T206 Print Groups-A Quick Overview

Abravefan11 · #1 01-31-2013, 08:51 PM

Quote:

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 · #2 01-31-2013, 09:10 PM

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 · #3 01-31-2013, 09:19 PM

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 · #4 01-31-2013, 10:03 PM

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

Abravefan11 · #5 01-31-2013, 10:20 PM

Scot - So let's focus then on just the quantity printed with Piedmont 350. I don't think this is a viable reason to categorize the cards into two groups.

The 14 subjects not printed with brown Hindu can be found about or slightly less than 2:1 to those that were.

In the Sovereign 460 subset at least 8 of the 46 group 4 (460 Only) subjects can be found in greater than 2:1 ratios to the others.

I don't think you would disagree that the Sovereign 460 subjects all belong in the same print group. So if the logic wouldn't apply to the Sovereign 460's, I don't believe it applies to the Piedmont southern league subjects.

We actually have seen these types of population variations in other back subsets. I can only speculate as to what in the printing process caused them.

Abravefan11 · #6 01-31-2013, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sreader3

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.

Scot

Let's try and look at it this way. ATC had a group of cards that were printed from June of 1909 to February 1910*. At the conclusion of printing that group they discontinued them. Then they began printing the next group in March 1910.

We agree that the first group was printed with 150 Series backs and then with 350 Series backs. Some cards from this group were discontinued early. This resulted in these subjects only being printed with 150 Series backs. Others had their team designation changed after the 350 Series backs were being printed. Therefore these updated cards can only be found with 350 Series backs. The important thing is that based on the backs they were printed with, all of these cards were printed from June 1909 to February 1910.

*These dates are used to help illustrate a point and not meant to be exact.

sreader3 · #7 01-31-2013, 11:43 PM

Tim,

if print timing is your polestar I don't see how it supports your print group breakdown. Yes you can say that the 150-onlys and 150/350s were both printed between July 1909 and February 1910 so what difference does it make but my response would be that the 150-onlys were printed from July 1909 to November 1909 whereas the 150/350s were printed between July 1909 and February 1910 so it makes all the difference in the world. (Dates are approximate). The same logic applies for the SLers--while there is overlap in print timing there is not identity. Thanks for the discussion. Need to sign off.

Scot

Abravefan11 · #8 02-01-2013, 06:07 AM

Scot - The time frame of each print group is what shows us the cards were a group. This is fundamental in understanding how the set was produced.

These time frames prevent us from mistakenly classifying cards from print group 1 that were printed with only 350 series backs, with cards from group 2 that were printed with only 350 series backs.

We can identify many different subsets within the major print groups like the 150 only. We can do this by different parameters such as when they were discontinued, or what backs they were or were not printed with during a groups production. However the series subjects were all part of one of the four major print groups.

It's been my experience with longtime knowledgeable collector's that it takes some time, effort and openness for the print groups to make sense. Once it clicks though it really simplifies how the set was put together in my opinion and based on the feedback I've received from others.

Tim

steve B · #9 02-01-2013, 01:17 PM

Quote:

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

tedzan · #10 02-01-2013, 01:58 PM

DITTO....to what you just said Steve.

The Browne (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn), and Elberfeld (Washington) are indeed 350-only distinct subjects.

George Browne waivered over to Washington May 21, 1909.

Bill Dahlen is signed as a Free Agent with the Brooklyn (becomes their MGR. for the 1910 season).

Kid Elberfeld was purchased by Washington December 14, 1909, which would place his T206 card into the 350-only timeframe press run.

This "print group" numbering is unnecessary. Traditional T206 thinking has established the various Series (150, 350, 350/460, 460....and,
the 150 series SL press run, followed by the 350 series SL press run.

Why is it necessary to "re-invent the wheel" ?

TED Z

cfc1909 · #11 02-01-2013, 02:38 PM

Studying this set has always been difficult and mainly because we have put cards like Browne (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn), and Elberfeld (Washington) in the wrong category. Putting these cards in print group 1 makes the numbers in the 150 and 350 accurate.

The set originally had 150 subjects issued. During the printing of this group their were 5 additions, 3 team changes and 1 error corrected but the initial 150 subjects are there. Then 200 subjects were added and you have your 350 subjects. Demmitt and O'hara had team changes but when you count them each as a subject you have an even 200 instead of 202. Putting the set into these print groups makes it much easier to understand.

It took me some time to change the way I looked at the set. I had to go over the print groups several times before I got it. Its hard to change the way you look at the set for more than 15 years but the more I read over these groups the the easier it was the understand and the 150 and 200 subjects finally made sense.

g_vezina_c55 · #12 02-01-2013, 03:14 PM

Edit.

Abravefan11 · #13 02-01-2013, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tedzan

Why is it necessary to "re-invent the wheel" ?

TED Z

What if we could re-invent the wheel? Shouldn't we be so bold as to try, rather than blindly accept that things are as good as they could be.

These print groups are not meant to be a slight to anyone or anything previous. It's the information that I believe to be correct. It has been vetted by some of the best T206 guys in the hobby and so I put it forward for the consideration of others. At the end of the day no one is trying to force anyone to believe something they don't.

t206hound · #14 01-31-2013, 09:12 PM

moved to a new thread

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FS: t206 groups, HOF w/ tostois too	trobba	Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T	1	10-23-2012 02:06 PM
Looking for Groups of PSA T206's	longstreet766	Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T	0	06-21-2009 09:38 PM
Topps Baseball Stamps - An Overview	Archive	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	18	09-06-2008 11:59 AM
WTB Raw T206/T205 Lots/Groups	Archive	Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T	1	04-06-2007 08:51 AM
Grading Companies (Overview & Opinions)	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	22	09-27-2004 09:37 AM