One T206, Two Names

[atx840]

Here is a good article on a possible sheet layout, it is thought multiple examples were stacked three to four high.

http://www.t206resource.com/Article-...stique-34.html

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by atx840

Here is a good article on a possible sheet layout, it is thought multiple examples were stacked three to four high.

http://www.t206resource.com/Article-...stique-34.html

Very nice article. The 34-card, 2 player per column sheet theory would mean that for each column you could have one card with two different names (the 3rd card from the bottom) and four cards with two of the same name (all but the top card in each column and the aforementioned 3rd from the bottom).

If each '2-name' card has the same odds of being miscut to show 2 names (Steve or Tim would have to answer that question), then that's a 4-1 ratio - is that about what we've seen?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Very nice article. The 34-card, 2 player per column sheet theory would mean that for each column you could have one card with two different names (the 3rd card from the bottom) and four cards with two of the same name (all but the top card in each column and the aforementioned 3rd from the bottom).

If each '2-name' card has the same odds of being miscut to show 2 names (Steve or Tim would have to answer that question), then that's a 4-1 ratio - is that about what we've seen?

I'm not sure about the ratio of double name to two name cards.

The likelihood of the same number being cut wrong depends on the order of the cuts. If they started by removing the edges then cut into strips by height or width, the chances are that the same cards would always be miscut since an error gets worse as the cuts progress.
If the first card is off center or oversize by 1/64, the next cut will be off center by 1/32nd since it starts already off by 1/64th and the next cut adds the same error. In reality the errors that begin at one end would be much less.
A more typical cutting sequence has the sheet being cut into blocks that are then cut progressively with the longer sides done last.

But there's plenty of eveidence that T206s weren't cut with a consistent pattern, or sometimes with much accuracy. Diamond cuts are far more likely if you're doing the narrow ends last. On a job as big as T206s the cutting would have been done by more than one guy, some of them more skilled than others.

The number of examples of the same card on each sheet I think is more than 4. It's at least 3.
Sheet layouts that are entirely unbalanced are also possible if not likely. So there might be several rows of say 4 over 4 and then maybe a row of 6-8 of a popular player or star.

Between the two name cards, the plate scratch, the registration layout marks, and a few other things I think it will eventually be possible to get very close to what a sheet might have looked like.

Steve B

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

The number of examples of the same card on each sheet I think is more than 4. It's at least 3.

My numbers are 'per column', not sheet.

[steve B]

Unless they had multiple columns of the same player - which is possible of course- It works out the same.

In other words, if Spencer was only in one column, saying there are 3 Spencers in the column and 3 Spencers on the sheet is the same thing.

I think that number is actually at least 4, maybe as much as 6.

Steve B

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

Unless they had multiple columns of the same player - which is possible of course- It works out the same.

In other words, if Spencer was only in one column, saying there are 3 Spencers in the column and 3 Spencers on the sheet is the same thing.

I think that number is actually at least 4, maybe as much as 6.

Steve B

Oh, I see what you are saying.

I described the exact position of each card. If you can think of another position within a column that I missed, please describe, but I think my numbers are correct.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Oh, I see what you are saying.

I described the exact position of each card. If you can think of another position within a column that I missed, please describe, but I think my numbers are correct.

Nope, we're talking about the same thing.


I think the number of each card in the column would be more than 3-4.

with 3 you get
edge card- name and wide blank margin
middle card - two of the same name
upper/lower card- two different names

If it was three, I'd think the ones with different names would be much more common, roughly equal to the edge and same name cards. That's definetly not the ratio we see so far.

Steve B