Simulated T206 sheets....check them out....plus, new find of 350/460 series DRUM card

[tedzan]

The complexity of the various series in the T206 set makes it difficult to form an accurate arrangement of how a given sheet was printed. The 350 series press run of the
Southern Leaguer's (SL) suggests that a 48-card sheet was printed. Or perhaps a 96-card sheet of them was printed, if all 48 - SL subjects were Double-Printed (as the
"same-name" miscut SL cards indicate). Furthermore, Jantz's excellent thread....One T206, Two Names....shows us that the placement of images on a T206 sheet varied
from one press run to another. Therefore, trying to formulate a sheet arrangement from this data can be very puzzling.

The closest predictable example that I've found in formulating a possible sheet is the group of Major League subjects in the 1910 COUPON set. It comprises of 48 subjects
from the 350-only series (at the time of printing....circa Spring/Summer 1910). I choose this example because 45 ** (of these 48) subjects were printed with the pattern
that I refer to as the "QUINTUPLICATE" stylistic back design (see my 2008 Net54 thread).

Furthermore, 39 of these subjects are POLAR BEAR no-prints. This fact provides us a window into a timeline when this group of cards were printed. And, when the POLAR
BEAR press runs occurred regarding the cards in the 350-only series.
The 9 subjects in this group printed with the POLAR BEAR back are Engle, LaPorte, Willett, and the six Super-Prints.


** Note
Byrne and Mowery were in transitional trades at the time of this printing; and, Rossman's career ended. Therefore, these 3 subjects were not printed with the AMERICAN
BEAUTY....BROAD LEAF....CYCLE....DRUM backs.

Any meaningful discussions are welcomed.

TED Z

[tedzan]

An interesting feature of this simulated sheet is that it includes the "Super-Prints" **. Assuming this sheet represents the inital printing of these six Super-Prints (S-P),
at this phase in the printing game, these S-P cards were "350-only" subjects.

The S-P were printed with as many as 25 different T206 backs. Furthermore, from 4 - 6 of the S-P were also included in the T213-2, T213-3, T214, and T215 sets.

I do not understand why American Lithographic selected two Hal Chase cards. The Blue portrait is certainly a good choice. Perhaps, Tinker would have been another.
Tinker-Evers-Chance....along with Chase, Cobb, and Mathewson make a popular group (circa 1910).



Super-Prints .................................................. .................................................. ....................................\/...........................\/


Super-Prints .................................................. ../\.........................../\................................................. .............................../\................................................. .................................................. ............................................/\



**Note

Scot Reader, in his landmark book titled "INSIDE T206" (2006), identified these six T206's as "Super-Prints" (S-P). These S-P are usually referred to as 350/460 subjects.
However, the S-P's are actually quite unique, in that they are in a T206 class of their own by being both 350-only series subjects and 460-only series subjects (as Scot
Reader so aptly described them). For those of you on this forum, who are new to the T206 world, I highly recommend Scot Reader's book.


TED Z

[Craig M]

WOW, that is cool Ted!

Thanks for all of your hard labor in putting this together.

In your best estimation when the first series (150) cards were ran after ALC made the corrections to the sheet, who was the player below Honus Wagner?

Craig

[Leon]

Great work Ted. One small mistake. Coupon is T213. If you need a copy of the ACC let me know. Otherwise, great job and thanks for sharing.

[Ladder7]

Great work.

[cfc1909]

I think its cool to try and figure out a t206 sheet, but I also think

34 Sweet Caporal 649
34 Hindu south
34 Broad Leaf 460 possible
the 68 Coupon 1 could be two 34 card sheets
the 102 major league Hindus could be three 34 card sheets

and there are plenty more times 34 comes up when you really analyze the set
I believe 34 is to strong to ignore but just like what you have printed above there is no proof.

Another possibility it could be a couple different sizes. Hopefully one or more sheets show up one day. That would really be cool.

As for Readers book, I would also ad The Monster and The Mysteries of T206 along with several other hobby publications as a must read and all can be found here

http://t206resource.com/Publications.html

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Craig M

WOW, that is cool Ted!

Thanks for all of your hard labor in putting this together.

In your best estimation when the first series (150) cards were ran after ALC made the corrections to the sheet, who was the player below Honus Wagner?

Craig

Cannot tell you who was printed beneath Wagner; its been reported that Plnk was near by.




