Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B
The percentages by back are really interesting.
I think it appears clear that Plank and Wagner weren't on the same sheet. Or perhaps the same part of the sheet. But it's possible that isn't right.
It's very curious that for two cards that were probably pulled from production, multiple different backs are available.
That points to the different backs being produced at the same time, probably on different presses from a common stack of fronts.
Then the question is exactly how were the cards pulled from production, and is it possible they were on the same sheet for the 150 series?
I think even with the numbers being so different, we might look at the cutting. It's probable that a large number of sheets with Wagner and maybe Plank were produced with blank backs to be used as needed to fill orders for each brand and factory. So what's the best way to pull a card from production?
If you're both cheap and need to get product out the door, step one is to cut the finished sheets that already have backs in strips and simply discard the withdrawn card. But strips isn't how cutting is usually done with big sheets, as it makes for a very awkward second step, cutting a 2-4 foot long stack of strips into individual cards. So maybe after a short time, you decide that cutting the sheet essentially in half and discarding everything from the Wagner to the edge is much more cost effective especially if it's sort of near the edge and the discarded portion would also include Plank who you hear is also making a fuss about being included.
While you're working through the stack, the plate guys are resurfacing the stone and redoing it less the Wagner and Plank. Or possibly only redoing those areas, none of the references I've found get into plate repairs much if at all. With the labor to resurface a stone and start again, I think a repair is likely. With the more modern photographic plates making a new plate is the way to go.
If you're very cheap, and have little labor cost you cut down the big sheets into smaller sheets and print backs on them.
Or if labor is costly, you simply scrap the finished fronts, redo the plates and carry on.
Using scrap to make more product was absolutely done with stamps, creating some real rarities. I believe Intaglio press operators and Lithograph press operators were roughly equal at the time.
Knowing that the 150's were done 3 different times, it would be interesting to see if there's any correlation between the less printed brands that would lead us to think that they were printed from partial sheets. Like if the remaining portions of the Wagner sheets were used up doing some Old Mills or Hindus. Or if those sheets were not cut and used for the less popular brands.
|
IMO it's because the T206's were printed in phases and a % of certain backs were printed at the same time together in each different phase. The pop numbers and print flaws reflect that.
Here's an example of flaw on Tenney that was probably printed in the phase that Wagner was printed.
Tenney.jpg
I think we might eventually be able to break down the different phases by using print flaws and pop numbers for example the flaws and pop numbers show that for print group 1 the Sovereign 350's weren't printed in the phase with the PD350's, Old Mills and Sweet Caporal 350 25's and 30's. I think there was another phase where The Sovereign 350's were printed with PD350's Sweet Caporal 350 30's and 25's but not Old Mills.
Old Mill phase
Stats Killian.jpg
Stats Schlei.jpg
0Walsh Stats.jpg