Yet Another T206 Sheet Size Discussion

[steve B]

The big sheet number could be anywhere on the lower margin. That they put it centered under a card is interesting, but makes sense if as I think the plates were laid out with transfers. They'd have simply used the guidelines already there to line up the transfer. (Or, they might not have used a transfer for the factory number since there would only be one. )

I've seen some possible evidence that ALC did actually run very tight margins along at least one side of the sheet. A T201 showing the white sheet margin at the left with some indication that what was visible is all there was. (Angled cut leading into straight edges at the left, angled cut the full length on the right. )
Very tight sheet margins are usually bad practice, and it's possible they trimmed off most of the margin before folding/cutting.

I find the 17/34 idea to be workable for some series or parts of series.

But there are interesting exceptions.

There are only around 12-13 150 only cards depending on which versions you count, and whether you discount a handful of outliers like the recently discovered Schulte 350.

the 460 only group is currently at 46 cards, fitting neither scheme.

The southern leaguers have 34 Hindus and 48 with other backs. Fitting both schemes.

The 649 Ops do have 34 subjects, but one of them - Powers - is the only one that does not also come with a 350 back.

Six superprints.



Making it more complicated, looking at the 150 only group graded populations that group breaks down into two fairly well defined subgroups of 6-7 cards. (Brown, Cubs. has about twice as many Graded, which I've found to be in line with the T206 population overall, Hofers and known difficult cards are roughly twice as likely to be graded. )


So I think it's more complex than simply a sheet layout of X by Y.
Each series and back I believe needs to be taken as it's own set. And then it begins to make more sense.

The content of a set could have varied according to the distribution area of the brand. And we've seen this with OM and Hindu as well as the fragment of packing log that stated "other then Philadelphia area"

And we know for sure that at least some subjects were reworked between the 150 and 350 series. (Conroys hat stripes)

Plus, brands like Piedmont would have required far more cards than smaller brands. So a larger sheet- 48 subjects? More? for Piedmont/SC, and a smaller sheet - 17 or 34 subjects for Hindu or BL.


Now add some other stuff.
Like some evidence that both the 150's and 350's were reworked multiple times, and were printed from at least 3 different sets of plates. Maybe some of the 460's as well.

Some faint evidence that the piedmont back plates were reworked or resurfaced at some point. Magies show flaws that I haven't seen on other Piedmont 150's. I may have missed them, but if they're out there they're also very uncommon.
And some faint traces which might be the P150 scratches showing on a P350 reverse. Not unexpected- the resurfacing for reuse didn't remove much, so a bad scratch might not get removed entirely.

Other stuff that's farther afield from what we have evidence for.

The backs, at least Piedmont, were probably printed from stones rather than plates. It's possible the fronts and maybe some of the backs were done from plates, meaning probably different sizes.

The possibility of some being produced on a two color press. Some shifts seem to come in pairs, indicating maybe a 2 color press being used at times.

For Piedmont/SC --- Perhaps a web press, one that prints to a roll of stock rather than sheets. Higher production, and again, probably different size "sheets" potentially without top and bottom margins.

The Hoe company made both multi color and web fed presses at the time, and were close to ALC. So it's likely the equipment was there.


Steve B