TED Z

[Craig M]

Ted,

The reason why I ask is possibly if WAGNER was miscut and there was a player below him, there may be cards out there with a glimpse of the lettering WAGNER, PITTSBURG at the top of that card.

I guess finding a card like that would be the next best thing to owning the WAGNER. It would be a card linked to WAGNER.

Any thoughts?

Craig

[tedzan]

Here's the bigger picture regarding the T206 structure....if anyone is interested.


Subjects........Series

..12..............150-only (12 x 1 row)

144..............150/350 (12 x 12)

204..............350-only (12 x 17)

..60..............350/460 (12 x 5)

..46..............460-only (+ 2 double-prints) (12 x 4)

..48..............Southern Leaguers (12 x 4)

...6...............Super-Prints

...2...............Demmitt and O'Hara St Louis variations
____
522 = total subjects



Proof of this 12-card row theory is evident in the structure of the various Series in the T206 set......where the common factor = 12.
Therefore, it is logical to conclude that sheets of T206's (and T205's) consisting of 36, 48, 60, 72, or 96 cards were printed.


A number like "34" does not mathematically jive with the Series structure of the T206 set.

Furthermoe, to say that the 1910 COUPON set comprises of "two 34-card" sheets implies that Major League subjects were intermixed
with Southern Association subjects.

Where is the proof of this ?

There is none....it never happened !


TED Z

[MVSNYC]

The recent T206 "sheet" discussions have been compelling. Even though i've collected T206 for 20 years, i never gave it a strong thought (how many cards might have been printed per sheet). i will certainly defer to the likes of Ted, Jim, Tim, Scot, etc...i will say this however, i always assumed it was a larger sheet, say 24" x 36"+; furthermore, i also assumed the larger sheet size (whatever that may be) was what actually dictated the number of cards per sheet, NOT the other way around (meaning not the number of cards dictating the sheet size). maybe some of printers can jump in here (Joe D)? to me, a smaller amount of cards per sheet (34, 48, etc) seem not very efficient in the printing world, i also imagined the sheets were big because the series' & set were massive, so they would've been rather cost effective & efficient as possible in the printing process. my 2 cents.

[tedzan]

In my research of American Lithographic, I came across a description which stated that large sheets in the art of lithographic printing resulted
in lower quality prints. Especially, when 6 to 7 color processes are involved (such as was the casebin the printing of these tobacco cards).

Consider this trade-off......smaller sheets (e.g., 36, 48, 72, etc. cards) resulted in a higher yield of quality prints than larger sheets would. So,
many more usable cards were produced.


Best regards,

TED Z

[MVSNYC]

Hi Ted- ok, gotcha, makes sense. very interesting discussion. i think we'd all love to stumble upon a full uncut sheet tucked away in some little antique shop somewhere.

how much would that fetch? $50-100K? i guess also depends who's on the sheet.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Has anybody here tried to reach out to this guy to find out if The Card was cut from a sheet? If it was then be has probably has a lot of these answers.

[T205 GB]

So if what Jim is saying is correct that the sheets were of 34 ct then not only could there not be DP players but there would have been a lot of boarder material to make the sheet fit the press or a different press all together. Please correct me if I misunderstood the 34 ct thing.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

So if what Jim is saying is correct that the sheets were of 34 ct then not only could there not be DP players but there would have been a lot of boarder material to make the sheet fit the press or a different press all together. Please correct me if I misunderstood the 34 ct thing.

Let them think what they may....however, the T206 structural numbers do not in any way jive with their so-called "magic 34" contention.

Originally Posted by tedzan

.

Subjects........Series

..12..............150-only (12 x 1 row)

144..............150/350 (12 x 12)

204..............350-only (12 x 17)

..60..............350/460 (12 x 5)

..46..............460-only (+ 2 double-prints) (12 x 4)

..48..............Southern Leaguers (12 x 4)

...6...............Super-Prints

...2...............Demmitt and O'Hara St Louis variations
____
522 = total subjects



Proof of this 12-card row theory is evident in the structure of the various Series in the T206 set......where the common factor = 12.

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that sheets of T206's (and T205's) consisting of 36, 48, 60, 72, or 96 cards were printed.

TED Z

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Let them think what they may....however, the T206 structural numbers do not in any way jive with their so-called "magic 34" contention.

TED Z

Ted, people have been finding magical qualities in numbers for centuries. It's really amazing what you can 'see' in numbers. I don't think Jim and Tim are doing it any more than anyone else, yourself included. You could be right - they could be right - you both might be wrong.

