E100 printers scrap revisited

[Leon]

A while back I picked up these two black and white, blank backed, hand cut, e100s. They came from an original find of E100's that included several type 2's and no less than 3 Buck Weavers, of which two of them were type 2s. REA had them in their last auction. In the shoebox with them were these 2 printers scraps. I guess that is what they are as I can't explain them any other way. Even more recently I got their corresponding cards and I think they make a neat display. So here they are.....best regards (the regular Powell card is trimmed)

[barrysloate]

Is it possible these were cut from a box or advertising sign of some kind?

[Zach Wheat]

I was thinking the same thing but perhaps a bw counter display

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Is it possible these were cut from a box or advertising sign of some kind?

It is certainly possible they were cut from an advertising display. When matching them up, except for their apparent cropping difference, they are identical....which I thought was very cool, in a nerdy sort of way.

[packs]

I thought I remembered these being put up on eBay. Anyway, if they were printers scraps wouldn't they still have the tints? Its the entire card but without the borders, the T206 scraps we see always have the coloring don't they? Or at least partially colored? Have there been any black and white image only T206 scraps?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by packs

I thought I remembered these being put up on eBay. Anyway, if they were printers scraps wouldn't they still have the tints? Its the entire card but without the borders, the T206 scraps we see always have the coloring don't they? Or at least partially colored? Have there been any black and white image only T206 scraps?

Yes, both of these were bought off of ebay. They came from that same hoard where the others were consigned. They just walked into a show and right up to the Beckett tables. As for them being scraps, or ad pieces, or whatever....I would say it's difficult to tell. They certainly could have come off of a Bishops ad piece that we have never seen. I don't know if they would have a tint if they were printers scrap. I am not a printer, though there are a few on the board, but I would guess scraps could be almost anything....but that is just a guess...They are certainly the same images as the cards' pictures. That is all I/we can be sure of.

[jimonym]

I'm no printer either, but it seems to me that part of what it means to be a "scrap" is that the partially-printed or trashed "scrap" derives from the same printing plates as the finished card. These clearly didn't; both the images (by size) and type font (also by size) are different.

Is that glue residue on the back of the Powell?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by jimonym

I'm no printer either, but it seems to me that part of what it means to be a "scrap" is that the partially-printed or trashed "scrap" derives from the same printing plates as the finished card. These clearly didn't; both the images (by size) and type font (also by size) are different.

Is that glue residue on the back of the Powell?

Yes, I think it's residue on the back of Powell. The only fly in the ointment on the E100's are that the 2 different series were in fact cropped differently. That at least makes ya' think about whether these could have been done as a test? I guess "ad piece" would be a better term but it doesn't feel right calling it that either.....I am open for suggestions .

[packs]

The Type 2's are definitely more closely cropped and have a more upfront image than the Type 1's, but Powell doesn't appear in the Type 2 set.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by packs

The Type 2's are definitely more closely cropped and have a more upfront image than the Type 1's, but Powell doesn't appear in the Type 2 set.

Powell hasn't been found (yet), or at least catalogued. He might appear as a late entry though.....So far you are stating the obvious, which is fairly easy to do. Thanks for the explanations .

[dstudeba]

Leon,

Are those all scaled the same? As I recall from the dimensions from the auctions on eBay the images were the same size as the issued cards. Also since the scan you show is a composite to cut out the holders on the new cards, it is a bit deceiving.
As probably previously mentioned, the scraps have nothing to do with Type IIs, the font and cropping is wrong.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by dstudeba

Leon,

Are those all scaled the same? As I recall from the dimensions from the auctions on eBay the images were the same size as the issued cards. Also since the scan you show is a composite to cut out the holders on the new cards, it is a bit deceiving.
As probably previously mentioned, the scraps have nothing to do with Type IIs, the font and cropping is wrong.

Good point Dan. I do need to go get the "scraps" from my safe deposit box so I can make sure they are sized the same as the regular ones. They very well might not be. Of course the fonts and cropping are wrong for the type 2's....but there looks to be a cropping difference, was all I was mentioning. It is rare for a similar type series to have different cropping ala the E100-1 and E100-2. So these being cropped differently than either type 1s or 2s (most likely) still makes sense...It probably is a 3rd different cropping but I will make sure later on and post a more accurate scan..

[dstudeba]

Hi Leon,

Sorry I just can't see the cropping difference. Now if the picture is to scale, then I see the difference. I think I would have noticed if the scraps were the same size as the regular e100s when you showed them to me at the National, as at that time I was working on the assumption that they were trimmed down from e100 size.
I look forward to seeing the side by side scan; or you can just sell one to me and I will do it.....

[Leon]

Here ya go....and of course you were correct....

