I Believe This Could Be A Complete Horizontal Layout For This T206 Sheet
 

I recently found this Gibson plate scratch that closes up a gap in the A-B sheet
which I think completes the horizontal layout for this sheet.
Attachment 220321 Attachment 220337 Attachment 220338

Attachment 220322Attachment 220323

There were two different fronts used with this plate scratch sheet which has a Sweet Caporal Factory 649op and A SC 649 no print subject for each horizontal position so I think one sheet had all the 649's and other one
had the 649 no prints. There are 5 spots on the bottom row missing the second subject for that particular scratch, 3 649's and two 649 no prints.
Attachment 220340
Attachment 220327

There are two different plate scratch sheets with a left to right horizontal
scratch and they have two different distinct scratches. One is a heavier single
scratch and the other is thinner scratch that is double in some areas. (That's the scratch on this sheet.)

I think this sheet is complete horizontally at 17 subjects or this is the minimum
width of this sheet. There are no vertical scratches on this sheet to determine
the height but one of the sheets with a vertical scratch is at least 11 high and
another is 12 high. I'm thinking 12 might be the vertical number. The hoe NO.4 press bed is 26X34 which would fit this sheet.

While I think the plate scratch sheets might have been 12X17 with the same subject used vertically for the entire sheet. I don't think all the sheets were
this size and we know for sure that the vertical subjects were not the same on all the sheets by the two name and miscut examples that exist.

This is what I think one of the A-B sheets looked like. O'Leary and McIntyre
need to be substituted with 649 no print subjects but the second scratch for those positions haven't been confirmed yet and they should be 649 no prints
when they're found.

Congrats Pat. Exciting result from a lot of work.

Pretty amazing Pat.. awesome effort sorting through these!

This is really great. You can see why they would be cut up even if they survived the printer's blade - all of the vertical repetition isn't as appealing as, say, a sheet with all different players on it, which would be far more displayable. Great job!

Awesome!
 

I know you've put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this. Flat out awesome!

That is really amazing work Pat. I can't imagine how much time you put into this, but the 12x17 sheet layout seems to make sense. I think this might be the closest we'll all come to seeing what an actual T206 sheet looked like.

If we gave out awards for expanding the knowledge of the Monster, you'd definitely collect some hardware!! :D

Best,

Steve

Great work and effort!

Here's an example of another Gibson scratch that adds support to his
positioning on this sheet. The positions of the three different scratches
across the template are not where the rows would be vertically I just drew
them there using existing scratches to have an idea where new scratches
might be found on each back.

Jon (jcfowler6) posted these Gibson pics in post #97 of the plate scratch
thread. I kept a scan for my records but hadn't assigned it to a sheet and
I had forgot about it until I just put this new Gibson in my files.

The upper scratch is pretty faint compared to the lower scratch so there
are a large number of them that are unconfirmed. Jon's Gibson lines
up in the same horizontal row as the new lower Gibson scratch and
is pretty close to where it was drawn by simply connecting a couple
of the confirmed upper scratches to create a line across the whole sheet.

What a wonderful result Pat! When I first mentioned the scratches I'd hoped for a result like that in maybe a couple decades :eek: That you were able to put it together so "quickly" with a ton of work and a good deal of input from the rest of the list is amazing.


I'm thinking the sheet may have been wider, unless I'm not understanding the layout showing the scratches

The Hahn/Wilhelm and Murphy/Davis that are in the middle- extending that line left brings it right to the level shown for the right column, ?/O'Leary. So maybe there was a bit more to the right side. 2 unknowns then Hahn/Wilhelm then Murphy/Davis then..........Maybe more?

Way back I looked at pop reports for the 150 onlys, and found a definite grouping for those subjects, two clear groups of 6 and the couple outliers like the Magie and the Wagner. A sheet with a partial repeat would explain that.

Steve B

Hi Pat

Excellent work as always!

Some aspects of your sheet layout I definitely agree with, others I'm just not sure about at this time.

Plate scratches are pretty solid evidence and I need more time to research the subject.

One thing that leads me to more questions than answers is the card below which has a Piedmont 150 back.

Jantz

Incredible. Great work, bravo.

Hey Jantz,
I've looked at the information Pat has provided and have concluded (and I think Pat has too), that there was more than one press run for the Piedmont 150 subjects and that the layouts likely changed. To date, no two-name card in Piedmont 150 has exhibited a plate scratch.

