I Believe This Could Be A Complete Horizontal Layout For This T206 Sheet

[Pat R]

I recently found this Gibson plate scratch that closes up a gap in the A-B sheet
which I think completes the horizontal layout for this sheet.
Attachment 220321 img352.jpg img353.jpg

Attachment 220322Sheet%20A-B - Copy.jpg

There were two different fronts used with this plate scratch sheet which has a Sweet Caporal Factory 649op and A SC 649 no print subject for each horizontal position so I think one sheet had all the 649's and other one
had the 649 no prints. There are 5 spots on the bottom row missing the second subject for that particular scratch, 3 649's and two 649 no prints.
Attachment 220340
img358 - Copy.jpg

There are two different plate scratch sheets with a left to right horizontal
scratch and they have two different distinct scratches. One is a heavier single
scratch and the other is thinner scratch that is double in some areas. (That's the scratch on this sheet.)

[Pat R]

I think this sheet is complete horizontally at 17 subjects or this is the minimum
width of this sheet. There are no vertical scratches on this sheet to determine
the height but one of the sheets with a vertical scratch is at least 11 high and
another is 12 high. I'm thinking 12 might be the vertical number. The hoe NO.4 press bed is 26X34 which would fit this sheet.

While I think the plate scratch sheets might have been 12X17 with the same subject used vertically for the entire sheet. I don't think all the sheets were
this size and we know for sure that the vertical subjects were not the same on all the sheets by the two name and miscut examples that exist.

This is what I think one of the A-B sheets looked like. O'Leary and McIntyre
need to be substituted with 649 no print subjects but the second scratch for those positions haven't been confirmed yet and they should be 649 no prints
when they're found.

[steve_a]

Congrats Pat. Exciting result from a lot of work.

[Mountaineer1999]

Pretty amazing Pat.. awesome effort sorting through these!

[T206Collector]

This is really great. You can see why they would be cut up even if they survived the printer's blade - all of the vertical repetition isn't as appealing as, say, a sheet with all different players on it, which would be far more displayable. Great job!

[t206hound]

I know you've put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this. Flat out awesome!

[tedzan]

I commend you on a lot of good work here.

However, as you know that I cannot accept your "17-subject" wide sheet arrangement. Basically for the following two reasons......

1st....the factor "17" does not map into any of the various T206 series (or sub-sets) numerical structure. As I have presented on
this forum many times, 12 is the common denominator throughout the T206 structure. For example: 12 subjects in the 150-only
group....144 subjects in the 150/350 series....48 subjects in the Southern League group....the Elite 12....the Exclusive 12....etc.

2nd....research has shown that American Lithographic printed these cards with a 19-inch wide track printing press.

Your speculation of a 17 cards wide sheet would require a 26-inch wide press.


Incidently, shown here are the Mullin cards in my sets. I don't see this PIEDMONT 150 Mullin (with scratch) in your diagram (Post #2).
The point that I'm making here is that trying to formulate an arrangement of a hypothetical T206 sheet based on printng scratches
can be quite arbitrary.







Hey guys, here is an example of my concept of a T206 sheet based on the Exclusive 12 subjects in the 460-only series......

..v............................19-inch x 24-inch sheet (standard size)............................v




TED Z
.

[steve B]

The Mullin has a scratch from upper left to lower right. That's part of a different group from the ones Pat has put together so far. That other one I think also has a vertical scratch or two.

While the Scientific American article showed Hoe #5 presses at ALC when they electrified, there's no evidence I've seen indicating any particular press used for any particular job. That includes the existing progressive proof books for cigar box labels.
Like any large shop ALC most likely had a variety of presses that would be used depending on how many of something were to be printed.

The scratches can show certain things, but not others. They can show that two cards were likely side by side on the sheet. That there's two cards showing the same scratch limits that to a possibility of 2, but at the same time, if one shows the scratch and another shows the same scratch they can be positively ruled out as being from the same sheet. Combined with a front mark like the one Pat showed recently they can show cards as being from the same sheet. It's hardly arbitrary.

