T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>ChiSoxFan</b><p>I know that no uncut sheets have ever been found for T206, so on several occasions I have thought about trying to reconstruct sheets based on mis-cut cards.<br /><br />When thinking more about this, would you want to compare same backs? Does anyone know if the same fronts were printed on a Piedmont 350 as a Carolina Brights as a Sweet Caporal Series 350 (regardless of factory)?<br /><br />Does anyone know if sheets were more than 5 cards wide, as shown on the Wagner strip? If this is the case, then would a Sweet Caporal Series 150 w/ Fact. 649 Overprint sheet have at least one "double printed" card (34 cards confirmed in the set)? Or is it possible that not all sheets were 5 cards wide? Using this set as an example, with only 34 cards and "regular print", then sheets could have been 17 cards wide (which is only about 24.50" wide - 17 cards times 1.4375" card width)<br /><br />What other theories do you have about T206 sheets? <br /><br />Has any other board members tried to reconstruct a sheet?<br /><br />Let's see some mis-cut T206's, and please list the back.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />ChiSoxFan<br><br>Looking for T206 Sweet Caporal Fact. #30 White Sox in Poor to Fair condition.

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>A reasonable if imperfect guide would be to look at the dimensions of uncut sheets of other cards of the period, including of non-sport cards. This should at least give you a good idea of standard sizes. I would expect there were variations and exceptions (for example, due to the number of cards in a set), but that there were a number of standard industry sizes. Sheets of cardboard and paper have always come in standard sizes, even at the wholesale and industrial level, and I'm sure the card printers bought their cardstock from someone else. Of course, the printer can cut down a sheet (they cut out the cards after all), but an odds on guess is that that a printer used a sheet of cardstock in the uncut size they bought it-- which would be one of the standard sizes.<br /><br />In short, find out the standard sizes of the day, and it's most likely that the T206s sheets were standard sized. Knowing the sizes will make recreations easier. The other thing to remember is that the T206s were printed over numerous years, and sheets could have come in different sizes. Topps sheets come in different sizes.

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>jason</b><p>i saw a 5 card sheet in a book called the card and it was owned by honus wagner it was in his pants pocket. the 5 card sheet had a rare t206 wagner. thats what i've seen

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Scott B.</b><p>Is this what you are talking about?<br /><br />"T206 printing correlation revealed from T206 test strips and overprints"<br /><a href="http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_47.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_47.html</a>

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>The only uncut sheet from that era that I'm aware of is a complete 30-card sheet of E93 cards....configured 10 across x 3 rows.<br /><br />More evidence of how sheets might have been formatted is this 12-card strip of E91 cards.<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://s60.photobucket.com/albums/h35/Comisky/11017a_med.jpg"><br /><br /><br />We know each series of E91 cards comprises 33 cards; therefore, these cards must of been printed on 36-card sheets (containing<br />3 double prints). On this strip of 12, Honus Wagner is double-printed.<br /><br />Considering these two examples, I think a T206 sheet was most likely configured 12 cards across x 4 rows down......for a 48-card<br />sheet. A 48-card sheet is consistent with the total number of cards in the T206 Southern Leaguer series and the 460-only series.<br /><br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>There was an Obak sheet in auction a few years ago (check your catalogs, probably Masto or REA). I don't remember the dimensions, but it was was long horizontally.

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Rob D.</b><p><img src="http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/images_items/Item_8388_1.jpg"><br /><br /><a href="http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2007/226.html">REA, 2008, Lot 226</a><br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Craig W</b><p>My guess is that T206 sheets had six players across.<br /><br />Originally, there were 42 So Lgrs, which would mean 7 sheets (7x6=42).<br /><br />Then there was a sheet with the six Texas Lgrs.<br /><br />It appears that there were twelve 150-Only players, so this would be 2 sheets.<br /><br />There are six players in the 350-460 Super Series, which would be one sheet.<br /><br />There are 48 players in the 460-Only series, which would be eight sheets.<br /><br />The nominal width of a T206 is 1-7/16. A row of six would equal 8-5/8. Add 3/16 to each side that would later be trimmed off would give a 9 inch wide sheet. <br /><br />Of course this doesn't explain the 141 cards in the 150-350 series or the 55 cards in the 350-460 Regular series.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Craig

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>I agree with Ted on the 48 card sheet. I have been trying to put together a sheet/print run for t205s for many years and the one that makes sense to me is a 48 card sheet. Just not sure which way it is configured.<br /><br />BTW, not sure if the Obak sheet was a complete sheet. I seem to recall it being a partial sheet.<br /><br />Joshua

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>Buried deep in the pages here is a scan of the Obak sheet-I recall it was quite large, maybe almost 200 cards ( I recall 19 columns for some reason but don;t quote me on that). I noticed it when I paged back through the site a couple of years ago, I just can't find it with the search function so it may be in a non-Obak thread.<br /><br />It bears repeating too that you will never know the full array, your best hope is determining how many different subjects are in a print run.<br /><br />A 48 card T206 sheet would be quite small-I have to think the size would approach what the packaging was printed on sheet-wise and I believe there are some fairly large uncut tobacco packaging sheets out there that might provide a clue.

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>The E93 sheet pictured in the above post is an incomplete sheet. You can see that on the<br /> left border it was hand cut.<br />A complete sheet includes all 30 cards in this set....in a 10 (across) x 3 rows (down) array.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff S.</b><p>We also need to think about the source of the printing - the lithographic stones. It's tough to fathom a stone containing 200 images - the size and weight would be immense. 48 sounds more feasible...

