T206 sheets: Huge factory numbers at back bottom

[Abravefan11]

Steve - My point is that the flagship brands like Piedmont and Sweet Caporal (with the exception of SC649) were printed multiple times during a print groups production.

If every back had a one time printing with a set number of sheets, all of the numbers would work out. But that's not what happened and why the numbers and anomalies won't be consistent. The subject configuration on a Piedmont 350 sheet early in print group 2's production could, and most likely was, different from the subject configuration later in print group 2's production when Piedmont 350 sheets were again printed.

Backs like the brown Hindu's, Sweet Caporal 649 and others appear to have been printed for a short period of time, with a set number of sheets. These sheet configurations would be consistent because a later printing of the cards didn't occur.

Yes, you may find a print defect that is indicative of one sheet for even the most common back. But it's going to be difficult to find one that effected at least one image of each subject on the entire sheet.

[steve B]

Yes, except the back plate would have been used to print the backs for more than one different sheet.

Figuring out the sheet size more certainly from the P150 scratches and other minor differences is probably possible.

Once a likely sheet size has been more nearly proven then a comparison of backs to fronts can eliminate certain fronts from being on the same sheet as certain others.
I've already found one pair of fronts that share a peculiar mark on the back.

Combining that information with the list of two name cards and other miscuts will get us even closer.


Yes, there's the likely complexity of multiple plates having the same players. But other than differences across print groups such as a minor difference between the 150 and 350 versions of the same card that's unlikely. The plates we're talking about were probably stones about 2-3 inches thick and the process of preparing them was a bit involved. They would have been set aside if the printer had any belief that they'd be reused. After that of course they were resurfaced and reused to print something else.

Steve B

[Runscott]

Ted, BTW - I'm not ignoring your sheet-size theory (12 card rows);rather, trying to see what others can glean from recent discoveries, if they were to apply it to Tim's sheet-size theory. I think it's worth exploring both.

[Jantz]

As far as sheet size or composition, I haven't reached a conclusion and can only speculate for now. Hopefully new evidence or examples will be discovered and shed more light on the subject.

There are a few T206s that have me stumped and are leaving me with more questions than answers.

Spade is one of those T206s. His cards have been seen with a sheet number, but Spade is also a card that has been found to have a different player's name on the top of his card.

So lets try this. Tim's theory is that there are 17 player's cards across a bottom of a sheet. Given what we know about these sheet numbers, if we were to speculate that the sheet number appears on the middle or ninth card across, then the player in the column directly above Spade would be Cicotte.

Now here is where it gets interesting. Cicotte's name also appears on an Abbaticchio (brown) card. The same can be said for Rossman & Lundgren (Chi.) since we have seen Rossman & Lundgren cards with different player's names on the top of their cards.

Rossman-McBride
Rossman-Thomas
Lundgren-Ball
Lundgren-Doolin

So lets say in the future we find an Abbaticchio, Lundgren or a Rossman card with a sheet number on the back. How can we explain the multiple different names at the tops of their cards?

So is there a pattern or no pattern at all?

I apologize Scott if I'm taking your thread in a different direction, I just wanted to add some other factors that tie in with sheet numbers.

Jantz

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Spade is one of those T206s. His cards have been seen with a sheet number, but Spade is also a card that has been found to have a different player's name on the top of his card.

I don't understand how that would be a problem. If what I was hypothesizing is correct, then it just means that in some cases Spade's the center card on the bottom half of the sheet. The 2-name card is the top Spade on such a sheet.

I'll leave your other example alone, as I think it's basically the same situation. Remember, (if I read his post correctly) Tim also stated in this thread that player arrangement on sheets could vary. We know this anyway, because of examples where a card image has been found with more than one different name at the top.

[brianp-beme]

My Sweet Cap factory mark card...note that it is L. Tannehill like mrvstr showed, which of course helps boost the idea that perhaps only certain cards will have the factory designation.

Brian

[mrvster]

now thats a huge fact 30!!!

[mrvster]

must have been stamped with the same stamper

[Jantz]

Hi Scott

No problem with Spade. I should have said that the Spade card is possibly a key card to the equation.

