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

[steve B]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Ted-

I see. So you're saying there's no double (two different names) cards of THESE cards you've posted as a simulated sheet above.

Here's Jantz's thread I believe you are referencing (awesome thread BTW Jantz): http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...6%2C+two+names

But, here's where I'm confused: Confirmed cards with two different names~ all of these are Piedmont 150:

Bradley-Bender
Killian (pitching)-Chance
Lindaman-Bresnahan
Spade-Cicotte
Lundgren(Cubs)-Doolin
Bender(port)-Delahanty(Wash)
M.Brown(port)-Magee

All of the above cards are from Print Group 1:

http://t206resource.com/Print%20Grou...Checklist.html


I know you are going to say these are not ONLY 150 subjects~ but they are 150 subjects. So, I'm not following still.....

As far as the Wagner strip,,,,so you don't think they printed a sheet out and cut the strip from that? I'm not saying it was a regular production sheet, but just figuring it would be printed on a sheet "the size" of a regular production sheet. I'm trying to follow the 19 inch wide track thing, and understand how if they didn't use the regular presses to do this strip, what did they use?

Sincerely, Clayton

The ones Ted showed are a subset of print group 1. None of them are also found with any 350 back or with factory 649 (Except for Plank, and If I recall it right all the 350 Planks are hand cut?)

Schulte front view should be included. There is a P350 that just turned up but I believe it's not a normal production card, most likely a wrongback(150 series sheet given a 350 back, either using up leftovers or as a makeready sheet that got cut and distributed.)

Magie should also be included. (Since at least one master and plate would have had to be reworked to fix Magie I consider Magie and Magee to be different cards Magie 150 only Magee 150/350)


Leaving out Plank and including Schulte, Wagner and Magie This group breaks into two groups, one slightly tougher than the other. With three exception Brown Cubs which isn't all that tough, and Wagner and Magie which are.

My theory had been that 5 of them had been on a sheet with Wagner, the other 5 on a sheet with Magie, and that both sheets had been withdrawn and the plates redone either partly or completely with Brown replacing both Wagner and Magie.

The other outlier card is Powers. No 350 backs, but he is found with factory 649. That one is interesting. Either they handled the sheets oddly to print the 649 overprints or Powers was on more than one sheet. Figuring that out would require looking at the tiny front differences to see if some are only found with 649 and some only with 150 backs. That's a whole project on its own.

Keep in mind that the sheet layout/size could have easily been different for 150 and 350 The 150s were a somewhat more limited release, 4-5 brands. While 350 had all 16. Printing larger sheets or sheets with more subjects to a sheet would have made more sense for 350.

For that reason I think it makes sense to look at sheet layouts by series or if you must, by print group.

Some of the cards on Teds sheet show the P150 plate scratches, so they must have been printed well into the later part of 150 printings.

One attraction of Teds layout is that it would explain a number of things. In production, extracting the Wagners, Planks and Magies would have been simply a matter of cutting off the edge if it was on the edge and discarding it, or cutting into strips and discarding the appropriate strip. Cutting into strips isn't good practice, because handling the long strips in the cutter makes diamond cuts much more likely.

Another issue is the scrap of the log from the packing plant clearly stating "other than philadelphia area" Which probably means that there was a different sheet to produce the mix of cards intended for at the very least the Philadelphia area. Sorting stuff by player and where each was intended to go just doesn't work for packing/distribution there's just way too much manual labor and thought invloved unless there's a major difference in the cards themselves (Like the red bordered paralells sold in Topps product exclusively in Target. Simple to add in while packaging their order since the look is very different.)

All in all a highly complex problem.

Steve B

[steve B]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Ted-

I see. So you're saying there's no double (two different names) cards of THESE cards you've posted as a simulated sheet above.

Here's Jantz's thread I believe you are referencing (awesome thread BTW Jantz): http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...6%2C+two+names

But, here's where I'm confused: Confirmed cards with two different names~ all of these are Piedmont 150:

Bradley-Bender
Killian (pitching)-Chance
Lindaman-Bresnahan
Spade-Cicotte
Lundgren(Cubs)-Doolin
Bender(port)-Delahanty(Wash)
M.Brown(port)-Magee

All of the above cards are from Print Group 1:

http://t206resource.com/Print%20Grou...Checklist.html


I know you are going to say these are not ONLY 150 subjects~ but they are 150 subjects. So, I'm not following still.....

As far as the Wagner strip,,,,so you don't think they printed a sheet out and cut the strip from that? I'm not saying it was a regular production sheet, but just figuring it would be printed on a sheet "the size" of a regular production sheet. I'm trying to follow the 19 inch wide track thing, and understand how if they didn't use the regular presses to do this strip, what did they use?

Sincerely, Clayton

Now for the Wagner strip answer.

The transfers that would be used to lay out the plates and probably any proofs would have been printed on small manually operated proofing presses.

Those can be very small, tabletop size. And are designed to produce one print at a time. The proofs are examined for both design, and to see if all the color elements are in the right place. An example of something that should have been caught in proofing is Magie, and Doyle. There are others that simply weren't fixed until much later. Ganzel has part of the background extending into his hat. That was fixed, but isn't at all rare. But it should have been caught in proofing.

If the Wagner strip was specially printed to try to convince him, it could have been laid out and one copy made. Or they could have used an existing set of proofs. The registration is very precise, better than some other proofs. In looking at the scans I have yesterday it also occured to me that it has a background color making the borders tan rather than white.

Steve B

[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

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

A few points to consider regarding the above quote.

-Plank is not a 150 Only subject.
-Almost all Plank 150 Sweet Cap are Fac. 30, and almost all Wagner Sweet Cap 150 are Fac. 25. If they were Sweet Cap sheet mates the numbers wouldn't be so drastically different.

Plank for all practical purposes is a "150-only" subject (just like Wagner). They both didn't want to be associated with cigarette cards. Wagner went "public", while Plank
was silent and most likely issued a cease & desist order to ATC. However, ALC did not desist; but, continued printing Plank in their early 350 series press runs of SWEET
CAP cards. And, isn't it interesting that they avoided Factory #25. Plank's 350 card was shipped only to Factory #30. In my opinion, this was deliberately done to avoid
the Philadelphia market....which was served by Factory #25 tobacco products. Factory #30 cigarettes were distributed in the New York and New England regions.

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

-If all of the cards pictured above were sheet mates, printed for the same amount of time, all be as relatively scarce as Wagner and Plank with Sweet Caporal 150 backs.

We have factual evidence that Wagner and Plank were on the same sheet. The "Gretzky Wagner" and Charlie Conlon's Plank were cut from same PIEDMONT sheet.
This I recall from my experience when Mastro was first shopping around the Wagner at the Willow Grove Show in the mid-1980's. This is an undeniable fact.

And, since we know that the fronts were pre-printed....followed by the printing of the advertising backs, it does not make any difference whether we are referring
to PIEDMONT cards or SWEET CAP cards.