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>jason</b><p>i think the size of the sheet depends on where it was printed. thats what i think

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Double post<br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Comparing OBAK's with T206 production is a totally different "animal". OBAK's were printed<br /> in California, employing a different printing process and on large sheets....and, perhaps that<br /> is why uncut sheets of OBAK's have survived.<br /><br />E-cards were printed in the greater Philadelphia area on smaller sheets of 30 (or 36) cards.<br /><br />T206's were printed in NYC at the American Lithographic Co. (ALC). And, since we have yet<br /> to see an uncut sheet of T206's....my theory is that they were printed with 12 cards across<br /> a row....similar to the 12-card strip of E91 cards shown here......<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://s60.photobucket.com/albums/h35/Comisky/11017a_med.jpg"><br /><br /><br />How many 12-card rows make up a complete sheet is the function of the number of Subjects<br /> in that particular series.<br /> A 48 card sheet is a natural for two of the series in the T206 set......<br /><br />48 Subjects......Southern League series<br /><br />48 Subjects......460-only series<br /><br />Furthermore, the 12-across arrangement is reinforced by the make up of three other series in<br /> the T206 set......<br /><br />12 Subjects......150-only cards<br /><br />144 Subjects.....150/350 series (12 rows x 12 cards)<br /><br />216 Subjects.....350-only series (18 rows x 12 cards)<br /><br />My educated guess of 12-cards across each row is based on the composition of these 5 Series <br /> in the T206 set.<br /><br />And, NO....I don't agree that a 48-card sheet is "small", by the printing methods employed by<br /> ALC in 1909-1911.<br /><br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /><br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I would guess they used metal plates for the T206s. Commercial stone lithography was more an 1800s thing.

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>But what do we make of the fact that most miscut T206's have the same player vertically? That would at least double the size of the sheet in theory to 96 cards at a minimum.<br /><br /><br />Were Obak's definitely printed in California?

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Identical 12-card rows were repeated (double, or triple printed) as they printed down<br /> the sheet of cardboard. I think this was especially true with the 350 series cards. I have<br /> seen more of the 350 series cards with the same name on the top border than the other<br /> series cards. And, if you think about this....there are more 350 series cards than any of<br /> the other series.<br />This is not only so, because of the higher number Subjects in the 350 series; but, also in<br /> the greater availability of T206's from this series.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>johnny</b><p>hello<br /><br />i have seen 2 t206 with two different names at the top and bottom.... i own one<br /><br />johnny

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>jason</b><p>i think they printed them on stone they found a c55 stone for the adds

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Tell us what two T206's they are and what are the different names on the top border ?<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Ted,<br />Have you seen the one full uncut sheet of E93s? There are two and a half partial sets (cut into two or three pieces) and all are six wide. My guess from that is that the original complete sheet was six wide by five tall. Perhaps the owner or somebody who has seen the E93 complete sheet can comment. I know the owner is a contributor to this board, but I have not asked about the layout.<br />JimB

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>dstudeba</b><p>I would love to see the Obak sheet people are referring to. If anyone has scans, or can point me to the auction I would be very appreciative. This is the closest I have seen.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.baseballcardresource.com/img/09Obak/thumbs/09Obak_zz5PlayerStrip_A_tmbn.jpg">

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Just looked up the Obak sheet in the 1999 MastroWest Auction. It is 19 cards wide by 3 high. It has a very large blank area above the three rows,and none below, making it look like this is just the top portion of a much larger sheet.<br />JimB

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>dstudeba</b><p>Thanks Jim, what year is it? The one above is from 1909, I know Leon has similar strips from 1910 or 1911.

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>That Mastrowest sheet is not the one I recall, I remember many more cards on it.

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>ChiSoxFan</b><p>While looking at Scot's Inside T206 (3rd Edition), it has the following cards per series.<br /><br />150 Only - 9 cards<br />150/350 - 144 cards<br />350 Only - 208 cards<br />350/460 (RP) - 55 cards<br />350/460 (SP) - 6 cards<br />460 Only - 48 cards<br />South. Leg. - 48 cards<br />"Rule Breakers" - 7 cards<br /><br />For a total of 524 cards.<br /><br /><br />In another post, Ted's survey has pretty much concluded that 3 cards should be moved from the 150/350 series into the 150 only (Ames (hands/chest), L Doyle (throwing), and Schulte Batting (Front View)). By doing this, the 150 Only is now at 12 cards, however the 150/350 is down to 141 cards.<br /><br />Going by Ted's theory of 12 cards wide per sheet, which 3 cards should be moved into 150/350 series?<br /><br />ChiSoxFan<br><br>Looking for T206 Sweet Caporal Fact. #30 White Sox in Poor to Fair condition.

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>1st....Scot Reader and I are 99.9% convinced that Ames, Doyle & Schulte are 150-only Subjects (hence, total of 12 subjects).<br /><br />2nd....then the 150/350 has 141 subjects plus 3 double-prints = 144 subjects<br /><br />3rd....the 350 series comprises 208 subjects + 6 super-prints** + the two St. Lo. vars. (Demmitt & O'Hara) = 216 subjects<br /><br /><br />NOTE <i></i> ......the 6 super-prints are by initial design 350 series cards since their American Beauty backs are FRAMED.<br />Subsequently, American Lithographic decided to extend these 6 cards into the 460 series.<br /><br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br /><br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>J Hull</b><p>Is this the Obak sheet previously mentioned? Or its other half?<br /> <br /><img src="http://jimonym.com/Names/Obaksheet.jpg">

