Simulated T206 sheets....check them out....plus, new find of 350/460 series DRUM card

[rainier2004]

You guys are hardcore....

Ill probably never get into t206s but its great to see all this knowledge and constructive debate.

[MVSNYC]

Ted- is the above layout pictured correctly? seems like i very long & narrow sheet...if so, it creates an awkward proportion for a sheet. i also think the cards would be oriented in the other direction, not vertically with the length of the sheet.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Ted- is the above layout pictured correctly? seems like i very long & narrow sheet...if so, it creates an awkward proportion for a sheet. i also think the cards would be oriented in the other direction, not vertically with the length of the sheet.

Mike

Given......The typical width of a T206 is 1 7/16 inches

I contend that American Lithographic (ALC) printed T206's (and T205's) formatted in rows of 12 cards each.

Therefore, 12 x 1 7/16 inches = 17 1/4 inches. Now, it has come to our attention (from Steve B) that the standard size sheet (or cardboard) during the
T206 printing era) is 19" x 24".

Recently, a nearby neighbor of mine, who was in the printing business for 45 years (and is also an artist), told me that a standard size sheet is 18" x 24".

In any event, my 12-card per row theory (17 1/4 inches wide) fits very neatly with either of these size sheets.

Also, my research indicates that ALC operated 19" track (width) printing presses to produce these types of lithographic jobs (advertising posters, cigar-
ette premiums, etc.).


Furthermore, the big picture regarding the T206 structure makes a compelling argument in favor of my 12-card per row theory......check out this math.

Subjects........Series

..12..............150-only (12 x 1 row)

144..............150/350 (12 x 12)

204..............350-only (12 x 17)

..60..............350/460 (12 x 5)

..46..............460-only (+ 2 double-prints) (12 x 4)

..48..............Southern Leaguers (12 x 4)

...6...............Super-Prints

...2...............Demmitt and O'Hara St Louis variations
____
522 = total subjects



Best regards,

TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Mike

Given......The typical width of a T206 is 1 7/16 inches

I contend that American Lithographic (ALC) printed T206's (and T205's) formatted in rows of 12 cards each.

Therefore, 12 x 1 7/16 inches = 17 1/4 inches. Now, it has come to our attention (from Steve B) that the standard size sheet (or cardboard) during the
T206 printing era) is 19" x 24".

Recently, a nearby neighbor of mine, who was in the printing business for 45 years (and is also an artist), told me that a standard size sheet is 18" x 24".

In any event, my 12-card per row theory (17 1/4 inches wide) fits very neatly with either of these size sheets.

Also, my research indicates that ALC operated 19" track (width) printing presses to produce these types of lithographic jobs (advertising posters, cigar-
ette premiums, etc.).


Furthermore, the big picture regarding the T206 structure makes a compelling argument in favor of my 12-card per row theory......check out this math.

Subjects........Series

..12..............150-only (12 x 1 row)

144..............150/350 (12 x 12)

204..............350-only (12 x 17)

..60..............350/460 (12 x 5)

..46..............460-only (+ 2 double-prints) (12 x 4)

..48..............Southern Leaguers (12 x 4)

...6...............Super-Prints

...2...............Demmitt and O'Hara St Louis variations
____
522 = total subjects



Best regards,

TED Z

Hi Ted,

Congrats on the prediction! Credit given where credit is due.

Now, my questions go back to the size of the presses used by the ALC. The 19" track width. I am wondering where the proof of this is at, because I have spent a ton of time trying to confirm this, and I can't. Not saying it's not true, just that I haven't been able to find concrete proof of this. Do you have any information that I can use in my research about this, like who manufactured the presses, etc.?

A very nice lady at the Library of Congress sent me some information, and the information regarding the size of some of the larger prints in their collection (from the ALC) are 22x28. She also believed that they probably used a variety of different sized presses. Any information would be appreciated.

