T206 sheets: Huge factory numbers at back bottom

[Runscott]

We've talked about sheet layout based on 'double name' cards. More on possible sheet lay-out definition, based on those partial huge factory numbers we find on the bottoms of some card backs. I read Tim's article today, and based the following on the sheet layout he shows at the bottom of this page: http://www.t206resource.com/Article-...stique-34.html

Assuming that the partial numbers at the bottom of some cards is the factory number, and given that we're finding multiple examples of the players that it shows up for, but relatively few cards show it, a few things to think about:

If we assume these examples were from cards that appear in the exact center of the sheet (with 8 players to either side), which to me makes sense, since all examples appear to be printed directly in the middle of the card,
and we assume that the player card always appeared in that position (as opposed to a different column on the sheet), also realizing that layouts will be different for different print groups (but we can tell this by the ad back),
and that there were always 4 rows per player, then...

You wouldn't expect to see any examples of such players with overly-tall fronts (fronts that don't show part of the name of the card above), since the partial '30' at the back bottom of some examples indicates that these players wouldn't appear in the top four rows. This would only be true within print groups;e.g-I have two SC 350/460 fact 30 Johnson portraits and wouldn't expect to see 'tall boys' for any SC 350/460 cards or any other ad backs printed at the same time.

The odds would be against all examples of a particular card showing partial factory at the bottom, being from the same ad back/factory combination. For instance, using the example above, I would expect to also find Piedmont 350/460 Johnson Portraits with the top of a 25 (or less likely, a 42).

If all of the above is true, then we should be able to get a good idea of how many different sheets were printed, just based on which cards have a partial factory on the bottom of their ad back, using the ad back 'print group' information we already have to determine the number of sheets per print group.

Just brainstorming here, so please add your thoughts.

[mrvster]

funny thing i can't figure out with them, why are they just on sweet cap fact 30 and 25's??? why not on any other backs??? has anyone seen one from lets say piedmont?? fact 42 or at very least 25 ect???

i know sweet caps had alot of factory desigs but

[z28jd]

If Tim's numbers are right, I would expect what you say is correct, the cards that can be found with sheet numbers were likely the ninth card is from each side(the middle).

Scott, are you keeping a list of cards with sheet numbers?

I think there is a way to figure out a sheet layout, you just need everyone in on it. Using the checklist, you can figure out what cards are possible. Then by using miscuts with two names/different names, you can figure out a sheet placement.

You also have the cards with crop marks as your corner cards and then you work your way in.

I also thought the Pied150 with scratch marks was a good way to help figure it out, put that thread didn't pick up any steam and I'll admit giving up about 1/4 way through the other day, while checking my cards

The other good starting point for a sheet is the piedmont 4 backs that are printed upside-down. As far as I know, there are seven of them, seven different players, all P150's. Chances are they were all on the same sheet, I highly doubt that same exact mistake, with same percentages of each back, was made more than once

[tedzan]

American Litho. printers identified the difference between the two SWEET CAP Factory's on their sheets by printing a large 25 or 30
in order to facilitate the jobber's task (who cut the cards and prepared them for shipping to their respective Factory's).

The T206 press runs of 1909 and 1910 for the AMERICAN BEAUTY, BROAD LEAF, CAROLINA BRIGHTS, CYCLE, DRUM, OLD MILL, PIED-
MONT, and SOVEREIGN did not require such a sheet ID #, since all of these cards were shipped to Factory #25.

Similarly for LENOX and TOLSTOI, as they were only being shipped to Factory #30.

TED Z

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by tedzan

American Litho. printers identified the difference between the two SWEET CAP Factory's on their sheets by printing a large 25 or 30
in order to facilitate the jobber's task (who cut the cards and prepared them for shipping to their respective Factory's).

The T206 press runs of 1909 and 1910 for the AMERICAN BEAUTY, BROAD LEAF, CAROLINA BRIGHTS, CYCLE, DRUM, OLD MILL, PIED-
MONT, and SOVEREIGN did not require such a sheet ID #, since all of these cards were shipped to Factory #25.