But the discussion is fun. I like that Steve B is wrapping some experience around all the theories.

[obcmac]

I'm probably a fly in the ointment here, but isn't the idea of a t206 sheet a myth? 95-99% of the double names we see show the same player above and below. So it seems that rows should be reconstructed, not sheets.

Rows with 12 cards make sense...allows for 6 to be repeated too.

What about those different name t/b cards? They're clearly the exception...is there a pattern as to series/back on those? I guess they could be the dividing line between two groups on a big sheet. If 1 in 8 double names were different, that would suggest two groupings of 4x12 rows...with only the 4th (out of 8) row possible with different names.

Mac

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by obcmac

I'm probably a fly in the ointment here, but isn't the idea of a t206 sheet a myth? 95-99% of the double names we see show the same player above and below. So it seems that rows should be reconstructed, not sheets.

The question is how many cards to a row. Yes, we know that multiple identical rows were on a sheet stacked vertically. And with the two name cards, at least two different sets of rows on a sheet.

My still unanswered question (which I will rephrase):
Were sheets pressed? Or were individual rows pressed?

Edited to add: from the "plate scratch" thread we can assume the backs were pressed per sheet (not per row). To press per sheet for the fronts means multiple plate copies of the same player pose existed for each color pass.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by t206hound

To press per sheet for the fronts means multiple plate copies of the same player pose existed for each color pass.

Exactly.

The differences on the fronts are smaller, but they're there.

Here's Batch showing different layout marks at the top edge.

Steve B

[atx840]

Jim is referencing this possible layout. Article

[Jantz]

Some questions I have.

If the ALC was a printing company, did they receive their paper stock to print their cards on from another company? (Paging Steve B.)

If so, then maybe researching the paper manufacturers of the time could yield some clues as to the sheet size via financial records or invoices.

I know its a long shot, but we've got some good researchers here, so maybe.

One other question I have is.

Would I be crazy to think that maybe sheet sizes varied from print run to print run?

Your thoughts and imput are always welcome.


Jantz

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Some questions I have.

If the ALC was a printing company, did they receive their paper stock to print their cards on from another company? (Paging Steve B.)

If so, then maybe researching the paper manufacturers of the time could yield some clues as to the sheet size via financial records or invoices.

I know its a long shot, but we've got some good researchers here, so maybe.

One other question I have is.

Would I be crazy to think that maybe sheet sizes varied from print run to print run?

Your thoughts and imput are always welcome.


Jantz

Jantz what going on buddy. Been a while since we chatted. Hope to see you at nationals this yr.

I do believe that the presses were a specific size thus allowing Ted to determine possible sheet size. He has info in regards to that. It is very possible to print a smaller sheet but a larger sheet may not work. In actuality we can guess and speculate but may all be wrong.

Although I'm not a 206 collector I follow this in regards to the 205's and connecting possibilities.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Some questions I have.


One other question I have is.

Would I be crazy to think that maybe sheet sizes varied from print run to print run?

Your thoughts and imput are always welcome.


Jantz

Jantz

One of the important specifics of a printing press is its "track width". This characteristic tells us how WIDE a paper or cardboard sheet can be printed on it.

Research shows that American Litho employed printing presses (circa 1909 - 1919) whose width = 19 inches for printing their 6-color lithographic smaller projects.

Therefore, a 19-inch wide cardboard sheet accommodates 12 - T206 (or T205, T213, T214, T215) size cards across its width. The length of this cardboard sheet
is a variable.....which, can be as short as one comprising of 36 cards (12 x 3 rows). Or, as long a sheet that comprises of 96 cards (12 x 8 rows), or even larger.


Now, fast-forward to 1952 for comparison ............
TOPPS used a 54-inch wide printing press to produce their 1952 BB set. They printed cardboard sheets comprising of 2 adjacent 100-card (10 x 10) arrangements
for each of their Series.
In the printing of their famous Hi # series of 97 subjects, they Double-Printed Mickey Mantle, Jackie Robinson and Bobby Thomson in order to fill out their 100-card
arrangement. Double-Printing is a practice that dates back to 19th Century lithography....when the number of subjects falls short of the size of the press.

Another example is the 1953 BOWMAN BB set which was printed using a 43-inch wide press. They printed 2 adjacent 32-card (8 x 4) arrangements on their sheets.


