Another T206 back "mark" thread (EPDG)

[mybuddyinc]

I was scanning a few of my cards the other day. Now, I've owned this Covaleski for over year, if not two. During that time, I never noticed mark just after the "de." This has happened to me a few times before. Not seeing something about a card, BUT then seeing it on scan ...... That's the way my mind sometimes works (or sometimes, more than sometimes ).

Nothing earth shaking, of course. I was just wondering if anyone has or has seen this mark (or any EPDG mark) before ??? Of my 50 odd ones, none have it.

43.jpg

43b.jpg

That's about it, carry on .....

Fun, fun, Scott

[Leon]

Originally Posted by mybuddyinc

I was scanning a few of my cards the other day. Now, I've owned this Covaleski for over year, if not two. During that time, I never noticed mark just after the "de." This has happened to me a few times before. Not seeing something about a card, BUT then seeing it on scan ...... That's the way my mind sometimes works (or sometimes, more than sometimes ).

Nothing earth shaking, of course. I was just wondering if anyone has or has seen this mark (or any EPDG mark) before ??? Of my 50 odd ones, none have it.

Attachment 316289

Attachment 316290

That's about it, carry on .....

Fun, fun, Scott

Marks are always interesting to many, me included. Sorry I can't help with more of them. Thanks for sharing.

[Pat R]

Neat find Scott. I try to keep stats on all the reoccurring print flaws
front or back and I've never seen this one before. I checked past
Covaleski EPDG sales and of the six I found one of them had the
same mark as yours so that's two out of seven Covaleski's with
the mark.

Covaleski EPDG.jpg

This is just an opinion based on the statistics I have on several
print flaws but I think most of the non Piedmont and Sweet Caporal
sheets had fewer vertical rows of the same subjects for example
a Frank Owen flaw is found on 3 out of 5 EPDG's but the same
flaw is found on only 13 out of 152 Piedmont's and other flaws
have comparative statistics when they're found on one of the
uncommon backs.

[steve B]

That's a really interesting mark, At first I thought it was a poorly erased bit of Sweet Caporal back, but it doesn't match up all that well.

Originally Posted by Pat R

This is just an opinion based on the statistics I have on several
print flaws but I think most of the non Piedmont and Sweet Caporal
sheets had fewer vertical rows of the same subjects for example
a Frank Owen flaw is found on 3 out of 5 EPDG's but the same
flaw is found on only 13 out of 152 Piedmont's and other flaws
have comparative statistics when they're found on one of the
uncommon backs.

The really common backs I believe were done in multiple identifiable press runs. That would skew the numbers to make it look like a larger sheet.
But different sheet layouts certainly are possible and in some cases likely.

[Pat R]

Attachment 316663

Originally Posted by steve B

That's a really interesting mark, At first I thought it was a poorly erased bit of Sweet Caporal back, but it doesn't match up all that well.



The really common backs I believe were done in multiple identifiable press runs. That would skew the numbers to make it look like a larger sheet.
But different sheet layouts certainly are possible and in some cases likely.

I agree that there were multiple press runs Steve but I think when
you look at the numbers there are other factors involved.

We know from the plate scratches there are sheets that had a minimum
of 10,11, and 12 verticals of the same subject the flaws that are found
on the piedmonts range in the 1 in 12-20 up to 1 in 40-50 yet a flaw
that's found on a non Piedmont or Sweet Caporal is usually in the 25%-
50% range. I don't even know if it's possible but the numbers point to
some mixed back sheets making the most sense to me.

Cicotte.jpg

[mybuddyinc]

Very interesting thoughts !!!

The one thing that absolutely boggles my mind (and has for, for a long time) is that an uncut sheet of T206s has never been found.

Plenty (relatively speaking) of hand cuts, scarp, and other non-package cards made it out of the factory. How couldn't a sheet, or part of a sheet (other than Wagner 5 card) ?? The sheer numbers make the lack of a surviving sheet astronomical, in my mind ...

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by mybuddyinc

Very interesting thoughts !!!

The one thing that absolutely boggles my mind (and has for, for a long time) is that an uncut sheet of T206s has never been found.

Plenty (relatively speaking) of hand cuts, scarp, and other non-package cards made it out of the factory. How couldn't a sheet, or part of a sheet (other than Wagner 5 card) ?? The sheer numbers make the lack of a surviving sheet astronomical, in my mind ...

Reputedly, there is one at Ft. Knox.

[Pat R]

Scott, from what I've seen on the back print flaws there's a possibility
that there could be one or two other EPDG subjects with the same
mark as Covaleski I know you said you checked all of your other
EPDG's but keep checking all the new ones you see or purchase
and you might find another one.

[Pat R]

There have been reports of full T206 sheets that were known to have
existed for a long period of time.

Supposedly there were a few that were destroyed in a fire that
was reported in this article.

http://t206resource.com/Article-T206...stique-34.html

And I think there's a good possibility that the large group of SC350-460
factory 30 "no prints" that were sold on ebay over a period of time by
the same seller were cut from a sheet shortly before they being sold off.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Attachment 316663


I agree that there were multiple press runs Steve but I think when
you look at the numbers there are other factors involved.

