Quote:
Originally Posted by Abravefan11
Concerning the consistency of sheet sizes throughout the T206 set and different series I'll offer up the following for thought.
The number 34 wasn't a random number that we found in a couple places within the set and have since tried to configure every other subset to fit it. It stands on its own as the smallest number of any group printed at a given time within the set. This is of the utmost importance. It doesn't require double prints, subsets, or any other adjustments to arrive at the total. It is 34 confirmed subjects that we know were printed at a very specific time in the set. Here are some examples:
Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 = 34
Hindu Southern League = 34
Print Group 3 (350/460) Drum 350 = 34
Broad Leaf 460 = 34
I used these four to show that small runs are consistent throughout the entire set, and all equal 34. While I can't prove that during other larger runs that a sheet size couldn't have been different, it's my current belief that they stayed consistent.
Once you go beyond 34 a lot of variables can change the total number of cards produced with a given back. Multiple sheet configurations, multiple printings of the same back at different times with the same subjects, and on and on.
There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards. This is how we categorize them and not evidence of how they were printed. When it comes to the actual production of the cards, you can not reduce a group printed at a specific time to a number smaller than 34.
|
The part I changed to red above cannot be true.
14 Souther leaguers not printed with Hindu.
13 Printed with ONLY 150 backs and not with SC150/649.
1 printed with Only 150 Backs AND SC150/649
Is there some explanation for how these would have been printed on the same sheet as cards that recieved a different selection of backs? (I've proposed a few before, all of which I consider unlikely and for which there is no existing proof.)
The print groups do make sense, and are excellent for explaining the
distribution of the set.
But those groups are only a start towards understanding the
production of the set.
I have a few other objections to 34 being the key. But none of them are something concrete.
For instance, it's not a number that most people would be comfortable with. People tend to select numbers that are either multiples of 10 or are readily divisible. 100, 150, 50, 25,75 All common choices. Ask yourself how many cards you'd put in a set? Hardly anyone would choose 34. How many of something would you put on a sheet? again, 34 isn't a number most people would choose. And none of the bigger numbers 150,350,460 can be made from 34. To be entirely fair, only 150 can be made from 6, so it's only marginally better.
And yes, I know the counter argument is pretty much any Topps set. Odd numbers made from sheets of 100, entire sets based on being multiples of 11...Quite a mess.
Steve B