[packs]

Stating the obvious, yes, but also grounded in fact. If these were type 2 scraps they would have the position followed by the period followed by the comma. But they don't. So even if Powell is uncatalogued in the Type 2 set, this is not his Type 2 scrap. I mean, if i bought these for the money they went for I'd want them to be printers scraps too and for Powell to not be catalogued. I wouldn't want them to be cut from ad piece or something like it either. Didn't mean any disrespect just trying to contribute to the discussion.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by packs

Stating the obvious, yes, but also grounded in fact. I mean, if i bought these for the money they went for I'd want them to be printers scraps too and for Powell to not be catalogued. I wouldn't want them to be cut from ad piece or something like it either. Didn't mean any disrespect just trying to contribute to the discussion.

No worries, Packs. When we have a debate it's always good to give a point of view and maybe offer some sort of suggestion. Anyone can see what they are...and now the cropping is the same when put side by side so that difference is moot. As far as what I paid my snipes were over 3x of the winning bid on the first one and over 2x of the 2nd one. I was very happy with what I paid for them. As for them being a printers scrap or cut from an ad piece, now that I too see the similar cropping, I am back to square one. Thanks for the debate so far. Sorry if I got a little defensive but I would like to hear a possible explanation for what these are, not the fact that they are what we see.....best regards

[E93]

If those latest scans are accurate size representations, then they are looking a lot more like printer's scrap in my book.
JimB

[dstudeba]

Thanks Leon, they still look great.

[packs]

All the respect in the world to you Leon. This site is fantastic.

Here is an explanation I'm going to toss out there and people can talk about it if they want or just throw it away I'm no PCL expert though I do enjoy this set a lot. Here goes:

To me, they look like black and white E100 Type 1's. I don't think they have anything to do with the Type 2 set. Since they are about the same size as the Type 1 set minus the borders, but feature different image crops (Tennant's head has a shadow on the scrap that the card does not), my ultimate guess is that these are Type 1 prototypes cut from an advertising piece for the Type 1 set. Not all that different from what others have said and of course comes without ever having seen an ad piece like this.

[dstudeba]

Please forgive my ignorance, but can you point out where the different cropping is in these cards? I just don't see it.

[packs]

Crop is the wrong word. The only image difference I see is the shadow on the top of Tennant's cap. They are definitely the same crop.

[Leon]

Thanks again for continuing with the debate guys. Hey, there just isn't that much brand new stuff to talk about with 100 yr old cards!!!

For the record and debate the cards were side by side when scanned, this last time. So they are exactly the size they look relative to each other. Happy holidays....Now where is that "Archive" guy.

[onlychild]

As for them being a printers scrap or cut from an ad piece, now that I too see the similar cropping, I am back to square one.

Leon, tell us about the paper...that should tell part (or most) of the story? Is it thicker, thinner, rougher, smoother etc.? I am confident that you have handled enough cards to make an educated feel. Louping the fibers may also give some more info. BTW, do you need a good loupe ? My guess is that if it was cut from an ad piece the paper would be a different texture altogether.

...it could be an underprint


Kevin Saucier
.
.
.

[canjond]

I never can remember how the color process is laid out on early cards. I thought typically black was the last color to be applied. If that's the case, it's interesting that the black is present, but the deep color background is missing. If, however, black was laid first, well that to me points more a scrap - the sheet was removed and cut before the color was ever added.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by onlychild

Leon, tell us about the paper...that should tell part (or most) of the story? Is it thicker, thinner, rougher, smoother etc.? I am confident that you have handled enough cards to make an educated feel. Louping the fibers may also give some more info. BTW, do you need a good loupe ? My guess is that if it was cut from an ad piece the paper would be a different texture altogether.

...it could be an underprint

Kevin Saucier
..
.

Kevin- I think you could be on to something with the underprint theory. But in all seriousness I have handled a few cards. My good friend, and Sr.Vintage grader at Beckett, Andy B, has seen and handled a few cards too. Since this came through the Beckett guys, Andy had a chance to study them also. I have also shown them to Derek Grady and Mark Macrae at the National. Everyone has said, yeap, either an ad piece or scrap . The cards have the same smooth feel on the front (very vintage) as regular cards. I always say if I can put a card between my fingers and feel it then I should have a good idea if it's very old paper or not. There is no doubt whatsoever this is vintage paper. The back of them have the same feel as the backs of regular E100's. I also just happen to have 2 raw E100s and 2 raw E99s right next to my desk. I just put them in my hands and the unknown cards in my hand at the same time. They truly feel the same. If I had to guess I would say the ones in question might be a millimeter thinner than the regular cards. Just a hair, not much more. Under a lighted loupe (sorry I already have a few that I make do with) the printing is absolutely the same; same dot patterns to a T. The dot patterns actually make me think scrap whereas the paper, and it's infinitesimal thickness difference, makes me think ad piece. I think there is a good chance they were cut from ad pieces (though the printing is identical which is strange) and made into cards, back in the day. Until we find an ad piece, or something that will give us more clues, I don't see this mystery being solved. best regards