Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan
Furthermore, please note my use of the word "subjects" (instead of cards). We do not actually know how many cards were printed on the standard size sheets. These group
numbers (35 and 28) are rather small. It's very likely that the 1st group of subjects were Double-Printed (D-P) on a 70-card sheet (I have several 350/460 series T206's with
"2 same-names" on them that attest to them D-P). Or perhaps, even Triple-Printed on a 105-card sheet.
TED Z
.
|
The most recent list of two (different) name cards yields zero instances from any of the 460 printings:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...142480&page=31
Regardless of how many columns there were on a sheet, I would think it is highly probable that each column on the 460 sheets contained the same player thereby only allowing for double (same) name miscuts. That said, someone producing a two-namer with a 460 back would be a quick way to refute that guess.