Piedmont 150 plate scratch(es) progress

[Pat R]

The scans are small, I had to reduce them because the file was to big.
The scratches are highlighted in red on the right.

From left to right it's Ball-Crawford-Cicotte-Seymour-Criss

[steve B]

Wow Pat.

That's fantastic.

9 vertically for each player if I'm counting right?

Of course a couple of the unfilled corners could be different players.


Steve B

[Jobu]

Damn Pat, brilliant work!

[Pat R]

Thanks Steve and Bryan. Steve I think some of these sheets were more than
9 verticals high of the same subject.

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by Pat R

What makes it tough is all the data is spread out over different series and backs and there is evidence that the sheet layouts were changed even among the same series and backs. Using the piedmont 150's as
an example you have a two name Lundren/Dooin and Lundgren/Ball and you have hand cuts of Wagner and Plank.

+1

Walsh/Seymour - Piedmont 150
Walsh/Brown, M - Piedmont 350
Walsh/Lumley - Piedmont, series unknown due to back damage

[Luke]

We also have Jantz's Shipke/Griffith and my oversized Shipke that clearly is at the top of the sheet. Both P150. I'll come back and add scans when i get to my computer.

Nice work Pat! Really interesting stuff!

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by LukeLyon

We also have Jantz's Shipke/Griffith and my oversized Shipke that clearly is at the top of the sheet. Both P150. I'll come back and add scans when i get to my computer.

Nice work Pat! Really interesting stuff!

what makes all of this very tough is the probability that sheet layouts may have changed even within a "series."

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by t206hound

what makes all of this very tough is the probability that sheet layouts may have changed even within a "series."

+1

[steve B]

The sheets very well could have been more than 9 high. But now we know P150 was most likely at least 9 high for the same subject. There's gaps and missing corners, but if they weren't the same subjects I think two name cards would be more common. So keeping it sort of simple --At least 9 high for each subject.

It's good to know a piece like that for sure.

Even if it makes me totally rethink something else I'd been working on that had me thinking each subject was 8 high.

I believe that means it's possible to find at least 9 versions of each front, most likely with very small differences but some will be easily identifiable.

Steve B

[Pat R]

A pair of Oldrings with the same scratch and corner crop mark.

The scratch runs through the i in series the m in piedmont the A in cigarette
the u in quality and the A in factory.

[tedzan]

I like Pat's diagram (post #151).....as it is similar to some of the stuff I have been presenting on this forum regarding T206 sheet arrangements.

Although, the subject matter in this thread pertains to Piedmont 150 cards, any indicators in the 150, 350, 460 series enable us to figure out the
possible sheet structure.

For example....illustrated here is my hypothetical simulated sheet of T206's that I refer to as the Exclusive 12 subjects (460 series). My research
suggests that these 12 subjects were printed separately from the other 460 series cards. And, on a standard 19" x 24" cardboard sheet in such a
configuration.

Incidently, the length of this sheet (24") could accommodate a 9th row of T206's....which results in a 108-card sheet.



. l<..................................... 19" wide x 24" long sheet ......................................>l




TED Z
.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by steve B

The sheets very well could have been more than 9 high. But now we know P150 was most likely at least 9 high for the same subject. There's gaps and missing corners, but if they weren't the same subjects I think two name cards would be more common. So keeping it sort of simple --At least 9 high for each subject.
Steve B

One interesting side note is that while there are more than a few two name cards with Piedmont 150 in which the subjects are known to have instances of plate scratches, none of the two name Piedmont 150 cards themselves have plate scratches.

[tedzan]

Here's my Green Cobb with scratch marking right thru the PIEDMONT lettering. Are their any other such similar plate scratch markings ?
And, of what relevance does this mark have with respect to the others ? ?






TED Z
.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Here's my Green Cobb with scratch marking right thru the PIEDMONT lettering. Are their any other such similar plate scratch markings ?
And, of what relevance does this mark have with respect to the others ? ?






TED Z
.

Very nice card! I may have a scan of that one.

The same scratch can be found on Goode, and possibly others. Pat has his more organized than the scans I have.

So we can tell that Goode and Cobb green probably weren't on the same sheet, or at least were in different spots if they were on multiple sheets.
Hahn has a scratch that is similar and looks like it would be not the next column over, but the second to the right of Goode/Cobb.

It's really like a big jigsaw puzzle, we just don't have the picture on the box to go by.

With multiple subjects showing the same scratch we can also begin to get an idea how many sheets were used. I think the biggest number with identical scratches is 3 or 4, so there were at least that many different sheets. If it stays at 4, that makes a sheet with between 35 and 40 subjects more likely.

It's also entirely possible that the issue is complicated by there being two P150 plates that were both damaged. There's a couple loose groups of damage that don't appear to be equally common, but it's way too early to consider it to be more than just a possibility.

