T206 production/printing questions/comments

[caramelcard]

The blank back thread reminded me of a few questions that I have for those of you who have researched these particular aspects of the T206 set.

I always assumed that the lithographs (fronts) were most likely printed first leaving some unfinished (blank backs) for whatever reason. Maybe they were color test sheets or initial runs to test the quality of the cards. Who knows, but some didn't make it to the next step of the process where the backs were printed.

I know it's been stated several times on this board that the fronts and backs were both printed at the American Lithograph Co.

I'm wondering how "we" know this. Is there documentation or just speculation? I know the famous Ball letter refers to the company, but how do we know that both the fronts and backs were printed at the same place? Wouldn't the lithograph co. only be responsible for printing the lithographs?

If they were printed at the same place, then where did the overstrikes come from and how can they be explained? I guess it's possible but I doubt the card backs were printed with the intended distribution factory on the back and then struck again before they left the same place where they were printed.

Any thoughts or comments ? I'll admit I don't understand much about this front/back process, but are we positive both the fronts and backs were printed at the same facility?

Rob

[toppcat]

Paging Leon Luckey, paging Leon Luckey....

[Leon]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Paging Leon Luckey, paging Leon Luckey....

Hey Dave
I appreciate the call but this is an endeavor for Teddy Z. Ted has studied this quite a bit. Also, a couple other T206 guys could chime in, Brian W., Art M, Joe D (on the printing side)........we are chalk full of guys that take the physical printing to another level. Now, if there is an obscure card or back, then I would be happy to jump in and see if I can add anyything to the discussion. I guess, since we do have quite a few new guys, I can at least show a real T206 proof. I don't think we consider the regular blank backs proofs for obvious reasons....best regards

[bijoem]

Robert -

without specifically knowing.....

I would believe the fronts were printed first most often.... but not necessarily all of the time.

If a press is running and the pressman has backed up all of the 'printed front' sheets it has on hand.... I could easily see the shop putting in virgin stock and continuing the run by printing additional backs. If there is a reasonable expectation that additional cards will be printed - in this instance, it wouldn't make sense to change the press setup to put on fronts. They would just keep running backs.

Its also possible that the printer looked to keep a 'backs' inventory (sheets printed with just the backs) - to help if they needed to get out a batch of cards quickly.


Printing the fronts first makes the most sense to me, and I would guess it was done most often - but I wouldn't be surprised (especially considering this must have been a huge print project) - if, from time to time the backs were printed first.

[quinnsryche]

Has anyone ever seen a "blank front" T card with just the back printed to back up the back printed 1st theory?

[bijoem]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

Has anyone ever seen a "blank front" T card with just the back printed to back up the back printed 1st theory?

I could be mistaken.....
but a while back - I think someone showed an uncut sheet of just 'piedmont' backs. no fronts.

just going by memory though - I could have it wrong.

[Abravefan11]

Wouldn't the wet sheet transfers and other oddities we see be a good indicator that the front and backs were printed in the same place?

Leon's "Warhol" being a great example.