Tim and others have done some great work on this subject and I agree with some of their research and theories.

So lets put Spade on the back burner for awhile

Maybe Bender (port.) is a better example. We have seen a Bender (port.) with a Delehanty (Wash.) name on the top. So going by the sheet shown on T206Resource, Bender would be the subject on the bottom of a column and Delehanty would be above. No problem there until you account for a Bradley (port.) being found with a Bender (port.) name on top of the card. Keep in mind both cards have the exact same back which is Piedmont 150 f#25.

Some of the questions I have and I'm not directing them at any one particular board member, just in general.

If we go with the column theory, then that would make Bradley (port.) the bottom card with Bender (port.) above him and Delehanty (Wash.) on top of the column. Three players to a column.(?)

Or did one of these three cards change position on a sheet during production?

Going out on a limb for a minute. Is it possible that T206 sheets were configured similar to the uncut Obak sheet?

When I first saw the uncut Obak sheet I thought it contained no pattern, but the more I looked at it, I noticed how this sheet contained similarities to miscut T206s.

Some Obak subjects are directly above themselves in some columns while other columns contain the same players, but their sequence is a skip position pattern.

If this pattern was used on a T206 sheet it could explain why some miscut T206s have two same name cards and two different name cards.

Take for instance Buck Weaver on the Obak sheet. If that sheet was miscut then Weaver's name could appear on two other player's card, while the players on the left side of the sheet could have their own name appear twice on a card.

Could it be that Bradley (port.), Bender (port.) and Delehanty (Wash.) were in a skip position column?

This could also explain why Cicotte's name appears above both Spade's and Abbaticchio's card. The sheet number on Spade and other examples could just give us a starting point since they could be the middle sheet subject.

Any of your thoughts are welcome.


Jantz

[atx840]

Dang you Scott and your Bender/Delehanty combo..when that card showed up it made an already complicated puzzle that much more challenging

3 cards per column is a possibility, all we needed was a top and bottom example like Bender. I'm wondering about why so many more double names are found then two names still, the ratio is definitely not 1/3 or 1/4.

What if some players have these long 8-12 stacked columns and some columns had two or three players stacked four high.

There are two Powell/O'Leary examples which is reassuring

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Maybe Bender (port.) is a better example. We have seen a Bender (port.) with a Delehanty (Wash.) name on the top. So going by the sheet shown on T206Resource, Bender would be the subject on the bottom of a column and Delehanty would be above. No problem there until you account for a Bradley (port.) being found with a Bender (port.) name on top of the card. Keep in mind both cards have the exact same back which is Piedmont 150 f#25.

Some of the questions I have and I'm not directing them at any one particular board member, just in general.

If we go with the column theory, then that would make Bradley (port.) the bottom card with Bender (port.) above him and Delehanty (Wash.) on top of the column. Three players to a column.(?)

Or did one of these three cards change position on a sheet during production?

Jantz

Jantz - I think it's as simple as the sheets were configured differently at different times during production. The Piedmont 150 sheets that were printed in June 1909 weren't the same configuration as Piedmont 150 sheets printed in August of 1909. So with backs like Piedmont and Sweet Caporal it's not surprising to me that we have found the same subject with a different second name.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Hi Scott

No problem with Spade. I should have said that the Spade card is possibly a key card to the equation.

Tim and others have done some great work on this subject and I agree with some of their research and theories.

So lets put Spade on the back burner for awhile

Maybe Bender (port.) is a better example. We have seen a Bender (port.) with a Delehanty (Wash.) name on the top. So going by the sheet shown on T206Resource, Bender would be the subject on the bottom of a column and Delehanty would be above. No problem there until you account for a Bradley (port.) being found with a Bender (port.) name on top of the card. Keep in mind both cards have the exact same back which is Piedmont 150 f#25.

Some of the questions I have and I'm not directing them at any one particular board member, just in general.

If we go with the column theory, then that would make Bradley (port.) the bottom card with Bender (port.) above him and Delehanty (Wash.) on top of the column. Three players to a column.(?)

Or did one of these three cards change position on a sheet during production?

