Simulated T206 sheets....check them out....plus, new find of 350/460 series DRUM card

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Concerning the consistency of sheet sizes throughout the T206 set and different series I'll offer up the following for thought.

The number 34 wasn't a random number that we found in a couple places within the set and have since tried to configure every other subset to fit it. It stands on its own as the smallest number of any group printed at a given time within the set. This is of the utmost importance. It doesn't require double prints, subsets, or any other adjustments to arrive at the total. It is 34 confirmed subjects that we know were printed at a very specific time in the set. Here are some examples:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 = 34
Hindu Southern League = 34
Print Group 3 (350/460) Drum 350 = 34
Broad Leaf 460 = 34

I used these four to show that small runs are consistent throughout the entire set, and all equal 34. While I can't prove that during other larger runs that a sheet size couldn't have been different, it's my current belief that they stayed consistent.

1st..your "350/460 Drum 350 = 34" is not accurate. The 350/460 series DRUM cards and the 350/460 AMERICAN BEAUTY 350 (no frame) cards were both printed on same
pre-printed sheets of 37 - T206 subjects. Three of these subjects (Conroy....Mullin....Stahl) of these 37 have yet to be confirmed with DRUM backs. Eventually, these 3
subjects will be discovered with the DRUM backs.

Scratch your DRUM number of 34....the number is actually 37.

2nd..Regarding your "Broad Leaf 460 = 34"....this is wishful thinking on your part. There are too many unconfirmed guys. We don't know for certain the real number of the
BROAD LEAF 460 cards.

That narrows it down to just 2 examples (HINDU and SC 150/649) from which you have based your "magic 34" sheet hypothesis. Tim, you are stuck in your "magic 34" rut.
And therefore, you are unwilling to consider any other hypothesis that Steve, or I, or others have presented on this forum.

Fine, that's your take. But, with all due respect to you.....your speculation is flawed.

The press track width required to print your 17 cards across a row must be = or > than 24 1/4 inches. Lithographic printing press track widths of 25 (or 26) inches were
not used by ALC to print these cards. Furthermore, we have two independent sources that have stated that the standard paper or cardboard sheet size for such jobs is
19" x 24". This information is consistent with research that indicates that 19" wide presses were used (circa 1909-1919) to print the tobacco cards, advertising posters,
medium size lithographic art, etc.

Finally, the prevailing math regarding the various T206 series structures is invariably a factor of 12......not of "17". It is quite puzzling that you do not comprehend this
obvious fact ?

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards. This is how we categorize them and not evidence of how they were printed. When it comes to the actual production of the cards, you can not reduce a group printed at a specific time to a number smaller than 34.

Absolutely wrong !

A series of 12 subjects were initially printed. This has been established even prior to Bill Heitman's 1980 book, "The Monster". These 12 subjects were most likely Triple-
Printed on a 36-card sheet (in ALC's start-up of the T206 set in the Spring/Summer of 1909). Or perhaps, Ninefold-Printed on a standard 19" x 24" sheet comprising of
108 cards.

Tim.....I suggest that you go back to your drawing board and come up with a more realistic sheet arrangement to include in your website. Prior to doing this, I suggest
that you brush up on some early 20th Century standard printing practices and the machinery employed in the production process. These are important elements of this
scenario that you appear to have ignored.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Ted-

It is my belief that the print group 3 Drum subset is complete at 34. I do not believe at this time that the three cards you mentioned will be confirmed. If one is, I will gladly change my opinion and expect the other two to be confirmed as well. Here we will have to agree to disagree.

The Broad Leaf 460 group currently has 27 confirmed of what I believe is a group of 34. I do not believe any cards outside of this group of 34 will be confirmed with this back. This isn't based solely on the number 34, but rather trends in the production of the 460 series. Again we will have to agree to disagree.

I will try to write this as politely as possible, nothing you have presented about press sizes, track widths, or paper sizes do I feel is solid evidence to draw any conclusions from. To me it is all very speculative and unsupported by actual evidence that can be linked directly to the T206 cards. I would love to see something verifiable presented that can be tied directly to the cards rather than information about other products printed by such a large firm. Until then I would not take such leaps of faith. Others are free to speculate this way, it's just not in my nature or how I work.

I have not ignored the theories presented that sheets were groups of 12 or any other ideas. I give them all consideration and state specifically the areas where I find them flawed or implausible. You can find post from years ago on this board were I thought the 12 subject sheet may have some validity. Eventually though I came to different conclusion and at this time all of the evidence I've seen supports it. This does not stop me from considering opposing theories. I not only give them their due, I constantly check and recheck my own ideas.

This is the crux of the matter. You can not reduce a point in the T206 production to a number smaller than 34. To make this number anything else requires adjusting the number with no supporting evidence to do so.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by tedzan

1st..your "350/460 Drum 350 = 34" is not accurate. The 350/460 series DRUM cards and the 350/460 AMERICAN BEAUTY 350 (no frame) cards were both printed
on same pre-printed sheets of 37 - T206 subjects. Three of these subjects (Conroy....Mullin....Stahl) of these 37 subjects have yet to be confirmed with DRUM
backs.

Eventually, these 3 subjects will be discovered with the DRUM backs.

TED Z

Well guys, as I had predicted a year ago regarding "Conroy....Mullin....Stahl" in this post, a DRUM Conroy (batting) was discovered recently in a 500+ card find.

This T206 find raises my expectations that of the other two 350/460 subjects mentioned above, either Mullin or Stahl (or both) will eventually be discovered.

Originally Posted by tedzan

2nd..Regarding your "Broad Leaf 460 = 34"....this is wishful thinking on your part. There are too many unconfirmed guys. We don't know for certain the real number
of the BROAD LEAF 460 cards.

TED Z

Furthermore, regarding the BROAD LEAF 460 cards....I also have expectations that either Conroy (batting) or Mullin (bat) [or both] will eventually be discovered
with the BROAD LEAF 460 back.


TED Z

[cfc1909]

actually in Post #24 in this thread you clearly state

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=conroy+drum



Conroy & Mullin both were also printed with the AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 back. Therefore, due to my "mutually exclusive" rule, I do not expect these 2 subjects to be
found with the BL 460 back....consequently there is a slim (or no) chance that they were printed with a DRUM back.

[tedzan]

I contradicted my [AB 460.....BL 460] mutually exclusive rule. Thanks for reminding me. Therefore, we should not expect Conroy and Mullin
to be found with BL 460 backs.

Thanks Jim

I spent most of the day clearing snow and removing a fallen tree off the roof of my barn....so, I'm not surprised that I overlooked that one.

TED Z

[hshrimps]

"a DRUM Conroy (batting) was discovered recently in a 500+ card find"

Where can I read about this new finds?

[atx840]

Originally Posted by hshrimps

"a DRUM Conroy (batting) was discovered recently in a 500+ card find"

Where can I read about this new finds?

T206Resource article

[atx840]

I don't think Nichols (batting) is a 350/460 card.

Cards were likely swapped out during the print process so some sheets may be identical in configuration but for one or two cards, giving different/odd brand numbers. Below is a basic example of this.

If you had a sheet of 34 (including Nichols) used for the 350 series you would get 34 Drums.

Then Nichols gets swapped out for a new card (Downey Batting) and that new sheet is still used for the 350 & 460 series. We would then have the original 34 Drums + 1 new Drum (Downey) giving 35 Drums.

Now for the 460 series the new sheet of 34 with Downey could have been used for Cycles, giving us different counts (35 Drums & 34 Cycles) which makes solving sheet layouts quite difficult.