View Single Post
  #5  
Old 08-28-2014, 07:32 AM
t206hound's Avatar
t206hound t206hound is offline
€r!©k §µmmær$
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
American Lithographic introduced the 350/460 series in the printing of the SOVEREIGN "apple green" cards during 1910. This series comprise of 66 subjects.

Depicted here is my simulated 72-card sheet (6 rows of 12 cards) of this series. I don't think same-name cards of any of these 60 subjects with SOVEREIGN backs (not including 6 super-prints) have been reported;
I don't recall having seen any S350AG miscuts at all... definitely don't have any scans; Doug (Phillies*phan) has a vast collection of double-namers. I've asked him if he has (or has seen) any.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
Here again are the Exclusive 12 with SWEET CAPORAL 460, Factory #42 back advertisements.

These 12 are the only subjects in the 460-only series printed with this SWEET CAP back......proving that American Litho
formatted configurations with 12 cards across the sheet.
There is actual proof that some of those cards appeared together; scraps presumably from the same sheet(s) Piedmont 350-460 factory 25. Some of them can be proven to be adjacent. All of the scrap pictured (eight subjects) are from the Exclusive 12. This image is from Chris Browne posted in a separate thread.


So, the fact that there is proof from scrap that many of those appeared together, and the exclusivity mentioned above would give credence to the probability of those 12 appearing on the same sheet.

I would not say, however, that this is proof of a 12 card row. A theory? Sure. Proof? Nope. Reality? Maybe. There could have been single prints... or double prints... or an eight card row (ABCDEFGH, EFGHIJKL, IJKLABCD)... or an eighteen card row (ABCDEFGHIJKLABCD, EFGHIJKLABCDEFGH, IJKLABCDEFGHIJKL). Maybe some or all of the super prints appeared on the sheet with those 12.

I'm not saying that SC460-42 was not printed in 12 card rows, I'm just saying that the acceptance of 12 cards appearing together doesn't prove it.
Reply With Quote