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>J Hull</b><p>To add some more pictures to this thread...<br /> <br />Here are some scans which might be relevant to this discussion.<br /> <br /><img src="http://jimonym.com/Names/Abba.jpg"><br />Abbaticchio w/ Cicotte at top<br />Piedmont 350 back<br /> <br /><img src="http://jimonym.com/Names/Hob.jpg"><br />Hoblitzell w/ Stephens at top<br />Piedmont 350 back<br /> <br /><img src="http://jimonym.com/Names/McElveen.jpg"><br />McElveen w/ Dygert at top<br />Piedmont 350 back<br /> <br /><img src="http://jimonym.com/Names/McGlynn.jpg"><br />McGlynn w/ Jones, Detroit at top<br />Sweet Caporal 350, Factory 30 back<br /> <br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>J Hull</b><p>And a couple more.<br /> <br /><img src="http://jimonym.com/Names/Atz1.jpg"><br />Atz w/ Hoffman, Providence at top<br />Piedmont 350 back<br /> <br /><img src="http://jimonym.com/Names/Atz2.jpg"><br />Atz w/ Atz at top<br />Sweet Caporal 350, Factory 30 back<br /> <br /><img src="http://jimonym.com/Names/Engle1.jpg"><br />Engle w/ Phillippe at top<br />Piedmont 350 back<br /> <br /><img src="http://jimonym.com/Names/Engle2.jpg"><br />Engle w/ Engle at top<br />Piedmont 350 back<br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>That Obak sheet must be exactly how T206s were printed.<br /><br />First, notice that most "doubles" appear in the same row, in a series of repeating players, but separated by other cards. Second, take a look at the center/middle part of the sheet -- you will see that there are vertical doubles of three players, one on top of the other. And then, above and below those duplicate images, are different players.<br /><br />This explains why T206s with top and bottom border/double names sometimes have the same player name in the top border, and sometimes a different player in the top border.<br /><br />In the absence of other proof, this Obak sheet, combined with the existence of same name/top AND different name/top T206s, is the best evidence of what a T206 sheet looked like.<br /><br />Now that we know T206s must have been printed 19 across on a sheet, the only question is how many rows of 19?

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p>I have 4 backs,all printed upside down(the scan is actually flipped to see the cards better) that show parts of 4 piedmont ads and when properly aligned they match up pretty good so one could say they might've came from the same sheet. The players are Doolan portrait, Ciccotte, George Davis and Tannehill,chi<br /><br /><img src="http://a260.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/57/l_f5123cf8949ec27b0bcf04015b1e5913.jpg">

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>JHull,<br />That sheet is different from the one MastroWest auctioned in '99.<br />JimB

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>......"That Obak sheet must be exactly how T206s were printed."......<br /><br />Totally false assumption..........the Series structure of the T206 set is totally different from<br /> the T212 set.<br /><br />I will reiterate my previous post here in order to make my point.<br /><br />T206's were printed in NYC at the American Lithographic Co. And, since we have yet to see<br /> an uncut sheet of T206's....my theory is that they were printed with 12 cards across a row.<br />.....very similar to this 12-card strip of the 1910 series of E91 cards shown here......<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://s60.photobucket.com/albums/h35/Comisky/11017a_med.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br />How many 12-card rows make up a complete sheet is a function of the number of Subjects<br /> in that particular series.<br /><br />The following lists the structural make-up of the five major series in the T206 set......<br /><br />12 Subjects......150-only cards<br /><br />144 Subjects.....150/350 series (12 rows x 12 cards)<br /><br />216 Subjects.....350-only series (18 rows x 12 cards)<br /><br />48 Subjects......460-only series (4 rows x 12 cards)<br /><br />48 Subjects......Southern League series (4 rows x 12 cards)<br /><br /><br />My educated guess of 12-cards across each row in the T206 set is based on the structure<br />of these five Series.<br /> The numbers definitely suggest a consistent pattern, indicative of this 12-card theory.<br /><br />Not the 19-card rows....as the complete OBAK (76-card) sheet illustrates.<br /><br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>There are many totally false assumptions on this thread.<br /><br />There is no basis at all for assuming that T206s were printed in rows of 12, simply because the series divide evenly by multiples of 12. Also, I don't believe all the T206 series can be divided evenly by 12 (the 350/460 series is 55 cards + 6 super prints, which is 61. And I thought the 350 only series was 208 (?)). <br /><br />The 19 card row Obak sheet pictured above has the "PCL" designation in the bottom border -- which means it isn't the 76 card 1909 Obak set. That sheet appears to be from the 175 card 1910 Obak set. And 19 doesn't divide evenly into 175.<br /><br />Moreover, the E91 strip of 12 pictured above appears to be cut on both ends. It was likely wider than 12 when printed. But, in any event, the E91 sets are each comprised of 33 players, and 12 doesn't divide evenly into 33.<br /><br />Also, the E91s are a different size than T206s and Obaks, so we cannot draw any conclusions about how many T206s appeared on a sheet from based on an E91 sheet (even if we had a complete E91 sheet to compare). <br /><br />And while Obaks were printed on the west coast, and T206s printed on the east coast, according to the Standard Catalogue, the Obaks were "produced by the California branch of the same American Tobacco Company conglomerate".<br /><br />Until something better than even division appears, the 3x19 Obak sheet is still the best evidence of how T206s were printed. They are cards printed by the same company, in the same year, and are the same size, produced to be distributed with the same product type (cigarettes). Plus, the positioning of the "doubles" on the Obak sheet explains perfectly why T206s are found with same and different names in the top border.

