories about who was on a sheet, how many subjects per sheet, how many in a row, whether they ran the sheet horizontal or vertical, etc.~ unless a sheet pops up or someone who has seen one comes forward- but, I think Tim and Jim's website provides a deeper understanding of the set and presents a more probable scenario with the print groups and also Tim's article about the #34,,,,,Ted, you should check that article out if you haven't.


Thanks for the great discussion and information, my brain gets a great work out from these type of threads :D:p

Sincerely, Clayton

Brian

At least you agree with me that Wagner and Plank were printed on the same sheet.

We all appear to agree on....that the fronts were pre-printed....and, the backs were printed subsequently on these pre-printed (fronts) sheets as the orders
for the various T-brands came into American Litho (ALC).

Therefore, there appears to be a contradiction here, in that you guys are saying Plank was printed on another sheet ? ?
This does not jive with what we know.

OK, this may appeal to the conspiracy buffs....given that the majority of SWEET CAP 150 cards of Plank are Factory #30; and, the SWEET CAP 350 cards of
Plank are ONLY Factory #30....my theory is that ALC continued to print Plank (although he had informed ATC that he did not want his image associated with
tobacco) and shipped the cards to Factory #30 (NY). This was a deliberate move to continue issuing Plank's card, since Factory 30 distributed SWEET CAP
cigarettes to the New York and the New England markets.
Factory #25 distributed to the Southern States and as North as the Philadelphia area.

This is not as far-fetched as it might sound....recall that we have an ALC ledger notation informing the jobber......

"not to ship certain SWEET CAP cards to the Philadelphia region" (paraphrased)

Take care,

TED Z

Simulated T206 sheets....check them out
 

Here's an example of a possible Double-Printed 48-subject arrangement printed on a 19' X 24" sheet. Leaving a 1 1/2 inch border (top & bottom) if the printed cards were centered
on the sheet.


http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps502ee3d8.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psa49c7209.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psd4b87430.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps7c5569c5.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps502ee3d8.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psa49c7209.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psd4b87430.jpghttp://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps7c5569c5.jpg


TED Z

Simulated T206 sheets....check them out
 

Another example of a possible 108-card sheet printed during the 150 Series press runs. These 34 subjects and two Double-Prints ** were printed with PIEDMONT 150....
SOVEREIGN 150....SWEET CAPORAL 150 [Factory's #25, #30 & #649 (overprint)]....and, Brown HINDU backs.


Johnson .................................................. ......Possible DOUBLE-PRINTS................................................. Davis
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...T206sheetB.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...xt206sheet.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...xT206sheet.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...T206sheetB.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...xt206sheet.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...xT206sheet.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...T206sheetB.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...xt206sheet.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...xT206sheet.jpg
DOUBLE-PRINTS.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...... Powers .................. Matty (Possible DOUBLE-PRINT)


** Double-Prints (D-P)
My selection of Powers, and the 2nd D-P (either Davis, Matty, or Johnson) is based NOT on POP reports....but, two T206 surveys totalling 16,000 cards, which I have.


TED Z

when the SC 649 set and the southern brown Hindu sets subjects were chosen, there were plenty other subjects available if 36 were needed. No reason to double print 2 subjects.



As for a survey of 16,000 t206s, that is a drop in a 55 gallon bucket of what is out there . In 1998 there were a half million t206s surveyed by AM and we have done at least that many more since.

Sweet Cap 649 subjects and southern brown Hindu subjects were printed in equal numbers.

Great cards Ted !!

Here's what I don't get about these two simulated sheets you just posted.
The only chance for a possible "double name card" (same name top and bottom) is the Powers and Matty cards. The double name/same name shows up enough to see that they must have (like in Chris Browne's simulated sheet) been in columns of likely 3 of the same player down (in order to find these double name/same name).