My point here is.....that you can speculate all you want as to the size of a sheet.....but, if you do not know the track width of the printing press it was printed on,
your thinking is just a "crap shoot".


Hey Steve B....please chime in here.


TED Z

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Therefore, a 19-inch wide cardboard sheet accommodates 12 - T206 (or T205, T213, T214, T215) size cards across its width. The length of this cardboard sheet
is a variable.....which, can be as short as one comprising of 36 cards (12 x 3 rows). Or, as long a sheet that comprises of 96 cards (12 x 8 rows), or even larger.

Ted, what is the maximum length of the sheet that would fit on the press? My terminologies are certainly wrong, but was there one "press" per color per sheet? (i.e. they weren't pressing rows were they?)

[steve B]

There are standard paper sizes. US standard and international standard are a bit different.

ALC certainly bought paper from a paper company. I can't recall ever hearing of a place that did their own.

Track width is important, but here's where I'll waffle a bit.

Most presses can print on narrower paper.
I'm pretty sure we could have run 8 1/2x 11 on the 35 inch Heidelbergs. But that would have required some dire circumstance. Generally you want to keep close to full size. I know for sure we ran some undersize stuff. Maybe 24x17?

I'm also fairly sure ALC would have had a variety of press sizes. Running a couple thousand business cards on a press with a 19" track would be very wasteful.
The press is chosen based on the job, both the image size of the entire item- like a sheet, AND the quantity needed.

So if you wanted say 100 posters that were 30x20 they would have to be made on the 35 inch press.
If you wanted the same 100 but only 20x20 it would be on the 24 inch press.

Now, reduce the size to 15x12? It can't go on the little press, so it's got to be on one of the bigger ones. If it's only 100 the question becomes wether it's more expensive to make 100 passes through the 24 inch press OR fit two on a sheet and run it through 50 times.
As the quantity goes up, the press used will change.

Small items like T206 would be a challenge. But there's usually a formula that accounts for the costs. Speed would have mattered too. If time was short they may have run smaller sheets to have something to deliver quickly. They could have laid out the plates faster doing only a few subjects as the art and masters were finished.

Later, if there was more lead time and a larger order a bigger sheet may have made more sense.

Going by groups and how many are in a group will only get partway there. Obviously a sheet of 34 subjects doesn't make any sense with groups of cards like the ones that only come with a 150 back.

As Ted has pointed out there are a lot of groupings that are divisible by 6.
(Although even exactly which the 150 onlys are gets confusing, as it's debatable which ones count. )

But there are also groups that don't fit easily with a sheet of subjects divisible by 6.

There's even a card or two where the available backs would lead me to think they may have been partly done on a special sheet with just the one card.
Powers is the only one that only has 150 series backs but also has a factory 649 back.
So it's its own special puzzle.
Done on a special sheet for the 649 series?
On a 649 series sheet natuarally as part of a complex layout involving small sheets with some players short printed and others on multiple sheets?
On a big sheet that got the 649 op but not any of the 350 backs?
All of those are possible.
In fact, all of those could be how it was actually done! I wouldn't think it likely since it's a somewhat tough card, but it's possible.

Another is Magie vs Magee. Magie only has one back. At one point I thought it may have been just one out of however many magie/magees were on a sheet. So I found as many scans as I could find. Pretty quickly I realized that couldn't be the case. There are at least 4 readily identifiable Magies. And the individual fronts always have the same flaws on the back.

I think the sheet layouts varied between the different series, and maybe by league and brand.

I really have to post about some of what I'm looking at and what I've found. Some fascinating stuff, and that's only from a little bit of looking.

What I'm aiming at is some solid proof of certain ideas. If the cards lead towards proving my theories wrong that's ok, that's how science works. (And science it is figuring even a bit of this out)

Steve B

Steve B

[Jantz]

@ndrew - Its going well. Good to hear from you. National for sure!

Ted - Great information and thanks for answering my question.

Steve B. - Great information also! Thank you for taking the time to post all that.

One of these days I'm going to have to sit down with my friend and discuss all of this with him. He worked for 34 years with a printing company here in my hometown. Maybe he has some further information.

I know one time we were working together and I was asking him some questions about printing processes. He mentioned that the factory here in my hometown still has some very old printing related machines (presses & cutters) sitting around in the back of the factory. I then asked him why they still had them sitting around. His reply was.."No one has built a better mouse trap".


Jantz

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Some questions I have.

