 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2
05-13-2009, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Brian W....re. T206 "proofs"....you're correct.
In a prior post you said........
"Hi Ted, Perhaps we are splitting hairs, but I don't consider any cards with ad's on the back as proofs." I've reconsidered and fully agree with you....the example I gave with this Johnson as a "proof" card is incorrect. ![[linked image]](http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/abwjohnsonproof.jpg) This card, and other T206's like this one, are simply cards that did not go thru the full 6-color printing process. The back of this card has the Sweet Caporal 460 Factory 30 (NY) advertisement. We know that none of the 55 Subjects in the 350/460 Series are found with this Sweet Cap back. American Litho. printed the 55 Subjects in this series with this back, but did not issue them. Instead, in 1911, American Tobacco Co. transferred their Sweet Caporal production to Durham, NC (Factory 42). These cards were OVERPRINTED with a scroll covering the Factory 30 line and added the "Factory 42, N.C." line. Furthermore, what I find just as interesting about this card is, that it proves that the backs of the T206's were preprinted on sheets of cardboard first. Then, the 6-color process was printed on the fronts of these preprinted sheets to create the ballplayers' images. Regards, T-Rex TED 
|
|
#3
05-13-2009, 05:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ted, All:
Have been reading this thread with interest and been thinking about a few comments. 1)The pre-printed back observation has to be correct as it would seemingly be the reason for the legitimate factory overprints (why print a back in need of an overprint if the backs were printed last). 2) The five wide proof strip-it almost would indicate that many cards across in the array of an full sheet, or at least point that way. Any thoughts on why this is whem 6 is a very common divisor for the different series? 3) The vertical strips of identical players noted from misprints seems fairly prevalent. But for the misprints featuring different names/players, is there a tally of which series they are from?
|
|
#4
05-13-2009, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave
Q1.....My thoughts are, and this Johnson in my above scan appears to support this, that the
printing of the T206 fronts is a complex 6-color process. While the T-brand adv. on the back is a one ink print; therefore, logic dictates that the backs were pre-printed first. Q2.....The 5-card Wagner strip is a pre-production proof. I don't think we can conclude any thing from it. I contend that the T206 sheets were formatted 12 cards across. I arrived at this number when I came across some details of the track widths (19 inches) of early 20th century printing presses typically used by Lithographic printers. The number 12 fits in very nicely with the composition of the four Series...... 150....156 cards 350....270 cards (6 is actually a better divisor here) 460....48 cards So. Lgers....48 cards Q3....I defer this one to Brian Weisner TED Z Last edited by tedzan; 05-13-2009 at 07:58 PM.
|
|
#5
05-13-2009, 08:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't know about how many there were on a T206 sheet, but my guess, based on the high ratio, but not exclusive existence of miscuts with the same card on top and bottom is that sheets looked something like this:
ABCDEFG ABCDEFG ABCDEFG ABCDEFG ABCDEFG ABCDEFG HIJKLMN HIJKLMN HIJKLMN HIJKLMN HIJKLMN HIJKLMN They may have been wider or taller or whatever, but my guess is that there was repetition of rows something like this. JimB
|
|
#6
05-13-2009, 08:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't know about how many there were on a T206 sheet, but my guess, based on the high ratio, but not exclusive existence of miscuts with the same card on top and bottom is that sheets looked something like this:
ABCDEFG ABCDEFG ABCDEFG ABCDEFG ABCDEFG ABCDEFG HIJKLMN HIJKLMN HIJKLMN HIJKLMN HIJKLMN HIJKLMN They may have been wider or taller or whatever, but my guess is that there was repetition of rows something like this. JimB
|
|
#7
05-13-2009, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The stones that may have been used are still available today. The link below has some info on stone sizes. This list is from records of the quarry where the stones originated from.
http://www.polymetaal.nl/siteUK/shopukwork/enter.html Lets take the smallest stone on that list, 12X16, this jives with a proof book that I have that has this very stone size written by the printer or prover on some of the proof pages. You could fit two sets of twelve quite nicely on each. twelve cards come to nearly 6X9 in size--the most common size of an inner cigar label. The Wagner proof strip with 5 cards might suggest 10 cards per set and 20 per working stone. These would then be transferred in multiples to larger stones or metal plates.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