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>J Hull</b><p>All we have are theories, and theory-filled threads are (to me) the best kind.<br />I think, as Ted points out, the numbers 6 and 12 are too prominent in the series compositions to be purely a coincidence.<br /> <br />But on the other hand, looking at that Obak sheet, I count 57 places where we can see a card and see the card positioned <br />above it in the same column. Out of those 57, there are 4 where if this sheet was miscut we'd see the same name at the <br />top and bottom of the card, and 53 where we'd see one name at the bottom and a different name at the top.<br /> <br />That kind of ratio is pretty much exactly the opposite of what I've observed in looking at T206s. With T206s the <br />vast vast majority of double-name cards have the same name at the top and the bottom of the card. Maybe if we imagine <br />something like the Obak sheet but with all the columns, however many there were for T206s, having the same player in vertical <br />columns and a few here and there that made up of different players, we might be close to how they really looked. <br />Might be. The problem is if we concretely determine there were 12 columns or 19 columns or some other number, how many <br />of those columns were the same player and how many were mixed? For that, I don't think anyone has the answer.

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>1st....the 350 series comprises 208 subjects + the 6 super-prints** + Demmitt & O'Hara (St Louis vars.) = 216 Subjects<br /><br />**NOTE....the 6 super-prints are by initial design 350 series cards. We know this since their American Beauty backs are<br /> the FRAME version.<br />Subsequently, American Lithographic decided to extend these 6 subjects into the 460 series.<br /><br />JAMIE<br /><br />I strongly believe that "12" is the common denominator in the T206 production process; and, I appreciate your support of<br /> this theory.<br />The number of cards across a row on the printed sheet is dictated by the printing press track. I've read that one popular<br /> press track in the early 20th Century lithographic firms was 19 inches.<br /><br />If true, then 12 x 1 1/2 inches = 18 inches. Add a 1/2 inch edge on each side of the sheet and it = 19 inches.<br /><br /><br />The vertical same-name phenomena that we see on T206's is the result of "repeated row" printing down the sheet.<br /><br />If I understood your last paragraph correctly, I think you have alluded to this type of repeated-row printing.<br /><br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>JimP</b><p>Ted, great theories, but one thing troubles me....it is proposed that because there were 12 150-only subjects, that lends creedence to the 12 cards per sheet theory.<br /><br />Don't we have good understanding as to why the 12 subjects were left off the 350 series? (Changed teams, out of baseball, etc) Couldn't it just be a coincidence that the number of "corrections" made to the 150 series when it was re-released as a 350 series was 12 (or 9, depending on what you believe)? <br /><br />Also, consider that the 12 (or 9?) 150only's were probably scattered across different strips or sheets. I say this because when they first laid out the players in early 1909, they couldn't have known which ones would be left off of a then-unknown future 350 series. So did they rearrange the subject-layouts on the sheet altogether for the next series? Wouldn't that have involved significant re-tooling of the printing plates? Do we think it was a single 12-subject plate or 12 individual plates stacked together? That's a question for the printing historians out there. Wouldn't it be great if we had more technological background about ALC?<br /><br />Also, consider they indicated 150 subjects on this "150 series" on the first printed backs (Piedmonts, presumably) for some reason which I have never heard explained...Why didn't they say "156" subjects?<br />So the designers would have known the printing limits of cards/sheet and they still had a target of 150 cards (which is divisible by 6 not 12)<br /><br />I don't discount the 12-cards per sheet theory, I just am questioning how the 150onlys play into that theory.<br /><br /><br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>J Hull</b><p>Hi Ted.<br />Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring to.<br /> <br />I think your mention of printing press dimensions is an important one. The more we know about the presses of the day,<br />the more insight we'd get into things like sheet size. <br /> <br />I also think that while looking at the total cards included in each series (150, 350, 350-460, 460-only, Southern <br />Leaguers, etc.) is valuable, we've learned from the numerous surveys conducted here on the board (largely led by Ted Z)<br />that not each card in each series was printed with all theoretically possible backs. Correct me if I'm wrong,<br />but not every 350-only series card has been verified with an American Beauty back, or an Old Mill back, or a Cycle 350 back, etc.<br />To me it seems clear that if 350-only series Card A is possible with an American Beauty back and 350-only series Card B<br />is not possible with that back, those two cards were not printed from the same printing plate. It does not necessarily<br />follow that if card A and card B DO both have American Beauty backs that they were printed from the same plate either, because <br />a card may have appeared on more than one plate. But I think that adding in our knowledge about available back brands is <br />key to this conundrum of sheet makeup.<br /> <br />So here's an easy-ish example. What's the number of 150 series cards confirmed with Sweet Caporal 150,<br />Factory 649 overprinted backs? My notes say 34. How does that number (or whatever the correct one is) fit<br />into things?<br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>I do not believe the number 12 appears, with any certainty, in any T206 series other than the 460 Only series and the So. Leaguers.