We know from the plate scratches there are sheets that had a minimum
of 10,11, and 12 verticals of the same subject the flaws that are found
on the piedmonts range in the 1 in 12-20 up to 1 in 40-50 yet a flaw
that's found on a non Piedmont or Sweet Caporal is usually in the 25%-
50% range. I don't even know if it's possible but the numbers point to
some mixed back sheets making the most sense to me.

Attachment 316671

Mixed back as in say one brand on the lower half and a different brand on the upper half?

That's a pretty interesting idea. I think the simpler explanation is the less common brands only being part of one print run, or having their own layout.

The numbers for the examples shown seem to indicate that it might be both different layouts or individual runs.

So Owen spot on sleeve EPDG 2-4 - Not unusual for a small sample size, and probably in reality closer to the numbers for the PD 150, which comes out to 1 in 11.69 close enough to 1 in 12 and with a much better sample size.
That it hasn't turned up on any other backs makes me think the EPDGs were done possibly just after the PD150s maybe on leftover sheets, or on a supply of sheets taken from what would have been a pretty large print run intended for PD150.

Cicotte - PD150 about 1/25
Sov150 1/4
SC150/25 1/15
To me this looks like Cicotte was on two different PD 150 sheets, one Sov150 sheet and one SC150/25 sheet. The small sample size for the SOV makes that number skewed. Since the mark would be only from one plate or set of plates, the ratio with a big enough sample size should work out to approximately 1/12 for all of them.
This also looks like the other brands may have been done with a few leftover sheets.
That also makes Cocotte a good card to look at as far as finding a difference between the plates. There should be (for lack of a better naming scheme) an "A" sheet and a "B" sheet

McBride lays out pretty well too, the PD350 is about 1/48, indicating probably 4 sheets, SC350/30 1/26, close enough to 1/24 or two sheets and all the rest should eventually be close to 1/12.

That works out pretty well with what has to me been a fairly clear 3 maybe 4 different print runs within the 350 series. Those can be identified for some cards.

Of course that's just my take on the data, but it also matches pretty well with the scratches showing a sheet about 12 cards tall.
It doesn't take into account the sheets with two (Or more) subjects in a vertical row.

And to think that most people thought the plate scratches and the other flaws were just interesting as curiosities I'm constantly amazed at how far Pat has taken this, especially in such a short time.

[Ronnie73]

Originally Posted by Pat R

There have been reports of full T206 sheets that were known to have
existed for a long period of time.

Supposedly there were a few that were destroyed in a fire that
was reported in this article.

http://t206resource.com/Article-T206...stique-34.html

And I think there's a good possibility that the large group of SC350-460
factory 30 "no prints" that were sold on ebay over a period of time by
the same seller were cut from a sheet shortly before they being sold off.

I would have to disagree that the SC350-460 F30 No Prints were cut shortly before they were sold. Although this is only my opinion, this is why. First, the cards have pencil lines that were used as cutting guides. Second, the cutting on all the cards were no where near centered and straight. Third, the seller had no idea that the cards were missing the overprint and have more than average value. Fourth and lastly, I believe most would have known that a sheet would have much more value than poorly cut penciled single cards. I just think a little more effort would have been made to make the cards look similar to the Honus Wagner PSA 8 type of cut and centering. Still, only my opinion.

I do believe a sheet or partial will still be found at some point. The educational value will be just as much as the collector value.

I still have to check all of my EPDG's for the print mark. I have over 100 so I hope to find something possibly. The search will take some time since my cards are in alphabetical order and not by card back. I will post what I find, if any or none.

Happy collecting everyone!!!

[Thromdog]

I dug through my 250 EPDGs and didn’t find any with the ink blotch....

[Ronnie73]

So I finally got a chance to look at the backs of my cards. It took some time since my cards are in alphabetical order and not by card back. It was probably worth it because I did find something very interesting with a card I've owned for two and a half years now. As far as the EPDG's, I didn't find that mark on any of mine including my Covaleski. My EPDG Lattimore had a print defect/mark on the top right corner of the border.

[Pat R]

Here's another Covaleski EPDG with the same mark. All of the examples with
the mark are also missing part of the the E and S in series.

Covaleski.jpg

Covaleski Back.jpg

[Ronnie73]

I figured I'd repost my non related EPDG print defect since my previous scan was lost on an old web hosting site. This is also the original post that I discovered my "Blue Ink Back" Old Mill Powell. Looking for one thing, found something else.

[nineunder71]

Hey Scott!

Cool Post, I own this one, bought it just for that very print mark

Cheers

Colton

P.S. Thanks Again for the Tinker!

Pat - Mine is also missing same parts of E & S, very cool

[Leon]

That's cool.....
interesting thread too (as pointed out previously )

Originally Posted by nineunder71

Hey Scott!

Cool Post, I own this one, bought it just for that very print mark

Cheers

Colton

P.S. Thanks Again for the Tinker!

Pat - Mine is also missing same parts of E & S, very cool