E90-1s have plate scratches too!

[frohme]

Hey Pat

Your list here doesn't include the two I added back in post #4 in the thread, BTW.

--
Mike

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by frohme

Hey Pat

Your list here doesn't include the two I added back in post #4 in the thread, BTW.

--
Mike

Thanks Mike,

I made the list from the scans I had and I missed the two you posted.
I went through the thread and found a couple of more I had missed
and I made the corrections.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
But consider this....Including your data (125/4 "scratches") we have a total of 511 samples of E90-1 cards with only 18 examples of "ink streaks".
This results in a mere 3.5 % with this anomaly from this large sample of cards. And it's considerably less percentage than the T206 Piedmont 150
data that Pat has analyzed.
Therefore, the remark by some here...."what difference does it make" what printer (or machinery) was used to produce these E90-1 cards, is very
naïve (if not uninformed).
Anyway, I hope as you do that this survey may provide us some ideas of how the various series of this set were printed (1908 - Summer of 1910).

This is a question you and I and others on this forum have discussed ever since I posted this E90-1 thread in March 2006......

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=89941


Take care......I am choosing to refrain from any further inputs to this thread.

TED Z
.

Originally Posted by steve B

Ted makes some interesting points, some more interesting than others.

The percentage of cards showing marks from plate scratches or streaks is currently fairly low. This could be from a few things. It could be that collectively we've only looked at/for them for a brief time. Pat has pointed out a couple of the other limiting things. In comparison to the P150's there are fewer scratches so fewer cards from a sheet will be affected. And when the scratch happened will have a lot of bearing on the percentage found. I think it's simply too early to draw much of a conclusion from that percentage.


The question of what sort of press produced the set is a good one.

If they were produced on a then fairly cutting edge rotary offset press that used metal plates it opens up a lot of complications. The plates at the time were expensive and not simple to produce. http://sites.tech.uh.edu/digitalmedi...y_of_Litho.pdf
I don't see a mention of them being saved for reuse, but it's possible they may have been as it was a fairly common thing with the stones. (Some were saved, others were resurfaced for reuse)

If the plates were saved, they would be just as likely to be damaged as a stone. That damage might be different, as different accidents happen to large, inflexible heavy things than happen to light flexible things that happen to also be large.
Diagonal streaks aren't all that likely on a rotary press. And consistent diagonal streaks are even less likely. Streaks parallel to the direction the sheet travels are likely, but these marks are not parallel to either a sheet run sideways or vertically. And a diagonal layout for rectangular objects would be really odd.
Rotary offset plates can get scratched, just as stones can. I have a 1981 Fleer card with a nice red line from a plate scratch, and I'm very sure a rotary offset press was used.

So to some extent the type of press used and how the printer handled the plates does matter. If plates weren't typically saved, consistent diagonal marks on series separated by time would most likely indicate a stone rather than plates.
Another possibility would be the printing of various groups of fronts in different quantities either at the same time, or consecutively - group 1 Monday and Tuesday, group 2 Wednesday........with the backs printed last. I think that's unlikely, especially as one group typically shows flaws from dry or worn plates. (Using plates to include stones for simplicity)


Even if the marks are indeed streaks, they're consistent enough to give us an idea of what cards were next to each other.

There are fairly consistent streaks on more modern cards, once the rate the sheets were fed at got high enough static electricity became a problem, and the solution was dragging a string much like tinsel along the sheets being fed into the press. With proper drying in between colors, they shouldn't happen, but on a lot of 50's era cards they're common.
I don't think the presses of the era, even rotary ones had a high enough rate. But some part of the press being loose might cause a streak.
Personally I believe these are too consistent to be anything other than plate damage. Scratches most likely, but if it was a rotary press they could also be cracks, which would explain why they're less common.

All in all, they're worth studying.


Steve B

Hi Steve,

I think Ted misinterpreted what I said. I certainly think it's important how they were printed I was referring to where they were printed.

In a few days it will be four years since you started the PD150 plate scratch thread. I have been tracking them through ebay and most of the
auction houses since then and I can say without a doubt that so far the E90-1's are showing up at a higher %.

If you look at past sales on cardtarget many of the E90-1's have sales with back scans in the single digits for a subject. On the other
hand the majority of PD150 subjects have over 100 sales with back scans.

I'm not sure if it has been established which company in Philadelphia printed the E90-1's but if it was George Harris and sons
which I believe was the largest lithographic printer there at the time they were owned by American Lithograph.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
But consider this....Including your data (125/4 "scratches") we have a total of 511 samples of E90-1 cards with only 18 examples of "ink streaks".
This results in a mere 3.5 % with this anomaly from this large sample of cards. And it's considerably less percentage than the T206 Piedmont 150
data that Pat has analyzed.
Therefore, the remark by some here...."what difference does it make" what printer (or machinery) was used to produce these E90-1 cards, is very
naïve (if not uninformed).
Anyway, I hope as you do that this survey may provide us some ideas of how the various series of this set were printed (1908 - Summer of 1910).