<br /><br />Here's how I look at the first 4 series ...<br /><br />1st Series / 150 Only -- is it 9 or 12 cards? Or is it 10 or 11? We do not know. But you only get from 9 to 12 cards if you take 3 out of the 150-350 Series. <br /><br />2nd Series / 150-350 -- is this made up of 141 cards or 144? Or somewhere in between? The issue I have here is that you can't take 3 away from the 150-350 Series and assign them to the 150 Only series, and then assume there must have been three double-prints, just to get back to 144.<br /><br />3rd Series / 350 Only -- this is at least 208 cards. To get to 216 you have to take the 6 super-prints (which are from the 350/460 series) and then add in the Demmitt & O'Hara St. Louis variations (which only appear with Polar Bear backs). However, if you are going to add the two St. Louis variations, shouldn't the Demmitt NY and O'Hara NY be subtracted? I do not see how Demmitt NY and O'Hara NY could have been printed on the same sheet as the St. Louis/Polar Bear variations. That would be impossible. So, even if you take the 6 super prints from the next series (which is a big assumption), the most you can come up with for any individual 350 Only print run is 214.<br /><br />4th Series / 350-460 -- this comprised of 61 cards. 55 + the 6 super prints. No matter how you slice it, there's no forcing this series into a multiple of 12.<br /><br />And if you factor in the overlap among the Series in the print process (150 Only and 150/350, 350 Only and 350/460, etc.), and the fact that not all cards in a series are found with the same backs, then the number 12 really has no significance in the printing process.<br /><br />I'd be happy with 12 or 19. I just don't see how the 12 card theory can be viewed with more certainty compared to what we actually see in the Obak printing process.<br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>PC you said......<br />"So, even if you take the 6 super prints from the next series (which is a big assumption), the most you can come up with<br /> for any individual 350 Only print run is 214."<br /><br />The 6 "super prints" being initially in the 350 series is not a "big assumption". If you have a problem believing me, then you<br />also have a problem with Scot Reader's analysis. It was Scot who 1st discovered this fact. You do realize that these 6 sub-<br />jects exist with AB 350 backs with FRAME ?<br />This is only possible on T206's that were printed April-May 1910 when the first AB backs (with FRAME) were produced.<br /><br />The 55 (actually 56) subjects, all originally in the 350 series, were repeated subjects in the 460 series. I'm sure you under-<br />stand this ? This group of subjects exist with AB 350 (NO FRAME) backs. Furthermore, some (not all 56) exist with AB 460<br /> (NO FRAME) backs.<br /><br />Incidently, the 56th subject is Nichols (bat), who exists with an AB 350 (NO FRAME) back. But, no AB 460 (NO FRAME) back.<br /><br /><br />One final note....I agree with you that both Demmitt's and O'Hara's were not on the same sheet. Demmitt (NY) & O'Hara (NY)<br />are not found with POLAR BEAR backs. I can only conclude that there were 2 double prints to bring the total 350-only arrange-<br />ment to 216 cards. <br /> <br /><br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>"I can only conclude that there were 2 double prints to bring the total 350-only arrangement to 216 cards."<br /><br />You also conclude that there must be three double-prints in the 150/350 Series (to get to a multiple of 12 in that series), since there might be 3 that need to be moved to the 150 Only series (which results in a multiple of 12 in that series).<br /><br />You are making assumptions and calculations to force a multiple of 12 in series where the multiple does not exist, and I disagree with that.<br /><br />And I completely understand the super-prints, and why you would want to include them in the 350 series. The only problem with doing that is they are not 350-Only series cards.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>JIM<br /><br />Too many ?'s.......for now I'll answer your 1st ? Reasons for these 12 not being being continued with 350 backs is......<br /><br />150-only Subjects<br /><br />M. Brown (Cubs)......same pix, uniform change to "Chicago" in 350 series (and 460 series)<br /><br />G. Browne (Chi).......same pix, traded to Washington in 350 series<br /><br />Burch (batting)........no obvious reason<br /><br />Donlin (fielding)........briefly left BB to be in vaudeville<br /><br />L. Doyle (throw).......no obvious reason<br /><br />Evers (Cubs)............same pix, uniform change to "Chicago" in 350 series (and 460 series)<br /><br />Pattee....................one year ML career ends at end of 1908<br /><br />Pelty (horiz).............no obvious reason<br /><br />Powers....................died in April 1909.<br /><br />Reulbach (Cubs)........diff. pose in 350 (and 460 series) with "Chicago" uniform <br /><br />Schulte (Cubs).........diff. pose in 460 series with "Chicago" uniform<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>Its your prerogative not to agree with my observations on the T206 structure. I referred you to Scot Reader's analysis.<br />Yet, for whatever reason (that I'm not sure I understand) you appear to to be a contentious critic. The fact that you<br />do not want to accept that the 6 super prints were originally designed as "350-only" cards is your problem. <br /><br />Anyhow, I waiting for some logical alternatives from you regarding the overall T206 printing arrangement ?<br /><br />I think the series "numbers" favor my contention that this set was printed in multiples of 12. I have discussed this with<br />others; and, they consider my observation to have some merit.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>No contention here. I just disagree with the 12 multiple theory.<br /><br />And my logical alternative is what we see on the Obak partial sheet, which I think is a better indication of how a T206 sheet looked (for the reasons I stated above).