If the ALC was a printing company, did they receive their paper stock to print their cards on from another company? (Paging Steve B.)

If so, then maybe researching the paper manufacturers of the time could yield some clues as to the sheet size via financial records or invoices.

I know its a long shot, but we've got some good researchers here, so maybe.

One other question I have is.

Would I be crazy to think that maybe sheet sizes varied from print run to print run?

Your thoughts and imput are always welcome.


Jantz

Great idea Jantz- researching the paper manufacturers that supplied the ALC and possibly finding old invoices, records, packing slips, etc. may be a way to figure it out.

And you bring up an excellent question about the possibility of varied sheet sizes from print run to print run-I had asked in another thread about whether or not the track size (width) was adjustable because I was wondering about this too. I didn't get a response, but maybe my question didn't make sense.

This topic can be confusing for me as I've never dealt with printing before. It's easier for me to comprehend the # of 34 subjects, when associating them with the print groups as Tim and Jim have explained. I don't picture a sheet with only 34 subjects, but more like 68 (2x34 same subjects) or 102 (3x34 same subjects).

Not to dismiss Ted Z's theory, I understand where he's basing this opinion from~ 12 across and a 19 inch track width , 12x3 rows up to 12x 8 rows. But the confusing thing about this ^^ how it fits with the print groups.

So, may I pose this question to the experts: how much room around the sides and tops of the sheets would there be (edges, top, bottom)~ I guess we could call it "the borders" ~ with the 19 inch width "non" adjustable track? As you can see from some T206's, with oversized borders or miscut backs that there is room to play. And, like the Obak sheet, there was a lot of border space. As you can see with this miscut back, there is quite a bit of space, and there had to be "more" cut off. I hope I'm making sense.

With Ted Z's simulated sheet~ is that the full 19 inches across, or is there room for borders?

Great topic, I'm trying to follow both sides of this. Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

With Ted Z's simulated sheet~ is that the full 19 inches across, or is there room for borders?

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton

Given, the width of a typical T206 is 1 7/16 inches.

Total cards' width....... 12 x 1 7/16 inches = 17 1/4 inches

Assumong these 12 cards were printed on a 19-inch wide cardboard sheet, then that leaves a border....19 - 17 1/4 = 1 3/4 inches

Which, if printed cards are centered on this cardboard sheet, results in a 7/8 inch wide border on each side.


TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Clayton

Given, the width of a typical T206 is 1 7/16 inches.

Total cards' width....... 12 x 1 7/16 inches = 17 1/4 inches

Assumong these 12 cards were printed on a 19-inch wide cardboard sheet, then that leaves a border....19 - 17 1/4 = 1 3/4 inches

Which, if printed cards are centered on this cardboard sheet, results in a 7/8 inch wide border on each side.


TED Z

Thanks Ted for the response.

Thanks for the great discussion everyone.

Sincerely, Clayton

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by steve B

Exactly.

The differences on the fronts are smaller, but they're there.

Here's Batch showing different layout marks at the top edge.

Steve B

Thanks Steve. If we assume the track was 19" wide (with a 17+" print width)... What was the maximum length?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by t206hound

Thanks Steve. If we assume the track was 19" wide (with a 17+" print width)... What was the maximum length?

It would depend on the diameter of the press cylinder. Modern ones are usually fed with the long side towards the press, so the maximim size would be 19x less than 19.

The pictures of the presses of the era look like the cylinder is rather large, so they could have done it differently. 19x24 is a traditional paper size.
If you can stand toread through it there's a good look at paper standardization here
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volat...papersizes.pdf

Looks like the sizes weren't standardized much until after WWI and serious standardization not till after WWII.

Steve B

[t206hound]

Thanks again, Steve. I've been asking these questions because I keep hearing that 17 cards (as an example) cannot fit on a sheet that is 19 inches wide.

One of the standard paper sizes referenced in that PDF is 17x28. Imagine if the sheets were pressed as below (image from T206Resource.com rotated 90 degrees). Six cards could fit in the "row" (2.625*6 = 15.75) and you could have 17 cards in each "column" (1.4375*17 = 24.4375).

Perhaps that's too much "waste" at the top and bottom (~1.75 inches each), but 17 cards would definitely fit, right?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by t206hound

Thanks again, Steve. I've been asking these questions because I keep hearing that 17 cards (as an example) cannot fit on a sheet that is 19 inches wide.