Then, you have the double name/different name top, which also makes sense if you look at Chris's simulated sheet. The sheets you posted could give you a ton of double name/different name at top (which are way less common to find) and basically 2 possibilities for a double name/ same name (which are way more common).

How does this make sense, when factoring in these double named cards (which I think are a key factor in figuring out a sheet layout)?

Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

Simulated T206 sheets....check them out
 

Clayton

The simulated sheet I posted (post #41) consists of 12 subjects in the 150-ONLY Series.

The simulated sheet I posted (post #60) consists of 34 subjects in the 150/350 Series.

The simulated sheet I posted (post #59) consists of 48 subjects in the 350 Series.

This is your 2nd post on this thread in which your comments indicate that you have the T206 series confused.

The traditional classification (by Bill Heitman, Scot Reader, and long-time T206 collectors) is as follows......

150-only series

150/350 series

350-only series

350/460 series

460-only series

Southern Leaguer series

Demmitt and O'Hara (St. Louis variations)

Joe Doyle N.Y. Nat'l and Sherry Magie (error)


Any other manner of classifying these series is subject to confusion.


TED Z

Hey Ted,
The only thing I agree with in the above post is that Plank and Wagner were “most likely” printed on the same “Piedmont” sheet given the existing examples, as well as the story behind “The Card”….
Otherwise, as Tim as shown in multiple posts like the one below… “What we know” suggest otherwise….

Originally Posted by Abravefan11
A few points to consider regarding the above quote.

-Plank is not a 150 Only subject.
-Some of these cards were printed with Sovereign 150 and some were not.
-Almost all Plank 150 Sweet Cap are Fac. 30, and almost all Wagner Sweet Cap 150 are Fac. 25. If they were Sweet Cap sheet mates the numbers wouldn't be so drastically different.
-If all of the cards pictured above were sheet mates, printed for the same amount of time, all be as relatively scarce as Wagner and Plank with Sweet Caporal 150 backs.
Be well Brian

Ted- I am not confused about the T206 series one bit. I am confused about your sheet layouts. You also dodged my questions. Rather than explain what series the players consist of, I was hoping you would adress my last post with something that makes sense. Please re-read my last post, it's not that confusing.

Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

Simulated T206 sheets....check them out
 

Brian

The point I'm trying to make is that Plank was originally intended to be a 150-only subject. My premise here is based on these two supporting facts....

......PIEDMONT backs were printed FIRST onto the T206 fronts

......The Gretzky Wagner and Charlie Conlon's Plank were on the same PIEDMONT sheet


What transpired subsequent to the initial PIEDMONT printing of Wagner and Plank regarding the SWEET CAPORAL cards is anyone's guess. None of us
have concrete evidence of what actually transpired.

I have offered a theory or two....and, you guys have speculated as to what followed the PIEDMONT printing of Wagner and Plank.

But, as of today, we have no proof to back up our contentions regarding the SWEET CAP press runs. Perhaps, some one smarter than us, or lucky to
discover positive proof will arrive at the scene in the future.


TED Z

This may be a dumb question (sorry if it is :)), but has there ever been a confirmed report (or even a second hand story originally told by someone who was purchasing cigarette packs in 1909) of a Plank or a Wagner actually being pulled from a period cigarette pack? My point being, is it possible that NO Wagners and Planks ever made it into packs and that workers at the distribution site (sorry, not sure who actually did the cutting of the sheets - ALC or the actual factories) were told to destroy all of these cards (perhaps due to threatened litigation), but instead decided to take some home, being that these guys were two of the biggest stars of the day?

Concerning the consistency of sheet sizes throughout the T206 set and different series I'll offer up the following for thought.