Steve B

[Pat R]

Steve, The scratch on the Goode I have is higher up, I have Tinker as a
matching scratch with Cobb.

[Pat R]

Ted, Here's another Cobb with the same scratch as yours.

[tedzan]

Very nice....talk about consistency on these plate marks.

Well, I will be on the lookout for the same scratch mark on other Green Cobb's with PIEDMONT 150 backs.

Take care,

TED Z
.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Steve, The scratch on the Goode I have is higher up, I have Tinker as a
matching scratch with Cobb.

You're right, I totally blew that one.

Maybe time for better glasses.


Steve B

[Jobu]

Chase

EDITED to remove my Warhop and Keeler mistakes.

[Pat R]

...

[Pat R]

It looks like the Warhop is a back scan of a Crandall card.

[iwantitiwinit]

I agree about the Warhop, the back scan shows a pin hole that the front doesnt have. Can't be the correct back scan for that particular card.

[Jobu]

Sorry guys, usually I pay more attention to detail than that - you are both correct. The Warhop is from a scan where the seller apparently rearranged the order of the cards when showing the backs (which I never understand; btw it is that same Crandall portrait) while the Keeler does look like the crease on the back. A cautionary tale against posting detail-oriented stuff when tired I guess. I am going to remove both from my post to avoid confusion.

[Pat R]

No big deal Brian you're an asset to the forum and your posts are helpful
and informative.

If I have your question right it's a different Crandall.

BTW the Chase you posted is a match to the Sullivan scratch.


Patrick

[mybuddyinc]

This probably doesn't belong here, being a 350 series. I'm not even sure it would be considered a scratch. Maybe just a printing error. But it is unique enough, I think, that it probably could be matched up with other cards.

107c.jpg

BTW, unreal research going on here.

It still blows my mind, with the tens of thousands of sheets printed, not one is known to survive. But, I guess, that's what makes it fun !!!

[tedzan]

Switching off the main track to a side-track, have you guys explored other PIEDMONT series cards ?

For example, besides the wet sheet transfer (speckled red), my PIEDMONT 460 red Cobb has a plate scratch mark in the lower right corner.







TED Z
.

[Pat R]

Hi Ted,

I have seen a few in the 350 series but nothing like the 150's. I lost most
of my data when my computer died around a month ago but there are about
250 different scratches on 105 (could be more but I have to re-do the list)
of the 156 PD 150 subjects, some have multiple scratches in different locations on the same subject for instance Young (Bare Hand) has six different scratches).

Your red Cobb looks like purple ink from the star stamp and not a scratch
to me.

Patrick

[Pat R]

Better scans of the six Young (BH) scratches.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Switching off the main track to a side-track, have you guys explored other PIEDMONT series cards ?

For example, besides the wet sheet transfer (speckled red), my PIEDMONT 460 red Cobb has a plate scratch mark in the lower right corner.






TED Z
.

I think that's just ink from the back stamp and not a plate scratch

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Hi Ted,

Your red Cobb looks like purple ink from the star stamp and not a scratch
to me.

Patrick

Patrick

Sorry, but I have to differ with you. The scratch line on my Cobb starts above the "V" (VA) and continues up to the "Y" (QUALITY). This line
traverses a path that is virtually identical to the scratch on your Cy Young depicted in Post #178 (lowermost right Piedmont 150 back scan).

Yes, there is a hint of purple ink in the scratch on my Cobb that most likely migrated from the stamp.


TED Z
.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Patrick

Sorry, but I have to differ with you. The scratch line on my Cobb starts above the "V" (VA) and continues up to the "Y" (QUALITY). This line
transverses a path that is almost identical to the scratch on your Cy Young depicted in Post #178 (lowermost right Piedmont 150 back scan).

Yes, there is a hint of purple ink in the scratch on my Cobb that most likely migrated from the stamp.


TED Z
.

Ted, The plate scratches are the same blue ink as the piedmonts. The mark
on your Cobb is definitely purple.

[t206blogcom]

Originally Posted by t206hound

I think that's just ink from the back stamp and not a plate scratch

+1

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Ted, The plate scratches are the same blue ink as the piedmonts. The mark
on your Cobb is definitely purple.

I fully realize that the scratches are blue....I'm not color blind.

What strikes me about this line on my red Cobb is that it coincides quite accurately with the line on one of your Cy Young backs (Post #178).

So, I don't understand why you posted the image you did in your above post, when I pointed out the lower right-most image in Post #178.

Please post this particular Cy Young back image next to my enlarged Cobb back image shown here so we can compare.....thanks.



.



Pat....I don't fully understand why this line on my Cobb's back ended up with the purple ink from the star stamp. But, what I do see (under high magnification) is
a very straight fine line that could NOT have resulted from random, stray purple ink splash.