TED Z

Hey guys

Above, I'm reprising what I said earlier in this thread (Post 3) for those who didn't read it; and, adding to it the following......

In the early months of 1911, American Lithographic printed and shipped to Durham, North Carolina (Factory #42) the last T206 runs of the AMERICAN BEAUTY,
PIEDMONT, and SWEET CAPORAL cards. Evidently, they printed more of these SWEET CAPORAL 460 cards than the AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 or PIEDMONT 460
cards.....because these SWEET CAPORAL 460 cards are not as rare as the other two brands.

Furthermore, the final run of the LENOX T206's and the UZIT cards were printed and shipped to Factory #30 (NY). By Spring of 1911, T206 production ended.

Then, American Lithographic started printing their new Gold-bordered cards (T42's, T80's and T205's).


TED Z

[atx840]

Makes sense Ted, ill need to look into that more but could be exactly why we see these only on SC. You are thinking the sheets were printed with f & bs and then sorted by the big red sheet # to get cut and sent to the appropriate factory. Cool.

I've seen a Gilbert with a 30 and we know he is part of the 649 OP backs Tim describes and could be the centre bottom card for those sheets. As well, on the article sheet example the Sheckard & Goode are side by side because of this sweet card that Brian posted.



I really need to start a side by side grouping based on miscuts and front ghosts...

Keep it up guys, this discussion is great and its possible we could get a good start on a few sheet layouts.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by atx840

Makes sense Ted, ill need to look into that more but could be exactly why we see these only on SC. You are thinking the sheets were printed with f & bs and then sorted by the big red sheet # to get cut and sent to the appropriate factory. Cool.

I've seen a Gilbert with a 30 and we know he is part of the 649 OP backs Tim describes and could be the centre bottom card for those sheets. As well, on the article sheet example the Sheckard & Goode are side by side because of this sweet card that Brian posted.


Keep it up guys, this discussion is great and its possible we could get a good start on a few sheet layouts.

Chris

As, I'm sure you know, I have posted a thread on my theory that the T206 (and T205) sheets were formatted with 12 cards across a row. Check-out this thread
posted in 2007......
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=T206+sheets

My research into the type of printing press that American Lithographic employed to print these cards had a 19-inch track width. T206's are approx. 1 1/2 inches wide;
therefore, you can print 12 such cards across a 19-inch wide cardboard sheet. Thereby sheets of 36, 48, 60, 72 & 96 cards were printed.

Furthermore, this theory is reinforced by the fact that the make up of the various series of T206's, 1910 COUPON & RED CROSS subjects are for the most part divisible
by the factor 12. And, where they are not, Double-Prints were added. Such as the HINDU sheets of 34 subjects that were printed on 36-card sheets. Or, the 460-only
series of 46 subjects that were printed on 48-card sheets (in which DUFFY and FORD were Double-Printed).

Look, I don't care to get into another confrontation with others on this forum, who differ with this. My theory is based on valid research. I have additional examples of
American Lithographic printed sheets that support this.

TED Z

[Abravefan11]

I love the discussion and hope that as a collective we are able to reconstruct at least one plausible single sheet. I think that's a tall order and anything beyond that will be a bonus.

One word of caution regarding common backs such as Piedmont and Sweet Caporal. Cards with these back brands would have been printed on more than one occasion during the production of a particular print group. For example, several sheets of Piedmont 350 backs may have been printed early in the print group 2 production. Additional P350 sheets were printed in the middle or toward the end of that groups production. The sheet configurations of subjects could, and most likely, did change each time. This makes these backs ever tougher to figure out. Subsets like SC649 and Hindu where the sheet configurations didn't change may be the best bet.

I think the best possible scenario would be to find a printing anomaly that all subjects on one sheet shared. That's not asking for much is it?

Every little bit helps and I look forward to seeing where we are with this information in the years to come.

[steve B]

[QUOTE=Abravefan11;1063276]
I think the best possible scenario would be to find a printing anomaly that all subjects on one sheet shared. That's not asking for much is it?