Secondly, while I believe that in this sheet's case the vertical subjects were the same all the way down, Pat's depiction only shows four rows with the plate scratches. Other parts of the sheet vertically "could" have had a different order which would lead to the existence of the two-name Hinchman-Stovall.

Note that there is also two instances of Powell-O'Leary (both currently attributed to this sheet); Berten (Batting) also appears with Dooin as does Konetchy with Jennings.

guys....
 

you will all be on my grading co. team someday;)

great work to all in involved!:D

Thanks for the compliments everyone and thank you for the input Jantz.
I think it's important to answer and discuss the questions/opinions
like the one you have here.

Erick is correct I believe the sheet layouts and even the sheet sizes
varied throughout the whole series including the PD 150's. I will post
some of the evidence that led me to conclude this.

I'm pretty confident with the layout of this sheet based on all the evidence I've
gathered. For the Hinchman/Stovall Jantz posted to work on this sheet it
would have to be a strange sheet layout.

Here is the lower scratch of Goode-Hincman-Bergen scanned together.
I had to substitute Goode for Powell because I don't have this Powell
card but it's the same exact scratch as Goode. You can see how well
they line up even where the scratch is split with two lines.

I will post scans of the Gibson-Stovall-O'Leary together but I'll
have to piece them together because Gibson and O'Leary are
in slabs.

I scan them at 1200 dpi but this is as large as I can post them here.

It's almost impossible for them to line up absolutely perfect because
of the different cuts (notice how far to left the Bergen is cut compared
to the right side of Hinchman and the right side of Goode compared to the
left of Hinchman)

Pat -- Great work.

I buy the same-subject-on-multiple-sheets theory for the additional reason that some of the subjects appearing on Pat's reconstructed scratched sheet are significantly scarcer than others.

[And I would put Stovall (Portrait) and Hinchman (Cleveland) in the "easier" category].

Scot

Would an estimate of sheet margin size be helpful in this discussion? I have been thinking about a way to figure that out for a few months and can try and come up with some guesses if they might help. i am thinking that an estimate of margin size combined with Pat's number of rows and columns might let us look at common sizes for different press and paper sizes.

Edited to add: And of course, awesome work Pat!

Bryan, any information is helpful.

There's some great information on some of the press sizes in this
thread.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=125899

Pat R
 

I commend you on a lot of good work here.

However, as you know that I cannot accept your "17-subject" wide sheet arrangement. Basically for the following two reasons......

1st....the factor "17" does not map into any of the various T206 series (or sub-sets) numerical structure. As I have presented on
this forum many times, 12 is the common denominator throughout the T206 structure. For example: 12 subjects in the 150-only
group....144 subjects in the 150/350 series....48 subjects in the Southern League group....the Elite 12....the Exclusive 12....etc.

2nd....research has shown that American Lithographic printed these cards with a 19-inch wide track printing press.

Your speculation of a 17 cards wide sheet would require a 26-inch wide press.


Incidently, shown here are the Mullin cards in my sets. I don't see this PIEDMONT 150 Mullin (with scratch) in your diagram (Post #2).
The point that I'm making here is that trying to formulate an arrangement of a hypothetical T206 sheet based on printng scratches
can be quite arbitrary.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...150SOVx50x.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...50SOVx50bx.jpg



Hey guys, here is an example of my concept of a T206 sheet based on the Exclusive 12 subjects in the 460-only series......

..v............................19-inch x 24-inch sheet (standard size)............................v
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...96cards50x.jpg



TED Z
.

Thank You Scot. While working on this I've developed a great appreciation for you and all of the others that have done extensive research on this set, it
can be a lot of information to keep track of.

The answers to some of the mystery's might be hidden in these sheets. For instance... Powers is the lone 150 only subject on this sheet
and we know he's also the only SC factory 649op subject from that group.
The rest of the 150 only subjects are together on a different plate scratch
sheet with the exception of Wagner, Magie and George Brown (Chic) no
scratches have been found on these three subjects yet.

The following are together on the same plate scratch sheet.

