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

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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