The number 34 wasn't a random number that we found in a couple places within the set and have since tried to configure every other subset to fit it. It stands on its own as the smallest number of any group printed at a given time within the set. This is of the utmost importance. It doesn't require double prints, subsets, or any other adjustments to arrive at the total. It is 34 confirmed subjects that we know were printed at a very specific time in the set. Here are some examples:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 = 34
Hindu Southern League = 34
Print Group 3 (350/460) Drum 350 = 34
Broad Leaf 460 = 34

I used these four to show that small runs are consistent throughout the entire set, and all equal 34. While I can't prove that during other larger runs that a sheet size couldn't have been different, it's my current belief that they stayed consistent.

Once you go beyond 34 a lot of variables can change the total number of cards produced with a given back. Multiple sheet configurations, multiple printings of the same back at different times with the same subjects, and on and on.

There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards. This is how we categorize them and not evidence of how they were printed. When it comes to the actual production of the cards, you can not reduce a group printed at a specific time to a number smaller than 34.

From an August 1909 newspaper articele:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-e...33/Wag1909.jpg

OK, I'll try it a different way.

Let's take Rossman. In this sheet layout, how would there ever be a Rossman card with the name Rossman also at the top of the card (miscut)? I'm just using this card as an example of what I was getting at with my question.

Sincerely, Clayton

The part I changed to red above cannot be true.

14 Souther leaguers not printed with Hindu.
13 Printed with ONLY 150 backs and not with SC150/649.
1 printed with Only 150 Backs AND SC150/649

Is there some explanation for how these would have been printed on the same sheet as cards that recieved a different selection of backs? (I've proposed a few before, all of which I consider unlikely and for which there is no existing proof.)

The print groups do make sense, and are excellent for explaining thedistribution of the set.
But those groups are only a start towards understanding the production of the set.

I have a few other objections to 34 being the key. But none of them are something concrete.
For instance, it's not a number that most people would be comfortable with. People tend to select numbers that are either multiples of 10 or are readily divisible. 100, 150, 50, 25,75 All common choices. Ask yourself how many cards you'd put in a set? Hardly anyone would choose 34. How many of something would you put on a sheet? again, 34 isn't a number most people would choose. And none of the bigger numbers 150,350,460 can be made from 34. To be entirely fair, only 150 can be made from 6, so it's only marginally better.

And yes, I know the counter argument is pretty much any Topps set. Odd numbers made from sheets of 100, entire sets based on being multiples of 11...Quite a mess.

Steve B

Thanks Tim!!

It's odd that they would mention Cobb as being a rare example in early packs along with Wagner, and also that "multiple" Wagners were found when the new shipment arrived. Great source material. The expertise and time spent in researching shown by you and the other veterans on this board is greatly appreciated.

Thanks again,

Steve

It's curious that the author of the above refers to 'photographs'. I wonder if he didn't confuse some other facts as well? (like player names). If he knew that a 'recent' shipment contained Cobb and Wagner, it's doubtful he found that out by digging through packs himself - probably quizzed the kids and couldn't they have been talking about cards other than T206's and the author got confused?

Also, August is late in the year. If they began printing in May, does that mean that they waited until months later to begin printing Wagners?

Steve - With all do respect you misunderstand me.

Every one of the three groups you referenced I was referring to with this in my post: "There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards."

Yes, 14 southern league cards were not printed with Hindu, but when they were printed with Old Mill, the actual number printed is 48. Same with Piedmont 350. The fact that 14 were not printed with Hindu is not evidence that less than 34 were printed later.

You can classify the 150 only cards as you like, but none were printed with a back subset less than 34.

Excluding Wagner and Magie let's look at the regular 150 Only subjects.

All were printed with the following backs:

Piedmont 150
Sweet Caporal 150 No.25
Sweet Caporal 150 No.30
Sovereign 150
Hindu

All were no-prints with:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 (Powers is the lone exception*)

Up until the point they were discontinued, 67 subjects in the set followed that exact pattern of distribution. Nothing about them was unique except for when they were discontinued. Again this isn't evidence of any special treatment during production.

I hope this clears up the point I was trying to make but please ask me any followups.