Ames (hands at chest)
Brown, M (cubs)
Burch (batting)
Donlin (fielding)
Doyle (throwing)
Evers (cubs)
Pattee
Pelty (horizontal)
Reulbach (glove showing)

Schulte (front view) is also on this sheet and personally I still consider
this card a 150 only.

The Mullin has a scratch from upper left to lower right. That's part of a different group from the ones Pat has put together so far. That other one I think also has a vertical scratch or two.

While the Scientific American article showed Hoe #5 presses at ALC when they electrified, there's no evidence I've seen indicating any particular press used for any particular job. That includes the existing progressive proof books for cigar box labels.
Like any large shop ALC most likely had a variety of presses that would be used depending on how many of something were to be printed.

The scratches can show certain things, but not others. They can show that two cards were likely side by side on the sheet. That there's two cards showing the same scratch limits that to a possibility of 2, but at the same time, if one shows the scratch and another shows the same scratch they can be positively ruled out as being from the same sheet. Combined with a front mark like the one Pat showed recently they can show cards as being from the same sheet. It's hardly arbitrary.

There are a few things that need more research.
ALC was close to Hoe in a business sense, Hoe made a lot of different sorts of presses around 1910. Including both the flatbed presses like the #5, rotary presses that used plates rather than stones, web fed presses that printed not sheets but rolls of paper or cardstock, and multi color presses. There is some evidence that some but probably not all T206s were printed on a two color press.

There's a lot of evidence that most of the series were printed at least three times, and that subjects were reworked between printings as well as between series. 150's were done at least three times, and were altered before the 350 series, which was printed at least twice with a reworking in between for many subjects.

And among all that is the possibility (Almost certainty) that there were multiple sheet layouts for each series AND each back. That's especially true for the 150's where there's a handful of outliers that don't match up with a simple layout of single sheets. (Crawford wasn't in the Sovereign set but was in all the others. I can't imagine he was printed but pulled)

The scratches - at least one of them was deep enough to carry over into P350. Whether it was deep enough to survive resurfacing or the 150 stone with the scratch was altered to produce a 350 stone without having all new transfers laid down is a puzzle for the future.

At least one P150 back shows a doubling, either a poorly erased earlier layout or a redone misplaced transfer (Criger - Any others?)

So the simple solution of a sheet always being the same size really doesn't work.

Steve B

Twelve Subjects Per Sheet
 

Ted,

We will have to agree to disagree on this. I'm not saying all of the sheets were
this size but several of the plate scratch sheets are larger than 12 subjects
wide, this I'm sure of and I think the plate scratch evidence is solid proof of
that.

As Steve said the Mullin is a right to left plate scratch and was on a different
sheet. The sheet In this thread consists of subjects with left to right plate scratches.
At last count there were over 250 different plate scratches and 5 or 6
different plate scratch sheets. (I'm on the fence if one of the sheets is actually
two separate sheets).

Here's the sheet with Mullin on it.

Those match up nicely, job well done, Pat. It's always fun to learn of the processes behind the making of the cards.

And thanks for sharing all of the info guys...and for the good card discussion.

Well I found out how good the template works.
When I originally made this template I only had Four scratches
for the middle line and they're pairs so they only cover two spots
on the sheet plus they're side by side so I couldn't continue the line
across the sheet with no other scratches to connect them to.

I acquired this Williams scratch after I made the template and
this afternoon when I got home from work I went to add it to the template
and I couldn't get it to line up, after some head scratching and talking to myself
I realized that I had put the middle line one spot to far to the right.
The scratches I have are Criger/Harry Davis and Hahn/Wilhelm but I had put
the Criger/Davis scratch in the Hahn/Wilhelm slot and The Hahn/Wilhelm in
the Murphy/George Davis slot thus the reason I couldn't get the Williams to line up.

I didn't want to go through the process of making a whole new template
so I just cut out the two that were wrong and taped new ones in their place
and made a new longer line with the Williams addition.
I still have to put all the X's back for the confirmed scratches.

Very cool stuff!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

This is the corrected template with the middle line where it should be and
all the X's marking the confirmed scratches. The Red ? marks are the three
missing SC 649 scratches. These three scratches should eventually be found
on subjects from this list.