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I have 35 of 150 series cards confirmed with Sweet Caporal 150, Factory 649 overprints. I expect a 36th to show up <br />someday.<br />If not, than perhaps Griffith or Matty were double-printed for a total of 36.<br /><br />Now, you bring up a great question regarding the various T-brand NO PRINTS. I will check-out my complete SOVEREIGN<br /> set and see what I can make of it with respect to possible sheet configurations. The SOVEREIGN set is an excellent<br /> model since its 3 Series are straightforward. That is there is no interim series such as a 350/460 series or So. Lgrs.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>The Tolstoi survey yielded 227 examples. One more would make 228.<br /><br />228 is 19 rows of 12 across, or 12 rows of 19 across.<br /><br />Is that irony, or what?

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>You both have suggested even a lower common denominator of 6. I've looked over my three "all-T brand"<br /> complete sets (PIEDMONT, SOVEREIGN, SWEET CAPORAL-Fac. 30).....and you might be on to something.<br /><br />For instance....my SWEET CAP (Factory 30) set of 467 cards (- Plank & Wagner)....its 350 series includes <br />exactly 270 subjects (45 x 6).<br /><br />My SOVEREIGN set's 350 series has 204 subjects (34 x 6)<br /><br />Also, the following lists various T-brand's confirmed tallies (but, I don't think we can derive any common<br />denominator from these numbers.<br /><br />CYCLE 460............87 subjects<br />EPDG.................274 subjects<br />OLD MILL............338 subjects<br />SOVEREIGN.........405 subjects<br />SWEET CAP/30....469 subjects<br /><br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /><br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>johnny</b><p>TED<br /><br />sorry so late, have a pickering w/ meyers at top...<br /><br />the other one i saw was a mcgraw w/ ??? can't remember <br /><br /><br />WOW!!!jamie, where did u get so many 2 different names???!!!<br /><br />i'm impressed, they are super tuff....<br /><br />johnny

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>I am fairly certain that it was a multiple of 12...T205s are far harder to distinguish by their print runs but two things jumped out at me in my research...the first was that there are 12 minor league players. These correspond to 12 short prints found in the Hassan and Piedmont series but not the Polar Bear series. <br /><br />Joshua

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Please keep analyzing the make-up of the T205 set.<br /><br /> I was aware of these 12 Minor Leaguers. When I sold my T205 set years ago, I kept these 12 cards (as I thought they were<br /> a key aspect in studying the design of this set).<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Yesterday you asked....."Why didn't they say "156" subjects?"<br /><br />I'll start with.....in 1909 American Lithographic Co. (ALC) also produced several non-sports T-card sets (Fish-100 cards,<br /> Flags-200 cards, etc.). When they ventured into producing BB card premiums in 1909, their initial design intent was 150<br /> Subjects (perhaps a compromise between their Fish and Flag sets). Given their intent to have 150, ALC first printed up <br />cardboard sheets of PIEDMONT 150 backs. However, when they finalized their designs for the 1st Series, they actually<br /> printed the following......<br /><br />155 Subjects....PIEDMONT 150......Incl. Jennings, Lundgren, Plank, Wagner<br /><br />153 Subjects....SWEET CAPORAL 150 (Fac. 30)......Incl. Plank & Wagner....no Jennings & Lundgren<br /><br />150 Subjects....SOVEREIGN 150......No Jennings, Lundgren, Plank, or Wagner (and possibly no Flick)<br /><br /><br />Note....I did not include the Magie error card, since it wasn't an intended design.<br /><br /><br />Good question, hopes this answers it.<br /><br /> <br />TED Z<br /><br /><br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I recall that my T205 set had 210 cards in it......is that still considered a complete set ?<br /><br />Or, are there additional "subtle" type of variations above a 210-card set ?<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>T205 Master set includes 220 cards which includes all the pose and print variations (like the Wilhelm, Hobby, Moran, etc.).<br /><br />Joshua

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Walter</b><p>Gentlemen:<br /><br />Please allow me to muddy the waters a little bit. I collect the T59 Flag Set and one series from Recruit Little Cigars has overprints.<br /><br />So far there are only 17 known cards out of the series of 50 with this overprint and all of them occur in Series 2. This begs the question of why only 17 cards? And to this question I have no answer. But allow me to throw out a hypothesis. The cards were printed on sheets that were 17 cards wide by 16 cards deep making each sheet 27.625 inches wide by 44 inches long. Each series of 50 was printed on 3 sheets with one double printed card (17*3 -1=50). Each row consisted of the same cards--17 different on each of the first 2 sheets and 16 plus one double print on the third sheet. <br /><br />Theoretically with the Flag set, one of these 17 card sheets was the last sheets in the print run and were no longer needed at Factory 25. They were overprinted and sent to Pennsylvania Factory 240 thereby accounting for the 17 overprints that are known today.<br /><br />I offer this because the size of the uncut sheet seems reasonable and most card sets with this <i>standard tobacco sized</i> card are 50 card sets. I can't see that American Lithographic would make a new setup for each set. It makes sense to me that they would try to standardize the layout.<br /> <br><br>Always looking for T59 Flag cards and T113 Types of Nations.<br /><a href="http://www.t59flags.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t59flags.com</a>

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>If it helps at all, in my upcoming auction I have an Elberfeld portrait (New York) with Parent on the top.

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>Interesting. If you are hypothesizing that an ACT print sheet was 27.625 inches wide, that would accout for 19 full size T206s across, with a little extra room for the outside borders of the sheet. <br /><br />According the Standard Catalogue, T206s are 1-7/16 inches wide (that's 1.4375 inches wide). And 27.625 divided by 1.4375 is 19.217.<br /><br />I suspect the actual ATC print sheet was a little wider than 27.625 inches, to provide a little more room for the sheet border. Anyone know the width of the Obak partial sheet above?

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>Okay...to muck it up even more...the only set that I think I can now confirm as being cataloged completely in the T205 back print runs is Polar Bear. The magic number? Exactly 187 cards. <br /><br />Joshua

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Walter</b><p>And, oddly enough, 187 is divisible by 17. Thus, a polar Bear sheet of T205s could have been 17 cards wide by 12 cards in length with one of the rows being a double printed row.<br /><br />The poster above who said he has 34 overprints in the Sweet Caporal series seems to add fuel to my 17 card theory.<br /><br /><br><br>Always looking for T59 Flag cards and T113 Types of Nations.<br /><a href="http://www.t59flags.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t59flags.com</a>

