Another T206 back "mark" thread (EPDG)

[mybuddyinc]

I was scanning a few of my cards the other day. Now, I've owned this Covaleski for over year, if not two. During that time, I never noticed mark just after the "de." This has happened to me a few times before. Not seeing something about a card, BUT then seeing it on scan ...... That's the way my mind sometimes works (or sometimes, more than sometimes ).

Nothing earth shaking, of course. I was just wondering if anyone has or has seen this mark (or any EPDG mark) before ??? Of my 50 odd ones, none have it.

43.jpg

43b.jpg

That's about it, carry on .....

Fun, fun, Scott

[Leon]

Originally Posted by mybuddyinc

I was scanning a few of my cards the other day. Now, I've owned this Covaleski for over year, if not two. During that time, I never noticed mark just after the "de." This has happened to me a few times before. Not seeing something about a card, BUT then seeing it on scan ...... That's the way my mind sometimes works (or sometimes, more than sometimes ).

Nothing earth shaking, of course. I was just wondering if anyone has or has seen this mark (or any EPDG mark) before ??? Of my 50 odd ones, none have it.

Attachment 316289

Attachment 316290

That's about it, carry on .....

Fun, fun, Scott

Marks are always interesting to many, me included. Sorry I can't help with more of them. Thanks for sharing.

[Pat R]

Neat find Scott. I try to keep stats on all the reoccurring print flaws
front or back and I've never seen this one before. I checked past
Covaleski EPDG sales and of the six I found one of them had the
same mark as yours so that's two out of seven Covaleski's with
the mark.

Covaleski EPDG.jpg

This is just an opinion based on the statistics I have on several
print flaws but I think most of the non Piedmont and Sweet Caporal
sheets had fewer vertical rows of the same subjects for example
a Frank Owen flaw is found on 3 out of 5 EPDG's but the same
flaw is found on only 13 out of 152 Piedmont's and other flaws
have comparative statistics when they're found on one of the
uncommon backs.

[steve B]

That's a really interesting mark, At first I thought it was a poorly erased bit of Sweet Caporal back, but it doesn't match up all that well.

Originally Posted by Pat R

This is just an opinion based on the statistics I have on several
print flaws but I think most of the non Piedmont and Sweet Caporal
sheets had fewer vertical rows of the same subjects for example
a Frank Owen flaw is found on 3 out of 5 EPDG's but the same
flaw is found on only 13 out of 152 Piedmont's and other flaws
have comparative statistics when they're found on one of the
uncommon backs.

The really common backs I believe were done in multiple identifiable press runs. That would skew the numbers to make it look like a larger sheet.
But different sheet layouts certainly are possible and in some cases likely.

[Pat R]

Attachment 316663

Originally Posted by steve B

That's a really interesting mark, At first I thought it was a poorly erased bit of Sweet Caporal back, but it doesn't match up all that well.



The really common backs I believe were done in multiple identifiable press runs. That would skew the numbers to make it look like a larger sheet.
But different sheet layouts certainly are possible and in some cases likely.

I agree that there were multiple press runs Steve but I think when
you look at the numbers there are other factors involved.

We know from the plate scratches there are sheets that had a minimum
of 10,11, and 12 verticals of the same subject the flaws that are found
on the piedmonts range in the 1 in 12-20 up to 1 in 40-50 yet a flaw
that's found on a non Piedmont or Sweet Caporal is usually in the 25%-
50% range. I don't even know if it's possible but the numbers point to
some mixed back sheets making the most sense to me.

Cicotte.jpg

[mybuddyinc]

Very interesting thoughts !!!

The one thing that absolutely boggles my mind (and has for, for a long time) is that an uncut sheet of T206s has never been found.

Plenty (relatively speaking) of hand cuts, scarp, and other non-package cards made it out of the factory. How couldn't a sheet, or part of a sheet (other than Wagner 5 card) ?? The sheer numbers make the lack of a surviving sheet astronomical, in my mind ...

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Attachment 316663


I agree that there were multiple press runs Steve but I think when
you look at the numbers there are other factors involved.

We know from the plate scratches there are sheets that had a minimum
of 10,11, and 12 verticals of the same subject the flaws that are found
on the piedmonts range in the 1 in 12-20 up to 1 in 40-50 yet a flaw
that's found on a non Piedmont or Sweet Caporal is usually in the 25%-
50% range. I don't even know if it's possible but the numbers point to
some mixed back sheets making the most sense to me.

Attachment 316671

Mixed back as in say one brand on the lower half and a different brand on the upper half?

That's a pretty interesting idea. I think the simpler explanation is the less common brands only being part of one print run, or having their own layout.

The numbers for the examples shown seem to indicate that it might be both different layouts or individual runs.

So Owen spot on sleeve EPDG 2-4 - Not unusual for a small sample size, and probably in reality closer to the numbers for the PD 150, which comes out to 1 in 11.69 close enough to 1 in 12 and with a much better sample size.
That it hasn't turned up on any other backs makes me think the EPDGs were done possibly just after the PD150s maybe on leftover sheets, or on a supply of sheets taken from what would have been a pretty large print run intended for PD150.

Cicotte - PD150 about 1/25
Sov150 1/4
SC150/25 1/15
To me this looks like Cicotte was on two different PD 150 sheets, one Sov150 sheet and one SC150/25 sheet. The small sample size for the SOV makes that number skewed. Since the mark would be only from one plate or set of plates, the ratio with a big enough sample size should work out to approximately 1/12 for all of them.
This also looks like the other brands may have been done with a few leftover sheets.
That also makes Cocotte a good card to look at as far as finding a difference between the plates. There should be (for lack of a better naming scheme) an "A" sheet and a "B" sheet

McBride lays out pretty well too, the PD350 is about 1/48, indicating probably 4 sheets, SC350/30 1/26, close enough to 1/24 or two sheets and all the rest should eventually be close to 1/12.

That works out pretty well with what has to me been a fairly clear 3 maybe 4 different print runs within the 350 series. Those can be identified for some cards.

Of course that's just my take on the data, but it also matches pretty well with the scratches showing a sheet about 12 cards tall.
It doesn't take into account the sheets with two (Or more) subjects in a vertical row.

And to think that most people thought the plate scratches and the other flaws were just interesting as curiosities I'm constantly amazed at how far Pat has taken this, especially in such a short time.