We will never know how many Wagner and Plank cards were originally printed. Then discarded, after ALC was informed to desist. Meanwhile, the printing & shipping
of the other 10 subjects on my simulated sheet of 150-only series cards continued. The discarding of the Wagner and Plank in no way affects the numbers of the
other 10 subjects.

With all due respect, I don't get what you are saying here.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

With all due respect, I don't get what you are saying here.

TED Z

Unless I misunderstand you, based on your mock sheet and your arguments for it, you're contention is that the cards only found with 150 series backs and Plank were printed on every sheet together.

Is this accurate?

Edit to add: I am aware that Plank and Wagner were on the same Piedmont 150 sheets. Do you believe the same to be true with Sweet Caporal 150?

I think the pithier the discussion, the more likely we are to understand each other and maybe make some progress.

[Brian Weisner]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Plank for all practical purposes is a "150-only" subject (just like Wagner). They both didn't want to be associated with cigarette cards. Wagner went "public", while Plank
was silent and most likely issued a cease & desist order to ATC. However, ALC did not desist; but, continued printing Plank in their early 350 series press runs of SWEET
CAP cards. And, isn't it interesting that they avoided Factory #25. Plank's 350 card was shipped only to Factory #30. In my opinion, this was deliberately done to avoid
the Philadelphia market....which was served by Factory #25 tobacco products. Factory #30 cigarettes were distributed in the New York and New England regions.



We have factual evidence that Wagner and Plank were on the same sheet. The "Gretzky Wagner" and Charlie Conlon's Plank were cut from same PIEDMONT sheet.
This I recall from my experience when Mastro was first shopping around the Wagner at the Willow Grove Show in the mid-1980's. This is an undeniable fact.

And, since we know that the fronts were pre-printed....followed by the printing of the advertising backs, it does not make any difference whether we are referring
to PIEDMONT cards or SWEET CAP cards.

We will never know how many Wagner and Plank cards were originally printed. Then discarded, after ALC was informed to desist. Meanwhile, the printing & shipping
of the other 10 subjects on my simulated sheet of 150-only series cards continued. The discarding of the Wagner and Plank in no way affects the numbers of the
other 10 subjects.

With all due respect, I don't get what you are saying here.


TED Z

Hi Ted,
I don't understand how Plank is a "150 only" card.... We have have twice as many known SwCap 350 Planks as we do Plank SwCap 150's.... That leads me to agree with Tim, that Plank was added late in the first print group and continued over into the 350's... I also believe that Wagner and Plank were most likely on the same Piedmont sheet, but not on the Sweet Caps....
Hope you are well Brian

[teetwoohsix]

Thanks for the reply Steve, I appreciate it.

I'm mucking things up in this discussion by bringing up the strip. I guess it's best to stay more on topic. Now, I don't know how to quote a certain section of a post, so I copied and pasted this :

"Keep in mind that the sheet layout/size could have easily been different for 150 and 350 The 150s were a somewhat more limited release, 4-5 brands. While 350 had all 16. Printing larger sheets or sheets with more subjects to a sheet would have made more sense for 350."

This is something I've been wondering about. I notice on a lot of the 150 series cards, the brown writing (player name & team designation) will be a thicker, bolder brown. And, on a good majority of the 350 series, the brown writing will be thinner and lighter. I wonder if that has to do with the volume they were printing?

I know that in the end we can only come up with theories about who was on a sheet, how many subjects per sheet, how many in a row, whether they ran the sheet horizontal or vertical, etc.~ unless a sheet pops up or someone who has seen one comes forward- but, I think Tim and Jim's website provides a deeper understanding of the set and presents a more probable scenario with the print groups and also Tim's article about the #34,,,,,Ted, you should check that article out if you haven't.


Thanks for the great discussion and information, my brain gets a great work out from these type of threads

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Brian Weisner

Hi Ted,
I don't understand how Plank is a "150 only" card.... We have have twice as many known SwCap 350 Planks as we do Plank SwCap 150's.... That leads me to agree with Tim, that Plank was added late in the first print group and continued over into the 350's... I also believe that Wagner and Plank were most likely on the same Piedmont sheet, but not on the Sweet Caps....
Hope you are well Brian

Brian

At least you agree with me that Wagner and Plank were printed on the same sheet.

We all appear to agree on....that the fronts were pre-printed....and, the backs were printed subsequently on these pre-printed (fronts) sheets as the orders
for the various T-brands came into American Litho (ALC).

Therefore, there appears to be a contradiction here, in that you guys are saying Plank was printed on another sheet ? ?
This does not jive with what we know.

OK, this may appeal to the conspiracy buffs....given that the majority of SWEET CAP 150 cards of Plank are Factory #30; and, the SWEET CAP 350 cards of
Plank are ONLY Factory #30....my theory is that ALC continued to print Plank (although he had informed ATC that he did not want his image associated with
tobacco) and shipped the cards to Factory #30 (NY). This was a deliberate move to continue issuing Plank's card, since Factory 30 distributed SWEET CAP
cigarettes to the New York and the New England markets.
Factory #25 distributed to the Southern States and as North as the Philadelphia area.

This is not as far-fetched as it might sound....recall that we have an ALC ledger notation informing the jobber......

"not to ship certain SWEET CAP cards to the Philadelphia region" (paraphrased)

Take care,

TED Z

[tedzan]

Here's an example of a possible Double-Printed 48-subject arrangement printed on a 19' X 24" sheet. Leaving a 1 1/2 inch border (top & bottom) if the printed cards were centered
on the sheet.








TED Z

[tedzan]

Another example of a possible 108-card sheet printed during the 150 Series press runs. These 34 subjects and two Double-Prints ** were printed with PIEDMONT 150....
SOVEREIGN 150....SWEET CAPORAL 150 [Factory's #25, #30 & #649 (overprint)]....and, Brown HINDU backs.


Johnson .................................................. ......Possible DOUBLE-PRINTS................................................. Davis



DOUBLE-PRINTS.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...... Powers .................. Matty (Possible DOUBLE-PRINT)


** Double-Prints (D-P)
My selection of Powers, and the 2nd D-P (either Davis, Matty, or Johnson) is based NOT on POP reports....but, two T206 surveys totalling 16,000 cards, which I have.


TED Z

[cfc1909]

when the SC 649 set and the southern brown Hindu sets subjects were chosen, there were plenty other subjects available if 36 were needed. No reason to double print 2 subjects.



As for a survey of 16,000 t206s, that is a drop in a 55 gallon bucket of what is out there . In 1998 there were a half million t206s surveyed by AM and we have done at least that many more since.

Sweet Cap 649 subjects and southern brown Hindu subjects were printed in equal numbers.

[teetwoohsix]

Great cards Ted !!

