T206 sheets: Huge factory numbers at back bottom

[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

[Abravefan11]

While the Obak complete sheet is fascinating, it was produced by a different printer than the T206 sheets. I agree it should make us take pause and consider the possibilities, but nothing so far has shown us that the T206 sheets were printed like the Obaks.

[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

[Jantz]

Ted, Tim & Clayton,

Thank you for your comments. Its just a theory of mine, but it sure makes for great discussion.

Scott,

Congrats on getting both of the Johnsons!


Jantz

[Runscott]

I only really want one, but this second was too much of an upgrade to pass up.

It's certainly available for trade, as I'm no hoarder

Originally Posted by Jantz

Ted, Tim & Clayton,

Thank you for your comments. Its just a theory of mine, but it sure makes for great discussion.

Scott,

Congrats on getting both of the Johnsons!


Jantz

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by 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

I always like seeing this picture, thanks for showing that.

I was wondering if it was possible that, even though these lithographic companies were on the opposite sides of the country from each other, could their presses have been manufactured by the same company?

I'm not saying they were, just wondering about it. Does anyone know? Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

[atx840]

Sheet edge print mark.

[Pat R]

Interesting Chris Who's on the front?

[atx840]

Updated the image Pat, Johnny V also had a Rhoades with a similar marking.