Insights into probable T206 uncut sheets

[FrankWakefield]

From reading through this, it seems to me that 12 is a significant number... not 34.

Thank you mkdltn, for the post about the press. (Are those letters for Mark Dalton?)

And I was aware of apophenia, but had not encountered the word for it. Thanks for posting that. Is there a word for when someone sees a pattern or connection that others don't, while seeing randomness and perceiving others suffer from apophenia? What would that be? I think Ted's line of thought seems more likely.

And I don't think it was suggested up there that a sheet of 48 was printed so that 20 could be gleaned from it and the rest discarded.

[tedzan]

You are correct in that I did not say (or imply) that a pre-printed 48 card sheet of Southern Leaguers (SL)
was used to print the "COUPON" backs.

It could have been as small as a 24-card sheet, in which the 20 Southern Association SL were gleaned from.

And, if they discarded 4 cards, big deal. As scarce as these 1910 COUPON cards are, I don't think ALC printed
to many of them.

TED Z

[steve B]

That makes sense.
Obviously it wasn't one of my better days for thinking yesterday.

It could have even been a sheet of 48 all southern association, 2 groups of 20 and 8 triple prints.

Steve B

And to twist an old phrase, just because it's apophenia doesn't mean there's no pattern

[mkdltn]

You were close! it's Mike Dalton my littlel bro is Mark was not at all creative with the handle there.

I am now convinced that 12 cards is the configuration of the art on the original matrix stones from which transfers were taken and applied in multiple to make large sheets on large production presses like the one I posted.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Is there a word for when someone sees a pattern or connection that others don't, while seeing randomness and perceiving others suffer from apophenia?

Frank I'm no alone in the belief that the number 34 is significant in the printing process. My use of apophenia was not meant to be condescending to Ted but rather illustrate how patterns can be seen but have no meaning. John Nash (A Beautiful Mind) is a great example of the best and worst of seeing patterns.

Remember we are looking for patterns in the printing process to gain insight into how a T206 sheet would have been laid out.

Using the number of examples in each given series and relating it to the printing process doesn't work. For example the 150 Only group of 12 that Ted cited above. Their only relationship is that they were not continued into the 350 series. There are no indicators that they were related in the printing process but actually the contrary as some can be found with backs others can not. The completed number of printed examples over a period of time does not give us proof of the number printed at a specific time.

Yes there were a total of 48 Southern Leaguers and 48 is a multiple of 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 but that is not how the cards were printed so it gives us no insight into how a sheet would have been set up.

The Southern League group that I have researched and studied at great length does give us insight into the printing process at a specific time. As my research has shown all 48 of the SL players were decided upon early in 1909. However when the first run of SL players were printed in the brown Hindu offering the number was reduced to 34. Most importantly all brown Old Mill cards are from this group of 34 which indicates they were all on one sheet. No major league player has ever been found with a brown Old Mill back indicating no other players were on the sheet but these 34.

So why would ATC or ALC reduce the intended number of Southern League players to be included in the set from 48 to 34 if not because 34 was the number of available images that could be printed on each sheet? A number not divisible by 6 or 12.

Is it a coincidence that a pre printed sheet of Sweet Caporal 150's were over printed with Factory 649 and the number of cards in that set is 34?

[tedzan]

What is all this "double-speak" of yours......
" Using the number of examples in each given series and relating it to the printing process doesn't work. For example the 150 Only group of 12
that Ted cited above. Their only relationship is that they were not continued into the 350 series. There are no indicators that they were related
in the printing process but actually the contrary as some can be found with backs others can not. The completed number of printed examples
over a period of time does not give us proof of the number printed at a specific time. "

We both know damn well that the first (150) Series of Major Leaguers consists of a total of 156 subjects. And, if we consider the PIEDMONT 150
run....all 156 cards were printed.
NOW TELL ME (simply without any of your rationalizations or diversions), do these 156 subjects with PIEDMONT 150 backs divide evenly by 12 ?

I really don't understand you, you are certainly smarter than this conjecture of yours......
You are taking ONE example, the 34 HINDU SL cards, and attempting to arrive at a baseless premise that American Litho. printed T206's on 34-card
sheets. Well, consider this theory: these SL HINDU cards were printed on a 36-card sheet. The 2 missing cards may have been Rockenfeld & Seitz.
As you well know these two guys were with their same teams from 1908-1910. Furthermore, Seitz was the batting Champ in his League.