Alperman
Bates
Bransfield
Bresnahan (port)
Delehanty
Ewing
Gilbert
Jones
Killian
Lajoie (throwing)
Marquard (hands at side)
Mathewson (white cap)
McQuillan (ball in hand)
Owen
Ritchey
Schlei (catching)
Schmidt (throwing)
Sheckard (no glove showing)
Spencer
Wagner (bat on left shoulder)

If anyone has any SC 649 subjects from this list with a PD 150 back and would check
them for any of the missing scratches it would be much appreciated.

Patrick

fantastic research. Very solid and fits with the the set numbers. Well done my friend.

Made some more progress on this sheet, I found another piece of the upper
scratch. This Williams lines up with Conroy on the upper scratch. All three
different Williams scratches are now confirmed for this sheet and only
the middle Conroy scratch remains unconfirmed for this pair of neighbors.

Maybe i am misunderstand most excellent research, but .... it troubles me that there is only a partial scratch that is perfectly parallel to row 1 (in row 2). couldn't there be a plausible layout such that the seven cards in row 2( position 2-8) from weimer/pastorius to ?/mcintyre could actually be extended in row 1 (positions 18-24)? it looks like that scratch would line up....

Edited: actually after photoshopping it, it looks like you need a gap between your column 17 and the next row two scratches....so it would be row 2, col 1-8 added onto your 17 column row 1.

i state all this because it seems odd (but not impossible) that we would have a partial scratch in the middle of the sheet that is PERFECTLY parallel to the top scratch.

Edited2: One MORE thing to consider: if the sheet were 30 players across, the top scratch would perfectly extend from the lower left corner of a new row 1, col1 all the way through upper right corner of column 30. I don't know that we can say the scratch HAS to extend the whole width but it would be perfectly at the corners of row 1 if row 1 were 30 columns wide. I will try to photoshop it, but i am not adept. In other words, your 17 columns are actually columns 3 - 19, your row 2 (col 1-8) are actually columns 20-27, two unknown columns to left, and three to the right give you a scratch that goes perfectly across from top to bottom of 30 columns.

Hi Jim,

The sheet is just a template I drew using some of the existing scratches. The
reason the middle line is only a partial line is because I don't have any scratches on the right hand side to extend that line yet. For example: in the
top line the potential scratches in that line are missing between Williams/Lake to Shaw/powers, The existing scratches are marked with X's
the ones without an X should be found on Subject(s) named in the same vertical
row at the bottom of the sheet. Using this recent Williams as an example
it was in the top row with no X because it was previously unconfirmed and
it now fits that slot and has a scratch that matches the template.

I don't think any off middle scratches are an extension of the upper
scratch but I can't rule out the possibility yet. The middle scratch is on
a slightly steeper plane than the upper scratch and if it was an extension of
the upper scratch you would have the same subject in two different places
horizontally on a sheet.

Re: Piedmont scratch layout
 

Hello Patrick,
Just wanted to say this is fantastic! Great detective work. Just amazing.
Art M.

Thanks Art.

While all the other sheets have a vertical scratch to establish where
the horizontal scratches are located unfortunately the A-B sheet
doesn't but there is a very light partial vertical scratch on a couple
of Conroy's and a Murphy. Since it doesn't go through any of the
horizontal scratches these cards must have been above or
below all of the horizontal scratches.

Note: The vertical scratches on Conroy & murphy on the sheet with
the red line is only for the Murphy/Conroy connection, they aren't actually
through any horizontal scratches.

The point that I'm making here is that trying to formulate an arrangement of a hypothetical T206 sheet based on printng scratches
can be quite arbitrary.






TED Z
.[/QUOTE]

Ted,

I hardly think it's arbitrary when there are many instances of the same subjects having more than one scratch that puts them together on a sheet
in some cases as many as three or four. There is also a Seymour/Cicotte
combo that has a mark on the front that connects them in addition to the
the two different plate scratches on the backs.

I found a few more pieces to this puzzle. A Lake and Williams that are
both from the same position from one of the lighter scratches.

I also found a Stahl that turned out to be a match with McIntyre. This was one of the five remaining unconfirmed 2nd subjects. There are four remaining
unconfirmed subjects, there should be a SC 649 subject that matches Conroy (horizontal row 6) Hinchman (row 10) and Gibson (row 15) and there should
be a non 649 subject that matches O'Leary (row 17).

Nice job Pat! Looks like the puzzle is coming together.

While we're on the subject. I posted before about seeing scratches on a few Polar Bear backs. Recently I've found a few more players that have the scratch in the same location as well.

