Piedmont 150 plate scratch(es) progress

[Runscott]

Steve, this might be obvious, but I hate to assume anything, so please clarify if I am incorrect: the scratches are on a 'Piedmont backs' plate? If so, won't it be impossible to determine anything about card placement on the FRONT of the sheet? (since the Piedmont back sheet will be the same, but the cards on the front will change?)

[steve B]

Only partly.
The scratched plate was probably only used to print backs for a couple different sheets. I'm certain it was used for two different sheets and I'm hoping that's as far as it went.
(There are also maybe two different groups of scratches, one distinct the other not. The second looks more like it may be a crayon mark, perhaps indicating the plate should have been redone or erased for reuse if it was a stone)

It's still a bit early to tell much for sure, but I'm also looking at other identifying marks on the backs as well as specific front differences.

Between all of it it may be possible to get closer to a sheet layout.
It will be possible to get fairly close to a more provable sheet size.

I had thought that the scratches would have been on the last use of the plate, but that's turning out to not be the case.

Of the cards I've seen, there's one that throws a wrench in the works.
There's a Schulte front view showing the scratch.
But that can't be from the same sheet as the others because the available backs aren't the same.

I have found one of the other marks on two different cards, which means that the two couldn't have been on the same sheet. But that's something for a different thread.

At the worst, the scratches will show us a group of cards that were probably on the same sheet and roughly where they were.

We'll also be able to get a grasp on other things, for instance we know there were multiples of each card on the sheet from the double name cards. And we know there were sometimes different cards vertically from the double/different name cards.
Studying the backs in relation to the fronts should show for instance that there were 4 of each player stacked vertically (The number I'm currently leaning towards)

Steve B

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

Only partly.

It will be possible to get fairly close to a more provable sheet size.

Cool - hadn't thought of that.

Originally Posted by steve B

Studying the backs in relation to the fronts should show for instance that there were 4 of each player stacked vertically (The number I'm currently leaning towards)

Steve B

Are you also thinking that some cards are 'top sheet only' cards and others are 'bottom only'? (for instance, the ones showing remnants of the factory number at the bottom of the sheet?)

Great little project!

[Pat R]

Steve,

Not sure if this is what your looking for but this Piedmont has a similar line.
Also whats your opinion on the lines in this Cycle card?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Steve,

Not sure if this is what your looking for but this Piedmont has a similar line.
Also whats your opinion on the lines in this Cycle card?

Thanks! Yes, that piedmont is exactly the sort of line I'm looking for.
Who's on the front? If you have a front scan that would be cool.
That particular one is a new one.

I think the red lines on the Cycle are from a notebook or ledger it may have been glued into at some point.
It looks like there's a little bit of a line above the top of the frame at the upper right. Hard to tell what it's from, but it's interesting.

Steve B

[Leon]

Originally Posted by steve B

I think the red lines on the Cycle are from a notebook or ledger it may have been glued into at some point.
It looks like there's a little bit of a line above the top of the frame at the upper right. Hard to tell what it's from, but it's interesting.

Steve B

Seen those types many times and I agree....

[Pat R]

Steve,

Front and back scans of the piedmont. I didn't even notice the top line on the Cycle until
you pointed it out, the two bottom lines show up clearly with the naked eye
but I had to darken the scan or they didn't show up at all. They are actually
quite different than the scans, they are a sharp blueish line with a pink cast off. The top line comes down the right side to bottom of the top semi circle in the border and there is another line inside that one that comes down the top of the semi circle to the bottom.

[Jantz]

Hi Steve

As you know, I do some research on this subject (T206 sheets). If I locate any T206s with these lines, I'll post them up.

One card that comes to mind is the Randall "Milwaukef" card. They all seem to a small line/plate scratch one the back of the card. Only a fraction compared to the ones you have posted in this thread. Piedmont 350 f25 incase you were wondering.

If there is any way I can help, let me know.


Jantz

[philliesfan]

I hope this is a new one to have added to your list. I have this Sullivan with what someone told me was a printers cut mark and a plate scratch. Is this the same card that was submitted by z28jd on page 3 of this thread?
Robert

[T205 GB]

I believe I have one of these. It's listed on eBay right now. Ends in less than 12 hrs. Would be cool if it actually is for the winner

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Are you also thinking that some cards are 'top sheet only' cards and others are 'bottom only'? (for instance, the ones showing remnants of the factory number at the bottom of the sheet?)

Great little project!

That's what I'm thinking.

Although I'd expect to see more with two different names if that was the case. And that's why I'm not entirely set on 4 being the number of instances of the same player.

But from looking at the rare cards, 4 looks pretty solid. I'm sure there are 3-4 Magies that can be told apart even from scans that aren't great. And that each diferent Magie front matches to a specific back.

Steve B