One of the standard paper sizes referenced in that PDF is 17x28. Imagine if the sheets were pressed as below (image from T206Resource.com rotated 90 degrees). Six cards could fit in the "row" (2.625*6 = 15.75) and you could have 17 cards in each "column" (1.4375*17 = 24.4375).

Perhaps that's too much "waste" at the top and bottom (~1.75 inches each), but 17 cards would definitely fit, right?

That would fit, and it would account for both the 17/34 theory AND the 6 theory.

It might still be difficult to figure some groups, like the 14 Sl cards without Hindu. And the 150 onlys are more than just a simple group even being small.

It also assumes running a sheet through a 19" press the long way. I'm not certain that was possible or good practice.

Of course then I'm assuming a maximum press size of 19".

You see how the reasoning can get very circular.

And I haven't even floated the idea of a very complex layout, which is suggested by the plate scratch. Some of the cards may not have been in square blocks, but in diagonal rows. Two of the blocks I've pieced together might go together like that.

That's why I decided to look for something like the plate scratch. It will eventually provide some concrete evidence of sheet minimum size. If I'm lucky it will lead to a complete sheet, but it may not.

At least with Stamps there are usually pairs and blocks to build from, and the records about sheet size still exist.

Steve B

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by steve B

It might still be difficult to figure some groups, like the 14 Sl cards without Hindu.

Regarding the Hindu, I can see it as 14 SL cards being added to make the run 136 (17*8).

Of course, these are all guesses, not absolutes. I don't think anything yet has disproved the 17 or the 6 card row hypotheses... or that the numbers didn't change on different print groups or press runs.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by steve B

That would fit, and it would account for both the 17/34 theory AND the 6 theory.

It might still be difficult to figure some groups, like the 14 Sl cards without Hindu. And the 150 onlys are more than just a simple group even being small.

It also assumes running a sheet through a 19" press the long way. I'm not certain that was possible or good practice.

Of course then I'm assuming a maximum press size of 19".

You see how the reasoning can get very circular.
And I haven't even floated the idea of a very complex layout, which is suggested by the plate scratch. Some of the cards may not have been in square blocks, but in diagonal rows. Two of the blocks I've pieced together might go together like that.

That's why I decided to look for something like the plate scratch. It will eventually provide some concrete evidence of sheet minimum size. If I'm lucky it will lead to a complete sheet, but it may not.

At least with Stamps there are usually pairs and blocks to build from, and the records about sheet size still exist.

Steve B

Steve

I definitely agree with you on these two comments of yours......

1st...... "19x24 is a traditional paper size."

I have seen American Litho. (ALC) Tobacco advertising posters and other types of lithographic artwork of ALC on exactly 19" x 24" size cardboard. Medium size printing presses
were designed to accomodate this standard paper (cardboard) width of 19 inches.

2nd...... "It also assumes running a sheet through a 19" press the long way. I'm not certain that was possible or good practice."

A NO-NO. Rotating the so-called "34-card" sheet 90 degrees (as shown in above post #33) and printing it in this manner is impractical, and is an inefficient waste of cardboard.
As, the width of such an arrangement is only 15 3/4 inches (leaving 3 1/4 inches of the 19-inch cardboard blank).


Here is the simple solution for those who claim that ALC printed T206's on a "34-card" sheet......

Simulated basic sheet of 36 cards of the 34 subjects (Factory #649 overprints), of which Powers and Matty (white cap) were Double-Printed. This sheet can be extrapolated
to comprise of 2 arrangements of this format (72-card sheet), or 3 arrangements of this format (108-card sheet).


DOUBLE-PRINTS.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...... Powers .................. Matty


FYI......regarding the practice of Double-Printing during the 20th Century of the major BB card issues. On display in this thread are quite a number of pictures of uncut sheets
of BB cards, check it out........

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=151780



TED Z

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by steve B

That would fit, and it would account for both the 17/34 theory AND the 6 theory.

It also assumes running a sheet through a 19" press the long way. I'm not certain that was possible or good practice.

Of course then I'm assuming a maximum press size of 19".


Steve B

Earlier in this thread you appear to be in agreement with someone's suggestion of printing a "34-card" format the "long way" on a 19" x 24" sheet of cardboard.

I agree that this is not good practice....but more significantly, it is mathematically impossible to print a complete sheet of 34 cards on this sheet in this manner.

