Insights into probable T206 uncut sheets

[tedzan]

There exists regular production uncut sheets of......OBAK's, E-cards (e.g., E93), etc.), all 10 sheets of the 1933 GOUDEY set, 1934 GOUDEY Hi #
sheet (with #106 Lajoie), all three 1941 PLAY BALL sheets, and many uncut sheets of LEAF, BOWMAN & TOPPS cards. However no regular prod-
uction T206 sheets have been found.
I find this very mystifying, since we know that Millions of T206's were printed.


Here is my simulation of what I think a complete 48-card sheet representing the 460 Series might have looked like (the cards are formatted alphabetically).


\................................................. ..........................................19-inch wide track............................................. ......................................./


My format of a 48-card sheet (or a 36-card sheet) is essentially based on these two factors......

1..Research shows that American Lithographic operated a 19-inch wide track printing press to produce many of their lithographic pieces (circa 1910).
2..As is presented below, the number of 48 cards (or multiples thereof) are a recurring factor in the make-up of the various T206 series........

150-only Series Subjects.....12 cards
150/350 Series Subjects....144 cards (48 x 3)........PIEDMONT & SWEET CAPORAL (Factory 30)
150/350 Series.......SOVEREIGN 350 No-Prints........48 cards missing from the complete run.
Southern Leaguers (OLD MILL & PIEDMONT 350).....48 cards
460-only Series......48 cards

Furthermore, the 1910 Coupon Major Leaguers.......48 cards from the T206 350 series......a complete sheet with the T213-1 backs printed on it.


I would appreciate any intelligent, constructive, and meaningful discussion regarding my premise as presented here. Or, any other differing conjectures
that you may have as to what format the T206's were printed in.


Thanks,

TED Z

[esd10]

if you ever read the book the card they had found a 4 or 5 t206 sheet in wagners pants pocket its really cool

[B O'Brien]

Ted,
I am still working to get a grasp of the sheet idea, sorry for being slow. I need small number to wrap my mind around this, so lets talk about the SC 150, 649 group of 34 cards.

Since your base number is 48, would there be 14 double print cards in this set? I have also seen you mention 12 as the magic number on the row number, would this be a 36 card sheet, with two double prints on the sheet?

If we are just talking about the SC150, 649 and the double print thought I have (based on 12 or 48 as the magic numbers), is in line with your thinking, any idea what the double prints might be?

Thanks,
Bob

[tedzan]

Notice, that I also mentioned a 36-card format......
"My format of a 48-card sheet (or a 36-card sheet) is essentially based on these two factors...."

The Sweet Cap 150, Factory #649 (overprint) subset consists of 35 subjects.
My theory is that American Litho. printed 36 subjects, but for unknown reasons never issued one.
My guess is that the card that was yanked was either Cobb or Plank.

Plank is a plausible candidate since he was issued with a Sweet Cap 150, Factory #30 back. And,
then they stopped issuing Plank cards. Also, recall that the Factory #649 stamp was overprinted
over the Sweet Cap 150, Factory #30 cards.

But then again, Cobb was also issued with the Sweet Cap 150, Factory #30 back.


TED Z

[B O'Brien]

OK Ted,
I got you now, at least as far as SC150, 649 goes. My mistake on the 34 instead of 35 cards.

That is a pretty neat sheet you have up there!

Hope all is well,
Bob

[canjond]

Maybe it was the Collins batting?

[cfc1909]

I am 99% sure that Sweet Cap 649 is a 34 card sub set with the 649 overprint bar covering factory 30.
There is a 1% chance I am wrong and will offer $200 if someone can produce a 35th card. Not a scan an actual card.
I believe the card in question is Nicholls hands on knees-I do not believe this card exist with Sweet Cap 649.

Also as far as sheets go I would think with all the 206s with the name at the top the cards have the same player vertical and probably 34 or 68 different players across.
With the millions of 206s around I would think they were printed in large sheets, at least bigger than 24. Just my opinion not fact.

Sweet Cap 649 = 34
Hindu south =34
Coupon 1 = 68

Also if there are 12 150 only cards-does that count Wagner or Magie?
They are 150 only.

[Abravefan11]

The magic number for the T206 sheets is not 48 but rather 34. The evidence to back that up is strong.

The Southern League group was 48 however only 34 were printed in the initial run of the Brown Hindu set.

The Brown Hindu set has a confirmed number of 102 total. 34 x 3 = 102

The Coupon Type 1 set has a total of 68. 34 x 2 = 68

The Sweet Caporal No. 649 set has 34 cards.

Other backs will not be as equally divisible by 34 as they were run multiple times allowing for different combinations of front images on the sheets.

Ted’s example above does not account for miscuts we have seen with the same players name on the top of a card as it should be on the bottom. Miscuts with the same name printed on top are more prevalent than those with a different name than should be on the bottom which shows that multiple images were printed top to bottom and then the next player.

To date there has been no evidence of images duplicated left to right or printed horizontally to the vertical cards on the sheet.

If Ted is correct on the 12 card width than the sheets would comprise 34 images printed 6 times each for a total of 204 per sheet.