I'm going to set that project off to the side for you to work on when you get this Piedmont sheet finished. ;)

Hope all is well and thanks for posting this new information.

Jantz

I came across this Powell with a fine line running through the bottom.
Attachment 231168

It doesn't look like most of the other plate scratches and may have been caused by something different but there is another Powell and Hinchman
that have similar marks.
Attachment 231171Attachment 231174

I would guess that this mark was only on a few sheets. Powell and
Hinchman have another plate scratch that puts them along side each
other on this sheet and the line on this new Powell lines up with these two.
Attachment 231180

Hey Jantz,

Per our discussion at the national I'm not sure how much could be pieced together with the PB scratches but at the very least it's possible to put
together some subjects that weren't on the same sheets together but were
in the same position on different sheets with the scratches and print flaws.

Here's a Bell and Merkle with the same flaw and I think there should be
another subject with the same flaw as the PB flaws seem to occur on three
different subjects but I haven't found a third one with this flaw yet.

Patrick

not all that important perhaps
 

but I have a couple proof sheets for non-sport "T" cards issued contemporaneously to the T206's. The sheets are for sets of fifty cards - there are 3 sheets each with 12 cards and one sheet with 14 cards - an extra two cards with no double-prints and the extra space taken by a color-bar. While the lithographer would think it prudent to utilize all available space - just possible that not all sheets were uniform. Just saying.

Seeing those would be wonderful. If it's any of the ALC cards as most were then, it's the perfect example of how things can become complex.

I know ALCs progressive proof books are out there for many of the cigar box labels, since I saw one I've wondered if the progressive proofs for any of the baseball or non-sport cards survived.

Steve B

Excellent research! This is exactly how stamp collectors have reconstructed early 1850's plates.

I agree wholeheartedly. As an "esoteric" collector I really enjoy putting puzzles together too. Once again, great work by all ...

Pat has done some amazing work. To out it in some context, for the stamps the sheet size was known, and blocks were and are available. More so in the 30's when the plating work began, plus back then the stamps were relatively inexpensive.

Obviously for T206, the sheet size isn't truly known, and there's no blocks. So to assemble so much of a sheet based on flaws that cross from one card to the next is a rather impressive achievement.

Steve B

Hi Pat

Took a look at some of the backs on my cards tonight. My J.J. Clarke has a plate scratch going through the "150" on the top of the card back. I can get you a scan if you want.

Jantz

I just located a scan of one of the four missing spots on this sheet and it's
one that we have been speculating about but didn't assign because we
didn't have solid proof.

Chris B and I have been emailing back and forth about the SC 150/649
matching pairs. Based on the matching pairs we were trying to break the SC150/649's down into two groups (Sheets).

I was using this plate scratch sheet which has one 649 in each slot to help breakdown the two groups and it got me thinking about this Sheckerd/Goode Sc 150/30 miscut that Brian W had posted scans of (thanks Brian).
Attachment 250952

One of the missing spots on this plate scratch sheet is next to Goode.
Attachment 250953

I had searched for a Sheckard that matched Hinchman many times with no luck
but I hadn't checked for any in awhile until this morning and I found this one
that matched Hinchman which is right next to Goode.
Attachment 250954
Attachment 250955Attachment 250956
Attachment 250960

Great work Pat!

I'm really happy with the progression of this sheet the last two days.

The most recent discovery is a little involved and I'm terrible at trying
to explain these things via a computer but I'll give it a try.

I was pretty sure before but now I'm positive this sheet mirrors a SC150/649
sheet and I think this is one of two 649 sheets that were printed.

The recent Sheckard discovery left only two spots on this sheet that remained
with an unconfirmed 649 subject.

The names and empty slots (?) in red are the 649's.
Attachment 251101

While working on the 649 same sheet position matching pairs combo I
came up with these two.
Attachment 251102

Neither Bransfield or Ewing were on this sheet so if this PD150 sheet
mirrored a 649 sheet and there were only two sheets which I believe
is the case Branfield or Ewing would have to match one of the two
unfilled spots.