Going out on a limb for a minute. Is it possible that T206 sheets were configured similar to the uncut Obak sheet?

When I first saw the uncut Obak sheet I thought it contained no pattern, but the more I looked at it, I noticed how this sheet contained similarities to miscut T206s.

Some Obak subjects are directly above themselves in some columns while other columns contain the same players, but their sequence is a skip position pattern.

If this pattern was used on a T206 sheet it could explain why some miscut T206s have two same name cards and two different name cards.

Take for instance Buck Weaver on the Obak sheet. If that sheet was miscut then Weaver's name could appear on two other player's card, while the players on the left side of the sheet could have their own name appear twice on a card.

Could it be that Bradley (port.), Bender (port.) and Delehanty (Wash.) were in a skip position column?

This could also explain why Cicotte's name appears above both Spade's and Abbaticchio's card. The sheet number on Spade and other examples could just give us a starting point since they could be the middle sheet subject.

Any of your thoughts are welcome.


Jantz

Great post Jantz !!

I wondered the same thing when I first saw the Obak sheet. It's really a very interesting observation that you've presented. I don't have the answers, but enjoyed your post.

Great thread guys, nice brainstorming !!!

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

The T206 cards....as well as the T3, T201, T202, T205, T209, T210, T211, T213, T214 and T215 cards were all printed by the
American Lithographic Co. in New York City. This 13-story building stands at the corner of 19th Street & Park Avenue South.




The OBAK (T212) cards were printed by the Schmidt Lithographic Co. in San Francisco. The building stands at 2nd & Bryant Steets.
When you are visiting in San Fran, be sure to check-out the Schmidt Litho. museum.

Tis a real shame that American Litho. never archived their beautiful stuff in the form of a museum.


TED Z

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Spade is one of those T206s. His cards have been seen with a sheet number, but Spade is also a card that has been found to have a different player's name on the top of his card.

Now here is where it gets interesting. Cicotte's name also appears on an Abbaticchio (brown) card. The same can be said for Rossman & Lundgren (Chi.) since we have seen Rossman & Lundgren cards with different player's names on the top of their cards.

Rossman-McBride
Rossman-Thomas
Lundgren-Ball
Lundgren-Doolin

Jantz

This is interesting stuff that you are doing and a good start.

If I may offer, two comments......

1st.....Very important to establishing the sheet arrangement of the T206 cards is their horizontal format (6, 12, 15, 17, etc. cards across a row).

Unfortunately, we have very few examples of horizontal adjacency, such as the Sheckard/Goode card that Chris depicted in Post #5 here.

I know of only one other horizontally adjacent card....a red Cobb with a sliver of Chance (yellow portrait) adjacent to it. And this is logical, since
these two subjects are part of the group that comprises the 6 super-prints.
I believe Art Martineau has this card.

2nd.....I don't think we can be confident with any certainty, exactly where these Factory ID numbers were situated on SWEET CAP sheets in our
efforts to figure out T206 printed sheet arrangements.

Keep up the good work here, my friend,

TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Ted - There are images used with the article Scott linked in the OP of cards that were adjacent on a sheet. Three groups of 2, two groups of 4, and this group of 8.



I remember seeing other horizontal miscuts but can't remember who the subjects were. I'll see if I can find them.

I agree with your thoughts about the factory number locations.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Unfortunately, we have very few examples of horizontal adjacency, such as the Sheckard/Goode card that Chris depicted in Post #5 here.

I know of only one other horizontally adjacent card....a red Cobb with a sliver of Chance (yellow portrait) adjacent to it. And this is logical, since
these two subjects are part of the group that comprises the 6 super-prints.
I believe Art Martineau has this card.

Beyond miscuts, you can also look at ghosts for horizontal adjacency. I know of the following:
Fletcher -> Charles
http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...7&postcount=46

Schirm -> Mullen (x2)
http://www.t206museum.com/page/ra_ghost_mullen.html
http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...8&postcount=10

Willett -> La Porte
http://www.t206museum.com/page/ra_ghost_laporte.html

[Runscott]

Jantz - I've run out of analytical brain-space for a while , and you guys are all over this!

Nice work, everyone. I'm going to read a good book today.