Here's what I don't get about these two simulated sheets you just posted.
The only chance for a possible "double name card" (same name top and bottom) is the Powers and Matty cards. The double name/same name shows up enough to see that they must have (like in Chris Browne's simulated sheet) been in columns of likely 3 of the same player down (in order to find these double name/same name).

Then, you have the double name/different name top, which also makes sense if you look at Chris's simulated sheet. The sheets you posted could give you a ton of double name/different name at top (which are way less common to find) and basically 2 possibilities for a double name/ same name (which are way more common).

How does this make sense, when factoring in these double named cards (which I think are a key factor in figuring out a sheet layout)?

Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Clayton

The simulated sheet I posted (post #41) consists of 12 subjects in the 150-ONLY Series.

The simulated sheet I posted (post #60) consists of 34 subjects in the 150/350 Series.

The simulated sheet I posted (post #59) consists of 48 subjects in the 350 Series.

This is your 2nd post on this thread in which your comments indicate that you have the T206 series confused.

The traditional classification (by Bill Heitman, Scot Reader, and long-time T206 collectors) is as follows......

150-only series

150/350 series

350-only series

350/460 series

460-only series

Southern Leaguer series

Demmitt and O'Hara (St. Louis variations)

Joe Doyle N.Y. Nat'l and Sherry Magie (error)


Any other manner of classifying these series is subject to confusion.


TED Z

[Brian Weisner]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Brian

At least you agree with me that Wagner and Plank were printed on the same sheet.

We all appear to agree on....that the fronts were pre-printed....and, the backs were printed subsequently on these pre-printed (fronts) sheets as the orders
for the various T-brands came into American Litho (ALC).

Therefore, there appears to be a contradiction here, in that you guys are saying Plank was printed on another sheet ? ?
This does not jive with what we know.

Take care,

TED Z

Hey Ted,
The only thing I agree with in the above post is that Plank and Wagner were “most likely” printed on the same “Piedmont” sheet given the existing examples, as well as the story behind “The Card”….
Otherwise, as Tim as shown in multiple posts like the one below… “What we know” suggest otherwise….

Originally Posted by Abravefan11
A few points to consider regarding the above quote.

-Plank is not a 150 Only subject.
-Some of these cards were printed with Sovereign 150 and some were not.
-Almost all Plank 150 Sweet Cap are Fac. 30, and almost all Wagner Sweet Cap 150 are Fac. 25. If they were Sweet Cap sheet mates the numbers wouldn't be so drastically different.
-If all of the cards pictured above were sheet mates, printed for the same amount of time, all be as relatively scarce as Wagner and Plank with Sweet Caporal 150 backs.
Be well Brian

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Clayton

The simulated sheet I posted (post #41) consists of 12 subjects in the 150-ONLY Series.

The simulated sheet I posted (post #60) consists of 34 subjects in the 150/350 Series.

The simulated sheet I posted (post #59) consists of 48 subjects in the 350 Series.

This is your 2nd post on this thread in which your comments indicate that you have the T206 series confused.

The traditional classification (by Bill Heitman, Scot Reader, and long-time T206 collectors) is as follows......

150-only series

150/350 series

350-only series

350/460 series

460-only series

Southern Leaguer series

Demmitt and O'Hara (St. Louis variations)

Joe Doyle N.Y. Nat'l and Sherry Magie (error)


Any other manner of classifying these series is subject to confusion.


TED Z

Ted- I am not confused about the T206 series one bit. I am confused about your sheet layouts. You also dodged my questions. Rather than explain what series the players consist of, I was hoping you would adress my last post with something that makes sense. Please re-read my last post, it's not that confusing.

Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Brian Weisner

Hey Ted,
The only thing I agree with in the above post is that Plank and Wagner were “most likely” printed on the same “Piedmont” sheet given the existing examples, as well as the story behind “The Card”….

Be well Brian

Brian

The point I'm trying to make is that Plank was originally intended to be a 150-only subject. My premise here is based on these two supporting facts....

......PIEDMONT backs were printed FIRST onto the T206 fronts

......The Gretzky Wagner and Charlie Conlon's Plank were on the same PIEDMONT sheet


What transpired subsequent to the initial PIEDMONT printing of Wagner and Plank regarding the SWEET CAPORAL cards is anyone's guess. None of us
have concrete evidence of what actually transpired.

I have offered a theory or two....and, you guys have speculated as to what followed the PIEDMONT printing of Wagner and Plank.

But, as of today, we have no proof to back up our contentions regarding the SWEET CAP press runs. Perhaps, some one smarter than us, or lucky to
discover positive proof will arrive at the scene in the future.


TED Z

[wolf441]

This may be a dumb question (sorry if it is ), but has there ever been a confirmed report (or even a second hand story originally told by someone who was purchasing cigarette packs in 1909) of a Plank or a Wagner actually being pulled from a period cigarette pack? My point being, is it possible that NO Wagners and Planks ever made it into packs and that workers at the distribution site (sorry, not sure who actually did the cutting of the sheets - ALC or the actual factories) were told to destroy all of these cards (perhaps due to threatened litigation), but instead decided to take some home, being that these guys were two of the biggest stars of the day?

[Abravefan11]

Concerning the consistency of sheet sizes throughout the T206 set and different series I'll offer up the following for thought.

The number 34 wasn't a random number that we found in a couple places within the set and have since tried to configure every other subset to fit it. It stands on its own as the smallest number of any group printed at a given time within the set. This is of the utmost importance. It doesn't require double prints, subsets, or any other adjustments to arrive at the total. It is 34 confirmed subjects that we know were printed at a very specific time in the set. Here are some examples:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 = 34
Hindu Southern League = 34
Print Group 3 (350/460) Drum 350 = 34
Broad Leaf 460 = 34

I used these four to show that small runs are consistent throughout the entire set, and all equal 34. While I can't prove that during other larger runs that a sheet size couldn't have been different, it's my current belief that they stayed consistent.

Once you go beyond 34 a lot of variables can change the total number of cards produced with a given back. Multiple sheet configurations, multiple printings of the same back at different times with the same subjects, and on and on.

There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards. This is how we categorize them and not evidence of how they were printed. When it comes to the actual production of the cards, you can not reduce a group printed at a specific time to a number smaller than 34.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by wolf441

This may be a dumb question (sorry if it is ), but has there ever been a confirmed report (or even a second hand story originally told by someone who was purchasing cigarette packs in 1909) of a Plank or a Wagner actually being pulled from a period cigarette pack?

From an August 1909 newspaper articele:

[teetwoohsix]

OK, I'll try it a different way.

Let's take Rossman. In this sheet layout, how would there ever be a Rossman card with the name Rossman also at the top of the card (miscut)? I'm just using this card as an example of what I was getting at with my question.

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Concerning the consistency of sheet sizes throughout the T206 set and different series I'll offer up the following for thought.