Back in 1980, when I first started collecting T206's, Rockenfeld and Seitz were identified with HINDU backs. What has happened to these two, is
certainly a mystery. However, if the 2 missing cards from this 36-card sheet are not them, then ALC most likely Double-Printed two SL to fill-out
that 36-card sheet.


And, how many times are we going to re-hash this ?
"Is it a coincidence that a pre printed sheet of Sweet Caporal 150's were over printed with Factory 649 and the number of cards in that set is 34?"

Once again....you persist to dispute my contention......
That the SWEET CAPORAL 150/f649 set was printed on a 36-card sheet (and that one card was not issued for whatever reasons)....hence, this is
a 35-card sub-set.

Well then, check-out this is excerpt......

"150/350 subjects confirmed with the Sweet Caporal 150/649 back are: Alperman, Bates, Bransfield, Bresnahan (Portrait), Clarke (Cleveland),
Davis (Chicago), Davis (H. on Front), Delehanty (Washington), Ewing, Gilbert, Goode, Griffith (Portrait), Johnson (Portrait), Jones (St. Louis),
Killian (Pitching), Lajoie (Throwing), Lake (New York), Liebhardt, Manning (Batting), Marquard (Hands at Thighs), Matthewson (White Cap),
McIntyre (Brooklyn), McQuillan (Ball in Hand), Nicholls, O’Leary (Portrait), Owen, Pastorius, Ritchey, Schlei (Catching), Schmidt (Throwing),
Sheckard (No Glove), Spencer, Wagner (Bat on Left) and Wilhelm (Hands at Chest).The availability of Powers from the 150-only group with
this back raises the number of subjects confirmed with the Sweet Caporal 150/649 back to 35."

Do you know from where this was excerpted ?

And, please, simply respond with the source and a name ? ?


TED Z

[Matt]

Also, there being 6 (or 7) horizontal poses has nothing to do with how the cards were printed. The horizontal poses are printed exactly the same way as the vertical ones and could have been present at any place on the sheet.

[jimonym]

This is a good thread and an interesting discussion but we're leaving out what seems to be (to me at least) a critical factor. It's great to say that a sheet was X columns wide by Y rows high and contained Z number of cards, or that a series or subset of cards is divisible by 6 or 12 or 34.

But unlike the uncut T212 or E-card sheets, the evidence would suggest that a very great many (maybe almost all), but not quite all, T206s were printed in columns of the same image.

We may one day figure out the size of a sheet, the number of columns involved, etc., but it wouldn't tell us how many different fronts were printed on one sheet. Or whether all sheets had the same number of different fronts.

Tracking and comparing available backs and "no-prints", as Ted has been doing so well for years now on this board, is essential, but, unfortunately, an analysis of that data suggests that nearly all fronts were printed on more than one sheet. For example, in the 350-460 series no card has both Red Hindu and Uzit backs, which suggests a nice clean picture of the way T206s were printed. However, some of each group can be found with Drum and American Beauty 350 No Frame backs. I don't see how that is possible unless the same fronts were printed from different sheets at different times in different groupings.

I hope someone can provide the key, but it just isn't an easy thing to unlock.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Well then, check-out this is excerpt......

"150/350 subjects confirmed with the Sweet Caporal 150/649 back are: Alperman, Bates, Bransfield, Bresnahan (Portrait), Clarke (Cleveland),
Davis (Chicago), Davis (H. on Front), Delehanty (Washington), Ewing, Gilbert, Goode, Griffith (Portrait), Johnson (Portrait), Jones (St. Louis),
Killian (Pitching), Lajoie (Throwing), Lake (New York), Liebhardt, Manning (Batting), Marquard (Hands at Thighs), Matthewson (White Cap),
McIntyre (Brooklyn), McQuillan (Ball in Hand), Nicholls, O’Leary (Portrait), Owen, Pastorius, Ritchey, Schlei (Catching), Schmidt (Throwing),
Sheckard (No Glove), Spencer, Wagner (Bat on Left) and Wilhelm (Hands at Chest).The availability of Powers from the 150-only group with
this back raises the number of subjects confirmed with the Sweet Caporal 150/649 back to 35."

Do you know from where this was excerpted ?

And, please, simply respond with the source and a name ? ?


TED Z

Inside T206 by Scot A. Reader page 33 in the footnotes section.

Originally Posted by jimonym

I don't see how that is possible unless the same fronts were printed from different sheets at different times in different groupings.

That is an excellent point. Multiple printings of the same backs within a series convolute the data as the combination of front images on a sheet changed.

At this point all of the numbers presented by myself or Ted are just opinion. Hopefully through positive sharing of information and further research we will one day know for certain how a T206 sheet was comprised.