[mkdltn]

I am not sure about the 19 inch press track measurement. That might be the measurement for a proving press.

My research leads me to believe that a HOE NO.4 or HOE NO.5 flatbed stop cylinder lithographic press was likely used to produce the T cards. I found an article in an electrical engineering magazine from 1897 describing the new facility that ALC moved into after consolidation. This is approximately 12 years before production of the T206 cards. On the picture of the sixth floor layout posted below there are 30 lithographic presses. I believe the article mentions that this is one of three floors filled with presses. At the time a HOE NO.4 press would cost anywhere from 3000 to 5000 dollars. That would be a capital investment of 120,000 1897 dollars, That is very roughly about 3 and a half million dollars in todays money. (That is very much an approximation because the inflation calculator only goes back to 1914) the point being that I think that ALC would have squeezed every bit of use out those presses and to think that they would still be in functioning 12 to 15 years after installation is not beyond possibility.

The bed of the HOE presses is also posted in image 3. these dimensions lead me to believe that the sheets could have been much likely larger than you would think. The HOE No. 5 could use a 36x52 in stone or plate. Schmidt litho also used similar presses.

[martin neal]

This info may be of some use to the braintrust of Net 54. Hopefully, it will be for the T205 collectors and maybe it can shed some light on both the T205 and T206 production process. I once purchased a large collection of 167
T205s, 20 T210s and nearly 500 T206s. I was told that the collection came from a collector who amassed these cards during the time they were being released. The T206s seemed to be a collection of someone who was trying to put the set together, the T210s were all from the series 2 and series 8. However, the T205s contained a high concentration of duplicates. I won't make any assumptions, but it might show which T205s were printed on a single sheet and if there is a correlation between the T205 and T206 printing process, someone may gain some insight on how many T206s were printed on a T206 sheet. 167 cards with only 80 players represented.

T205s

3 Austins
1 Barry
3 Bates
2 Becker
3 Bell
3 Bridwell
5 Mordacai Brown
2 Carrigan
3 Chance
2 Chase
1 Collins mouth closed
1 Criger
4 Corridon
1 Crandall
3 Bergen
1 Bescher
6 Blackburn
1 Dahlen
1 Donohue
1 Delehanty
3 Downey
2 Dygert
3 Elberfield
2 Evans
1 Evers
1 Fletcher
2 Gardner
2 Graham boston
2 Hartzel
1 Herzog
1 Hoblitzell (cin)
2 Huggins
2 T Jones
1 Karger
4 Knight
1 Konetchy
2 Krause
2 Kroh
4 A Latham
2 Leach
2 Lobert
4 Lord
2 Mattern
1 McConnell
2 McIntyre
2 Milan
4 Moran
1 Moran (stray line)
1 Mullin
2 Murphy
1 Needham
4 OLeary
4 Olmstead
4 Parent
1 Paskert
3 Payne
2 Pelty
2 Phelps
1 Phillippe
1 Quinn
3 Reulbach
3 Richie
1 Schaeffer
1 Schlei
2 Schulte
3 Shean (boston)
1 Sheckard
1 Smith
1 Steinfeldt
1 Stone
1 Sweeney
1 Tannehill
1 Titus
5 Wallace
1 Wolter
4 Wheat
1 Wilhelm (missing R)
1 Wiltse
2 White
1 Wilson
1 Speaker

[judsonhamlin]

Ted - I agree that the vast majority of card series/sets can be broken down into multiples of 12. Any thoughts on the 460 only series of 48 being produced on four differernt sheets? Are there any miscuts that might provide some clues as to the sheet(s)?
I might guess that all but three of the Giants came off of the same sheet, btw (3 of Devore, McGraw (Glove), Merkle and Schlei (bat) might likely be out if the printers tried to group background colors to ease the process).

[tedzan]

American Lithographic employed various size presses as a function of the size of the job they were printing. The press in your scan was used to print
their large size projects (e.g., advertising signs, show posters, etc.)

For smaller projects such as greeting cards, postcards, tobacco packs & boxes, and tobacco cards....it's my understanding they used a 19-inch press.

There exists an uncut sheet of PIEDMONT packs that is sized 17" x 33". It's the closest item we have that suggests the type of sheet that the T206's
were printed on. It's evident that the width of this sheet was trimmed a couple inches, which would be consistent with the 19" track that I've noted.


Lastly, if you don't mind....I will cite what you previously posted in another thread......

" 2. I think comments have been made on the vivid colors which is indicitive of an image that has not "suffered" through the transfer process and the
wear associated with a large press run. It looks like something run from the original art stone or plate.

3. Another aspect is the dead on register. This was likely run by one person on a small press, one small sheet at a time. "


AND, I AM IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THESE STATEMENTS OF YOURS.


TED Z

[Matt]

Tim & mkdltn - fantastic, well thought out, posts. Ted - great discussion you've started.

[tedzan]

Sorry to differ with you guys. But, the SWEET CAPORAL 150 Factory #649 sub-set consists of 35 subjects.
I put this sub-set together years ago, and there are 35 cards in it. I've sold many of them since. However,
if you still think that there are only 34 cards, then consider the following......