The number 34 wasn't a random number that we found in a couple places within the set and have since tried to configure every other subset to fit it. It stands on its own as the smallest number of any group printed at a given time within the set. This is of the utmost importance. It doesn't require double prints, subsets, or any other adjustments to arrive at the total. It is 34 confirmed subjects that we know were printed at a very specific time in the set. Here are some examples:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 = 34
Hindu Southern League = 34
Print Group 3 (350/460) Drum 350 = 34
Broad Leaf 460 = 34

I used these four to show that small runs are consistent throughout the entire set, and all equal 34. While I can't prove that during other larger runs that a sheet size couldn't have been different, it's my current belief that they stayed consistent.

Once you go beyond 34 a lot of variables can change the total number of cards produced with a given back. Multiple sheet configurations, multiple printings of the same back at different times with the same subjects, and on and on.

There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards. This is how we categorize them and not evidence of how they were printed. When it comes to the actual production of the cards, you can not reduce a group printed at a specific time to a number smaller than 34.

The part I changed to red above cannot be true.

14 Souther leaguers not printed with Hindu.
13 Printed with ONLY 150 backs and not with SC150/649.
1 printed with Only 150 Backs AND SC150/649

Is there some explanation for how these would have been printed on the same sheet as cards that recieved a different selection of backs? (I've proposed a few before, all of which I consider unlikely and for which there is no existing proof.)

The print groups do make sense, and are excellent for explaining thedistribution of the set.
But those groups are only a start towards understanding the production of the set.

I have a few other objections to 34 being the key. But none of them are something concrete.
For instance, it's not a number that most people would be comfortable with. People tend to select numbers that are either multiples of 10 or are readily divisible. 100, 150, 50, 25,75 All common choices. Ask yourself how many cards you'd put in a set? Hardly anyone would choose 34. How many of something would you put on a sheet? again, 34 isn't a number most people would choose. And none of the bigger numbers 150,350,460 can be made from 34. To be entirely fair, only 150 can be made from 6, so it's only marginally better.

And yes, I know the counter argument is pretty much any Topps set. Odd numbers made from sheets of 100, entire sets based on being multiples of 11...Quite a mess.

Steve B

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

From an August 1909 newspaper articele:

Thanks Tim!!

It's odd that they would mention Cobb as being a rare example in early packs along with Wagner, and also that "multiple" Wagners were found when the new shipment arrived. Great source material. The expertise and time spent in researching shown by you and the other veterans on this board is greatly appreciated.

Thanks again,

Steve

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

From an August 1909 newspaper articele:

It's curious that the author of the above refers to 'photographs'. I wonder if he didn't confuse some other facts as well? (like player names). If he knew that a 'recent' shipment contained Cobb and Wagner, it's doubtful he found that out by digging through packs himself - probably quizzed the kids and couldn't they have been talking about cards other than T206's and the author got confused?

Also, August is late in the year. If they began printing in May, does that mean that they waited until months later to begin printing Wagners?

[Abravefan11]

Steve - With all do respect you misunderstand me.

Every one of the three groups you referenced I was referring to with this in my post: "There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards."

Yes, 14 southern league cards were not printed with Hindu, but when they were printed with Old Mill, the actual number printed is 48. Same with Piedmont 350. The fact that 14 were not printed with Hindu is not evidence that less than 34 were printed later.

You can classify the 150 only cards as you like, but none were printed with a back subset less than 34.

Excluding Wagner and Magie let's look at the regular 150 Only subjects.

All were printed with the following backs:

Piedmont 150
Sweet Caporal 150 No.25
Sweet Caporal 150 No.30
Sovereign 150
Hindu

All were no-prints with:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 (Powers is the lone exception*)

Up until the point they were discontinued, 67 subjects in the set followed that exact pattern of distribution. Nothing about them was unique except for when they were discontinued. Again this isn't evidence of any special treatment during production.

I hope this clears up the point I was trying to make but please ask me any followups.

Edit* Of the 150 only group Powers was printed with SC150/649, but like the others this does not make how he was printed unique. Until being discontinued his card followed the same distribution as 33 other group 1 subjects.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Also, August is late in the year. If they began printing in May, does that mean that they waited until months later to begin printing Wagners?

Yes. We believe that the exclusion from Sovereign 150 shows that Wagner was not one of the original 150 subjects and added later in production.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Steve - With all do respect you misunderstand me.

Every one of the three groups you referenced I was referring to with this in my post: "There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards."

Yes, 14 southern league cards were not printed with Hindu, but when they were printed with Old Mill, the actual number printed is 48. Same with Piedmont 350. The fact that 14 were not printed with Hindu is not evidence that less than 34 were printed later.

You can classify the 150 only cards as you like, but none were printed with a back subset less than 34.

Excluding Wagner and Magie let's look at the regular 150 Only subjects.

All were printed with the following backs:

Piedmont 150
Sweet Caporal 150 No.25
Sweet Caporal 150 No.30
Sovereign 150
Hindu

All were no-prints with:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 (Powers is the lone exception*)

Up until the point they were discontinued, 67 subjects in the set followed that exact pattern of distribution. Nothing about them was unique except for when they were discontinued. Again this isn't evidence of any special treatment during production.

I hope this clears up the point I was trying to make but please ask me any followups.

Edit* Of the 150 only group Powers was printed with SC150/649, but like the others this does not make how he was printed unique. Until being discontinued his card followed the same distribution as 33 other group 1 subjects.

The key to my earlier post was that 34 seems to work for distribution But not always for production The two are not necessarily linked. looking at the overall print groups 34 does turn up often. But so does 6.
From a production standpoint the overall print group doesn't matter except in a general sense. When looking at what an individual sheet might look like it's necessary to look at more detailed groups.

For me, we're right at the point where the math and logic fail to support 34 without doubleprints in all series.

The 14 non-Hindu Sl cards *might* have been included on a sheet with regular Old Mill subjects. But so far there are no cards indicating that -No SL/regular double name. No SL/regular side miscut. No SL/regular shifted ghost image.

The options for having 14 out of 48 cards not printed with a particular back are limited.
Either
A)The sheet including those 14 had mixed SL and normal OM backs.
B)The sheet included ONLY those 14 subjects in some quantity.
C)The sheet was very complex, perhaps a very large sheet that included 2 or more smaller blocks that were then cut and the backs printed.
D)The sheet contained 34 subjects. 14 new and 20 held over from an earlier sheet. In other words doubleprints. But the first sheet must have still been in use since all the SL subjects come with P350 and OMSL.
E)24 sheets of 34 subjects is divisible by 48. Which would leave no doubleprints, but from a manufacturing standpoint is more than a bit crazy.


I don't see any realistic way of getting 48 cards on 34 subject sheets without either doubleprints or a sheet that does not contain 34 subjects. There's no indication that A or C happened. And E just isn't at all likely. (Although I might believe it for non SL P350s there's enough of them out there.) So B and D are the only logical choices.

