Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan
Clayton
I'm reprising these two statements of mine from my prior post......because you apparently overlooked them, or they did not register with you.
Note, that I qualified that the T206 project was considered by ALC as a...." 6-color lithographic smaller project ". Therefore, a 19" (track width) press was employed
to print these cards (1 7/16" x 2 5/8") in a format of up to 108 (my guess) cards on a sheet.
Of course, ALC had larger track width presses for their larger projects (art works, advertisements, posters, etc.). But, anyone who is familiar with lithographic printing
of that era will tell you that the quality and the yield of the printed product is inversely proportional its size. Thus, ALC chose to use their smaller track width press to
improve the yield. This is important when you are cranking-out 10 MILLION cards. That's my guesstimate as to how many T206 cards were produced from 1909-1911.
I will reiterate the information that Steve B. provide us regarding the standard size sheets for this type of printing having been either 18" x 24" (or 19" x 24"). The 18",
or 19" sheet width is consistent with the 19'" track width of the press.
Sorry, but your concern about wide borders on a sheet is laughable. Assuming my number of 10 Million printed cards is true, then any good printer would efficiently fill
out a sheet of cardboard with just a little border area sufficient enough to clip onto to for hanging the sheets so that the ink can dry.
TED Z
|
Hi Ted,
I didn't overlook anything you posted, like I said in my last post I even went back to read through this whole thread again.
I can see that you still get defensive, and become condescending when I question what you say, even though I feel I was being cordial. You can think my concern about wide borders on a sheet is laughable- just like I think it's laughable that you have to be right about everything at any cost, even when we are talking about something that can't yet be proven.
Have a good one-
Sincerely, Clayton