When you do the math (17 x 1 7/16" = 24 7/16") it exceeds the length of the 24" cardboard sheet.


TED Z

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

It blows my mind how little is know about this printing process given that the cards were produced so recently. I think there will come a time when someone will find a sheet or at least a schematic of one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atx840]

I have broken down each back brand by similar groupings cards across the entire set, as well as separate spreadsheets per series. The full set view is quite extensive, making it tricky to find a common denominator/sheet number.

Many possible combinations could be removed if no confirmations for that back are known for an entire group. Total combination based on this is @ 5837.

From this view you can quickly see certain card/front/back combinations stick out from the rest. Groups 11, 29 & 36 make up the Elite P350 groupings.





From the 150 series

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Damn. I am constantly amazed by the research.

[sreader3]

Let me posit an alternative to the Sovereign-checklisted-first-but-printed-third theory proposed by T206 Resource. I am not suggesting it happened this way; only showing that there are plausible alternatives.

In early 1909, ALC developed an "original" checklist having 155 subjects [the 150 who would eventually be printed with Sovereign plus Wagner (Pittsburg), Plank, Lundgren (Chicago), Crawford (Throwing) and Jennings (Portrait)]. The plan was to commence printing of these 155 subjects first with Piedmont, then Sweet Caporal and finally Sovereign, in that order. The Piedmont brand was chosen to go "online" first due to its popularity, followed by the slightly less popular Sweet Caporal and the far less popular Sovereign. Naturally, there would be overlap in the printing process. That is to say, printing with Piedmont would continue after printing with Sweet Caporal and even Sovereign started--there being a greater demand for Piedmont cigarettes.

The employee who created the checklist took it to the design folks, who started dutifully preparing the card fronts and backs, and also the marketing folks who said, "Let's just call it '150 subjects.' 155 is too exacting." (They would later use the same "rounding down" logic to reach "350" and "460" subjects, respectively).

By spring, the printer had made preparations to start printing the 155 subjects on several different sheets, starting with Piedmont, while the marketing folks placed ads for "Base Ball Subjects in Packs of Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign Cigarettes" in Sporting Life magazine, illustrating several of the checklisted subjects--including Wagner (Pittsburg).

As the summer wore on, ALC management noticed that several star players--Wagner, Plank, Crawford and Jennings--had not returned their written authorizations. Word was out that Wagner objected to a lack of compensation and was going to get his lawyer involved. Lundgren, who had been demoted to the minors after just two early season appearances, never got his authorization request and it made no sense to send him one now.

The printer was notified to take their five subjects out of production. At that point, the sheets containing Crawford (Throwing), Jennings (Portrait) and Lundgren (Chicago) had already undergone a complete print run with Piedmont 150. The sheet having Crawford (Throwing) had also experienced substantial printing with Sweet Caporal 150. And a few early production sheets containing Wagner (Pittsburg) and Plank with Piedmont 150 and Sweet Caporal 150 had left the factory too. Moreover, since the cards were being so well received by the public, a few "test" sheets containing Plank had even been printed with Sweet Caporal 350. However, the Sovereign 150 print run had not yet started.

Fortunately, the written authorizations of Crawford and Jennings arrived in the fall--just in time for the 350 series print run--and their subjects were returned to production. But the written authorizations of Wagner and Plank would never arrive.

(Okay--this doesn't explain Lundgren Piedmont 350 or EPDG, but I really don't want to rewrite that part of the story!)

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Let me posit an alternative to the Sovereign-checklisted-first-but-printed-third theory proposed by T206 Resource. I am not suggesting it happened this way; only showing that there are plausible alternatives.

In early 1909, ALC developed an "original" checklist having 155 subjects [the 150 who would eventually be printed with Sovereign plus Wagner (Pittsburg), Plank, Lundgren (Chicago), Crawford (Throwing) and Jennings (Portrait)]. The plan was to commence printing of these 155 subjects first with Piedmont, then Sweet Caporal and finally Sovereign, in that order. The Piedmont brand was chosen to go "online" first due to its popularity, followed by the slightly less popular Sweet Caporal and the far less popular Sovereign. Naturally, there would be overlap in the printing process. That is to say, printing with Piedmont would continue after printing with Sweet Caporal and even Sovereign started--there being a greater demand for Piedmont cigarettes.

The employee who created the checklist took it to the design folks, who started dutifully preparing the card fronts and backs, and also the marketing folks who said, "Let's just call it '150 subjects.' 155 is too exacting." (They would later use the same "rounding down" logic to reach "350" and "460" subjects, respectively).

By spring, the printer had made preparations to start printing the 155 subjects on several different sheets, starting with Piedmont, while the marketing folks placed ads for "Base Ball Subjects in Packs of Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign Cigarettes" in Sporting Life magazine, illustrating several of the checklisted subjects--including Wagner (Pittsburg).

As the summer wore on, ALC management noticed that several star players--Wagner, Plank, Crawford and Jennings--had not returned their written authorizations. Word was out that Wagner objected to a lack of compensation and was going to get his lawyer involved. Lundgren, who had been demoted to the minors after just two early season appearances, never got his authorization request and it made no sense to send him one now.

The printer was notified to take their five subjects out of production. At that point, the sheets containing Crawford (Throwing), Jennings (Portrait) and Lundgren (Chicago) had already undergone a complete print run with Piedmont 150. The sheet having Crawford (Throwing) had also experienced substantial printing with Sweet Caporal 150. And a few early production sheets containing Wagner (Pittsburg) and Plank with Piedmont 150 and Sweet Caporal 150 had left the factory too. Moreover, since the cards were being so well received by the public, a few "test" sheets containing Plank had even been printed with Sweet Caporal 350. However, the Sovereign 150 print run had not yet started.

Fortunately, the written authorizations of Crawford and Jennings arrived in the fall--just in time for the 350 series print run--and their subjects were returned to production. But the written authorizations of Wagner and Plank would never arrive.

(Okay--this doesn't explain Lundgren Piedmont 350 or EPDG, but I really don't want to rewrite that part of the story!)

Furthermore, the fact that the MAGIE error exists only with the PIEDMONT 150 back unquestionably proves to us that PIEDMONT backs were printed first in the initial
T206 press runs. Otherwise, this error card would only have been printed with the SOVEREIGN 150 back......if the SOVEREIGN printing preceded the PIEDMONT printing.

And, if that doesn't convince some....then the fact that the Joe DOYLE (Nat'l) error exists only with the PIEDMONT 350 back in the initial 350 Series press runs should
provide the final proof.

Indeed, American Litho printed the PIEDMONT backs first on the T206's in both the 150/350 series and the 350-only series press runs.

No big mystery here....since the PIEDMONT brand was the "flagship" tobacco product of the American Tobacco Company (circa 1909 - 1911).


TED Z

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

Damn. I am constantly amazed by the research.

+1 this sentiment.

A very enthusiastic "subscribe" to this discussion, guys. Bravo. It is precisely topics like these that represent the very best of what our hobby can be. This is real passion, and meticulous attention to detail, pouring out.

[atx840]

Clayton, there are a few examples that show really fat top borders.....I believe the Young and Stahl are likely close to what the top border would look like. I also think the bottom border may be different width then the top as when the upside down backs are found they appear to be almost always miscut. This could be caused by the sheet being flipped and not aligned properly with the front.

Got to study this one in person, likely off of a sheet where other front miscuts are from. We would get one fat top border, several front miscuts of same player and one miscut of two players per column.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by atx840

Clayton, there are a few examples that show really fat top borders.....I believe the Young and Stahl are likely close to what the top border would look like. I also think the bottom border may be different width then the top as when the upside down backs are found they appear to be almost always miscut. This could be caused by the sheet being flipped and not aligned properly with the front.

Got to study this one in person, likely off of a sheet where other front miscuts are from. We would get one fat top border, several front miscuts of same player and one miscut of two players per column.

Thanks Chris!

Nice card. What you say makes sense. My thinking was along the lines of a printer leaving a decent area of border, and trimming off the excess after the sheet was printed-leaving room for error (alignment). Like, that there would be additional space above where the top border is cut off, before being cut to size.

My first real job, as a kid, was building gazebo panels. All of the lattice was always longer than was needed. After laying the wood down and stapling it in place, we would cut off the the excess around the edges before sending it to be sprayed (waterproofed). We never used a piece of wood that measured exactly right, and as a kid I didn't understand why-but as I got older, I realized it was done this way to leave room for error. I know this has nothing to do with printing sheets of cards, but my thoughts were along these lines.

Thanks for the response-

Sincerely, Clayton

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Clayton - Why do you quote the entire post when responding, instead of just the relevant portion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atx840]

Hey Pat, wish it was mine....got to study it at the National, great card.