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>This is very interesting stuff. And to assist, or not:<br /><br />17x1=17<br />17x2=34<br />17x3=51<br />17x4=68<br />17x5=85<br />17x6=102<br />17x7=119<br />17x8=136<br />17x9=153<br />17x10=170<br />17x11=187<br />17x12=204<br />17x13=221<br />17x14=238<br />17x15=255<br />17x16=272<br />17x17=289<br />17x18=306<br />17x19=323<br />17x20=340<br />17x21=357<br />17x22=374<br />17x23=391<br />17x24=408<br />17x25=425<br />17x26=442<br />17x27=459<br />17x28=476<br />17x29=493<br />17x30=510<br />17x31=527<br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>This statement of yours is incorrect......<br />"The poster above who said he has 34 overprints in the Sweet Caporal series seems to add fuel to my 17 card theory."<br /><br />Apparently, you didn't read my earlier post here (10/14....5:37 PM).<br /><br />I have a complete run of 35 cards of the Sweet Caporal 150, Factory 649 overprints. <br /><br />Also, T206 surveys have confirmed that there are 35 cards in this subset.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>For early tobacco cards printed by the ATC, I do not think the number of cards in a series or the total cards in a set, or the number of known variations (including the 17 T59s), has any bearing on how many cards are on a print sheet, or how those cards are arranged in rows and columns on a sheet.<br /><br />The total numbers of each set/series vary, and when you look at the different back combinations, any number for a row is possible, and you can find justification for almost any reasonable number. 12, 17, 19 ... all are plausible.<br /><br />Which is why I come back to the Obak sheet -- a 175 card set, which is not evenly divisible into its rows of 19, with multiple (and seemingly randon) repeating patterns of cards.<br /><br />There was a method to the madness. We just don't know for certain what it was.<br /><br /><br />(Also, 187 divided by 17 is 11. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>)

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Speaking about POLAR BEAR backs, a T206 survey has confirmed 252 cards with this T-brand (to date).<br /><br />This suggests a printing format of 12 cards across a row.<br /><br />Obviously, any additional T206's with this back throws off this 12-card theory.<br /><br /><br />Here are four completely confirmed T206 T-brand sets......<br /><br />PIEDMONT.......................522 subjects<br />SOVEREIGN......................411 subjects (includes 6 super prints with 460 backs)<br />SWEET CAP/30.................469 subjects<br />SWEET CAP 150/649 ovpt....35 subjects<br /><br />Other confirmed T206 surveys (to date)<br /> <br />American Beauty 460....77 subjects<br />CYCLE 460..................87 subjects<br />EPDG........................274 subjects<br />OLD MILL..................338 subjects<br />POLAR BEAR..............252 subjects<br /><br />Gentleman, it is obvious that from all these numbers, that we can not arrive at any definite conclusions,<br />at this point as to how the T206 sheets were formatted. <br /><br /><br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>Say you have 3 17 card sheets. One is different from the other two, the second and third are identical except for one column, which adds a player after one of the players on the second sheet is pulled. That gives 17 + 17 + 1 = 35, with 16 extra prints.<br /><br />You get some short prints this way too, potentially.<br /><br />---------------------------------------<br /><br />With lithography is it easier to print vertical columns of the same image? And then maybe "strip in" a row, or partial row of another subset of players?<br /><br />---------------------------------------<br /><br />The 50 card multiple series makes sense, the backs even support it in the 150 and 350 series. But what to make of the 460 series then. New press sheet size for 1911?<br /><br />---------------------------------------<br /><br />Were T209's produced somewhere other than ALC? Their first series size is off compared to other tobacco cards (slightly larger) and the second series back looks like the font ID'ing the factory is different than most ATC cards.<br /><br />---------------------------------------<br /><br />Obaks are the same width as Standard Tobacco Size, but we have 19 cards across in 1910 (or is it 1911?). <br /><br />---------------------------------------<br /><br />ALC had some industrial accidents. Here is a description of one (See page 1274, right side near the top, above PROPERLY HEAT) that may give insight into some machinery there. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/68hjle" target="_new" rel="nofollow">&lt;a href="<a href="http://tinyurl.com/68hjle&lt;/a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/68hjle&lt;/a</a>" target="_new" rel="nofollow"&gt;<a href="http://tinyurl.com/68hjle&lt;/a</a>&gt" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/68hjle&lt;/a</a>&gt</a>;<br /><br />And they changed their presses around 1919-one of them was dropped from a crane and fell through the sidewalk into a subway line in Manhattan. I had this link but have lost it. Will repost if I find it.<br /><br />----------------------------------------<br /><br />Do they have to be printed vertically? I guess you could rotate a sheet 90 degrees.<br /><br />----------------------------------------<br /><br />A quick scan of Michell & Forbes "American Tobacco Cards" shows set counts as follows for Standard Tobacco Size cards, years of issue shown if not roughly around 1909-11:<br /><br />T34: 21 predates T206 by a couple of years<br />T35: 18 issued 1916<br />T39: 17 count unconfirmed<br />T42: 100<br />T43: 30<br />T58: 100<br />T59: 200 slightly taller than Standard Tobacco Size at 2 3/4"<br />T66: 56 (interesting) - tall at 2 9/16" - non standard fonts<br />T74: 35 (interesting) - tall at 2 9/16" - non standard fonts<br />T79: 100 wide at 1 3/4"<br />T80: 50 <br />T81: 50 slightly taller than Standard Tobacco Size at 2 3/4"<br />T82: 50 slightly taller than Standard Tobacco Size at 2 3/4"<br />T84: 50 slightly taller than Standard Tobacco Size at 2 3/4"<br />T88: 267 slightly taller than Standard Tobacco Size at 2 3/4" ("Over 250 designs")<br />T113: 50 slightly taller than Standard Tobacco Size at 2 3/4"<br />T121: 250 (issued 1914 or later)<br />T126: 18 count unconfirmed, 2 3/4" tall<br />T175: 50 package design card issued circa 1900-02<br />T176: 24 package design card issued circa 1900-02<br />T177: 28 package design card issued circa 1900-02<br /><br />-----------------------------------------<br />What is Standard Tobacco Size? Even Lipset seems to vacillate between 1 7/16" and 1 5/8 in width, with a set height of 2 5/8" Is either width then "Standard"? <br /><br />I think Standard Tobacco Size could be from 1 7/16" to 1 1/2" wide, and 2 5/8" to 2 3/4" tall (with natural variance) based on this sampling. That's a 1/16" variance in width and 1/8" height.<br /><br /><br /><br />

