How many T206s to a row? (revisited I'm sure)

[t206hound]

I've been trying to figure out this row size thing for a while. There has to be some explanation why the 17 card scenario fits well for some issues, but seems forced for others. There are a few back subsets that are relatively small, in which all of the subjects have been confirmed that lead me to a theory.

The Brown Hindu subset size of 136 which includes 34 Southern Leaguers definitely leads one to believe that the row size was 17. The "Sheet Mystique" article on T206Resource.com speculates that each image could have been repeated vertically three times for a total of 102 cards on a sheet (17 cards per row; 6 rows per sheet). The entire subset could be printed on four sheets. I can't find any reason to believe that this isn't the case for this print run.

But the Old Mill Southern League back has a series of 48 cards. According to Scot Reader in Inside T206,

"the 150/350 SL subjects and 350-only SL subjects are available in similar quantities with the Old Mill Southern back, which is a 350 series back type. This suggests that both the 150/350 SL group and the 350-only SL group completed a full print with the Old Mill Southern back."

If the 48 cards with OMSL backs were distributed in equal numbers, how could the row size be 17? I think the explanation may be staring us in the face. Based on the subset size of 48, is it POSSIBLE that ATC decided to go to 16 cards per row (just leaving a little extra space on each side of the sheet)? And maybe they only repeated each player twice vertically rather than three times? If that is possible, then all 48 players could have been on a single sheet, thus guaranteeing equal distribution.

I'll also look at the Sovereign 460 subset. It's comprised of 46 regular cards and six super prints for a total of 52 cards in the series. How can this possibly fit into the 16 or 17 cards per row scenarios? While we can speculate that there must have been some cards short printed, there does not appear to be a consensus on exactly which cards they were.

Some believe that the super prints are much tougher to find in this series, so let's assume (for the sake of argument) that they WERE short printed. Note that you can choose any six cards, but it's simpler to choose these six. If that's the case, then we are potentially looking at 16 cards per row again, with six rows per sheet. Thus, each sheet would contain all 46 of the regular cards and 2 of the super prints. Repeat twice to substitute in the remaining four super prints. This yields a three-to-one ratio of regular cards to super prints. This is obviously pure speculation, and I don't have hard facts to prove any card is a 3-1 short print. It's just a guess.

Is it POSSIBLE that the earlier print runs with the various backs were 17 cards per row, and that for some reason (based perhaps solely on the number of subjects to be printed), they switched to 16 cards? For me, at least right now, based on what I know (which granted isn't much), changing from 17 cards to 16 cards seems to be a reasonable theory. Did it really HAVE to be the EXACT SAME number of cards per row very EVERY print run?

Thoughts?

[Abravefan11]

Great post Erick with a lot of interesting questions. I think there are a number of possible variables that would effect the numbers.

One possibility I find highly likely is there were multiple sheet configurations with some subjects on say two sheets and others on only one. These different sheets could be created at the same time, or when the same back was printed at different times.

I don't think we can rule out different sheet configurations. For example let's say a sheet was 34 subjects, two rows of 17, with each repeated three times vertically for a total of 102. It's possible when needed the sheet configuration was changed to three rows of 17, with each subject repeated two times. This would result in 51 subjects per sheet totaling 102 cards. You could have a sheet of 34 and a sheet of 51 for a total of 85. This would also create a different ratio of one group of subjects to another within the same subset.

This is all just speculation, but fun to think about.

[atx840]

Interesting Erick. There is definitely a pattern and logical layout used, a known sheet size or uncut strip/partial sheets would really help.

We have yet to see a front miscut t206 with the same card/player side by side, the few examples known are always different.
We have yet to see a front "ghost" or offset with the same player repeated twice, the many examples known are always different.
We have yet to see a front miscut with four parts of either two or four players/cards.

This does not necessarily prove that the sheets did not have multiples of the same column configuration repeated across the sheet. There could have been a repeated row of 12341234123412341 for certain key players or 1231231231231234. There might have been columns with only one player, or maybe 3+. The fact that we see thousands of miscut double namers but only 30-40 two namers is puzzling. Maybe 34 is correct but the spread is not two equal rows of seventeen

I think tracking the plate scratches on the early P150 cards is definitely worth putting effort into, same with print marks per layer. I like the 34 theory for a starting point, some of the smaller subsets with non 34 divisible numbers should be looked into further.