I haven't found a Bransfield that matches what I consider the main (lower)
scratch subject. But I do have a Bransfield that has a vertical scratch.
Attachment 251104

I thought this Branfield could be a continuation of these two Conroy vertical scratches.
Attachment 251105Attachment 251106

While looking through Branfield scans I found this one that matches one of
the vertical Conroys.
Attachment 251107

I also found this Bransfield that I'm confident is a lighter version of a Conroy
secondary horizontal scratch.
Attachment 251111
Attachment 251112
Attachment 251113

Now only the Gibson slot remains to complete the empty 649 slot
and that would give us the layout of one 649 sheet and no layout
but all of the subjects that were on the 2nd sheet.

I'm amazed this came together so quickly. I'd figured on it taking a lot longer.

One thing I'm finding interesting.

I think the other group of the upper scratch fits to the right of the main field. And by the numbers, 17+7=24 so a 24 wide sheet with a few doubleprints satisfies the divisible by 17 group, and 24 or 12 satisfies the divisible by 12 group. I think it's entirely possible that both are right.

The clincher would be the numbers on something like the Hindu Sls, or the 649s. There should be 7 of each that are more common. (Or if you like, 10 that are tougher)

Steve B

I located the last remaining SC150/649 OP subject scratch for this sheet
and I'm pretty confident this completes the horizontal layout of a PD150
sheet that was also used for a SC150/649 printing. The only spot that remains to be
filled is the scratch that matches the O'Leary which should be a
non 649 subject if it follows the pattern of the other 16 horizontal positions.

The new scratch is this Bresnahan that matches Gibson.
Attachment 251519Attachment 251525
Attachment 251518
Attachment 251520Attachment 251521
Attachment 251522Attachment 251524

I also found this Conroy which was one of the secondary scratches missing from this sheet.
Attachment 251526
Attachment 251527
Attachment 251528

I think layout of the other 649 sheet can be established by comparing back
flaws and assigning their sheet position based on the subject they match from this sheet.

[QUOTE=Pat R;1601932]I'm really happy with the progression of this sheet the last two days.

The most recent discovery is a little involved and I'm terrible at trying
to explain these things via a computer but I'll give it a try.

I was pretty sure before but now I'm positive this sheet mirrors a SC150/649
sheet and I think this is one of two 649 sheets that were printed.

The recent Sheckard discovery left only two spots on this sheet that remained
with an unconfirmed 649 subject.

The names and empty slots (?) in red are the 649's.
Attachment 251101

While working on the 649 same sheet position matching pairs combo I
came up with these two.
Attachment 251102

Neither Bransfield or Ewing were on this sheet so if this PD150 sheet
mirrored a 649 sheet and there were only two sheets which I believe
is the case, Branfield or Ewing would have to match one of the two
unfilled spots.

I haven't found a Bransfield that matches what I consider the main (lower)
scratch subject. But I do have a Bransfield that has a vertical scratch.
Attachment 251104

I thought this Branfield could be a continuation of these two Conroy vertical scratches.
Attachment 251105Attachment 251106

While looking through Branfield scans I found this one that matches one of
the vertical Conroys.
Attachment 251107

I also found this Bransfield that I'm confident is a lighter version of a Conroy
secondary horizontal scratch.
Attachment 251111
Attachment 251112
Attachment 251113


I found a Bransfield that matches the Conroy from the main scratch on this sheet.
Attachment 259132
Attachment 259133

I believe that I have a card which may debunk some of this, or at least adds some level of confusion to what you are trying to unravel.

It has scratches that cross each other or don't go in the direction of the ones that are in the image.

I can't remember the player. I would need to look.

Also, how can you be sure that a given card belongs in the position you have it in when the line on the card cuts through another card in the same spot?

Without seeing the card I can't be sure but you might be talking about one
from another plate scratch sheet. There are four that have scratches that
cross each other from different directions on three different sheets.

There is a Seymour on this sheet
Attachment 259147
Attachment 259149

A Doyle and Stone on this sheet
Attachment 259150Attachment 259151
Attachment 259154

And a Cobb on this sheet
Attachment 259152
Attachment 259153

I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to with your other question but the back of the sheet in this
thread was used for two different fronts so there are two subjects with the same scratch for each position.

Yes. I am referring ones that you have shown.

I still see room for some of them to be transposed with other positions, but admittedly haven't studied everything THAT hard to take an opposing view.