QUOTE]

Not at all. The Piedmont 150 plate was heavily damaged in use and I believe much of that plate will be possible to reconstruct eventually.

The red Hindu backs show some similar marks, but they're uncommon enough that finding a second example to be sure it isn't just smeared ink or something transient like that is much harder. Finding the same marks on brown hindu backs would also work since that would show the plate being used for both colors.

I think other backs will show some consistent marks as well, but nothing really obvious like the scratches on P150.

Steve B

[Abravefan11]

Steve - My point is that the flagship brands like Piedmont and Sweet Caporal (with the exception of SC649) were printed multiple times during a print groups production.

If every back had a one time printing with a set number of sheets, all of the numbers would work out. But that's not what happened and why the numbers and anomalies won't be consistent. The subject configuration on a Piedmont 350 sheet early in print group 2's production could, and most likely was, different from the subject configuration later in print group 2's production when Piedmont 350 sheets were again printed.

Backs like the brown Hindu's, Sweet Caporal 649 and others appear to have been printed for a short period of time, with a set number of sheets. These sheet configurations would be consistent because a later printing of the cards didn't occur.

Yes, you may find a print defect that is indicative of one sheet for even the most common back. But it's going to be difficult to find one that effected at least one image of each subject on the entire sheet.

[steve B]

Yes, except the back plate would have been used to print the backs for more than one different sheet.

Figuring out the sheet size more certainly from the P150 scratches and other minor differences is probably possible.

Once a likely sheet size has been more nearly proven then a comparison of backs to fronts can eliminate certain fronts from being on the same sheet as certain others.
I've already found one pair of fronts that share a peculiar mark on the back.

Combining that information with the list of two name cards and other miscuts will get us even closer.


Yes, there's the likely complexity of multiple plates having the same players. But other than differences across print groups such as a minor difference between the 150 and 350 versions of the same card that's unlikely. The plates we're talking about were probably stones about 2-3 inches thick and the process of preparing them was a bit involved. They would have been set aside if the printer had any belief that they'd be reused. After that of course they were resurfaced and reused to print something else.

Steve B

[atx840]

Im also curious about these RH markings, could be a scratch or something on the plate. Anyone have other examples?

2nd card in is McGraw, 5th is Pfeffer and 8th is Crandall..Pfeffer has red ink on front as well.

same McGraw

[Abravefan11]

Chris - I think this group is where you start looking for other red Hindu's with similar back issues.

Crandall (Portrait - w/ Cap)
Devore
Duffy
Ford
Gandil
Geyer
Hummel
Sheckard (Glove)
Tannehill (Chicago)
Wheat

[steve B]

I just can't buy the 34 theory. I know it fits, but there are groups of cards that don't fit that number and those all revolve around 6 or 12 card layouts.

17 wide also equals 24.43 inches wide, and standard paper runs toward sizes that aren't a good fit for that size printed area. Most sizes end up with either a very wide margin- like 3 inches or a very narrow ones like 1/4 inch. Neither being good practice.

I think the actual layouts included more copies of fewer cards, and were also likely more complex than the one shown.

layouts with certain cards appearing on two sheets would work, as would groups that included the superprints in additional rows.

There are even far more radical sheet layouts possible, but there's very little that would lead toward considering them.

Steve B

[atx840]

Thanks Tim, more pieces to the puzzle.

Three in one lot, maybe it's just pen, what are the chances a smoker would get multiple packs at once from the same box with cards from the same bad sheet and they stay together for 100 years. I guess it could happen, I'd love to see a new example.

[atx840]

Well....

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by atx840

Well....

Well that certainly mucks things up. Keep looking!

[Jantz]

For anyone who is keeping track of T206s with sheet numbers.

Beaumont
Cobb (bat on)
Durham
Gilbert
Johnson (port)
Killian (pitching)
Mathewson (port)
Merkle (port)
Overall (port)
Spade
Steinfeldt (port)
Tannehill ("L" on front-Chi.)

These all have Sweet Caporal 350 f#30 backs

Chris has sent me a cropped scan of the T206 with the "25" sheet number on the bottom, but I don't know the player or series number of the card.