There are a few things that need more research.
ALC was close to Hoe in a business sense, Hoe made a lot of different sorts of presses around 1910. Including both the flatbed presses like the #5, rotary presses that used plates rather than stones, web fed presses that printed not sheets but rolls of paper or cardstock, and multi color presses. There is some evidence that some but probably not all T206s were printed on a two color press.

There's a lot of evidence that most of the series were printed at least three times, and that subjects were reworked between printings as well as between series. 150's were done at least three times, and were altered before the 350 series, which was printed at least twice with a reworking in between for many subjects.

And among all that is the possibility (Almost certainty) that there were multiple sheet layouts for each series AND each back. That's especially true for the 150's where there's a handful of outliers that don't match up with a simple layout of single sheets. (Crawford wasn't in the Sovereign set but was in all the others. I can't imagine he was printed but pulled)

The scratches - at least one of them was deep enough to carry over into P350. Whether it was deep enough to survive resurfacing or the 150 stone with the scratch was altered to produce a 350 stone without having all new transfers laid down is a puzzle for the future.

At least one P150 back shows a doubling, either a poorly erased earlier layout or a redone misplaced transfer (Criger - Any others?)

So the simple solution of a sheet always being the same size really doesn't work.

Steve B

[Pat R]

Ted,

We will have to agree to disagree on this. I'm not saying all of the sheets were
this size but several of the plate scratch sheets are larger than 12 subjects
wide, this I'm sure of and I think the plate scratch evidence is solid proof of
that.

As Steve said the Mullin is a right to left plate scratch and was on a different
sheet. The sheet In this thread consists of subjects with left to right plate scratches.
At last count there were over 250 different plate scratches and 5 or 6
different plate scratch sheets. (I'm on the fence if one of the sheets is actually
two separate sheets).

Here's the sheet with Mullin on it.

[Leon]

Those match up nicely, job well done, Pat. It's always fun to learn of the processes behind the making of the cards.

And thanks for sharing all of the info guys...and for the good card discussion.

[Pat R]

Well I found out how good the template works.
When I originally made this template I only had Four scratches
for the middle line and they're pairs so they only cover two spots
on the sheet plus they're side by side so I couldn't continue the line
across the sheet with no other scratches to connect them to.

I acquired this Williams scratch after I made the template and
this afternoon when I got home from work I went to add it to the template
and I couldn't get it to line up, after some head scratching and talking to myself
I realized that I had put the middle line one spot to far to the right.
The scratches I have are Criger/Harry Davis and Hahn/Wilhelm but I had put
the Criger/Davis scratch in the Hahn/Wilhelm slot and The Hahn/Wilhelm in
the Murphy/George Davis slot thus the reason I couldn't get the Williams to line up.

I didn't want to go through the process of making a whole new template
so I just cut out the two that were wrong and taped new ones in their place
and made a new longer line with the Williams addition.
I still have to put all the X's back for the confirmed scratches.

[Pat R]

The point that I'm making here is that trying to formulate an arrangement of a hypothetical T206 sheet based on printng scratches
can be quite arbitrary.






TED Z
.[/QUOTE]

Ted,

I hardly think it's arbitrary when there are many instances of the same subjects having more than one scratch that puts them together on a sheet
in some cases as many as three or four. There is also a Seymour/Cicotte
combo that has a mark on the front that connects them in addition to the
the two different plate scratches on the backs.

[Pat R]

I found a few more pieces to this puzzle. A Lake and Williams that are
both from the same position from one of the lighter scratches.

I also found a Stahl that turned out to be a match with McIntyre. This was one of the five remaining unconfirmed 2nd subjects. There are four remaining
unconfirmed subjects, there should be a SC 649 subject that matches Conroy (horizontal row 6) Hinchman (row 10) and Gibson (row 15) and there should
be a non 649 subject that matches O'Leary (row 17).