There are similar scratches in different positions but they don't work if you try to rearrange them. Some of the closest matches are Weimer/Pastorius with Powell/Goode and Criger/Davis,H. with Hinchman/Sheckard. I Have most of these cards in hand and I've experimented with them in different positions before I established this layout.
Attachment 259265
Attachment 259258Attachment 259259
Attachment 259260Attachment 259261

There is also a miscut SC150 Sheckard that shows part of Wilbur Goode.
Attachment 259262

I just picked up a new previously unconfirmed Weimer scratch that fits
the pattern of one of the three rows of scratches on this sheet.
The scratches from this row are difficult to spot because this scratch
is consistently much lighter than the other two.
Attachment 273511
Attachment 273512
Attachment 273513

Nice work here, Pat.

Some of the cards in your image don't have any marks on them. How are you determining that those players go in those spots? Assuming miss cut cards and double names?

Also, your analysis would mean that they printed 2 piedmont 150 sheets of 4 rows of 17 and 1 sheet with a 9th row of 20.

What is the theory on the remaining cards? 17 plus the 3 wonders(Magie, Plank and Wagner)?

Hi Phillip, I think understand your questions but I'm not sure about your first question. If you're talking about the X's on the sheet I add them to the sheet when I find a new scratch (like the recent Weimer).
I made this sheet by connecting existing scratches to give me an idea on location and subjects for unconfirmed scratches. If there is no X then that scratch is currently unconfirmed.
There are two subjects for each scratch one is a SC649 subject and the other a non 649 subject the Red are the 649's and the Blue are non 649 subjects that are confirmed.

For example there should be a Pastorius scratch that matches this new weimer
and next to that scratch there is an unconfirmed scratch that should be found on Criger and H. Davis (circled on the image below).
Attachment 274161
I think I might be confusing some people with the three different scratches.
The vertical location of these scratches are just for my research I don't know where they were on the sheet and the middle one is short because I haven't
found any scratches on the right side to connect to yet.

If in your first question your referring to the areas with no scratches there are other plate scratch sheets that indicate at least 12 vertical rows with the same subject, this is just my opinion but I think all of the plate scratch sheets had the same vertical subject for the whole sheet.


As far as the sheet size and Magie, Plank and Wagner. There were a few
different printings for the PD150 sheets and several changes were made so the number isn't actually 156 for the sheets. Magie was changed to Magee
so that would only count as one. There are a few PD150 Plank's and Wagner's but they are scraps. Crawford (throwing) was a late addition and Lundgren (Chicago) and Jennings (Portrait) were later additions.

Personally I think there were a few different size sheets although I do think
all of the PD150 sheets with the scratches were printed close to the same time and were probably the same size.

Because of the amount of T206's that were printed I also think it's reasonable to consider that there were sheets
printed at some of the other facility's owned by American Lithograph at the time not just their original NY facility.
Attachment 274150
Attachment 274157
Attachment 274158

Nice work Pat.

I've been looking at Magies, and there are some flawed backs that I'm fairly sure don't appear with any other front, even the Magees.

I need to write it up eventually, but I also think there were at least three different printings of most fronts in the 150 series. With the less common cards being printed only once and not necessarily on the same sheet.

I'm still thinking the 8 from the middle fit to the right of the sheet layout. But being sure of that would require matching a so far unconfirmed weimer/pastorious with the O'Leary.

I've also thought that more than one printing plant may have been involved. Nothing really solid to base it on, but a hunch based on the number issued and the other sets that share some of the pictures. The orange borders were produced here in Lowell, and share a few pictures. The company specialized in novelty candy boxes. One day I want to get to the local historical society and see if they have any info on the company which as far as I can tell moved to Lowell from Boston around 1910 and went out of business shortly after that.

Steve B

Thanks Steve, I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the middle scratch is a
third horizontal scratch on this sheet. There are two subjects (Conroy and Williams) with three different horizontal scratches. I Just realized that I didn't
update the sheet to include the third Conroy.

Here's the updated sheet
Attachment 274290

Here are the 3 Conroy's
Attachment 274284
Attachment 274285
Attachment 274286

and the 3 William's
Attachment 274287
Attachment 274288
Attachment 274289

I found a new scratch in the row of the upper scratch on my template. It's
a Criger in the Criger/Davis slot.
Attachment 287275
Attachment 287276Attachment 287277

It's a slow process because these are difficult to find. For example
all of these scratches are harder to find than a Mur'ay, nodgrass "error" ect...
and Criger/Davis is a good example to explain why.