As far as Rhoades (right arm extend), I guess I'm still on the fence about this card since the mark may be a sheet aligment mark instead of a sheet number since it appears on the side of the card instead of the bottom.

Tim - Interesting list of names in your post (#12). Add McGraw & Pfeffer to your list from Chris' post (#11) and you have the same list of players I theorized about being on a sheet together in the Sweet Caporal 460 f#42 series.

With so many of us working different angles to reassembling a sheet, I think its only a matter of time before it happens. Hopefully everyone can work together and keep sharing their information and discoveries.



Jantz

[mrvster]

you can add tannehill and killian

[Jantz]

Noted and added to previous post

Thanks Johnny!


Jantz

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

I thought this was interesting. Don't know if it was posted before but it may help determine sheet placement.

http://m.ebay.com/itm?itemId=121270885105


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thehoodedcoder]

hi,

your link doesn't go to anything.

kevin

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Weird. It works for me. I will check it out when I get home. The link goes to a Cy Young portrait misfit on ebay. You can see from the miscut that there was not a card above. Oh it's available for $19k.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jantz]

I believe you are referring to this Young?

I've seen this card up close and it is interesting.


Jantz

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by Jantz

I believe you are referring to this Young?



I've seen this card up close and it is interesting.





Jantz

Yep. That's the one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hshrimps]

interesting

[teetwoohsix]

Wow, that Young portrait is interesting! Unless for some reason there was a break in the middle of the sheet, that would have to be a card from the top of the sheet. Here is a card I got from another board member awhile back, oversized and the top border should have at least the remnants of the bottom lettering from the card above....but it doesn't. So, I assume this card must've been placed at the top of the sheet too. Unless, there was a break in the middle of the sheet?

Sincerely, Clayton

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Looks like it could have rubbed off over time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

Looks like it could have rubbed off over time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I checked it under a loupe.

Sincerely, Clayton

[ullmandds]

That young is cool in its fugliness...crazy to think what a disgusting card like that could sell for!

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

That young is cool in its fugliness...crazy to think what a disgusting card like that could sell for!

I think the price is ridiculous


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pat R]

Another one to ad to the list: Beaumont

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

No, I checked it under a loupe.



Sincerely, Clayton

Interesting. You might get more responses on the card if you start a separate thread. It would be interesting to see if it was prevalent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atx840]

Erick, I've seen another Wagner with one. I'll dig for a scan.

[mrvster]

this is for Erick! my Rossman scrap

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by atx840

Erick, I've seen another Wagner with one. I'll dig for a scan.

I'll remove the asterisk. (Again, thanks to Jantz for his list earlier in the thread that I'm simply updating).

Note that I think 14 is a VERY interesting number... makes me start theorizing again. All guesses, for certain, based on number manipulation, but curious. It also assumes that 14 is the final number, which could a naive assumption. More soon.

[mrvster]

thanks to Trae R.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by Runscott

We've talked about sheet layout based on 'double name' cards. More on possible sheet lay-out definition, based on those partial huge factory numbers we find on the bottoms of some card backs. I read Tim's article today, and based the following on the sheet layout he shows at the bottom of this page: http://www.t206resource.com/Article-...stique-34.html

Assuming that the partial numbers at the bottom of some cards is the factory number, and given that we're finding multiple examples of the players that it shows up for, but relatively few cards show it, a few things to think about:

If we assume these examples were from cards that appear in the exact center of the sheet (with 8 players to either side), which to me makes sense, since all examples appear to be printed directly in the middle of the card,
and we assume that the player card always appeared in that position (as opposed to a different column on the sheet), also realizing that layouts will be different for different print groups (but we can tell this by the ad back),
and that there were always 4 rows per player, then...

You wouldn't expect to see any examples of such players with overly-tall fronts (fronts that don't show part of the name of the card above), since the partial '30' at the back bottom of some examples indicates that these players wouldn't appear in the top four rows. This would only be true within print groups;e.g-I have two SC 350/460 fact 30 Johnson portraits and wouldn't expect to see 'tall boys' for any SC 350/460 cards or any other ad backs printed at the same time.

