Those T206 alignment marks and what they can tell us(long)

[steve B]

Yeah I know, another T206 thread. But I hope this is a "good" one.
I have a sheet layout idea, and I will need some help in the form of high resolution scans to verify it. 800-1200Dpi gets the level of detail I need.

Some background: Some time ago I said I thought that each position on a sheet would eventually identifiable. Checking my few doubles at the time I found no differences. But that got me looking and I came across these cards of Batch.


There are some differences, and they're both from the same series. Seeing the post in the other thread that showed the layout of the stone with the same negative then removing the layout marks made the rest clear.
(I've seen some other readily identifable sheet positions too, so it's not just one card)

When I went looking for a group of cards to look at I found a surprising thing.
Using the superset spreadsheet I found a small group of cards that fit a particular patern. All are series 150, with no 649 overprint and only shown with El Principe or Hindu as an available back. A couple notable rarities seem to fit the pattern as well.
Ames hands at chest
Brown chicago
brown cubs on shirt
burch batting
Donlin fielding
Doyle throwing
Evers cubs on shirt
Magie
Pattee
Pelty
Reulbach glove showing
Schulte front view
Wagner Pitt

This group even without the Magie and Wagner doesn't fit most of the sheet layout ideas I've heard.
Looking at this group another interesting thing is that except for Brown Cubs, Magie and Wagner they're grouped nearly together in Scott readers top 150. Wagner and Magie are rare of course, but Brown Cubs isn't in the top 150.

Assuming the research showing the presses at ALC having an 18 inch track is correct, many of the current ideas don't work well as they don't fit comfortably in 18 inches if at all.
A common paper size is 18x12. I'm still checking to be sure that was true in 1909.

What does fit well on 18x12 is either a 12x4 layout or an 8x6 layout with bit of margin on all sides which is both good practice and shown by the Sweet Caporal cards with enough room for the factory number at the side or bottom of the back
Both are 48 card layouts.

Three of these cards are shown without EP as a possible back.
Ames, Doyle, and Schulte.
Obviously Magie and Wagner as well.

My thought is that the sheets consisted of four players each, likely 6 of each. Magie And Wagner were obviously withdrawn, requiring that the stones either be modified or completely redone.
Brown cubs replaced Both Magie and Wagner, leading to its being more common and not rating a spot in the top 150.

the reason I think it was 4 rather than 8?
Three of the cards are rated in the upper 70's through 90's in the top 150 while the rest are solidly in the 60's with one 59th
Again except Wagner, Magie and Brown cubs.
Those odd ones out are so far off from ech other that having 12 on a sheet with 2 replaced by Brown and a combination of other already included players seems wrong. I don't think the Magie and Wagner are all that close in rarity, and I think it would have been too much work to redo the stones twice during one print run.

For this to be right, there would have to be either 6 or 12 identifiable differences for each card. 6 if the stones were partially reworked, 12 if they were completely redone. These differences would also have to correlate with back differences since all the positions would have an equivalent back position.

Complicating this is that none of the 13 cards are shown as confirmed with El Principe on the spreadsheet, so other layouts including unbalanced ones are possible. I haven't checked TedZs lists yet.

There also may be a complicating issue involving the Plank and regional distribution, but it's complex and I haven't put enough thought into that yet.

I have had a good look at whatever Magie scans I can find, and even from small scans I'm seeing at least 3 different fronts that do match up with different backs. The details will have to wait for a results thread.

A couple things to get out of the way.
None of this idea would have been possible without the work of lots of people over a few decades. everyone that contributed to the superset spreadsheet, Scott Reader, and most of the people on this board.

Second, I want to make clear that I do NOT think any of the tiny differences should be considerd a variation or be catalog listed. If someone decides to collect them, that's great, but it should remain a very niche specialty. They're interesting as artifact of the production process and may provide a solid look at the sheet layouts but going beyond that isn;t for everyone (Although I wouldn't mind seeing a collection of 6 different Magies)

So email me scans or links to scans and keep them coming. Hopefully we can gather enough to prove or disprove this idea.

Steve B