T206 Print Groups-A Quick Overview

[steve B]

Originally Posted by cfc1909

This is not true. The 34 southern subjects that come with Hindu are much tougher than any Piedmont or Old Mill subject, the same 34 or the other 14.

My belief is the reason it is 34 is that is the number of subjects that compose a sheet.

There are 102 major league subjects printed with Hindu and to put 14 subjects in their own group you would have to put the 102 in their own group. That is not the case.

For some unknown reason they stopped printing Hindu. That is clear by the ads. Dooin and Waddell and Nicholls are pictured on ads and do not exist with Hindu.

34 Is almost certainly not the number of subjects on a sheet. That there are 34 with Hindu and 14 without is an extremely strong argument against 34 being the number of subjects.

If there were 34 on a sheet then there would have to have been some way of having the 14 that weren't printed with Hindu as part of another sheet.
And that wouldn't work unless you picture them as part of an old mill sheet that had 14 SL and 20 regular cards. OR that ALC had two color presses and was able to print multiple backs in one pass.

I just don't see either scenario as being likely. And so far there's no eveidence of either. No miscuts with both SL and regualr cards on the same card, nor anything I can see that would indicate the use of multi color presses. One of the principal partners did invent the multi color press, but I haven't found a date yet.

There are several other groups of cards that indicate fewer than 34 subjects on a sheet, with a number closer to 12 or 14 possibly as small as 6 more likely.

Steve B

[cfc1909]

Steve

I do not have 100% proof that a sheet consisted of 34 subjects, it is just my belief after studying the set for many years. 102 could also be 3 sheets of 34.

There may even be a couple different number of subjects per sheet. Hopefully a sheet shows up and we can learn from it.

There were different configurations of subjects on sheets. The Lundgren with a miscut with 2 different names at top proves that. The 34 number appears so many times when studying the sets composition it has led me to believe that is the number of subjects per sheet but certainly you are entitled to your conclusions/beliefs.

[g_vezina_c55]

cool thread

[teetwoohsix]

Excellent thread !!!

Great breakdown Tim, thank you.

I've always wondered why the only corrected errors were Magie to Magee (print group 1) and Doyle N.Y. Nat'l to Doyle N.Y. (print group 3) when there were other spelling errors. Any theories on this?

Also, I believe they caught the Magie error pretty quick into the first print run due to the low population of the error cards, but is there any way to guage how early~ like, by how many Piedmont 150 Magee cards are out there? I know population reports by TPG's don't cover all cards out there, but is there any known ratio other than the population reports?

Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

[g_vezina_c55]

how many magee or magie ?

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by g_vezina_c55

how many magee or magie ?

Yes I guess that would've been an easier way to say it

Sincerely, Clayton

[White Borders]

Originally Posted by g_vezina_c55

how many magee or magie ?

I'm still in the early stages of attempting to calculate estimated populations for all T206, T206 Backs, and each T206 Subject. For what it's worth, my very preliminary calcs for these are:

T206 Magee Portrait: 700 in circulation*

T206 Magie Error: 240 in circulation*

* I define in circulation as the # of PSA graded + the # of SGC graded + the # of raw and other third party graded that occasional show up on ebay, bst, auction houses, shows. It does not include the # of raw that are in long time collections that never show up for sale.

Keep in mind that these are very preliminary population estimates and I am still collecting data and refining calculations. I do not yet have enough information to determine statistical confidence intervals (which could show my estimates to be statistically worthless). Also, my population calculation of the Magie Error is probably skewed high because, in my opinion, the ratio of raw to graded for Magie Error is probably lower than for the average T206 subject due to it being a rare card and more likely to be graded. I have not yet gotten to the point of taking this factor into account.

Best Regards and Happy Collecting
Craig

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by White Borders

I'm still in the early stages of attempting to calculate estimated populations for all T206, T206 Backs, and each T206 Subject. For what it's worth, my very preliminary calcs for these are:

T206 Magee Portrait: 700 in circulation*

T206 Magie Error: 240 in circulation*

* I define in circulation as the # of PSA graded + the # of SGC graded + the # of raw and other third party graded that occasional show up on ebay, bst, auction houses, shows. It does not include the # of raw that are in long time collections that never show up for sale.

Keep in mind that these are very preliminary population estimates and I am still collecting data and refining calculations. I do not yet have enough information to determine statistical confidence intervals (which could show my estimates to be statistically worthless). Also, my population calculation of the Magie Error is probably skewed high because, in my opinion, the ratio of raw to graded for Magie Error is probably lower than for the average T206 subject due to it being a rare card and more likely to be graded. I have not yet gotten to the point of taking this factor into account.

Best Regards and Happy Collecting
Craig

Thanks Craig, great information & research !!!

I have to admit I'm a bit confused at why it wouldn't make sense for the # to be 34 when you review the print groups, but then again, I'm no printing expert. Craig makes a great point about print group 2 with PB backs~~ 136 / 4= 34. Either way, it's great to have a rational discussion

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by steve B

34 Is almost certainly not the number of subjects on a sheet. That there are 34 with Hindu and 14 without is an extremely strong argument against 34 being the number of subjects.

If there were 34 on a sheet then there would have to have been some way of having the 14 that weren't printed with Hindu as part of another sheet.
And that wouldn't work unless you picture them as part of an old mill sheet that had 14 SL and 20 regular cards. OR that ALC had two color presses and was able to print multiple backs in one pass.

I just don't see either scenario as being likely. And so far there's no eveidence of either. No miscuts with both SL and regualr cards on the same card, nor anything I can see that would indicate the use of multi color presses. One of the principal partners did invent the multi color press, but I haven't found a date yet.

There are several other groups of cards that indicate fewer than 34 subjects on a sheet, with a number closer to 12 or 14 possibly as small as 6 more likely.

Steve B

Hey Steve

Don't waste your time arguing this subject. They have only 2 examples that makes them think that "34" is the sheet size. When you inform them (and you are certainly
informed in printing practices) that 34 subjects were printed on a 36-card sheet which included 2 double-prints....they scoff at you.

For example, the 36-card sheet in which the SWEET CAP 150 factory #649 (overprint) group of 34 subjects were printed on included Powers; and either the Davis, or
Johnson , or Mathewson cards were double-printed.

Furthermore, the 46 subjects in the 460-only Series were printed on a 48-card sheet which included double prints of Duffy and Ford.

Why these two guys....Duffy was popular since he became Manager of the White Sox for the 1910 season. And, Russ Ford was a rookie sensation in New York in 1910,
winning 26 games while losing only 6 games.

Thru out the T206 series subject construction, the numbers are invariably factors of 6 or 12. It does not take a math major to understand this. American Lithographic's
printing presses for this type of litho printing were designed to accommodated sheets of cards that were 36, 48, 72, etc. (12 cards horizontally x N number of rows
vertically).


T-Rex TED