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

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


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

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


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

Any meaningful discussions are welcomed.

TED Z

Super Print sheet......
 

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

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

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



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



**Note

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


TED Z

WOW, that is cool Ted!

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

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

Craig

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

Great work.

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

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

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

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

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

http://t206resource.com/Publications.html

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

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

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

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


TED Z

Ted,

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

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

Any thoughts?

Craig

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


Subjects........Series

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

Where is the proof of this ?

There is none....it never happened !


TED Z

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

Hi Mike
 

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

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


Best regards,

TED Z

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

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

Alan Ray
 

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

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

Jim is referencing this possible layout. Article

Hey Andrew
 

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




TED Z

Some questions I have.

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

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

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

One other question I have is.

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

Your thoughts and imput are always welcome.


Jantz

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

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

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

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

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


TED Z

Simulated T206 sheet....check it out
 

Jantz

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


TED Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve B

Steve B

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

Ted - Great information and thanks for answering my question.

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

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

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


Jantz

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

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

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

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

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

Mac

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

Steve B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, Clayton

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

Clayton

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

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

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

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


TED Z

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

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

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

Steve B

ok...
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You see how the reasoning can get very circular.

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

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

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

Steve B

Thanks Ted for the response.

Thanks for the great discussion everyone.

Sincerely, Clayton

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

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

Steve

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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



TED Z

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

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

Steve B

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

Simulated T206 sheets....check them out
 

Steve

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

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


TED Z

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

Sincerely, Clayton

Simulated T206 sheets....check them out
 

Steve B and guys

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

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


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

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


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


TED Z

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

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

Sincerely, Clayton

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve B

Simulated T206 sheets....check them out
 

Clayton

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



TED Z

You guys are hardcore....

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

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

A few points to consider regarding the above quote.

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

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

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

Piedmont 150
Sweet Caporal 150
Sovereign 150

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

Just my two cents. All the best.

Ted-

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

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

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

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

All of the above cards are from Print Group 1:

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


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

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

Sincerely, Clayton

Thanks Tim, that makes sense. Great post !!

Sincerely, Clayton

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

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