This is a question you and I and others on this forum have discussed ever since I posted this E90-1 thread in March 2006......

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=89941


Take care......I am choosing to refrain from any further inputs to this thread.

TED Z
.



Hi Steve,

I think Ted misinterpreted what I said. I certainly think it's important how they were printed I was referring to where they were printed.

In a few days it will be four years since you started the PD150 plate scratch thread. I have been tracking them through ebay and most of the
auction houses since then and I can say without a doubt that so far the E90-1's are showing up at a higher %.

If you look at past sales on cardtarget many of the E90-1's have sales with back scans in the single digits for a subject. On the other
hand the majority of PD150 subjects have over 100 sales with back scans.

I'm not sure if it has been established which company in Philadelphia printed the E90-1's but if it was George Harris and sons
which I believe was the largest lithographic printer there at the time they were owned by American Lithograph.

American Caramel printed by American Litho....sounds plausible. Four years is a flash in the pan!! Now a ten year old thread and we're talking...

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Hi Steve,

I think Ted misinterpreted what I said. I certainly think it's important how they were printed I was referring to where they were printed.

In a few days it will be four years since you started the PD150 plate scratch thread. I have been tracking them through ebay and most of the
auction houses since then and I can say without a doubt that so far the E90-1's are showing up at a higher %.

If you look at past sales on cardtarget many of the E90-1's have sales with back scans in the single digits for a subject. On the other
hand the majority of PD150 subjects have over 100 sales with back scans.

I'm not sure if it has been established which company in Philadelphia printed the E90-1's but if it was George Harris and sons
which I believe was the largest lithographic printer there at the time they were owned by American Lithograph.

I've just been looking for info on George Harris and sons, and not finding much. I'm wondering if they were in any way related to the Harris automatic press company that made the first commercially successful rotary offset presses?
Some of that companies records are in the Smithsonian, and accessible to researchers. http://sirismm.si.edu/EADpdfs/NMAH.AC.0928.pdf

I did find an interesting bit. Harris company did make 2 color presses at least as early as 1908. I've suspected for some time that at least T206s if not other cards were produced on 2 color presses. https://books.google.com/books?id=C7...ompany&f=false Page 902 if the link doesn't go directly.


It's interesting that the E90 scratches are more common than T206 scratches, but not too surprising now that I think on it a bit. Shorter overall press run, and for P150 probably some previous fairly large press runs, so if the scratches happened mid run, they should be a bit more common in comparison.

It's very interesting to me if ALC owned Harris. But the reason is a bit far afield for this thread.

Steve B

[irishdenny]

Gentlemen,

According to VCBC #35 April 2003 Article on E90-1's,
Hobby Veteran Mr. Mark Macrae tells us that E90-1's
Were Also Printed oN the West Coast via Corporation
Hand Shaking. The Process is Explained
On the Last Page of the fore mention'd Article I've Included!

So Maybe the Scratches were produced on the West Coast!?

Also...
Obviously The Article has a few areas
THaT have BeeN Updated Since it's Published Date.
One in which Mr. Jackson's Cards Price has Completely Over~Taken
Mr. Mitchell's Cincinnati Card.
Another of Course, is which Cards are Actually More & Less Available.
Which is another Topic All Tagether

(My Apologies fir the State of the Articles Viewing,
IncreasiN Your Zoom Level Should Bring it Back to a Readable Existence!)

[steve B]

That's interesting.

I read it as co-marketing rather than production, but I suppose they might have been produced on the west coast and inserted there. More of a licensed production produced locally in a non-local market.

Nothing like additional complications

Steve B

[edhans]

Apologies to all for my recent absence from this thread. I've been looking in periodically, but haven't had time to thoroughly review all the excellent work done so far. I hope to be able to do so this week. Here are four additional subjects courtesy of a fellow board member:

Jennings



Phelps



Schlitzer



And Stanage



Hope to check back in soon.

[Pat R]

Hi Ed,

Here's a Dooin that is listed on ebay. I couldn't copy the larger scan.
http://www.tonyetrade.com/ImageViewe...08&CompanyID=1

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-E90-...QAAOSw5cNYR0Zn
I'm pretty sure it matches Stone (left hand) and there's a different Stone (left hand) that matches Phelps for a possible triple of Stone/Phelps/Dooin.

I enlarged the image but that makes it blurry so I drew a line where the scratch
is. The Dooin also has a break in the bottom left border in the same place as
Stone.
Dooin Back - Copy.jpg
Stone (Left Hand Visible) 2 - Copy.jpg

[Leon]

Nice legwork, Pat.
Nuances and print patterns are neat...