[Jantz]

Nice job Pat! Looks like the puzzle is coming together.

While we're on the subject. I posted before about seeing scratches on a few Polar Bear backs. Recently I've found a few more players that have the scratch in the same location as well.

I'm going to set that project off to the side for you to work on when you get this Piedmont sheet finished.

Hope all is well and thanks for posting this new information.

Jantz

[Pat R]

I came across this Powell with a fine line running through the bottom.
Powell [3].jpg

It doesn't look like most of the other plate scratches and may have been caused by something different but there is another Powell and Hinchman
that have similar marks.
Powell1_1.jpgHinchman%202_1.jpg

I would guess that this mark was only on a few sheets. Powell and
Hinchman have another plate scratch that puts them along side each
other on this sheet and the line on this new Powell lines up with these two.
Powell%20Back - Copy (2).jpg

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Nice job Pat! Looks like the puzzle is coming together.

While we're on the subject. I posted before about seeing scratches on a few Polar Bear backs. Recently I've found a few more players that have the scratch in the same location as well.

I'm going to set that project off to the side for you to work on when you get this Piedmont sheet finished.

Hope all is well and thanks for posting this new information.

Jantz

Hey Jantz,

Per our discussion at the national I'm not sure how much could be pieced together with the PB scratches but at the very least it's possible to put
together some subjects that weren't on the same sheets together but were
in the same position on different sheets with the scratches and print flaws.

Here's a Bell and Merkle with the same flaw and I think there should be
another subject with the same flaw as the PB flaws seem to occur on three
different subjects but I haven't found a third one with this flaw yet.

Patrick

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Very cool stuff!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Pat R]

This is the corrected template with the middle line where it should be and
all the X's marking the confirmed scratches. The Red ? marks are the three
missing SC 649 scratches. These three scratches should eventually be found
on subjects from this list.

Alperman
Bates
Bransfield
Bresnahan (port)
Delehanty
Ewing
Gilbert
Jones
Killian
Lajoie (throwing)
Marquard (hands at side)
Mathewson (white cap)
McQuillan (ball in hand)
Owen
Ritchey
Schlei (catching)
Schmidt (throwing)
Sheckard (no glove showing)
Spencer
Wagner (bat on left shoulder)

If anyone has any SC 649 subjects from this list with a PD 150 back and would check
them for any of the missing scratches it would be much appreciated.

[cfc1909]

Patrick

fantastic research. Very solid and fits with the the set numbers. Well done my friend.

[Pat R]

Made some more progress on this sheet, I found another piece of the upper
scratch. This Williams lines up with Conroy on the upper scratch. All three
different Williams scratches are now confirmed for this sheet and only
the middle Conroy scratch remains unconfirmed for this pair of neighbors.

[parkerj33]

Maybe i am misunderstand most excellent research, but .... it troubles me that there is only a partial scratch that is perfectly parallel to row 1 (in row 2). couldn't there be a plausible layout such that the seven cards in row 2( position 2-8) from weimer/pastorius to ?/mcintyre could actually be extended in row 1 (positions 18-24)? it looks like that scratch would line up....

Edited: actually after photoshopping it, it looks like you need a gap between your column 17 and the next row two scratches....so it would be row 2, col 1-8 added onto your 17 column row 1.

i state all this because it seems odd (but not impossible) that we would have a partial scratch in the middle of the sheet that is PERFECTLY parallel to the top scratch.

Edited2: One MORE thing to consider: if the sheet were 30 players across, the top scratch would perfectly extend from the lower left corner of a new row 1, col1 all the way through upper right corner of column 30. I don't know that we can say the scratch HAS to extend the whole width but it would be perfectly at the corners of row 1 if row 1 were 30 columns wide. I will try to photoshop it, but i am not adept. In other words, your 17 columns are actually columns 3 - 19, your row 2 (col 1-8) are actually columns 20-27, two unknown columns to left, and three to the right give you a scratch that goes perfectly across from top to bottom of 30 columns.