Yes, the 150 only cards could have simply been discontinued before any 649overprint or 350 backs were printed. The question would be why they were discontinued when so many others were carried over into the 350 backs.
That's interesting. Looking at the players, there's a few from that group that there's a good reason to discontinue. What's odd is discontinuing 11 out of 34 subjects while only having a good reason for about half of them. 4 of them were reworked, Magie before the 350s and Brown(e) Brown and Evers between 150 and 350. I could maybe see there being one sheet that just had nothing but problems. Magie, Wagner,Plank, plus a required team change and at least two players who were out of the majors before 1909 began. (Pattee and Donlin) Going through making a new brown plate to fix Magie/Magee pulling Wagner, pulling Plank maybe /sort of. Yeah, a royal pain. My inclination would be to abandon the whole bunch. Three of the 4 reworks make sense. Brown(e) doesn't make much sense. He doesn't look like a star from his numbers. And they still got his name wrong the second time around.

That could lead somewhere! if the sheet had 34 subjects it's possible the other 23 were reworked between 150 and 350 as well. I'm sure some were, but haven't looked at that enough.

Powers is a very odd subject. If he was on the sheet with the other 150 onlys there shouldn't be a 649OP. If he was on any other sheet there should be 350 backs. The logical thing is that he was on two sheets, both discontinued before the 350 series one that got the overprint, the other that didn't. That would lead me to think the 649 sheet was actually a special sheet for fact. 649. But if it was why do it as an overprint? They had to make a plate for the overprinting anyway.

Even the lists of confirmed and possible back/front combinations rarely add up to a number divisible by 34, both on the master spreadsheet at T206 resource and the superset spreadsheet.

So to me-
34 subjects- possible/probable for some parts of some print groups. 649OP looks good without doubleprints, and fits both the 34 theory and the divisible by 6 theory if a couple subjects are printed twice. But 34 is a perfect fit.

Some number divisible by 6 or 12 ---Possible for some parts of most groups. Sovereign 350 lt green 66 subjects. 6 works, backing out the 6 superprints 12 works.

Some number we haven't yet considered. - Also possible for some groups. Sov 460. 52 subjects all confirmed with none shown as unconfirmed. 34? nope. 52/6...Nope. Backing out the 6 superprints? still no.
So either Sov 460 was a complex set of sheets with doubleprints. OR some number we haven't considered, OR there are at least two subjects still unknown. Or some of the confirmed ones are errors that shouldn't have that back.

Lots more thoughts on all of this, but I've redone this about 5 times and it's getting late....

Steve B

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by steve B

The key to my earlier post was that 34 seems to work for distribution But not always for production The two are not necessarily linked. looking at the overall print groups 34 does turn up often. But so does 6.
From a production standpoint the overall print group doesn't matter except in a general sense. When looking at what an individual sheet might look like it's necessary to look at more detailed groups.

For me, we're right at the point where the math and logic fail to support 34 without doubleprints in all series.

The 14 non-Hindu Sl cards *might* have been included on a sheet with regular Old Mill subjects. But so far there are no cards indicating that -No SL/regular double name. No SL/regular side miscut. No SL/regular shifted ghost image.

The options for having 14 out of 48 cards not printed with a particular back are limited.
Either
A)The sheet including those 14 had mixed SL and normal OM backs.
B)The sheet included ONLY those 14 subjects in some quantity.
C)The sheet was very complex, perhaps a very large sheet that included 2 or more smaller blocks that were then cut and the backs printed.
D)The sheet contained 34 subjects. 14 new and 20 held over from an earlier sheet. In other words doubleprints. But the first sheet must have still been in use since all the SL subjects come with P350 and OMSL.
E)24 sheets of 34 subjects is divisible by 48. Which would leave no doubleprints, but from a manufacturing standpoint is more than a bit crazy.


I don't see any realistic way of getting 48 cards on 34 subject sheets without either doubleprints or a sheet that does not contain 34 subjects. There's no indication that A or C happened. And E just isn't at all likely. (Although I might believe it for non SL P350s there's enough of them out there.) So B and D are the only logical choices.

Yes, the 150 only cards could have simply been discontinued before any 649overprint or 350 backs were printed. The question would be why they were discontinued when so many others were carried over into the 350 backs.
That's interesting. Looking at the players, there's a few from that group that there's a good reason to discontinue. What's odd is discontinuing 11 out of 34 subjects while only having a good reason for about half of them. 4 of them were reworked, Magie before the 350s and Brown(e) Brown and Evers between 150 and 350. I could maybe see there being one sheet that just had nothing but problems. Magie, Wagner,Plank, plus a required team change and at least two players who were out of the majors before 1909 began. (Pattee and Donlin) Going through making a new brown plate to fix Magie/Magee pulling Wagner, pulling Plank maybe /sort of. Yeah, a royal pain. My inclination would be to abandon the whole bunch. Three of the 4 reworks make sense. Brown(e) doesn't make much sense. He doesn't look like a star from his numbers. And they still got his name wrong the second time around.

That could lead somewhere! if the sheet had 34 subjects it's possible the other 23 were reworked between 150 and 350 as well. I'm sure some were, but haven't looked at that enough.

Powers is a very odd subject. If he was on the sheet with the other 150 onlys there shouldn't be a 649OP. If he was on any other sheet there should be 350 backs. The logical thing is that he was on two sheets, both discontinued before the 350 series one that got the overprint, the other that didn't. That would lead me to think the 649 sheet was actually a special sheet for fact. 649. But if it was why do it as an overprint? They had to make a plate for the overprinting anyway.

Even the lists of confirmed and possible back/front combinations rarely add up to a number divisible by 34, both on the master spreadsheet at T206 resource and the superset spreadsheet.

So to me-
34 subjects- possible/probable for some parts of some print groups. 649OP looks good without doubleprints, and fits both the 34 theory and the divisible by 6 theory if a couple subjects are printed twice. But 34 is a perfect fit.

Some number divisible by 6 or 12 ---Possible for some parts of most groups. Sovereign 350 lt green 66 subjects. 6 works, backing out the 6 superprints 12 works.

Some number we haven't yet considered. - Also possible for some groups. Sov 460. 52 subjects all confirmed with none shown as unconfirmed. 34? nope. 52/6...Nope. Backing out the 6 superprints? still no.
So either Sov 460 was a complex set of sheets with doubleprints. OR some number we haven't considered, OR there are at least two subjects still unknown. Or some of the confirmed ones are errors that shouldn't have that back.

Lots more thoughts on all of this, but I've redone this about 5 times and it's getting late....

Steve B

Hi Steve-

I want some of whatever type of coffee you are drinking it must be the good stuff

It sounds to me like the only thing hanging you up on the #34 really is the 14 non Hindu S/L'ers. Other than that, I think it (the #34) makes sense to you. It seems like you go back and forth with this, and those 14 subjects are where you hit the brick wall. This is just an observation, and I may be wrong.