They call them errors but they're not, it was caused by something that interfered with a letter in one of the positions for that subject on the sheet.

There is a Davis that is missing a letter like the "errors" that have been
catalogued. It's missing part of the R in AMER so it looks like AMEP.
Attachment 287278

This Davis also happens to be one of the plate scratches.
Attachment 287279
Attachment 287280

Davis and Criger occupy the same positions on this sheet.
Here is the Criger with the same scratch as the Davis "AMEP".
Attachment 287281Attachment 287282

So to start with there is the difficulty of finding these at about the same rate
as the "error" cards and there are a few other things to factor in. The
scans have to be good enough to show the sratches and the ink in the
area of the scratch has to be dark enough.

It also has to be a Piedmont 150 back, most of the "error" cards are found
on other backs with the exception of Dopner which has only been found on a
Polar Bear back so far. I don't think a Dopner will be found any other back
because in my opinion the Polar Bears were printed separate from all the other backs.

Here are a couple of Davis Amep's with a SC150/649 back.
Attachment 287283
Attachment 287287Attachment 287285

Here is a high resolution scan of the Davis "Amep" and Criger scratch. The top one is Davis and the bottom one is Criger.
Attachment 287288
Attachment 287289

Quite a few collectors say the hunt is the most fun and it is for me too.
I get a lot of enjoyment out of searching for and finding these.

Great research, Pat!! I remember doing some minutia collecting in my type card days.

I'm bumping this thread for two cards that relate to this sheet that I feel very fortunate to find and even better to have had the opportunity to purchase them.

The cards are these two specific Conroy and Williams cards.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...Copy%20_3_.jpg[/IMG]

I already have most of the plate scratches on this sheet including these two cards.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...aks/img706.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...aks/img707.jpg[/IMG]

What's exciting about the new pair is I have very little doubt that they were on the same specific sheet together.

They have identical off center left to right and top to bottom miscuts

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...rge/img704.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...rge/img705.jpg[/IMG]

I usually remove all of my plate scratches from the holders but I think it's cool that they have consecutive cert numbers and these two specific cards were printed next to each other 114 years ago.

They even have identical defects that i circled from a chip in the cutting blade.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...Copy%20_2_.jpg[/IMG]

Wow Pat. That’s incredible. Separated at birth and reunited over 110 years later. So cool. Thank you for sharing.

My stars, this is amazing.

wow wow wow

incredible stuff, Pat

T206
 

Amazing labor of love. Well done, Pat! Trent King

Sonny, Kevin, James, and Trent, thank you.

With the image size restrictions I was never able to post a large enough image of the full sheet that would show all the scratches and how they line up.

This is an image I made from the actual scratches that I have.

Apologies in advance for the huge image.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...Copy%20_3_.jpg[/IMG]

This whole thread is just incredibly cool. Love the incredible minutiae and ability to pick up a good chunk of these cards.

Major props on this entire endeavor.

Thank you CJ. I'm going to post scans of all of the pairs from the primary scratch in this thread.

Starting from left to right on the back here's Griffith and Turner

Attachment 584730

Pastorius and Weimer

Attachment 584734

Attachment 584735

Attachment 584736

Davis and Criger

Attachment 584737

Attachment 584738

Attachment 584739

..

Wilhelm and Hahn

Attachment 584743

Attachment 584744

Attachment 584745

Hey Pat,
Thanks for completing such an amazing task. I was hopeful that the plate scratch’s would give us a better glimpse of the T206 printing process and might possibly lead to building possible sheet combos. I never imagined it would lead to at least one full sheet and partials of several more….

This is by far my favorite thread since this board started…..


Congrats…..

Be well Brian 🍻

Thank you Brian, I appreciate the compliment.

George Davis and Murphy

Attachment 585256

Attachment 585257

Attachment 585258

Bransfield and Conroy

Attachment 585261

Attachment 585262

Attachment 585263

Lake and Williams

Attachment 585326

Attachment 585327

Attachment 585328

McIntyre and Stahl

Attachment 585329

Attachment 585330

Attachment 585331

Goode and Powell

Attachment 585486

Attachment 585487

Attachment 585488