Another thing that has me wondering-and I know these cards are completely different and there is no relation to T206- is this image of a Goodwin sheet. As you can see in this scan, there is a huge amount of space around the whole outer border of the cards. Just wondering if the T206's could have also been printed to have room like this on the sheets, around the outer borders.

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.19675/

Anyhow, I'm just trying to confirm information- thanks in advance for any help.

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

1st....my research that American Litho (ALC) employed printing presses (circa 1909) whose width = 19 inches for printing their 6-color lithographic smaller projects
dates back to the 1980's. It was from a library book, which I don't recall anymore. But, my memory for numbers is very keen.

Furthermore, Steve B. (our printing expert) has informed us that the standard size of printing paper (cardboard) available circa 1909-1912) was 18" (or 19") x 24".
These dimensions are consistent with my contention of how ALC printing these cards. For example on an 18" x 24" sheet of cardboard, I depict a theoretical sheet
of the "Exclusive 12" subjects formatted as a multiple printed 108-card sheet (12 across by 8 rows). If you haven't seen it, Clayton, check-it-out............
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=163949&page=4......Post #38


2nd....your GOODWIN example of 6 cards across this sheet essentially supports my theory. I have also considered that ALC printed the T206's formatted 6 cards
across the sheet (instead of 12).

The factor 6 is the fundamental denominator in the entire series structure of the T206 set......as, is evident in the following structural numbers.

Subjects.........Series

..12..............150-only

144..............150/350

204..............350-only

..66..............350/460......includes the 6 Super-Prints

..48..............460-only

..48..............Southern Leaguers
____
522 = total subjects


Furthermore, your GOODWIN sheet was most likely printed by the George Harris & Sons Lithographers (the American Lithographic Co. did not exist in the 1880's).



TED Z
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
LOOKING for this T206 guy to complete my EXCLUSIVE 12 red HINDU sub-set (12 subjects)

SHECKARD (glove)
.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

1st....my research that American Litho (ALC) employed printing presses (circa 1909) whose width = 19 inches for printing their 6-color lithographic smaller projects
dates back to the 1980's. It was from a library book, which I don't recall anymore. But, my memory for numbers is very keen.

Furthermore, Steve B. (our printing expert) has informed us that the standard size of printing paper (cardboard) available circa 1909-1912) was 18" (or 19") x 24".
These dimensions are consistent with my contention of how ALC printing these cards. For example on an 18" x 24" sheet of cardboard, I depict a theoretical sheet
of the "Exclusive 12" subjects formatted as a multiple printed 108-card sheet (12 across by 8 rows). If you haven't seen it, Clayton, check-it-out............
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=163949&page=4......Post #38


2nd....your GOODWIN example of 6 cards across this sheet essentially supports my theory. I have also considered that ALC printed the T206's formatted 6 cards
across the sheet (instead of 12).

The factor 6 is the fundamental denominator in the entire series structure of the T206 set......as, is evident in the following structural numbers.

Subjects.........Series

..12..............150-only

144..............150/350

204..............350-only

..66..............350/460......includes the 6 Super-Prints

..48..............460-only

..48..............Southern Leaguers
____
522 = total subjects


Furthermore, your GOODWIN sheet was most likely printed by the George Harris & Sons Lithographers (the American Lithographic Co. did not exist in the 1880's).


TED Z
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
LOOKING for this T206 guy to complete my EXCLUSIVE 12 red HINDU sub-set (12 subjects)

SHECKARD (glove)
.

Thanks for the reply Ted.

I posted the link to the LOC's Goodwin sheet just as an example of how much excess border space these printers would leave available. Earlier in this thread, using your 19" track theory, you had said (according to your sheet configuration and theory) that there would be a remaining 7/8" border space-which seems a bit tight to me. Not saying you are wrong- we are all speculating- but that just seems like too little room for error.

Someone recently posted a Cy Young portrait miscut top to bottom, and it had a huge border space at the top. It made me wonder about how much border space was actually above that, before the card was cut to size. The Goodwin sheet, with all of it's open border space made me wonder once again about the 19" track width, and if this is correct.

On top of that, we do know the ALC was printing larger advertising lithographs that could not be printed with a 19" track. I understand your sheet theory is partially based on this track width, but I really (after reading back through this thread) don't see any definitive proof that this is fact.

I have to reiterate that I am not saying you are wrong or right. Imagine I am a student-these are questions I would pose to the teacher .

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Clayton

I'm reprising these two statements of mine from my prior post......because you apparently overlooked them, or they did not register with you.

Originally Posted by tedzan

1st....my research that American Litho (ALC) employed printing presses (circa 1909) whose width = 19 inches for printing their 6-color lithographic smaller projects
dates back to the 1980's. It was from a library book, which I don't recall anymore. But, my memory for numbers is very keen.

Furthermore, Steve B. (our printing expert) has informed us that the standard size of printing paper (cardboard) available circa 1909-1912) was 18" (or 19") x 24".
These dimensions are consistent with my contention of how ALC printing these cards. For example on an 18" x 24" sheet of cardboard, I depict a theoretical sheet
of the "Exclusive 12" subjects formatted as a multiple printed 108-card sheet (12 across by 8 rows). If you haven't seen it, Clayton, check-it-out............
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=163949&page=4......Post #38

Note, that I qualified that the T206 project was considered by ALC as a...." 6-color lithographic smaller project ". Therefore, a 19" (track width) press was employed
to print these cards (1 7/16" x 2 5/8") in a format of up to 108 (my guess) cards on a sheet.

Of course, ALC had larger track width presses for their larger projects (art works, advertisements, posters, etc.). But, anyone who is familiar with lithographic printing
of that era will tell you that the quality and the yield of the printed product is inversely proportional its size. Thus, ALC chose to use their smaller track width press to
improve the yield. This is important when you are cranking-out 10 MILLION cards. That's my guesstimate as to how many T206 cards were produced from 1909-1911.

I will reiterate the information that Steve B. provide us regarding the standard size sheets for this type of printing having been either 18" x 24" (or 19" x 24"). The 18",
or 19" sheet width is consistent with the 19'" track width of the press.

Sorry, but your concern about wide borders on a sheet is laughable. Assuming my number of 10 Million printed cards is true, then any good printer would efficiently fill
out a sheet of cardboard with just a little border area sufficient enough to clip onto to for hanging the sheets so that the ink can dry.


TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Clayton

I'm reprising these two statements of mine from my prior post......because you apparently overlooked them, or they did not register with you.





Note, that I qualified that the T206 project was considered by ALC as a...." 6-color lithographic smaller project ". Therefore, a 19" (track width) press was employed
to print these cards (1 7/16" x 2 5/8") in a format of up to 108 (my guess) cards on a sheet.

Of course, ALC had larger track width presses for their larger projects (art works, advertisements, posters, etc.). But, anyone who is familiar with lithographic printing
of that era will tell you that the quality and the yield of the printed product is inversely proportional its size. Thus, ALC chose to use their smaller track width press to
improve the yield. This is important when you are cranking-out 10 MILLION cards. That's my guesstimate as to how many T206 cards were produced from 1909-1911.

I will reiterate the information that Steve B. provide us regarding the standard size sheets for this type of printing having been either 18" x 24" (or 19" x 24"). The 18",
or 19" sheet width is consistent with the 19'" track width of the press.

Sorry, but your concern about wide borders on a sheet is laughable. Assuming my number of 10 Million printed cards is true, then any good printer would efficiently fill
out a sheet of cardboard with just a little border area sufficient enough to clip onto to for hanging the sheets so that the ink can dry.


TED Z

Hi Ted,

I didn't overlook anything you posted, like I said in my last post I even went back to read through this whole thread again.

I can see that you still get defensive, and become condescending when I question what you say, even though I feel I was being cordial. You can think my concern about wide borders on a sheet is laughable- just like I think it's laughable that you have to be right about everything at any cost, even when we are talking about something that can't yet be proven.

Have a good one-

Sincerely, Clayton