Regardless, at least you are willing to look at both theories without prejudice and that is awesome. I can tell you put a lot of thought into this, and it's this type of focus that I believe gets us all closer to nailing it down. Thanks for having an open minded approach.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Abravefan11]

Steve,

I'd like to second what Clayton posted. Whether we ultimately agree or disagree, actually having a discussion is good for everyone and helps foster ideas. This used to happen a lot on the board and I hope this is a rebirth of that. I know it may come across at times like I've come to a definite conclusion but I'm open to other ideas. In the same vein I'm glad to have anyone question my ideas because it's good for them to be tested.

You addressed a lot in your post and I'll speak to a few things. I'm not ignoring the others but think we need to take things a few at the time to avoid overlapping and confusing different issues.

Originally Posted by steve B

The key to my earlier post was that 34 seems to work for distribution But not always for production The two are not necessarily linked. looking at the overall print groups 34 does turn up often. But so does 6.

You're correct, they're is a difference between distribution and production and here's a great example. We know based on the advertisements that ATC/ALC planned to distribute all 48 southern league subjects with Hindu cigarettes, but they only produced 34 southern league subjects. So this links 34 to production which is the important aspect of determining a sheet.

Again I'll emphasize that 34 is the smallest production number we can reduce any back set to. I know it's an odd number, but to me that is what makes it more compelling. It can only be divided by 17 and 2. It's human nature to want to make things even or easily divisible. It's also human nature to see false patterns in large groups of numbers, especially if you allow yourself to make unfounded adjustments when the numbers fall a few short. Ultimately 34 may not be the number of subjects on a sheet, but the number needs no tweaking in the smallest known production sets. It just is and occurs again and again throughout the set.

Let's consider the idea of six subjects to a sheet for a moment. First, we know of a horizontal strip of 8 subjects, so right off we would have to believe there were two different size sheets for this to be plausible. If we do that these are the questions I would ask. If there were six or twelve subjects to a sheet and ALC intended on printing all 48 southern league subjects, doesn't it make the most sense that there would be 36 Hindu subjects? Why would they take the time to double print two southern league subjects when they were falling short of their intended distribution? Why would they do the same for every 34 card subset seen throughout the set? Following Occam's razor I believe 34 was the number of subjects ALC could fit on a sheet with their given printing parameters.

Originally Posted by steve B

Yes, the 150 only cards could have simply been discontinued before any 649overprint or 350 backs were printed. The question would be why they were discontinued when so many others were carried over into the 350 backs.

Why this group was discontinued is a good question. I have speculative theories, but they're just that. What's important to note is that discontinuing subjects isn't unusual in the set. Not long after the 150 only subjects were pulled a second group was discontinued. This was a group of about 12 that were printed with Piedmont 350 and EPDG backs then pulled. Subjects were discontinued from their groups throughout the set, but I haven't seen anything that indicates their early exits had an effect on how they were included during production.

Originally Posted by steve B

Powers is a very odd subject. If he was on the sheet with the other 150 onlys there shouldn't be a 649OP. If he was on any other sheet there should be 350 backs. The logical thing is that he was on two sheets, both discontinued before the 350 series one that got the overprint, the other that didn't. That would lead me to think the 649 sheet was actually a special sheet for fact. 649. But if it was why do it as an overprint? They had to make a plate for the overprinting anyway.

Powers is a good example of a few things.

1) The 150 only were not a group unto themselves, but rather part of the larger group 1 during production. Their only definitive connection is when they discontinued.

2) Subjects were not locked into a single sheet configuration. Throughout a print groups production different combinations of front subjects were created. Lundgren in the Two Name thread is a good example.

Originally Posted by steve B

Even the lists of confirmed and possible back/front combinations rarely add up to a number divisible by 34, both on the master spreadsheet at T206 resource and the superset spreadsheet.

Once we move past a single sheet, whatever the number, then the amount of variables increase. These variables are what results in many different total numbers. For this reason I have focused on the small subsets. The more variables you can remove the better. With that said 34 is found in larger groups, but for the time I'm trying to keep things as simple as possible.

Again Steve, thanks for the discussion and consideration.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Concerning the consistency of sheet sizes throughout the T206 set and different series I'll offer up the following for thought.

The number 34 wasn't a random number that we found in a couple places within the set and have since tried to configure every other subset to fit it. It stands on its own as the smallest number of any group printed at a given time within the set. This is of the utmost importance. It doesn't require double prints, subsets, or any other adjustments to arrive at the total. It is 34 confirmed subjects that we know were printed at a very specific time in the set. Here are some examples:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 = 34
Hindu Southern League = 34
Print Group 3 (350/460) Drum 350 = 34
Broad Leaf 460 = 34

I used these four to show that small runs are consistent throughout the entire set, and all equal 34. While I can't prove that during other larger runs that a sheet size couldn't have been different, it's my current belief that they stayed consistent.

1st..your "350/460 Drum 350 = 34" is not accurate. The 350/460 series DRUM cards and the 350/460 AMERICAN BEAUTY 350 (no frame) cards were both printed on same
pre-printed sheets of 37 - T206 subjects. Three of these subjects (Conroy....Mullin....Stahl) of these 37 have yet to be confirmed with DRUM backs. Eventually, these 3
subjects will be discovered with the DRUM backs.

Scratch your DRUM number of 34....the number is actually 37.

2nd..Regarding your "Broad Leaf 460 = 34"....this is wishful thinking on your part. There are too many unconfirmed guys. We don't know for certain the real number of the
BROAD LEAF 460 cards.

That narrows it down to just 2 examples (HINDU and SC 150/649) from which you have based your "magic 34" sheet hypothesis. Tim, you are stuck in your "magic 34" rut.
And therefore, you are unwilling to consider any other hypothesis that Steve, or I, or others have presented on this forum.

Fine, that's your take. But, with all due respect to you.....your speculation is flawed.

The press track width required to print your 17 cards across a row must be = or > than 24 1/4 inches. Lithographic printing press track widths of 25 (or 26) inches were
not used by ALC to print these cards. Furthermore, we have two independent sources that have stated that the standard paper or cardboard sheet size for such jobs is
19" x 24". This information is consistent with research that indicates that 19" wide presses were used (circa 1909-1919) to print the tobacco cards, advertising posters,
medium size lithographic art, etc.

Finally, the prevailing math regarding the various T206 series structures is invariably a factor of 12......not of "17". It is quite puzzling that you do not comprehend this
obvious fact ?

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards. This is how we categorize them and not evidence of how they were printed. When it comes to the actual production of the cards, you can not reduce a group printed at a specific time to a number smaller than 34.

Absolutely wrong !

A series of 12 subjects were initially printed. This has been established even prior to Bill Heitman's 1980 book, "The Monster". These 12 subjects were most likely Triple-
Printed on a 36-card sheet (in ALC's start-up of the T206 set in the Spring/Summer of 1909). Or perhaps, Ninefold-Printed on a standard 19" x 24" sheet comprising of
108 cards.

Tim.....I suggest that you go back to your drawing board and come up with a more realistic sheet arrangement to include in your website. Prior to doing this, I suggest
that you brush up on some early 20th Century standard printing practices and the machinery employed in the production process. These are important elements of this
scenario that you appear to have ignored.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Ted-

It is my belief that the print group 3 Drum subset is complete at 34. I do not believe at this time that the three cards you mentioned will be confirmed. If one is, I will gladly change my opinion and expect the other two to be confirmed as well. Here we will have to agree to disagree.

The Broad Leaf 460 group currently has 27 confirmed of what I believe is a group of 34. I do not believe any cards outside of this group of 34 will be confirmed with this back. This isn't based solely on the number 34, but rather trends in the production of the 460 series. Again we will have to agree to disagree.

I will try to write this as politely as possible, nothing you have presented about press sizes, track widths, or paper sizes do I feel is solid evidence to draw any conclusions from. To me it is all very speculative and unsupported by actual evidence that can be linked directly to the T206 cards. I would love to see something verifiable presented that can be tied directly to the cards rather than information about other products printed by such a large firm. Until then I would not take such leaps of faith. Others are free to speculate this way, it's just not in my nature or how I work.

I have not ignored the theories presented that sheets were groups of 12 or any other ideas. I give them all consideration and state specifically the areas where I find them flawed or implausible. You can find post from years ago on this board were I thought the 12 subject sheet may have some validity. Eventually though I came to different conclusion and at this time all of the evidence I've seen supports it. This does not stop me from considering opposing theories. I not only give them their due, I constantly check and recheck my own ideas.

This is the crux of the matter. You can not reduce a point in the T206 production to a number smaller than 34. To make this number anything else requires adjusting the number with no supporting evidence to do so.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by tedzan

1st..your "350/460 Drum 350 = 34" is not accurate. The 350/460 series DRUM cards and the 350/460 AMERICAN BEAUTY 350 (no frame) cards were both printed
on same pre-printed sheets of 37 - T206 subjects. Three of these subjects (Conroy....Mullin....Stahl) of these 37 subjects have yet to be confirmed with DRUM
backs.

Eventually, these 3 subjects will be discovered with the DRUM backs.

TED Z

Well guys, as I had predicted a year ago regarding "Conroy....Mullin....Stahl" in this post, a DRUM Conroy (batting) was discovered recently in a 500+ card find.

This T206 find raises my expectations that of the other two 350/460 subjects mentioned above, either Mullin or Stahl (or both) will eventually be discovered.

Originally Posted by tedzan

2nd..Regarding your "Broad Leaf 460 = 34"....this is wishful thinking on your part. There are too many unconfirmed guys. We don't know for certain the real number
of the BROAD LEAF 460 cards.

TED Z

Furthermore, regarding the BROAD LEAF 460 cards....I also have expectations that either Conroy (batting) or Mullin (bat) [or both] will eventually be discovered
with the BROAD LEAF 460 back.


TED Z

[cfc1909]

actually in Post #24 in this thread you clearly state

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=conroy+drum



Conroy & Mullin both were also printed with the AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 back. Therefore, due to my "mutually exclusive" rule, I do not expect these 2 subjects to be
found with the BL 460 back....consequently there is a slim (or no) chance that they were printed with a DRUM back.

[tedzan]

I contradicted my [AB 460.....BL 460] mutually exclusive rule. Thanks for reminding me. Therefore, we should not expect Conroy and Mullin
to be found with BL 460 backs.

Thanks Jim

I spent most of the day clearing snow and removing a fallen tree off the roof of my barn....so, I'm not surprised that I overlooked that one.

TED Z

[hshrimps]

"a DRUM Conroy (batting) was discovered recently in a 500+ card find"

Where can I read about this new finds?

[atx840]

Originally Posted by hshrimps

"a DRUM Conroy (batting) was discovered recently in a 500+ card find"

Where can I read about this new finds?

T206Resource article

[atx840]

I don't think Nichols (batting) is a 350/460 card.

Cards were likely swapped out during the print process so some sheets may be identical in configuration but for one or two cards, giving different/odd brand numbers. Below is a basic example of this.

If you had a sheet of 34 (including Nichols) used for the 350 series you would get 34 Drums.

Then Nichols gets swapped out for a new card (Downey Batting) and that new sheet is still used for the 350 & 460 series. We would then have the original 34 Drums + 1 new Drum (Downey) giving 35 Drums.

Now for the 460 series the new sheet of 34 with Downey could have been used for Cycles, giving us different counts (35 Drums & 34 Cycles) which makes solving sheet layouts quite difficult.

[sreader3]

I am a little tardy to this discussion so apologies if I am missing your point. Nichols is available with Sovereign 350 Apple Green (not Forest Green) and American Beauty 350 No Frame (not With Frame). He is also short-printed like, for example, Rhoades (Right Arm Extended). So while Nichols is technically speaking a 350-only subject ("technically" in the sense that he is not available with any 460 back), there is some pretty compelling evidence he was destined to be a 350/460 regular print subject but was pulled from production early.

[tedzan]

Scot is correct....Simon Nicholls Major League career ended at the start of the 1910 season, just as American Lithographic (ALC) had selected
the 66 subjects for their 350/460 series.

There is no doubt in my mind that the T206 Nicholls (with bat) card was destined for the 350/460 series. This is why ALC printed his card with
an AB 350 No Frame back.

Nicholls was a farmer from Maryland. Playing for Connie Mack's A's was convenient for him traveling from his farm. He was very unhappy when
Connie Mack traded him to Cleveland in Dec. 1909. He played in only 3 games with Cleveland in 1910 and called it quits.....which explains why
his card never was printed with 460 series backs.


TED Z

[sreader3]

Ted,

Props to you on predicting the eventual discovery of Conroy (Bat) with Drum.

I have no idea what, if anything, this discovery means for the sheet compostion debate.

But credit where credit is due.

Scot

Edited to add: Having read this thread in its entirety for the first time, I find it interesting that it now seems be the official position of T206 Resource that Piedmont was printed first in the 150 print run. When that site was launched, I seem to recall some fairly emphatic table-pounding about Sovereign being first. This is all well and good--mistakes are inevitable in this type of research and I have certainly made my share.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Ted,

Props to you on predicting the eventual discovery of Conroy (Bat) with Drum.

I have no idea what, if anything, this discovery means for the sheet compostion debate.

But credit where credit is due.

Scot

Edited to add: Having read this thread in its entirety for the first time, I find it interesting that it now seems be the official position of T206 Resource that Piedmont was printed first in the 150 print run. When that site was launched, I seem to recall some fairly emphatic table-pounding about Sovereign being first. This is all well and good--mistakes are inevitable in this type of research and I have certainly made my share.

I find it very interesting that we are still learning, and correcting what we already know, at this stage in collecting. Good job guys!!

