T206 Print Groups-A Quick Overview

[White Borders]

If anybody reading this post is able to time travel someday, then you must agree to travel back to American Lithographic Company in 1909 - 1910 and take photos of uncut sheets of T206 and the equipment they were printed with. You must then travel to a point in time of 6:16 pm Central Time, Jan 31, 2013 and post your photos so we will know definitively the size of the T206 sheets.

PS, pick up a couple of Wagners for me while you are there.

Best Regards and Good Luck,
Craig

[White Borders]

Originally Posted by White Borders

If anybody reading this post is able to time travel someday, then you must agree to travel back to American Lithographic Company in 1909 - 1910 and take photos of uncut sheets of T206 and the equipment they were printed with. You must then travel to a point in time of 6:16 pm Central Time, Jan 31, 2013 and post your photos so we will know definitively the size of the T206 sheets.

PS, pick up a couple of Wagners for me while you are there.

Best Regards and Good Luck,
Craig

Well, it is now 6:22 and I'm very disappointed

[sreader3]

I have been away from this thread for a couple of days to deal with pending business but would like to offer a couple of hypotheticals on the topic of whether the SLers should be characterized as (a) one print group of 48 or (b) two print groups—a 150/350 print group of 34 subjects and a 350-only print group of 14 subjects.

First, I think we all agree that Brown Hindu is a 150 series back. If you do not agree with that, please exit the station here.

Now, for those of you who are still on the train, let’s imagine a universe where the Brown Hindu back reads “150 Subjects” akin to the Piedmont 150 back. In that event, would anyone still be arguing that the 14 SL subjects who are only printed with Piedmont 350 and Old Mill Southern are part of the same print group as the 34 subjects who are printed with Hindu 150, Piedmont 350 and Old Mill Southern?

And if your answer to the first question is “yes,” then why do you consider the 150-only major league subjects a separate print group from the 150/350 subjects? Aren’t the former just 150/350 major league subjects that were discontinued early (akin to the 14 350-only SL subjects that were added late)?

And where the heck is Jamie Hull on this?

Scot

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by sreader3

And if your answer to the first question is “yes,” then why do you consider the 150-only major league subjects a separate print group from the 150/350 subjects? Aren’t the former just 150/350 major league subjects that were discontinued early?

Scot

I do not consider the 150 Only subjects to be a separate print group. I do believe they were print group 1 subjects. They were part of the original 150 subjects and printed like other print group 1 subjects. The only difference was they were discontinued early.

So back to the original question, I do not believe that the absence of the 14 from the Hindu printing is reason to categorize them separately. I believe they were printed as the same supplemental group.

I hope that is easy to follow, but let me know if something isn't clear and I'll be happy to answer a follow up.

[sreader3]

Tim,

I guess we just have a fundamentally different understanding of what constitutes a print group. My sense is that if Subject A is printed in Series 1 and Series 2 and Subject B is printed in Series 2 but NOT printed in Series 1 then Subject A and Subject B are in different print groups. You must have a different understanding--and that is fine. We can agree to disagree.

Scot

[Abravefan11]

Scot - Analyzing the backs that each subject was printed with and grouping them accordingly is how we arrived at these print groups.

Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) and Elberfeld (Washington) are good examples of why this is important. These three can only be found with 350 Series backs. But looking at the backs that they were printed with shows that they are continuations after a team change of their print group 1 counterpart. They were printed with the other group 1 subjects and discontinued before group 2.

Does this make sense?

[sreader3]

Tim,

We have two areas of dispute that I don't think we should conflate.

The first is whether, in the abstract, subjects that ATC intended to print in both Series A and Series B with essentially the same back profile but in fact did not print AT ALL in one of Series A or B are part of the same print group. I am conflicted but I think probably not. You seem to disagree.

The second is whether, on the specific question of SLers, ATC intended to print all 48 with BH, P350 and OMS with essentially the same back distribution but for some reason lost to history failed. This would seem to be a viable theory based on the Hindu ad mentioning Texas leaguers but I don't think the theory holds when one considers that the 34 that were printed with Hindu were printed with the P350 back in quantities similar to the 150/350 major league subjects whereas the other 14 that were not printed with Hindu were printed with the P350 back in quantities similar to the 350-only major (and minor) league subjects.

Scot

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Scot - Analyzing the backs that each subject was printed with and grouping them accordingly is how we arrived at these print groups.

Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) and Elberfeld (Washington) are good examples of why this is important. These three can only be found with 350 Series backs. But looking at the backs that they were printed with shows that they are continuations after a team change of their print group 1 counterpart. They were printed with the other group 1 subjects and discontinued before group 2.

Does this make sense?

To me it does not make sense.

The change required at the very least a new master for one color and a new plate for that color. Possibly more than one.

I'd place them with the 350 only subjects.

I'd place the 14 Sl cards without Hindu with 350 only as well.

I'd also do this with the other reworked cards that were a more direct carryover from the 150-350 series. I have it on the list to look into how many were reworked. If the number of reworked subjects is fairly small that would be some help towards a sheet size.


Steve B

[t206hound]

moved to a new thread