[irishdenny]

Seems We Have 3 Scratches Thru the Bat!

Pat R's 3rd Mr. Mathewson, Mike's Mr. Miller Fielding & my Mr. Stone's(LHV)!

I Wonder if We Keep Studying these if we Would Eventually be Able to Figure Out Weather THeY Came From the East or West Coast Produced Cards!?
Or at Least Separate the Production SiGHTs!?

I do Believe THaT Mr. Mark MaCrae 's Deep Due Diligence has brought ta LiGHT
Sum Really Cool Evidence! (imho anyways)

[Pat R]

It's been 1 1/2 years since the last post in this thread but here are a
few new ones to add to the list.

Bradley E90-1.jpg

E90-1 Brown.jpg

E90-1 Jennings.jpg

Miller E90-1 B.jpg

Keeler E90-1.jpg

There are two new chase scratches

this one

Chase E90-1 4.jpg

and this one which is also an exact match with a new Clarke scratch

Chase E90-1 3.jpg Clarke E90-1.jpg

Chase E90-1 3 - Copy.jpg

some of the scratches are hard to see with the smaller scans
you can veiw larger scans using this link all of the newer scratches
are at the end of the album.
https://imageevent.com/patrickr/e901platescratches?n=0

[tiger8mush]

These are my only two E90-1s with plate scratches. Both are Tannehills, I have a couple others without. Sorry, doesn't appear that these are new additions to your list

[Pat R]

New one in Scott's auction a Groom that matches one of the Mathewson's
and one of the Stone (left hands).
E90-1 Groom.jpg
E90-1 Mathewson.jpgE90-1 Stone.jpg

[Pat R]

Here's another new scratch a Heitmuller that's in the LOTG auction.
It's an exact match with the Tannehill Rob posted a couple posts up.

Heitmuller Back.jpg

Heitmuller.jpg

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Luke

Great thread Ed! I have nothing to add but I'll be following along.

I really don't have anything to add either, but I can't resist asking if all the scratches smell the same?

,

[OLDBILL]

Although not very savvy about the T206's, are the scratches just on the backs? If so, is this related to the fact that just the fronts were coated during the lithography process?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by OLDBILL

Although not very savvy about the T206's, are the scratches just on the backs? If so, is this related to the fact that just the fronts were coated during the lithography process?

For both T206s and E90's, the scratches found so far and studied just happen to be on the backs.

They were printed from stones, which weighed a lot being 2-4 inch thick pieces of limestone. A bit of debris could scratch the stone, leaving an area that would now hold ink.


It's probable that the scratched ones were mostly backs for a few reasons,

The back stone got used for a much longer time- as we've seen, on multiple different front sheets.

Being single color, and an ad, the scratches probably didn't merit redoing the whole stone. A scratch creating a line of color on the front might have. (Plus, there were at least 6 front stones)


Not all front problems got fixed, and it's probable that each position can be identified. Generally a scratch will correspond with any flaws found on the front. A real find would be a front with a flaw that doesn't have the scratch on the back. That would mean that that particular exact subject/position was printed both before and after the scratch happened.

Pat would know better, but I don't think any have been found.

[judsonhamlin]

Joss pitching plate scratches

[Leon]

Nice info on the process...

Originally Posted by steve B

For both T206s and E90's, the scratches found so far and studied just happen to be on the backs.

They were printed from stones, which weighed a lot being 2-4 inch thick pieces of limestone. A bit of debris could scratch the stone, leaving an area that would now hold ink.


It's probable that the scratched ones were mostly backs for a few reasons,

The back stone got used for a much longer time- as we've seen, on multiple different front sheets.

Being single color, and an ad, the scratches probably didn't merit redoing the whole stone. A scratch creating a line of color on the front might have. (Plus, there were at least 6 front stones)


Not all front problems got fixed, and it's probable that each position can be identified. Generally a scratch will correspond with any flaws found on the front. A real find would be a front with a flaw that doesn't have the scratch on the back. That would mean that that particular exact subject/position was printed both before and after the scratch happened.

Pat would know better, but I don't think any have been found.

[OLDBILL]

Yes, thank you Steve B! I was originally thinking that the front coating might have made it less vulnerable to scratches than scratches on the back. Although your explanation certainly seems the best, I was also thinking that the scratches might have occurred when the back pages were not cleanly lifted/removed/slid off the print plate.

Bill

[steve B]

That sort of mark does happen, but it's less common. Those are also usually inconsistent. They may be in the same general area, but hardly ever the same. I have some on modern cards, but not on older ones.

The stone would be dampened, inked, then it prints to a rubber roller that is what actually touches the sheet. Lots of stuff can happen there too. Like cracks in the rubber if it isn't changed when it needs to be. But those show as white lines. (It's also very uncommon. )