The odds would be against all examples of a particular card showing partial factory at the bottom, being from the same ad back/factory combination. For instance, using the example above, I would expect to also find Piedmont 350/460 Johnson Portraits with the top of a 25 (or less likely, a 42).

If all of the above is true, then we should be able to get a good idea of how many different sheets were printed, just based on which cards have a partial factory on the bottom of their ad back, using the ad back 'print group' information we already have to determine the number of sheets per print group.

Just brainstorming here, so please add your thoughts.

That was a pretty cool article. I never read that one before.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

That was a pretty cool article. I never read that one before.

Tim C and Jim R have a fantastic site I use it all the time and I'm amazed at how much work they must have put into it.

[oldcardboard]

I have Fred Clarke Portrait SC350.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by oldcardboard

I have Fred Clarke Portrait SC350.

please post a scan... that would be a new one for the list.

[oldcardboard]

I'm terrible at posting pictures. I don't have a scanner,all I have access to is my tablet. I tried my best. I can take pretty good pictures with my phone,but wouldn't know how to get them to my tablet to post them. Yes,I am not very good with computer stuff. If someone wants to post pictures for me,I can text them pics. Here are my tablet pictures.

[FrankWakefield]

12 cards horizontally, as Ted said, makes sense. I've known him to be right occasionally.

[Jobu]

Terrific timing to bump this thread.

Sheet numbers remind me of several people, all represented in this thread, but I was just thinking about one of them yesterday when I was thinking about the upcoming Chicago National (where I first met him in 2015 after months of pms): Jantz. Jantz, we still miss you buddy.

Time to update the list too - nothing new, but a bit more info added:

(All are factory 30 unless noted)

1. Ames (port) - Factory 25 and Factory 30
2. Beaumont
3. Clarke (port)
4. Cobb (bat on)
5. Dahlen (Brooklyn)
6. Dooin
7. Durham
8. Gilbert
9. Hemphill
10. Johnson (port)
11. Jones, Fielder (port)
12. Keeler (with bat)
13. Killian (pitching)
14. Mathewson (port)
15. McGraw (port no cap)
16. Merkle (port)
17. Overall (port)
18. Seymour (batting)
19. Spade
20. Steinfeldt (port)
21. STOVALL
22. Tannehill ("L" on front-Chi.)
23. Wagner (bat left)

Weird thing on the right side:

1. Rhoades

[Ronnie73]

This has always been an interesting post to me. I don't have many Sweet Caporals but lucky enough to have a Ginger Beaumont with a Factory 30 mark. Many know that I collect all the front/back combo's and wondered if there are collectors that actually collect these cards as their own special T206 subset?

[Luke]

Found a new one:

[Jobu]

Nice find Luke!

Not new, but I am including another example of a Cobb bat on.

Here is the updated list:

(All are factory 30 unless noted)

1. Ames (port) - Factory 25 and Factory 30
2. Beaumont
3. Clarke, Fred (port)
4. Clarke, JJ
5. Cobb (bat on)
6. Dahlen (Brooklyn)
7. Dooin
8. Durham
9. Gilbert
10. Griffith (port)
11. Hemphill
12. Johnson (port)
13. Jones, Fielder (port)
14. Keeler (with bat)
15. Killian (pitching)
16. Mathewson (port)
17. McGraw (port no cap)
18. Merkle (port)
19. Overall (port)
20. Seymour (batting)
21. Shipke
22. Spade
23. Steinfeldt (port)
24. Stovall
25. Tannehill ("L" on front-Chi.)
26. Wagner (bat left)

Other back marks:

1. Rhoades (loop on the right)
2. Owen (splash? on the bottom)

[Leon]

I see my red marker is working fine . ...

Nice work on the sleuthing....

Originally Posted by Luke

Found a new one:

[Moose117]

Here's one up for sale...

FS - Mathewson Port w/ Huge Factory 30 at bottom
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/top...ink_source=app


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk