Piedmont 150 plate scratch(es) progress II

[steve B]

Finally made the puzzle out of the ones seen so far. Made a bunch of paper P150 backs, and drew the known scratches in by hand. That gives me something concrete to work with.

It's looking promising.

A bunch of pairs or blocks, nothing huge but decent so far.

Enough to now know the damaged plate was used for at least 3 different sheets.

This is almost certain.
There are scratches for some 150 only subjects, as well as many from those printed with some 350 backs.

There are also pairs with the same scratch, indicating that they were not on the same sheet.

Those pair are
Walsh /Ames hands at chest
Powell / Goode
Durham /Crawford
Durham /Oldring

That last pair leads me to believe that at least 4 sheets were involved.

Here's the blocks so far, in no particular order.
Note that Durham might be interchanged with Crawford, but I don't yet have a scan of crawford with that particular scratch.
I also have a horizontal strip of 3 I'm looking at, but I'm not positive enough yet to tape them together.

Steve B

[t206hound]

I honestly didn't think this was going to lead anywhere... but I'm digging what you've got so far. I'm impressed!

[wolf441]

Great work Steve,

I haven't found any new scratches (other than the Doyle-throwing that I posted originally), but I've been looking. This looks like a sheet might be taking shape!!

[t206hound]

And another thing, if this placement is correct, then we have at least three rows of each player on a sheet...

Again, I'm very impressed (and glad I provided a few scans)...

[g_vezina_c55]

I have a covaleski P150 with a printer line on the back.. do you want to see a scan ? This can help you in your research?

[atx840]

Excellent work so far! Please keep checking your P150 backs everyone

[steve B]

Originally Posted by g_vezina_c55

I have a covaleski P150 with a printer line on the back.. do you want to see a scan ? This can help you in your research?

Yes, any mark can help.

Steve B

[g_vezina_c55]

[steve B]

Another interesting thing is that many of the lines only extend to the edge of the design and not into the edge of the card. That seems like they made some attempts at fixing whatever happened. I have scans of a couple cards that look as if a scratch might have been almost completely erased.

Small bits of plate damage can be fixed with a special crayon that fills in the damage. It also can scuff off the ink holding areas to repair mistakes in a small area.

Steve B

[AndyG09]

Not sure if I have more, but this is the one I remembered having.

Good luck, Steve!

Best,

ag

[z28jd]

On ebay right now

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206...721c43b&_uhb=1

[atx840]

Hey Jantz, hope all is well.

These cards as you know we're stacked 2+ per player and each had their own back plate up/down the column. A scratch on the lower Durham should be different then a scratch on the top one. Every sheet printed with Durham using the damaged plate should show the same scratches in the same spot. Until they ran a second print with a repaired plate.

If we can catalogue each unique front per identifiable back plate we can know those players were located in the same spot on the sheet. This indicates a unique sheet layout with that player in that location and could give us potential # of sheets used to run the series.

If there were 5 players with the same scratch then its plausible 5 sheets were used to print the 150 cards. 150/5 would indicate 30 unique cards per sheet.

Fun stuff.

[Pat R]

There are actually five different Durhams.

[z28jd]

Just saw the Shipke in this auction(in the pictures)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206...fb6aff9&_uhb=1

Just saw this Donohue too...may be more, stay tuned

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206...91fff53&_uhb=1

Kleinow

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206...91fff37&_uhb=1

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by atx840

Hey Jantz, hope all is well.

These cards as you know we're stacked 2+ per player and each had their own back plate up/down the column. A scratch on the lower Durham should be different then a scratch on the top one. Every sheet printed with Durham using the damaged plate should show the same scratches in the same spot. Until they ran a second print with a repaired plate.

If we can catalogue each unique front per identifiable back plate we can know those players were located in the same spot on the sheet. This indicates a unique sheet layout with that player in that location and could give us potential # of sheets used to run the series.

If there were 5 players with the same scratch then its plausible 5 sheets were used to print the 150 cards. 150/5 would indicate 30 unique cards per sheet.

Fun stuff.

I am very impressed by the thought that went into this. What made you get the idea in the first place?

Again, why hasn't anyone contacted Alan Ray (the only person I know of who may have actually seen an uncut sheet)?

[atx840]

This plate scratch idea is 100% Steve's. From a few discussions we have had I realized that having an identifiable back marking linking a unique card to a specific position on a sheet could provide enough information to determine how many sheets were used to print the series.

If there is an identifiable marking on a back plate and confirmed on multiple examples of whomever is on the front, let's say Bates. We can then look for the exact marking on other cards. If multiple examples of Elberfeld has this same marking, then we can assume that the Bates and Elberfeld are in the same position on a sheet, but are not sheet mates.

If we can do this for several back markings, cataloguing every P150 card with that identifiable marking, a common denominator should show up. This # is highly likely how many sheets were used to run the series. Unless half way through the series they fixed the plates then we are out of luck.

With the number of sheets used in a 150 card series, we can get the number of unique players per sheet....that is if they didnt mess with the configuration and kept to the two rows consistent.

Then we can put together the back markings, two namer and side by side cards and maybe this will be enough to start to place a sheet together.

It is a lot of work to get there.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

I am very impressed by the thought that went into this. What made you get the idea in the first place?

Again, why hasn't anyone contacted Alan Ray (the only person I know of who may have actually seen an uncut sheet)?

Hi Alex-

I've often wondered the same thing after reading "The Card",,,in the very back of the book, it states that Mr.Ray didn't return numerous calls during the research phase of the book. I guess he did admit to them that the Wagner wasn't cut by a machine & that he tried to tell people but no one would listen.

It would be nice for him to tell the whole story about whether or not it was cut from a sheet or a strip, and if it was a sheet, who was on it and how was it configured. Ray did say he was going to write a book about it all, but I am not aware of such a book yet.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Pat R]

Looking for your opinion on this Steve. Two different seymours with the
same Criss. I tried to line up the top marks as close as I could.
The first one the bottom mark on Criss is lower and the 2nd one
is higher but the tops line up on both fairly close.

[Pat R]

Regular scan of 2nd seymour.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Hi Alex-

I've often wondered the same thing after reading "The Card",,,in the very back of the book, it states that Mr.Ray didn't return numerous calls during the research phase of the book. I guess he did admit to them that the Wagner wasn't cut by a machine & that he tried to tell people but no one would listen.

It would be nice for him to tell the whole story about whether or not it was cut from a sheet or a strip, and if it was a sheet, who was on it and how was it configured. Ray did say he was going to write a book about it all, but I am not aware of such a book yet.

Sincerely, Clayton

Ray is not the only person to see a sheet or partial-Bill Mastro and the late Bob Sevchuk did as well. Doesn't matter I guess as neither one is talking.

[Pat R]

I have found many of matching marks with different players on the
front which could be because they were in the same placement
on another sheet. I think we should also consider the possibilty that some
were on the same sheet in another area. Many of the marks are on
the same angle and when you extend that angle you come up with
some very similar marks.