TED Z
.

[wolf441]

Hi Ted,

What if the star stamp was a wooden block type stamp? Perhaps the line could be one edge of the actual stamp?

[Pat R]

Ted,

I think Steve is right it's probably ink from the outer edge of the stamp.

Here's the Young scratch next to your Cobb you asked for.


Patrick

[tedzan]

Thanks for posting the pertinent Cy Young backscan and my Cobb back scan together.

I would find it to be quite a re-MARK-able (excuse the pun) coincidence that these lines are not related....as you are alluding to.

Incidently, the line on my Cobb does not extend beyond the Y in QUALITY as the Cy Young's line does, because there is a bit of paper loss above the Y.

Steve's explanation does sound plausible. However, the exactness of the alignment of these two marks is incredible.



TED Z
.

[Texxxx]

Ted, I think it is the block stamp also. It's at the correct angle to be square with the star. The two lines (Cobb's and Young's) don't match up. Looking just at where they go through the triangle portion of the scrolling you would think so but they don't go threw the Y at the same place.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Thanks for posting the pertinent Cy Young backscan and my Cobb back scan together.

I would find it to be quite a re-MARK-able (excuse the pun) coincidence that these lines are not related....as you are alluding to.

Incidently, the line on my Cobb does not extend beyond the Y in QUALITY as the Cy Young's line does, because there is a bit of paper loss above the Y.

Steve's explanation does sound plausible. However, the exactness of the alignment of these two marks is incredible.



TED Z
.

Ted, If it's exactness you're looking for this Doyle/Stone combo is a good example they both have the same unique plate scratches, the same spot
missing ink and the same extra ink spots.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Ted, If it's exactness you're looking for this Doyle/Stone combo is a good example they both have the same unique plate scratches, the same spot
missing ink and the same extra ink spots.

Hi Pat,

It looks like maybe this Doyle was the card directly above the version in the Doyle/Stone combo? The line extension seems to match...

[Pat R]

Yes it is Steve. Here's both the Doyle and Stone that line up above each other.

[wolf441]

Really, really great work Pat!!!

[Peter W Thomas]

Very nice

[Pat R]

Here's another pair with the same plate scratches that indicate they were in the same sheet position on different sheets.

[Pat R]

Here's one of the sheets I'm working on. The back plate was used on two
different fronts on this sheet so there are two subjects for each scratch
one is a SC 150 Fact 649 and the other isn't for each scratch so I think
it's possibly the layout for one of two sheets used for the 649 printing.

There are three different scratches or partial scratches on this sheet that
I randomly marked on the template I made. So far there is no way to tell
what vertical row each scratch was in or how many vertical rows there were.

The scratches in the bottom row are bolder than the other two and
easier to find but the two upper scratches are faint and hard to spot
so I'm still looking to confirm a large number of subjects in the two upper
scratches.

The X's on the template indicate if one or both subjects have been confirmed for that particular scratch.

This is just a work in progress so I'm sure there are mistakes but there is also good evidence for most of this sheet layout. There are a few examples where
more than one pair or group are in the same order on two different scratches on this sheet.

If anyone would like to check there PD 150's for the unconfirmed scratches
the template would give you an idea where to look for them for each subject.

[Pat R]

The scans come up to small to see the detail so here's the subjects L-R
on the template.

Turner/Griffith (port)-Pastorius/Weimer- Criger/H.Davis-Hahn/Wilhelm-Murphy/G. Davis-Conroy/?-Lake/Williams-McKintyre/?-Goode/Powell-Hinchman/?-Bergen/Manning-Powers/Shaw-Konetchy/Liebhardt-Ganley/JJ Clarke-?/?-Johnson/Stovall-O'Leary/?

[edhans]

Awesome work, Pat; just awesome.

[Pat R]

Thanks Ed,

I really need to thank Steve B for pointing this out and starting the two
threads on the plate scratches. It is a lot of fun doing the research and
has become an obsession for me.

[steve B]

I'm amazed at how far this has been taken. And really glad someone has picked it up. Making any serious dent in the monster has and will take the effort of lots of people. Not just to put together the data, but even just reporting one new find.

I'm also amazed it's been taken this far so quickly. Plating stamps took the guys that did it nearly their entire collecting lifetime, and that's with known plate sizes and blocks or strips readily available.

I'm also glad Pat has been linking front flaws with particular portions of the scratches. That's the next big step since that will lead to figuring out how many were in a column. And how many different sheets there were.

Steve B

[Pat R]

This Cicotte scratch has a pink mark on the left below his belt. The plate
scratches indicate that Seymour is to the left (front) of cicotte so there
might be a small chance of finding a Seymour that is miscut left to right
with part of this mark.

[Pat R]

Another matching pair (same sheet position).