[tedzan]

Erick

Research into the type of printing presses that American Litho. used to print their lithographic advertising posters, artwork, ATC cigarette packs, T205's & T206's, etc.
indicates that the press(s) had a 19-inch wide tracks. And, a 19-inch cardboard sheet neatly accommodates 12 - T206 cards across a row.

Although, we have not seen such a sheet of T206's, there exists an uncut cardboard sheet (19-inch by 33-inch) of PIEDMONT cigarette packs that lends credence to
the press track width of 19 inches.

Therefore, American Lithographic printed sheets of T206's (and T205's) consisting of 36, 48, 60, 72, or 96 cards.

Further proof of this 12-card row theory is in the make-up of the various Series in the T206 set......where the common factor = 12

Subjects........Series

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

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

204..............350-only

..60..............350/460

..46..............460-only (+ 2 double-prints)

..48..............Southern Lgrs.

...6...............Super-Prints

...2...............Demmitt and O'Hara St Louis variations
____
522 = total subjects


TED Z

[tedzan]

Erick

An example that illustrates what I am saying......




TED Z

[atx840]

Originally Posted by tedzan

there exists an uncut cardboard sheet (19-inch by 33-inch) of PIEDMONT cigarette packs that lends credence to the press track width of 19 inches.

TED Z

Neat Ted, have a scan or link?

Originally Posted by tedzan

Therefore, American Lithographic printed sheets of T206's (and T205's) consisting of 36, 48, 60, 72, or 96 cards.

TED Z

I love hearing every theory, but I'd avoid stating absolutes......unless you have an uncut sheet tucked away someplace

[tedzan]

Chris

I have a link of the photo of the uncut sheet of PIEDMONT cigarette packs somewhere in my archives.

I will search for it tomorrow and post it here.

It's past this old dinosaur's bedtime


T-Rex TED

[wonkaticket]

Think Ted is talking about this.....could be wrong.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=66557

[teetwoohsix]

Nice thread Erick !!

You all bring up some great points.

Ted- are the 19 inch wide tracks adjustable on those presses? I'm just wondering about the printers having to be creative enough (not that they weren't) to have to print the T206 sheets and the tobacco packs all within the same 19 inch width.

I'm sure Steve would know the answer, but I can't help but think that they could adjust the width of the tracks. Maybe I'm wrong.

Great stuff guys !!

Sincerely, Clayton

[t206hound]

Two quick questions, and once answered I may have some more...

Originally Posted by atx840

There could have been a repeated row of 12341234123412341 for certain key players or 1231231231231234. There might have been columns with only one player, or maybe 3+.

What is the feasibility that there were multiple stones/plates for each player as Chris is suggesting? There would have to be multiples for each color pass, obviously. Honestly, I don't even know how they are made (acid?).

Originally Posted by tedzan

Erick
Although, we have not seen such a sheet of T206's, there exists an uncut cardboard sheet (19-inch by 33-inch) of PIEDMONT cigarette packs that lends credence to
the press track width of 19 inches.

The article that Wonka linked to stated that the sheet was 17x33... is this the one you are referring to Ted?

[White Borders]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Think Ted is talking about this.....could be wrong.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=66557

I can't make out the smaller lettering on these. Is there anything on them positively identifying that they were printed by American Lithographic Company?

Best Regards,
Craig

[Craig M]

First line reads:

Factory 240 1st Dist of Pxxx

I cannot read the xxx, is it PENN?

[atx840]

Here is the ALC print showroom

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by atx840

Here is the ALC print showroom

Hey Chris ...... Kool picture

Unfortunately, the "AMERICAN LITHOGRAPHIC CO." inscription on the lintel above the entrance is the only remaining memory of this once great printing firm.
Inside this building are numerous professional offices.....and, a "big bad dude" guard, who doesn't waste any time showing you the exit door.





TED Z

[Ronnie73]

Remember that cards don't always have to be printed in the same direction. Just look at the T212 Obak sheet. Also, how important do you think it was in 1909-1911 to evenly print the same number of cards? As soon as I come up with a theory, I remember about all 38 or so different backs and three different printing years. Its interesting to read a new theory that someone has because one day the theory of someones will actually be reality but we just won't know it.

[teetwoohsix]

Thanks for posting the Obak sheet Ron.

I know, different printing co. but still cool to look at while pondering

Sincerely, Clayton

[Runscott]

And if anyone finds this freak, I would like it.