Edit* Of the 150 only group Powers was printed with SC150/649, but like the others this does not make how he was printed unique. Until being discontinued his card followed the same distribution as 33 other group 1 subjects.

Yes. We believe that the exclusion from Sovereign 150 shows that Wagner was not one of the original 150 subjects and added later in production.

The key to my earlier post was that 34 seems to work for distribution But not always for production The two are not necessarily linked. looking at the overall print groups 34 does turn up often. But so does 6.
From a production standpoint the overall print group doesn't matter except in a general sense. When looking at what an individual sheet might look like it's necessary to look at more detailed groups.

For me, we're right at the point where the math and logic fail to support 34 without doubleprints in all series.

The 14 non-Hindu Sl cards *might* have been included on a sheet with regular Old Mill subjects. But so far there are no cards indicating that -No SL/regular double name. No SL/regular side miscut. No SL/regular shifted ghost image.

The options for having 14 out of 48 cards not printed with a particular back are limited.
Either
A)The sheet including those 14 had mixed SL and normal OM backs.
B)The sheet included ONLY those 14 subjects in some quantity.
C)The sheet was very complex, perhaps a very large sheet that included 2 or more smaller blocks that were then cut and the backs printed.
D)The sheet contained 34 subjects. 14 new and 20 held over from an earlier sheet. In other words doubleprints. But the first sheet must have still been in use since all the SL subjects come with P350 and OMSL.
E)24 sheets of 34 subjects is divisible by 48. Which would leave no doubleprints, but from a manufacturing standpoint is more than a bit crazy.


I don't see any realistic way of getting 48 cards on 34 subject sheets without either doubleprints or a sheet that does not contain 34 subjects. There's no indication that A or C happened. And E just isn't at all likely. (Although I might believe it for non SL P350s there's enough of them out there.) So B and D are the only logical choices.

Yes, the 150 only cards could have simply been discontinued before any 649overprint or 350 backs were printed. The question would be why they were discontinued when so many others were carried over into the 350 backs.
That's interesting. Looking at the players, there's a few from that group that there's a good reason to discontinue. What's odd is discontinuing 11 out of 34 subjects while only having a good reason for about half of them. 4 of them were reworked, Magie before the 350s and Brown(e) Brown and Evers between 150 and 350. I could maybe see there being one sheet that just had nothing but problems. Magie, Wagner,Plank, plus a required team change and at least two players who were out of the majors before 1909 began. (Pattee and Donlin) Going through making a new brown plate to fix Magie/Magee pulling Wagner, pulling Plank maybe /sort of. Yeah, a royal pain. My inclination would be to abandon the whole bunch. Three of the 4 reworks make sense. Brown(e) doesn't make much sense. He doesn't look like a star from his numbers. And they still got his name wrong the second time around.

That could lead somewhere! if the sheet had 34 subjects it's possible the other 23 were reworked between 150 and 350 as well. I'm sure some were, but haven't looked at that enough.

Powers is a very odd subject. If he was on the sheet with the other 150 onlys there shouldn't be a 649OP. If he was on any other sheet there should be 350 backs. The logical thing is that he was on two sheets, both discontinued before the 350 series one that got the overprint, the other that didn't. That would lead me to think the 649 sheet was actually a special sheet for fact. 649. But if it was why do it as an overprint? They had to make a plate for the overprinting anyway.

Even the lists of confirmed and possible back/front combinations rarely add up to a number divisible by 34, both on the master spreadsheet at T206 resource and the superset spreadsheet.

So to me-
34 subjects- possible/probable for some parts of some print groups. 649OP looks good without doubleprints, and fits both the 34 theory and the divisible by 6 theory if a couple subjects are printed twice. But 34 is a perfect fit.

Some number divisible by 6 or 12 ---Possible for some parts of most groups. Sovereign 350 lt green 66 subjects. 6 works, backing out the 6 superprints 12 works.

Some number we haven't yet considered. - Also possible for some groups. Sov 460. 52 subjects all confirmed with none shown as unconfirmed. 34? nope. 52/6...Nope. Backing out the 6 superprints? still no.
So either Sov 460 was a complex set of sheets with doubleprints. OR some number we haven't considered, OR there are at least two subjects still unknown. Or some of the confirmed ones are errors that shouldn't have that back.

Lots more thoughts on all of this, but I've redone this about 5 times and it's getting late....

Steve B

Hi Steve-

I want some of whatever type of coffee you are drinking :D;) it must be the good stuff :p

It sounds to me like the only thing hanging you up on the #34 really is the 14 non Hindu S/L'ers. Other than that, I think it (the #34) makes sense to you. It seems like you go back and forth with this, and those 14 subjects are where you hit the brick wall. This is just an observation, and I may be wrong.

Regardless, at least you are willing to look at both theories without prejudice and that is awesome. I can tell you put a lot of thought into this, and it's this type of focus that I believe gets us all closer to nailing it down. Thanks for having an open minded approach.

Sincerely, Clayton

Steve,

I'd like to second what Clayton posted. Whether we ultimately agree or disagree, actually having a discussion is good for everyone and helps foster ideas. This used to happen a lot on the board and I hope this is a rebirth of that. I know it may come across at times like I've come to a definite conclusion but I'm open to other ideas. In the same vein I'm glad to have anyone question my ideas because it's good for them to be tested.

You addressed a lot in your post and I'll speak to a few things. I'm not ignoring the others but think we need to take things a few at the time to avoid overlapping and confusing different issues.

You're correct, they're is a difference between distribution and production and here's a great example. We know based on the advertisements that ATC/ALC planned to distribute all 48 southern league subjects with Hindu cigarettes, but they only produced 34 southern league subjects. So this links 34 to production which is the important aspect of determining a sheet.

Again I'll emphasize that 34 is the smallest production number we can reduce any back set to. I know it's an odd number, but to me that is what makes it more compelling. It can only be divided by 17 and 2. It's human nature to want to make things even or easily divisible. It's also human nature to see false patterns in large groups of numbers, especially if you allow yourself to make unfounded adjustments when the numbers fall a few short. Ultimately 34 may not be the number of subjects on a sheet, but the number needs no tweaking in the smallest known production sets. It just is and occurs again and again throughout the set.

Let's consider the idea of six subjects to a sheet for a moment. First, we know of a horizontal strip of 8 subjects, so right off we would have to believe there were two different size sheets for this to be plausible. If we do that these are the questions I would ask. If there were six or twelve subjects to a sheet and ALC intended on printing all 48 southern league subjects, doesn't it make the most sense that there would be 36 Hindu subjects? Why would they take the time to double print two southern league subjects when they were falling short of their intended distribution? Why would they do the same for every 34 card subset seen throughout the set? Following Occam's razor I believe 34 was the number of subjects ALC could fit on a sheet with their given printing parameters.


Why this group was discontinued is a good question. I have speculative theories, but they're just that. What's important to note is that discontinuing subjects isn't unusual in the set. Not long after the 150 only subjects were pulled a second group was discontinued. This was a group of about 12 that were printed with Piedmont 350 and EPDG backs then pulled. Subjects were discontinued from their groups throughout the set, but I haven't seen anything that indicates their early exits had an effect on how they were included during production.

Powers is a good example of a few things.

1) The 150 only were not a group unto themselves, but rather part of the larger group 1 during production. Their only definitive connection is when they discontinued.

2) Subjects were not locked into a single sheet configuration. Throughout a print groups production different combinations of front subjects were created. Lundgren in the Two Name thread is a good example.


Once we move past a single sheet, whatever the number, then the amount of variables increase. These variables are what results in many different total numbers. For this reason I have focused on the small subsets. The more variables you can remove the better. With that said 34 is found in larger groups, but for the time I'm trying to keep things as simple as possible.

Again Steve, thanks for the discussion and consideration.

Steve B & Tim C
 

1st..your "350/460 Drum 350 = 34" is not accurate. The 350/460 series DRUM cards and the 350/460 AMERICAN BEAUTY 350 (no frame) cards were both printed on same
pre-printed sheets of 37 - T206 subjects. Three of these subjects (Conroy....Mullin....Stahl) of these 37 have yet to be confirmed with DRUM backs. Eventually, these 3
subjects will be discovered with the DRUM backs.

Scratch your DRUM number of 34....the number is actually 37.

2nd..Regarding your "Broad Leaf 460 = 34"....this is wishful thinking on your part. There are too many unconfirmed guys. We don't know for certain the real number of the
BROAD LEAF 460 cards.

That narrows it down to just 2 examples (HINDU and SC 150/649) from which you have based your "magic 34" sheet hypothesis. Tim, you are stuck in your "magic 34" rut.
And therefore, you are unwilling to consider any other hypothesis that Steve, or I, or others have presented on this forum.

Fine, that's your take. But, with all due respect to you.....your speculation is flawed.

The press track width required to print your 17 cards across a row must be = or > than 24 1/4 inches. Lithographic printing press track widths of 25 (or 26) inches were
not used by ALC to print these cards. Furthermore, we have two independent sources that have stated that the standard paper or cardboard sheet size for such jobs is
19" x 24". This information is consistent with research that indicates that 19" wide presses were used (circa 1909-1919) to print the tobacco cards, advertising posters,
medium size lithographic art, etc.

Finally, the prevailing math regarding the various T206 series structures is invariably a factor of 12......not of "17". It is quite puzzling that you do not comprehend this
obvious fact ?


Absolutely wrong !

A series of 12 subjects were initially printed. This has been established even prior to Bill Heitman's 1980 book, "The Monster". These 12 subjects were most likely Triple-
Printed on a 36-card sheet (in ALC's start-up of the T206 set in the Spring/Summer of 1909). Or perhaps, Ninefold-Printed on a standard 19" x 24" sheet comprising of
108 cards.

Tim.....I suggest that you go back to your drawing board and come up with a more realistic sheet arrangement to include in your website. Prior to doing this, I suggest
that you brush up on some early 20th Century standard printing practices and the machinery employed in the production process. These are important elements of this
scenario that you appear to have ignored.


TED Z

Ted-

It is my belief that the print group 3 Drum subset is complete at 34. I do not believe at this time that the three cards you mentioned will be confirmed. If one is, I will gladly change my opinion and expect the other two to be confirmed as well. Here we will have to agree to disagree.

The Broad Leaf 460 group currently has 27 confirmed of what I believe is a group of 34. I do not believe any cards outside of this group of 34 will be confirmed with this back. This isn't based solely on the number 34, but rather trends in the production of the 460 series. Again we will have to agree to disagree.

I will try to write this as politely as possible, nothing you have presented about press sizes, track widths, or paper sizes do I feel is solid evidence to draw any conclusions from. To me it is all very speculative and unsupported by actual evidence that can be linked directly to the T206 cards. I would love to see something verifiable presented that can be tied directly to the cards rather than information about other products printed by such a large firm. Until then I would not take such leaps of faith. Others are free to speculate this way, it's just not in my nature or how I work.

I have not ignored the theories presented that sheets were groups of 12 or any other ideas. I give them all consideration and state specifically the areas where I find them flawed or implausible. You can find post from years ago on this board were I thought the 12 subject sheet may have some validity. Eventually though I came to different conclusion and at this time all of the evidence I've seen supports it. This does not stop me from considering opposing theories. I not only give them their due, I constantly check and recheck my own ideas.

This is the crux of the matter. You can not reduce a point in the T206 production to a number smaller than 34. To make this number anything else requires adjusting the number with no supporting evidence to do so.