Scot Reader's 20,000 cards survey indicates the following sampling......

Samples....Subject

4.............Alpermann
2.............Bates
2.............Bransfield
3.............Bresnahan (portrait)
3.............JJ Clarke (Cleveland)
5.............G. Davis (Chicago)
0.............H. Davis (A's).................(I've had 1 and seen 1)
2.............Delehanty (Washington)
1.............Ewing
1.............Gilbert
2.............Goode
1.............Griffith (portrait)
5.............Johnson (portrait)
2.............Tom Jones (St Louis)
3.............Killian (pitching)
3.............Lajoie (throwing)
2.............Lake (New York)
4.............Liebhardt
2.............Manning (batting)
6.............Marquard (hands down)
6.............Mathewson (white cap)
1.............McIntyre (Brooklyn))
2.............McQuillan (ball in hand)
1.............Nicholls (hands on knees)
1.............O'Leary (portrait)
2.............Owen
4.............Pastorius
6.............Powers
2.............Ritchey
0.............Schlei (catching)...........(I've had 1 and seen 2)
2.............Schmidt (throwing)
3.............Sheckard (no glove)
0.............Spencer.......................(I've had 1 and seen 1)
1.............Wagner (bat on left)
3.............Wilhelm (hands at chest)



TED Z

[tedzan]

Actually......6 is the lowest common denominator evident in all the various T206 series. And, 12 cards across the sheet fits in nicely
with the printing machines of that era.

For example, the E91 cards (in 1908) were printed on sheets of 11 cards across x 3 rows down.

In my simulated 460 series sheet, I arranged the cards alphabetically. However, most likely the 48 subjects were organized by teams,
and/or arrangements that facilitated inking.

So, your guesses are good ones.


Regards ole friend,

TED Z

[tedzan]

Regarding your........
" The magic number for the T206 sheets is not 48 but rather 34. The evidence to back that up is strong.

The Southern League group was 48 however only 34 were printed in the initial run of the Brown Hindu set.

The Brown Hindu set has a confirmed number of 102 total. 34 x 3 = 102

The Coupon Type 1 set has a total of 68. 34 x 2 = 68 "


1.....The OLD MILL or PIEDMONT versions of the Southern League (SL) series clearly consist of 48 cards. The initial printing of the SL series coincided
with the initial Brown HINDU press runs and included only 34 SL cards. These SL cards were most likely printed on a 36-card sheet (or 48-card sheet).
In any event, Major Leaguer's cards (or Double-Prints of the some of the SL cards) were included to fill out these sheets.

It is apparent in the design structure of the T206 set, that 6 is the lowest common denominator. You cannot dismiss this fact, as it is evident through-
out the various T206 series. The make-up of each of the 5 series (150, 350, 350/460, 460, Southern League) is divisible by 6. Furthermore, this factor
is evident in the sub-series (150-only, super-prints, horizontal cards, etc.) This is not a mere coincidence, it was by design.
And my friend, 6 does not factor into 34. I don't see "34" as being any kind of a "magic number" in the production of T206's. The number 34 only exists
with the initial Brown HINDU run of the SL cards.

Incidently, regarding Brown HINDU cards, there are 105 confirmed Major Leaguer cards (not 102).


2.....The 1910 Coupon set consists of 48 Major Leaguer (ML) cards and 20 SL cards. As you know, the 48 ML subjects are derived from the 350-only
Series. Now, I think it has been established (and you'll agree) that the FRONTS of the T206 sheets were printed first. Blank-backed cards of T206's
with "wet ink transfers" of fronts have confirmed this.
So, the American Litho. Co. (ALC) stocked these pre-printed sheets of T206's; and, when an order was received from the various Tobacco Factories,
ALC would then print that brand on the backs of these sheets. Then ship the completed T206's to that respective factory.

Circa Spring of 1910, orders arrived from the ATC's newly acquired COUPON Tobacco Company. ALC grabbed some 48-card blank-backed sheets during
the printing of their 350 series ML cards; and, printed the "COUPON" backs on them. Similarly, ALC grabbed some sheets of blank-backed SL cards and
selected 20 - SL subjects, representing the Southern Association, and printed the "COUPON" backs on them. Multiple sets of these 68 cards were then
shipped to Factory #3 in Louisiana to be inserted in the COUPON cigarette packs.


TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Great topic TedZ. Where were the cards cut down from the sheet into the singles? The ALC or the factories?

Also, this thread reminded me of a thread fellow board member Jantz started awhile back where he made some very convincing discoveries regarding similarities between certain wet sheet transfers and the 12 card possible T206 sheet. I'll try to add link below......

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=T206+sheets

Clayton

[tedzan]

I would say that the cards were cut at ALC for the following reasons......

1.....ALC was in the business of producing high quality lithographs. The T-factory's were in the business of manufacturing & packaging tobacco products.

2.....It was easier to ship stacks of individual cards (rather than uncut sheets).....which would have been subject to damage.

3.....Finally, if the cards were cut at the Factory, there would have been a higher probability of finding uncut sheets of T206's these past 100 years.

And then, I might be wrong about this, but that's how I see it.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Ted I am going to politely disagree with just about everything in your last post directed at me.

Originally Posted by tedzan

1.....The OLD MILL or PIEDMONT versions of the Southern League (SL) series clearly consist of 48 cards. The initial printing of the SL series coincided
with the initial Brown HINDU press runs and included only 34 SL cards. These SL cards were most likely printed on a 36-card sheet (or 48-card sheet).
In any event, Major Leaguer's cards (or Double-Prints of the some of the SL cards) were included to fill out these sheets.

Yes, the Southern League group consists of 48 cards but ALC made the decision to reduce the number printed in the brown Hindu print run to 34. All 34 of these images were printed on one sheet and the Brown Old Mill cards back this up. If there was room for 36 front images why only print 34? In later print runs of Piedmont 350 and Old Mill southern league cards the sheets front image combinations could have and more than likely were different.

Originally Posted by tedzan

It is apparent in the design structure of the T206 set, that 6 is the lowest common denominator. You cannot dismiss this fact, as it is evident through-
out the various T206 series. The make-up of each of the 5 series (150, 350, 350/460, 460, Southern League) is divisible by 6. Furthermore, this factor
is evident in the sub-series (150-only, super-prints, horizontal cards, etc.) This is not a mere coincidence, it was by design.
And my friend, 6 does not factor into 34. I don't see "34" as being any kind of a "magic number" in the production of T206's. The number 34 only exists
with the initial Brown HINDU run of the SL cards.

I don’t think there is any pattern in the T206 set of the number 6 that I have seen that is anything more than coincidence to the point you’re trying to make. Yes there are six super prints and six horizontal cards but that number has nothing to do with the makeup of a T206 sheet that I am aware of. It’s just several incidences of the number six within a huge set. In large amounts of data false patterns are often found but are otherwise meaningless. It's called apophenia.

Originally Posted by tedzan

Incidently, regarding Brown HINDU cards, there are 105 confirmed Major Leaguer cards (not 102).

My confirmed list is at 102. If and when I see the other 3 I will gladly add them. Until I do I will admittedly be a little skeptical that they exist.

Originally Posted by tedzan

2.....The 1910 Coupon set consists of 48 Major Leaguer (ML) cards and 20 SL cards. As you know, the 48 ML subjects are derived from the 350-only
Series. Now, I think it has been established (and you'll agree) that the FRONTS of the T206 sheets were printed first. Blank-backed cards of T206's
with "wet ink transfers" of fronts have confirmed this.
So, the American Litho. Co. (ALC) stocked these pre-printed sheets of T206's; and, when an order was received from the various Tobacco Factories,
ALC would then print that brand on the backs of these sheets. Then ship the completed T206's to that respective factory.

Circa Spring of 1910, orders arrived from the ATC's newly acquired COUPON Tobacco Company. ALC grabbed some 48-card blank-backed sheets during
the printing of their 350 series ML cards; and, printed the "COUPON" backs on them. Similarly, ALC grabbed some sheets of blank-backed SL cards and
selected 20 - SL subjects, representing the Southern Association, and printed the "COUPON" backs on them. Multiple sets of these 68 cards were then
shipped to Factory #3 in Louisiana to be inserted in the COUPON cigarette packs.

This theory isn’t plausible as Coupon Type 1’s were printed on a different stock. The Coupon Type 1 was a set comprised of its own unique front image combinations consisting of 68 cards.

One day Ted you're going to allow me to change your opinion on something regarding this set.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Circa Spring of 1910, orders arrived from the ATC's newly acquired COUPON Tobacco Company. ALC grabbed some 48-card blank-backed sheets during
the printing of their 350 series ML cards; and, printed the "COUPON" backs on them. Similarly, ALC grabbed some sheets of blank-backed SL cards and
selected 20 - SL subjects, representing the Southern Association, and printed the "COUPON" backs on them. Multiple sets of these 68 cards were then
shipped to Factory #3 in Louisiana to be inserted in the COUPON cigarette packs.

The second part of this bit makes no sense from a production standpoint if I'm understanding it correctly.

They took 48 card sheets of SL players and printed coupon backs on 20 of them? Leaving 28 cards blank or printing some other back on them at the same time or discarding more than half of each sheet? It's possible, but the first option of leaving some blank would leave them with a smaller sheet to print backs on later - a big nuisance. Multiple backs on the same sheet would be possible, and they could probably handle it, but there's always a big possibility of getting the brands mixed up.
Discarding more than half the sheet would be very unlikely. That percentage of waste wouldn't be tolerated unless the customer paid for the whole sheet.

Steve B

[tedzan]

OK folks, check this out......


SERIES..................CARDS

150-only...................12

150/350..................144

350........................270

460..........................48

So. Lge.....................48

....................total = 522


Furthermore, within these Series are the following sub-sets......

Super-Prints = 6 cards

Horizontal designs = 6 cards

Texas Leaguers. = 6 cards

350/460 Series (design intent) = 66 subjects
Note....5 cards are 460 series No-Prints (due to retirements, or trades at the time of printing)


It is obvious that the number of cards in each of the Series is divisible by 6. Therefore, did 6
factor into the design of the T206 set ?

Or, is it just mere coincidence ?

We report....you decide ? ?



TED Z

[barrysloate]

I've never once used apophenia in a sentence. Good word.

[tedzan]

Clever....however, the data in my above post indicates that this word was misused.

As, there is a definite pattern in the design of each series in the T206 set.


TED Z

[FrankWakefield]

From reading through this, it seems to me that 12 is a significant number... not 34.

Thank you mkdltn, for the post about the press. (Are those letters for Mark Dalton?)

And I was aware of apophenia, but had not encountered the word for it. Thanks for posting that. Is there a word for when someone sees a pattern or connection that others don't, while seeing randomness and perceiving others suffer from apophenia? What would that be? I think Ted's line of thought seems more likely.

And I don't think it was suggested up there that a sheet of 48 was printed so that 20 could be gleaned from it and the rest discarded.

[tedzan]

You are correct in that I did not say (or imply) that a pre-printed 48 card sheet of Southern Leaguers (SL)
was used to print the "COUPON" backs.

It could have been as small as a 24-card sheet, in which the 20 Southern Association SL were gleaned from.

And, if they discarded 4 cards, big deal. As scarce as these 1910 COUPON cards are, I don't think ALC printed
to many of them.

TED Z

[steve B]

That makes sense.
Obviously it wasn't one of my better days for thinking yesterday.

It could have even been a sheet of 48 all southern association, 2 groups of 20 and 8 triple prints.

Steve B

And to twist an old phrase, just because it's apophenia doesn't mean there's no pattern

[mkdltn]

You were close! it's Mike Dalton my littlel bro is Mark was not at all creative with the handle there.

I am now convinced that 12 cards is the configuration of the art on the original matrix stones from which transfers were taken and applied in multiple to make large sheets on large production presses like the one I posted.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Is there a word for when someone sees a pattern or connection that others don't, while seeing randomness and perceiving others suffer from apophenia?

Frank I'm no alone in the belief that the number 34 is significant in the printing process. My use of apophenia was not meant to be condescending to Ted but rather illustrate how patterns can be seen but have no meaning. John Nash (A Beautiful Mind) is a great example of the best and worst of seeing patterns.

Remember we are looking for patterns in the printing process to gain insight into how a T206 sheet would have been laid out.

Using the number of examples in each given series and relating it to the printing process doesn't work. For example the 150 Only group of 12 that Ted cited above. Their only relationship is that they were not continued into the 350 series. There are no indicators that they were related in the printing process but actually the contrary as some can be found with backs others can not. The completed number of printed examples over a period of time does not give us proof of the number printed at a specific time.

Yes there were a total of 48 Southern Leaguers and 48 is a multiple of 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 but that is not how the cards were printed so it gives us no insight into how a sheet would have been set up.

The Southern League group that I have researched and studied at great length does give us insight into the printing process at a specific time. As my research has shown all 48 of the SL players were decided upon early in 1909. However when the first run of SL players were printed in the brown Hindu offering the number was reduced to 34. Most importantly all brown Old Mill cards are from this group of 34 which indicates they were all on one sheet. No major league player has ever been found with a brown Old Mill back indicating no other players were on the sheet but these 34.

So why would ATC or ALC reduce the intended number of Southern League players to be included in the set from 48 to 34 if not because 34 was the number of available images that could be printed on each sheet? A number not divisible by 6 or 12.

Is it a coincidence that a pre printed sheet of Sweet Caporal 150's were over printed with Factory 649 and the number of cards in that set is 34?

[tedzan]

What is all this "double-speak" of yours......
" Using the number of examples in each given series and relating it to the printing process doesn't work. For example the 150 Only group of 12
that Ted cited above. Their only relationship is that they were not continued into the 350 series. There are no indicators that they were related
in the printing process but actually the contrary as some can be found with backs others can not. The completed number of printed examples
over a period of time does not give us proof of the number printed at a specific time. "

We both know damn well that the first (150) Series of Major Leaguers consists of a total of 156 subjects. And, if we consider the PIEDMONT 150
run....all 156 cards were printed.
NOW TELL ME (simply without any of your rationalizations or diversions), do these 156 subjects with PIEDMONT 150 backs divide evenly by 12 ?

I really don't understand you, you are certainly smarter than this conjecture of yours......
You are taking ONE example, the 34 HINDU SL cards, and attempting to arrive at a baseless premise that American Litho. printed T206's on 34-card
sheets. Well, consider this theory: these SL HINDU cards were printed on a 36-card sheet. The 2 missing cards may have been Rockenfeld & Seitz.
As you well know these two guys were with their same teams from 1908-1910. Furthermore, Seitz was the batting Champ in his League.

Back in 1980, when I first started collecting T206's, Rockenfeld and Seitz were identified with HINDU backs. What has happened to these two, is
certainly a mystery. However, if the 2 missing cards from this 36-card sheet are not them, then ALC most likely Double-Printed two SL to fill-out
that 36-card sheet.


And, how many times are we going to re-hash this ?
"Is it a coincidence that a pre printed sheet of Sweet Caporal 150's were over printed with Factory 649 and the number of cards in that set is 34?"

Once again....you persist to dispute my contention......
That the SWEET CAPORAL 150/f649 set was printed on a 36-card sheet (and that one card was not issued for whatever reasons)....hence, this is
a 35-card sub-set.

Well then, check-out this is excerpt......

"150/350 subjects confirmed with the Sweet Caporal 150/649 back are: Alperman, Bates, Bransfield, Bresnahan (Portrait), Clarke (Cleveland),
Davis (Chicago), Davis (H. on Front), Delehanty (Washington), Ewing, Gilbert, Goode, Griffith (Portrait), Johnson (Portrait), Jones (St. Louis),
Killian (Pitching), Lajoie (Throwing), Lake (New York), Liebhardt, Manning (Batting), Marquard (Hands at Thighs), Matthewson (White Cap),
McIntyre (Brooklyn), McQuillan (Ball in Hand), Nicholls, O’Leary (Portrait), Owen, Pastorius, Ritchey, Schlei (Catching), Schmidt (Throwing),
Sheckard (No Glove), Spencer, Wagner (Bat on Left) and Wilhelm (Hands at Chest).The availability of Powers from the 150-only group with
this back raises the number of subjects confirmed with the Sweet Caporal 150/649 back to 35."

Do you know from where this was excerpted ?

And, please, simply respond with the source and a name ? ?


TED Z

[Matt]

Also, there being 6 (or 7) horizontal poses has nothing to do with how the cards were printed. The horizontal poses are printed exactly the same way as the vertical ones and could have been present at any place on the sheet.

[jimonym]

This is a good thread and an interesting discussion but we're leaving out what seems to be (to me at least) a critical factor. It's great to say that a sheet was X columns wide by Y rows high and contained Z number of cards, or that a series or subset of cards is divisible by 6 or 12 or 34.

But unlike the uncut T212 or E-card sheets, the evidence would suggest that a very great many (maybe almost all), but not quite all, T206s were printed in columns of the same image.

We may one day figure out the size of a sheet, the number of columns involved, etc., but it wouldn't tell us how many different fronts were printed on one sheet. Or whether all sheets had the same number of different fronts.

Tracking and comparing available backs and "no-prints", as Ted has been doing so well for years now on this board, is essential, but, unfortunately, an analysis of that data suggests that nearly all fronts were printed on more than one sheet. For example, in the 350-460 series no card has both Red Hindu and Uzit backs, which suggests a nice clean picture of the way T206s were printed. However, some of each group can be found with Drum and American Beauty 350 No Frame backs. I don't see how that is possible unless the same fronts were printed from different sheets at different times in different groupings.

I hope someone can provide the key, but it just isn't an easy thing to unlock.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Well then, check-out this is excerpt......

"150/350 subjects confirmed with the Sweet Caporal 150/649 back are: Alperman, Bates, Bransfield, Bresnahan (Portrait), Clarke (Cleveland),
Davis (Chicago), Davis (H. on Front), Delehanty (Washington), Ewing, Gilbert, Goode, Griffith (Portrait), Johnson (Portrait), Jones (St. Louis),
Killian (Pitching), Lajoie (Throwing), Lake (New York), Liebhardt, Manning (Batting), Marquard (Hands at Thighs), Matthewson (White Cap),
McIntyre (Brooklyn), McQuillan (Ball in Hand), Nicholls, O’Leary (Portrait), Owen, Pastorius, Ritchey, Schlei (Catching), Schmidt (Throwing),
Sheckard (No Glove), Spencer, Wagner (Bat on Left) and Wilhelm (Hands at Chest).The availability of Powers from the 150-only group with
this back raises the number of subjects confirmed with the Sweet Caporal 150/649 back to 35."

Do you know from where this was excerpted ?

And, please, simply respond with the source and a name ? ?


TED Z

Inside T206 by Scot A. Reader page 33 in the footnotes section.

Originally Posted by jimonym

I don't see how that is possible unless the same fronts were printed from different sheets at different times in different groupings.

That is an excellent point. Multiple printings of the same backs within a series convolute the data as the combination of front images on a sheet changed.

At this point all of the numbers presented by myself or Ted are just opinion. Hopefully through positive sharing of information and further research we will one day know for certain how a T206 sheet was comprised.

[NYHighlanderFan]

And then there are the American Beauty cards which are narrower than the other brands because of the old theory they were inserted into 8-packs.

[Jantz]

One interesting point I would like to add to this thread is that over the last 3 years I have seen 16 T206s with two different player's names on the same card. All 16 cards were from either the 150/350 group or 350 only group.

Two of these cards were of Lundgren(Cubs) and the names on the top were of Doolin and Ball(NY).

Also, Cicotte's name has appeared on the top of two different cards. One was on a card of Spade and the other of Abbaticchio(Brown). The latter could lead us to believe that the cards were not arranged alphabetically.

I have yet to see a two different name T206 from the 350/460 or 460 only groups. If a board member has one, I would sure like to see a scan of it.

As far as the 460 only group, Clayton has posted a link (post #17) to some of my research on that group.

By the way, Thank you Clayton for doing that.

Great thread topic Ted!


Jantz

[yoyot1]

Originally Posted by Jantz

One interesting point I would like to add to this thread is that over the last 3 years I have seen 16 T206s with two different player's names on the same card. All 16 cards were from either the 150/350 group or 350 only group.

Can you post the list of the 16 you have seen? I've tried to track this but think I only have seen 14. Thanks

[Jantz]

Tom

Here is the list:

Card - Name on top - Back (if known)

1. Killian(Pitching) - Chance - Piedmont 150
2. Lundgren(Cubs) - Doolin - back unknown
3. Lundgren(Cubs) - Ball(NY) - back unknown
4. Phillippe - Engle - Piedmont 350
5. Snodgrass(Batting) - Maddox - Piedmont 350
6. Atz - Hoffman - back unknown
7. Hoblitzell - Stephens - back unknown
8. Abbaticchio(Brown) - Cicotte - back unknown
9. Elberfeld(NY) - Parent - Piedmont 350
10. Delehanty(Wash.) - Waddell - back unknown
11. Jennings(Port) - Jordan(Brkln) - back unknown
12. Pickering - Myers - Sweet Caporal 350
13. Lindaman - Bresnahan(Port) - Piedmont 150
14. McElveen - Dygert - back unknown
15. Killian(Port) - Dubuc - Sweet Caporal 350
16. Spade - Cicotte - Piedmont 150

Hope this helps

Jantz

[yoyot1]

Thanks - the back on the Jennings/Jordan is P350, I own that one: link

I have the Engle/Phillippe listed with the Engle on the bottom, Phillippe on top.

I also have 4 side by side possibilities listed, based on scans I've seen (left/right):

Fletcher/Charles
Sheckard, no glove/Goode
Schirm/Mullin portrait
Willett/LaPorte

Any others known like that?

Tom

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by canjond

Maybe it was the Collins batting?

Jon, why do you say it was COllins batting in particular?

Zach Wheat

[tedzan]

The Collins (batting) proof card was printed in the 1st series. It was withdrawn (for whatever reasons); therefore, never issued.







TED Z

[Jantz]

Here is another one Tom.

Willis(with bat) - Wilhelm(with bat)

I've seen one other, but its on a website and I can't pull the scan.


Jantz

[cfc1909]

34

[E93]

The green Cobb was printed on top of another green Cobb. I believe Jeff L. has one.
JimB

[tedzan]

Nice offset card of Willis/Wilhelm. Thanks for posting this card.


I've seen a similar offset card of Chance (yellow portrait) with a hint of Cobb (red portrait) to the right of it.
This card is partially suggestive of the 6 super-prints having been printed together.


TED Z

[tedzan]

Four years ago I started this adventure of completing an All-SOVEREIGN set. I completed this set of 402 different cards in just 11 months.
It was a great feeling....but, it wasn't enough. I continued to build a "master set" of SOVEREIGN cards. This included the Six "super-prints"
with the rare SOVEREIGN 460 backs. And, searching for the SOVEREIGN 350 counterparts of the cards in the 150 Series. Not any easy task,
by any means, as I knew there would be those tricky SOVEREIGN No-Prints to deal with.
In my quest to achieve a master set (it is almost accomplished), besides the "elusive nine" **, I have identified the following 48 subjects in
the 150/350 series that are SOVEREIGN 350 No-Prints.

Ball (New York)
Beaumont
Bowerman
Bransfield
Chase (portrait-pink)
Chesbro
F. Clarke (bat)
JJ Clarke (Cleveland)
Cobb (portrait-green)
Conroy (fielding)
Coveleski
H. Davis (A's)
Delehanty (Washington)
Doolin
Durham
Evers (portrait)
Gibson
Gilbert
Hahn
Hemphill
Herzog (New York)
Hinchman (Cleveland)
Jordan (portrait)
Keeler (portrait)
Killian (pitching)
Konetchy (glove high)
Lajoie (throwing)
Lake (New York)
Leach (portrait)
Lobert
Marquard (hands down)
McIntyre (Brooklyn)
McQuillan (ball in hand)
Overall (portrait)
Owen
Pastorius
Ritchey
Rucker (portrait)
Schlei (catching)
Schmidt (throwing)
Shaw (St Louis)
Spencer
Steinfeldt (portrait)
L. Tannehill
Tinker (portrait)
Wagner (bat on left)
Wilhelm (hands at chest)
Williams

Once again the number "48" has popped up. It's become a repetitive factor in the make-up of the T206 series. In this case....a sheet of T206's
that were never printed with the SOVEREIGN 350 backs.


** Note....The "elusive nine" are 150/350 subjects that were printed with the normal 5 (or 6) brands as 150 series cards. They are very rarely
found with a PIEDMONT 350 back, or an EPDG back. Furthermore, these 9 cards do not exist with any other 350 backs. They are:

Dahlen (Boston)
Ewing
Ganley
T. Jones (St Louis)
Karger
Lindaman
Lundgren (Cubs)
Mullin (throwing)
Schulte (front view)



TED Z

[jimonym]

Jantz,

I can confirm the backs on the following:

6. Atz - Hoffman - Piedmont 350
7. Hoblitzell - Stephens - Piedmont 350
8. Abbaticchio(Brown) - Cicotte - Piedmont 350
14. McElveen - Dygert - Piedmont 350

And I also own a McGlynn - Jones (Detroit) - Sweet Caporal 350/30


Tom,
I'd love to see a scan of your Engle/Phillippe. The only one I've seen is this one:

[Matt]

Originally Posted by tedzan

In my quest to achieve this master set (it's almost accomplished now), besides the "elusive nine" **, I have identified the following 48 subjects in the 150/350 series that are SOVEREIGN 350 No-Prints
....
Once again the number "48" pops up....it's become a repetitive factor that makes no sense to ignore in the make-up of the T206 series.

Just to be clear, you're suggesting that 48 cards that were NOT printed with a particular back is supporting proof that the press used to print the cards printed them in sheets of 48?

[cfc1909]

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=fyi+sovereign

post #9



As requested by several of you, here is the list of cards in the 150/350 Series
that are only SOVEREIGN 150 cards......

To date, these 58 subjects are SOVEREIGN 350 "no-prints"

Ball (New York)
Beaumont
Bergen (bat)
Bowerman
Bransfield
Chase (pink portrait)
Chesbro
F. Clarke (portrait)
JJ Clarke
Cobb (green portrait)
Conroy (fielding)
Covaleski
Crandall (no cap)
Dahlen (Boston)
H. Davis
Delehanty (Washington)
Doolin
L. Doyle (throwing)
Evers (portrait)
Ewing
Ganley
Gibson
Gilbert
Hahn
Hemphill
Herzog (New York)
Hinchman (Cleveland)
T. Jones (St Louis)
Karger
Keeler (portrait)
Killian (throw)
Konetchy (glove high)
Lajoie (throwing)
Lake (New York)
Leach (portrait)
Lindaman
Lobert
Lumley
Marquard (hands/side)
McIntyre (Brooklyn)
McQuillan (ball in hand)
Mullin (horiz)
Overall (portrait)
Owen
Pastorius
Powell
Ritchey
Rucker (portrait)
Shaw (St Louis)
Spencer
Steinfeldt (portrait)
L Tannehill (Chicago)
Tinker (portrait)
Waddell (portrait)
Wagner (bat/left)
Doc White (portrait)
Wilhelm (hands/chest)
Williams



TED Z

[cfc1909]

Four years ago I started this adventure of completing an All-SOVEREIGN set. I completed this set of 402 different cards in just 11 months.
It was a great feeling....but, it wasn't enough. I then embarked on a "master set" of SOVEREIGN cards. This included the Six "super-prints"
with the rare SOVEREIGN 460 backs. And, searching for the SOVEREIGN 350 counterparts of the cards in the 150 Series. Not any easy task,
by any means, as I knew there would be those tricky SOVEREIGN No-Prints to deal with.
In my quest to achieve this master set (it's almost accomplished now), besides the "elusive nine" **, I have identified the following 48 sub-
jects in the 150/350 series that are SOVEREIGN 350 No-Prints.

Ball (New York)
Beaumont
Bowerman
Bransfield
Chase (portrait-pink)
Chesbro
F. Clarke (bat)
JJ Clarke (Cleveland)
Cobb (portrait-green)
Conroy (fielding)
Coveleski
H. Davis (A's)
Delehanty (Washington)
Doolin
Durham
Evers (portrait)
Gilbert
Hahn
Hemphill
Herzog (New York)
Hinchman (Cleveland)
Jordan (portrait)
Keeler (portrait)
Killian (pitching)
Konetchy (glove high)
Lajoie (throwing)
Lake (New York)
Leach (portrait)
Lobert
Marquard (hands down)
McIntyre (Brooklyn))
McQuillan (ball in hand)
Overall (portrait)
Owen
Pastorius
Ritchey
Rucker (portrait)
Schlei (catching)
Schmidt (throwing)
Shaw (St Louis)
Spencer
Steinfeldt (portrait)
L. Tannehill
Tinker (portrait)
Wagner (bat on left)
Doc White (portrait)
Wilhelm (hands at chest)
Williams

Once again the number "48" pops up....it's become a repetitive factor that makes no sense to ignore in the make-up of the T206 series.


** Note....These are nine 150/350 subjects are very rarely found with PIEDMONT 350 backs (and no other 350 backs). They are:

Dahlen (Boston)
Ewing
Ganley
Tom Jones
Karger
Lindaman
Lundgren (Cubs)
Mullin (throwing)
Schulte (front view)



TED Z
Reply With Quote

[cfc1909]

to be clear post 47 and post 48 I copied exact from Ted Z.

[yoyot1]

Originally Posted by jimonym

Tom,
I'd love to see a scan of your Engle/Phillippe. The only one I've seen is this one:

That's the same one I've seen - don't own it myself.

Tom