T206 Sheets
 

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>I hope I can help a little here.<br /><br />I have been doing a lot of reading on the subject of chromolithograpy and its history and I will try to line out the process as I understand it as simply as possible. There are many things we will not know because we cannot travel back in time and see exactly what machines and process they used but with some research we can put together a pretty good picture.<br /><br />The way many lithographed items were done was to do the work on smaller stones first. Today you can still find old stones with a single cigar label image on it. So the T206 cards may have been done in sets of say 6 or 12 on smaller stones. They were done this way when the print run was going to be very large and run over a long period of time. These stones were only used to make transfers from and to take proofs from. they were never used for the actual end product. when a job was complete these smaller stones with numbers identifying them were stored for use at a later date. It is much like today when we store a single digital image such as a business card with multiple Adobe InDesign layers in a file on the hard drive and duplicating it onto one large sheet when it comes time to print.<br /><br />So for the T206 you would have a set of 6 images, six players, and for each set of six players there would be 9 separate stones, one for the key plate or stone. The Key is an outline drawing of the the original image it looks like a topographical map. The key also contains all of the crop marks for registry and and cutting purposes. In the case of the T206 cards the halftone image may have served double duty as the key. You would also have 8 separate stones for the colors yellow, light brown, buff, light blue, dark blue, pink, red and finally gray.<br /><br />Now here is the key to all of this: transfer paper. Transfer paper was a form of paper with some type of gelatine coating. On google books you can find recipes and methods for making this kind of paper. It was also available premade at litho supplies houses. All of the big litho houses had tranfer departments with folks whose sole job it was to take transfers from the smaller stones and transfer them in multiples to the much larger stones that would run through the large steam presses. Modern printmakers will coat a sheet of paper with gum arabic and use that as transfer paper. Today you can also use photo copies and laser prints as transfers. You can draw directly onto the transfer paper with the usual litho inks and lay that onto a stone and run it through a press to transfer the image to the stone. There are books on google that mention James Mcneil Whistler the famous artist who made many prints actually doing his drawings on transfer paper and taking those to a master printer to have copies of his art made.<br /><br />The way a transfer was done was to ink the small stone with black ink and apply the transfer paper to the stone which would then be run through a small dedicated press. You now have a piece of transfer paper which carries the image. You would now lay the transfer onto the large stone. This would be done with the same image multiple times using multiple images on the large stone so the image is repeated. The transfer paper is like a decal. It was wetted and the paper pulled off leaving just the ink image on the stone. The stone was now etched which is a whole other subject and I will not get into specifics. You can see the process on youtube and other places on the net. The large stone is now ready for printing.<br /><br />For these cards you would have 9 different large stones with the multiple images, one for each color that needed to be in near perfect registration to one another.<br /><br />In order to do a multiple color image a print of the large key plate would be made and varnished so as not to stretch. This large image was put on a sticking up plate. The transfers of each color taken from the small stones were then stuck up to this image using the crop marks to perfectly align the transfer sheets. The crop marks were then cut off. This large sticking up plate was laid down onto the large stone succsessfully sticking all of the transfers for that color to the large stone in perfect alignment to the key. The stone was now run through the press to transfer the images then the transfer paper was removed and the stone etched. This was repeated for each color on a different stone.<br /><br />The jist of this is that you could probably identify the make up of the sets of images on the small stones but you would not be able to identify the makeup of a large sheet because the makeup of a large sheet could vary depending upon which job it was. Each time a job was started the smaller stones would be hauled out and transfered to the large sheet in what ever configuration was called for.That is why some cards have the same names top and bottom and sometimes they do not. It just depends on how the job was configured. The Images for the Wagner and Plank were probably never destroyed but when a transfer was pulled with their image it was probably just cut out and replaced with the transfers from another player.<br /><br />I am fairly convinced that these were done on stone after reading a document on google books that states lithographers still used stones for special jobs such as those on harder paper like cardboard and when the image to be reproduced was a halftone image like that used on the T206 cards.<br /><br /><br />I am currently working on a web page that will lay out the process in detail, it will be heavily illustrated with images and diagrams. The page will also contain links to all the sites and documentation that I have found on the web.<br /><br />If you did not understand a darn thing I said above a much better description of the processs can be found at this link below. I have read all the textbooks available for download and they are tough to read and understand. The article in this book is very well written in layman's terms and really made the whole thing click for me.<br /><br /><a href="http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=bddAAAAAIAAJ&dq=the+building+of+a+b ook&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=w74m2LZcP3& sig=lCUJcvPQrbdesycEkaQf1800c_s&sa=X&oi=book_resul t&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA204,M1" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=bddAAAAAIAAJ&dq=the+building+of+a+b ook&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=w74m2LZcP3& sig=lCUJcvPQrbdesycEkaQf1800c_s&sa=X&oi=book_resul t&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA204,M1</a>