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Edited to add: Having read this thread in its entirety for the first time, I find it interesting that it now seems be the official position of T206 Resource that Piedmont was printed first in the 150 print run. When that site was launched, I seem to recall some fairly emphatic table-pounding about Sovereign being first. This is all well and good--mistakes are inevitable in this type of research and I have certainly made my share.

Since the day T206Resource.com was launched we have not wavered regarding the order in which we believe the original 150 Subjects were printed.

The original 150 Subjects were printed first with Piedmont 150, next Sweet Caporal 150 and then Sovereign 150.

After these print runs other cards were added to the 150 Series (Print Group 1) including Wagner, Plank, Crawford, Lundgren and Jennings.

These later print runs included backs for Piedmont 150 and Sweet Caporal 150, but did not include Sovereign 150.

The early Sovereign group shows clearly the original 150 Subjects designated for the set.

That was our position on day 1 and continues to be today.

Edit add: http://t206resource.com/Print%20Group%201.html

[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)
.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

It blows my mind how little is know about this printing process given that the cards were produced so recently. I think there will come a time when someone will find a sheet or at least a schematic of one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Since the day T206Resource.com was launched we have not wavered regarding the order in which we believe the original 150 Subjects were printed.

The original 150 Subjects were printed first with Piedmont 150, next Sweet Caporal 150 and then Sovereign 150.

After these print runs other cards were added to the 150 Series (Print Group 1) including Wagner, Plank, Crawford, Lundgren and Jennings.

These later print runs included backs for Piedmont 150 and Sweet Caporal 150, but did not include Sovereign 150.

The early Sovereign group shows clearly the original 150 Subjects designated for the set.

That was our position on day 1 and continues to be today.

Edit add: http://t206resource.com/Print%20Group%201.html

Hi Tim, Thanks for your reply. I hope you don't mind fielding a couple of follow-ups.

1. Your site states that the Sovereign 150 checklist is the "original" 150 series checklist. Agreed?

2. By "original" you mean that it was the first checklist produced by ALC (or ATC) and thus includes the original 150 subjects. Agreed?

3. Your site further states that Wagner (Pittsburg) was not on that checklist. Agreed?

4. So if that's the case, how do you account for the fact that the Piedmont 150 and Sweet Caporal 150 print runs began before the Sovereign 150 print run? Stated differently, why would ALC start the Piedmont 150 and Sweet Caporal 150 print runs using an expanded checklist before starting the Sovereign 150 print run using the "original" checklist?

5. Aside from the fact that it gets you to the magic 150 number, what is your evidence that the Sovereign 150 checklist is the "original" one?

6. If Wagner (Pittsburg) was not on the "original" checklist, why does he appear along with numerous subjects who ARE on that checklist in the Sporting Life ads that ran from August 21, 1909 - September 18, 1909 and which discuss Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign? Isn't it more likely that these ads reflect ATC's bona fide original intention to print Wagner (Pittsburg) with the full complement of Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign than an intention to deceive the public?

7. Why is 150 so "magical" anyway? Isn't it just as likely that ALC (or ATC) rounded to a nearby 10 when coming up with the "150", "350" and "460" designations? (i.e. couldn't it be that their original checklist had, say, 155 subjects and they designated it as "150" for marketing purposes?)

8. Finally, what do you see as a possible motivation for excluding Wagner, arguably the game's most popular player, from the "original" 150 series checklist (and also excluding other stars such as Plank, Crawford and Jennings), while including over 100 lesser players--especially given the uncertainty at the time the "original" checklist was created whether the cards would be a hit and there would be later series?

Link to Wagner/Sovereign Sporting Life ad posted on your fine site: http://www.t206resource.com/Sporting%20Life%20Ads.html

Thanks Tim.

Scot

Edited a few times to (1) clarify the queries; (2) add link to the Wagner/Sovereign Sporting Life ad; and (3) add seventh and eighth queries.

[atx840]

I have broken down each back brand by similar groupings cards across the entire set, as well as separate spreadsheets per series. The full set view is quite extensive, making it tricky to find a common denominator/sheet number.

Many possible combinations could be removed if no confirmations for that back are known for an entire group. Total combination based on this is @ 5837.

From this view you can quickly see certain card/front/back combinations stick out from the rest. Groups 11, 29 & 36 make up the Elite P350 groupings.





From the 150 series

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Damn. I am constantly amazed by the research.

[sreader3]

Let me posit an alternative to the Sovereign-checklisted-first-but-printed-third theory proposed by T206 Resource. I am not suggesting it happened this way; only showing that there are plausible alternatives.

In early 1909, ALC developed an "original" checklist having 155 subjects [the 150 who would eventually be printed with Sovereign plus Wagner (Pittsburg), Plank, Lundgren (Chicago), Crawford (Throwing) and Jennings (Portrait)]. The plan was to commence printing of these 155 subjects first with Piedmont, then Sweet Caporal and finally Sovereign, in that order. The Piedmont brand was chosen to go "online" first due to its popularity, followed by the slightly less popular Sweet Caporal and the far less popular Sovereign. Naturally, there would be overlap in the printing process. That is to say, printing with Piedmont would continue after printing with Sweet Caporal and even Sovereign started--there being a greater demand for Piedmont cigarettes.

The employee who created the checklist took it to the design folks, who started dutifully preparing the card fronts and backs, and also the marketing folks who said, "Let's just call it '150 subjects.' 155 is too exacting." (They would later use the same "rounding down" logic to reach "350" and "460" subjects, respectively).

By spring, the printer had made preparations to start printing the 155 subjects on several different sheets, starting with Piedmont, while the marketing folks placed ads for "Base Ball Subjects in Packs of Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign Cigarettes" in Sporting Life magazine, illustrating several of the checklisted subjects--including Wagner (Pittsburg).

As the summer wore on, ALC management noticed that several star players--Wagner, Plank, Crawford and Jennings--had not returned their written authorizations. Word was out that Wagner objected to a lack of compensation and was going to get his lawyer involved. Lundgren, who had been demoted to the minors after just two early season appearances, never got his authorization request and it made no sense to send him one now.

The printer was notified to take their five subjects out of production. At that point, the sheets containing Crawford (Throwing), Jennings (Portrait) and Lundgren (Chicago) had already undergone a complete print run with Piedmont 150. The sheet having Crawford (Throwing) had also experienced substantial printing with Sweet Caporal 150. And a few early production sheets containing Wagner (Pittsburg) and Plank with Piedmont 150 and Sweet Caporal 150 had left the factory too. Moreover, since the cards were being so well received by the public, a few "test" sheets containing Plank had even been printed with Sweet Caporal 350. However, the Sovereign 150 print run had not yet started.

Fortunately, the written authorizations of Crawford and Jennings arrived in the fall--just in time for the 350 series print run--and their subjects were returned to production. But the written authorizations of Wagner and Plank would never arrive.

(Okay--this doesn't explain Lundgren Piedmont 350 or EPDG, but I really don't want to rewrite that part of the story!)

[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