Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan
You repeatedly seem to have a problem with my reference to American Litho's use of 19" track width presses. I have presented this theory for the past 7 years on this
forum.
So, I want you to tell us......why you have not questioned Steve B when he speaks of the same 19" track width presses used by ALC to print these cards ?
Furthermore, I will remind you that it was Steve who informed us that ALC most likely printed a lot of their stuff on the standard size 19" x 24" cardboard stock.
Again, I ask you to tell us......why you have not questioned Steve about his information ?
Clayton......at least Steve and I have provided some meaningful information based on our research to support my theory of 36, 48, 60, 72, 96, or 108-card sheets using
a 19" press to print these cards on sheets whose size varies up to 19" x 24".
Furthermore, the structures of the various Series in the T206 set mathematically lend themselves to factors of 6 and 12. I have not wavered from my thinking regarding
this since the early 1980's when I first started collecting T206's and T205's.
On the other hand, you are "stuck" on the "34 card" sheet myth. And, anyone who challenges that myth "bugs" you.
Anyhow, I have an idea why you repeatedly question my comments on this subject in the past (and here in this thread). But, not when Steve B. talks about 19" presses
and sheet sizes of 19" x 24".
But, for now I'll keep my suspicion on this to myself.
TED Z
|
Well Ted, I probably question you (and not Steve "specifically") because Steve has shown that he is willing to at least "consider" other theories. You, on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't support your theory-which is fine. We are all entitled to our own opinions. But, you stick to this 19" thing as though it is entire reason we should "look no further",,,,,
When I say I am not sure we can "unequivocally" say these cards were printed on a 19"x24" sheet, on a press that only uses a 19" track width, I am saying that to EVERYONE (yes, Steve also Ted) that I am not convinced that this should be stated AS FACT unless we have PROOF. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also thought I remembered Steve saying he believed that the ALC did use different sized presses.
In my recent posts, I did not mention the #34. I have been trying to be open minded to what you present, but you get too bent out of shape when I question you or state my opinion (if it doesn't jive with your theory)- and I thought I was being polite enough not to make you feel "attacked".
Yes, it is easier for me to understand the #34, because it is based on print groups and not cemented in track width and sheet size. And, it's always presented as a theory (and a very good one), and not fact-although they always provide very convincing evidence.
There is no conspiracy here Ted, so speak your mind freely. I don't want you to feel suspicious about me- no one has put me up to questioning you
If an uncut sheet of T206's shows up and it's 19"x"24", you, Steve, and anyone else who has a problem with me questioning this will be THE FIRST people I will publicly apologize to, right here on Net54
Until then, carry on and I'll just sit on the sidelines.
Sincerely, Clayton